Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs Bloggers
Moby Cock writes "Jason O'Grady has posted a story on his ZDNet blog detailing the state of the current legal trouble he is embroiled in with Apple. He views it as another salvo in Apple's efforts to stamp out rumour sites posting 'trade secrets' prior to the official announcements. The discussion becomes rather pointed and goes as far as to suggest that the case is really a case in support of freedom of the press." From the article: "At issue was a series of stories that I ran in October 2004 about an upcoming product that was in development. Was it the next great PowerBook? Maybe the a red hot iPod? Maybe a killer new version of the OS? Nah. The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.' Yawn."
"...yawn.".
Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.
Doesn't make them not trade secrets.
I feel symphathy for Apple on this one. Apple makes it money by getting behind innovative products that sell well. They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets, because Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products. While a Firewire breakout box isn't a big deal, think of the amount of money that people make putting out unlicensed accessories for the iPod. Apple wants to have some time while its product is out on the market that it gets the revenue stream from accessories before cloners get their products on the market.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
1. Don't tell anyone who can't keep a secret.
2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets.
3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.
The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you want to control secrets, don't let them out, or don't have them in the first place.
Also, the Firewire interface for GarageBand would be awesome if it supported multiple channels (8, or more with multiple units), if it worked with the typical firewire delay, and if it was cheap. Apple could do it. I don't think it's "yawn" news since I personally know thousands of profitable small bands that use GarageBand over ProTools to record their basic EPs and do a fine job of it. I'm producing a band right now that made their demo on GarageBand and it sounds fantastic -- better than many of the ProTools recordings of the past 5 years that I've heard. Giving small bands more hardware is wise.
Articles like these make me wonder why Apple is praised as more ethical than Microsoft. Apple controls the hardware, actively squashed clones, has a history of suppressing MAC OS RUMORS
Let's just quit the games and cries of "FWEEDOOOM!!!" and face the facts. This isn't about bloggers getting protection and freedom of the press, this is about NDA's and posting, yes, "trade secrets". This is already legally established for members of the press, journalists don't get protection when they break the law, neither should they. He'd be in the same legal trouble if he worked at the Washington Post, in fact he'd probably have lost his entire career over this.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.
There's also litigation bombs potential pertaining to libel and slander. You can choose to engage in libel and slander - but don't expect a free ride. Same thing here - you can spill the beans all you want. Just don't expect not to get a friendly reminder if the target decides to take action. And trust me - no one in this country needs to justify calling a lawyer - that's sorted out later.
I particularly love it when people cite newspapers as somehow being above the legal-fray that the little boy blogger gets.
I used to work for Pulitzer Publishing - and we used to get PILES of notifications from readers, companies, sponsers, sources - you name it. Just because there was a legal office - doesn't mean that they were playing foosball in there. We got whacked upside the head all the time. Next time you look at the local paper - check around the masthead for "corrections". Those usually are the result of an editor getting a friendly rejoinder from the legal department.
In otherwords bloggers - welcome to the club - there's plenty of legal bullshit to go around not to share. Enjoy!
And putting a law around "Trade Secrets" doesn't make them constitutionally protected.
If the government gives a corporation the 'right' to take away my constitutional rights, that's a government action -- even if by proxy.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
It amuses me how people on Slashdot make fun of fundamentalist values like "Jesus" and "evil," but when a company dares try to protect leaks of its future in-development technologies, it's EVIL! In fact, apparently there is "Microsoft evil" and "lawyer oriented evil."
And what is this "old Apple" crap you're talking about? Apple has always been litigious, and this claim that they will "further alienate" the fan base, as if they're alienating them now, has no basis in fact. Actually, they're doing quite well as the quarterly results call is expected to show in May.
Basically, I'm out of quotation marks here to throw around your goofy phrases.
"Sufferin' succotash."
What if Apple had not hit the iPod jackpot? Would they still be suing small-time bloggers?
Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple. A few people got into trouble, including one lady who inadvertently had the upcoming "Think Different" ad budget published in an industry newsletter.
