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.
Thom at OSNews also posted his opinion on an editorial published yesterday:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14282
> red hot ipod.
And people thought black didn't really match the iMacs.
"Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
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.
Just because the product in question isn't about the new 8 GHz opticore PowerBook, a yawn certainly isn't necessary. In fact, a FireWire interface from Apple would be pretty damn exciting news. Remember that one of Apple's strongest niches is in music production; not only have Macs been the industry standard platform for pro audio for years, Apple of course now own Logic. A FireWire audio interface would be a smart move, especially since Digidesign's recent purchase of M-Audio.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
At least he gets a reply from Apple!
I just get told to get bent when I'm reporting a fault with my equipment. I'd be happy to get Apple to fix my SuperDrives.
Telling people with faulty equipment to get bent? Evil? Check on both accounts.
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
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.
The reason I'm upset with Apple here is that according to this blog post, Apple went after the ISP first. That to me is a low blow. The ISP doesn't want to get in trouble with a corporate entity of Apple's size, so they'll do whatever they need to in order to get out of the crosshairs of a lawsuit.
The other problem is that the blogger mentions that the information he received was not identified as "confidential" or a "trade secret". When asked to remove the information, he compiled (again, according to his account). To me it appears that this guy did was he was asked and only did what any gossip columnist would have done in a print publication. This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights. Whether or not that entitles Apple to seek the identity of the informant is a job for the courts. I personally feel that the informer should be punished.
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."
he didn't intend, or didn't know that the offense would injure the owner of that trade secret. It's not clear that Apple has suffered any injury (although they'll no doubt claim they have), but that is for the court to decide.
Jason O'Grady has been publishing leaks about unreleased Apple products for over ten years. I'd say he knows exactly what he did, and that it was against the law.
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.
> It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with.
First Amendment protects your right of speech against the government, not against corporations. You'd think Americans would know their constition a bit better.
Corporations have every right in the United States of America to attempt to sue people for things they say.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
This killed me: The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.'
The story is = The story's != The stories
'stories' means plural story, not 'story is'.
OK,OK, maybe grammar geek needs to get laid, but still!
Apple are morons for doing this. They should be slowly stirring the pot, like Google is. It generates speculation, excites potential customers, and probably even reveals some good future product ideas in the process! I've never seen rumours subtract from the effectiveness of a Google product launch, and I see no reason why it should be any different for Apple.
*flamesuit on*
The key difference between Google and Apple is that Apple is an exterior trend. Their products are generally physically inferior (as in, throw an iPod and a Diamond Rio down the stairs, and my money's on the Diamond Rio to survive) and less cost-effective than the competition (fact, not opinion).
Google, on the other hand, provides arguably the best service of its class, usually at the best price. I'm thinking primarily of Gmail here, though it certainly applies to lots of other services as well. Basically, I'm not saying Apple sux Gmail rulez (though that's definitely how I'm biased) - but rather, we're comparing a Paris fashion design company (Apple) to Osh Kosh B'Gosh / Levy's Jeans (Google)
So, basically, the theory goes that people are buying Apple because A) it's a surprise, and B) it'll be guarenteed trendy and eye-catching for months to come.
If the nefarious "competition" can figure out how an Apple device is going to look, and manages to rush something that looks substantially similar out the door - bang. Apple's lost a substantial number of customers. It doesn't matter if the "competition"'s device is half as good and self-destructs when the batteries go out - because by the time iWhatever comes out and is deemed "twice as good" as Nigerian Products Ltd's Gloriously Functioning Audio Versatile Unit, it's still not the first on the block to look the way it does.
Google, on the other hand, doesn't really lose as much from not being the first on the block. A startup site can copy Google's basic look and feel and have free webmail, free blogspace, free web hosting and even bonus free spyware (FOR FREE!!) - so what, who cares. People will migrate to Google's services, provided they're better/faster/cheaper/etc than the startup. While a Gmail address is a sexy, trendy thing in some circles, it's not something I'm chained to in the great wide out of doors. iWhatever, on the other hand, is - and if I, the shallow and none-too-savvy trendy consumer on the street, can save $20 to put towards Gapercombie and Fitch jeans AND buy something "totally new and seXXXy", then so be it.
Just my (probably incoherant and bouncing all over the place) two cents.
Thank you for a very interesting post.
Everyone knows that Apple protects information about forthcoming products - that's why the rumour sites exist. So it's disingenuous for Jason to say that he didn't know that the information was a trade secret or confidential. If anyone should know that Apple doesn't want to publish this information, it should be someone who attracts readers to his site with the promise of access to that information.
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.