The saddest part of this story is (from a consumer point of view) how a loyalist is kicked in the nuts by the company he/she has loved.
Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Since Apple started making the big Ipod+Itunes money, they've started getting...well...EVIL!!!
No, it's more like "since Steve Jobs came back Apple's had some fucking pride, discipline and follow-up"
Apple employees have been wanting O'Grady's ass in a sling for over ten years now. Since Steve returned, the level of cynicism at the company has fallen to all time lows (though by no means extinguished) and employees understand they have a stake in every last competitive advantage possible - including secrecy about unannounced products.
Every time O'Grady publishes a leak from an Apple contractor, third party, or employee, he materially damages all the hard work and expense of keeping those products secret.
Apple spends a shit load (metric) of money to keep developing products under wraps - security patrols, disguises, etc. - very similar to how large car companies develop and test new designs.
And though you can find snapshots of heavily-disguised prototype cars in the auto magazines, those photographers hunt down the testers and photograph from great distances - they're not passing along privileged information from an employee who signed a contract to keep that information secret.
In other words, if some doofus Apple employee took the new ÜberBook iPro to the Donut Wheel and someone snapped a picture and published it, neither the photographer or publisher would be liable. If the same employee sent O'Grady an e-mail about the machine, both parties would be liable for dissemination of the information.
See the difference?
Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.
Fuckin' A. Maybe Jason should have to pay Apple back for the development costs of the product - or maybe just the costs of keeping the product secret, including security patrols, badge readers and the maintenance of, printing of employee handbooks that explicitly detail the company's NDA policy, heck - even down to the software they're probably now using to monitor their network for e-mail going to...Jason O'Grady.
JD, you got in trouble because you did something wrong and you knew it. Buck up, and don't use ZDNet's blog to get sympathy - it only makes you look pathetic.
To me, Apple's defense of its trade secrets is warranted and does not constitute violation of free speech.
Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.
Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.
Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.
I think you misunderstand the reason that companies "leak" info -- they are looking for plausible denability as well. If it takes a signed statement from Steve Jobs to leak information about Intel chips to the WSJ, Apple might as well have issued a press-release.
The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit
The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
1. If the blogger signed a NDA, Apple has every right to sue his ass off.
2. If the blogger didn't sign an NDA, how can he be any way responsible for any damage?
If somebody else signed an NDA and passed the information to a media outlet, the signer did the infringement, not the media.
Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.
Yet because no real equivalent of an Offical Secrets Act exists in the United States, it is legal to disclose any secret dealings of the US Government. It is legal to publish leaks from the White House for example, or the Pentagon Papers.
How strange that the trite dealings of private companies are afforded more clandestine protections that the secret wranglings of the government, or indeed the private affairs of individuals. Celebrities for example, cannot argue prior restraint, or restraint of any kind when glossy magazines publish intimate details of their private lives. Neither can you.
However, a corperation can claim prior restraint on just about anything it likes, as long as it claims copyright, or "trade secret" laws apply. I wonder why I can't register myself as a private company and avail of this seemingly extralegal protection?
May the Maths Be with you!
However you slice it, it was a trade secret, and Apple has full right to use legal recource to find out who leaked it. They also have a right to go after non-employees who purposely are involved in the leaking of these secrets.
Now, is it the thing Apple should have done? It certainly didn't help create the normal Apple love-fest that usually follows these tradeshows, and it didn't improve Apple's relationship with Geekdom. In the end, the leak didn't hurt Apple financially, and if I was part of Apple's legal team, I would recommend to drop the whole thing very quietly. They got our point across,
Heck, I've been reading these blogs for years. Right before every Macworld, These blogs list a plethora of the products that never come to be (Apple will announce a personal jetpack called the iPack! We've got photoshopped pictures to prove it!). No one ever takes these speculations seriously. I originally thought Apple's legal wrangles was a publicity gimmick. They got the world's attention, and suddenly everyone wanted a gander at the next hot Apple product. Once the Macworld was over, Apple would simply drop everything.
I mean you'd have to be some sort of control-freak egomaniac to keep on pushing something like this, and that certainly doesn't describe anyone I know of at Apple.