Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sics Lawyers on SomethingAwful
bheer writes "Apple has sent a threatening letter to SomethingAwful about a post in its forums that describes how to fix the overheating in some MacBook Pros by applying thermal paste properly, according to a post on Gizmodo. The post includes a brief excerpt from Apple's Service Source Manual which Apple wants removed. Gizmodo continues: 'the real problem [is] that the image shows the extremely sloppy manufacturing process that is causing the MacBook Pro to run at temperatures as high as a 95 degrees Celcius under full load.'"
I don't know whether fair use applies
They're reproducing a copyrighted image for the purpose of reporting on and criticizing the company that produced the image. This is the exact sort of thing fair use is supposed to exist for in the first place. If fair use doesn't exist to prevent copyright owners from allowing people to exerpt those copyrighted materials in order to respond to them, then why do we even have it?
Problem solved. Why is this such a big deal?
Except they're not going after the hosting site or the user responsible for the post. They're going after the forum in which that user posted a link.
This is not a "company's private information" but the service manual. This is freedom of the press/speech in it's purest form. Unless you think a snippet from a page of Apples' service manual can cause it to loss of IP value (sales) purely based on the content shown (I was unaware they were in the service manual business).
As a small apple shareholder, I request that the company become less litigation happy. It's souring relations with the wrong crowds which could have otherwise been attracted to it's product. Pardon the pun, but stop being sour apples:(
No, that's not the "real problem". Apple goes after anyone, anywhere, that ever posts or reproduces anything from their service manuals, which it considers proprietary, in whole or in part. It doesn't matter what circumstances in which this was posted: Apple would have gone after them, regardless.
It doesn't matter what Apple considers them, they should be published copyrighted material and governed by the rules that apply to such materials. As such, posting a one page excerpt out of a manual that must be several hundred pages ought to be considered "fair use", in particular given the purpose that it's being posted for.
No, TFA is right: Apple wants this information removed for the sole reason that it embarrasses them. Verbal acrobatics like "considers them proprietary" are just an attempt to hide that fact. In the end, Apple had two choices: tolerate it or send in their legal team, and they have chose the latter.
Apple is the best in terms of responding to and remedying these kinds of problems when compared to other vendors
Actually, when you look at surveys and analyses of service quality, Apple is in the top, but they are not always the best. My own experience with their service on a top-of-the-line Powerbook has been that they are trying, but that it may take them several tries to fix it.
I saw the picture of their service manual on the SA forums. It's shows the guy putting an entire tube of thermal grease on an area that is around 1/2 square inch. So, after all is said and done in the manufacturing process, Macbook pro's probably have around four tubes of thermal grease in them. That really is insane. [b]One tube alone[/b] should be able to do three or four laptops.
g
I'm suprised the laptops didn't outright fail due to the heat.
If anyone is interested, here is what the parent poster is talking about:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7541/lol1qe.jp
Nobody seems to be addressing the real issue here. As noted in Lowtax's post, what's ridiculous about this lawsuit is that Apple is taking legal action against SA for something that isn't even on their servers. All that is posted in the offending thread is a link to the service manual on someone else's webspace. Apple threatening SA and their ISP is absurd, they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
>Apple service manuals are private information. If you don't believe me, try to order
>one.
Put it in another context. If their manual could be used to demonstrate that the company had discriminatory labor practices, or if they were aiding an enemy of the US, it would be acceptable to make that information public because the public need to know this information supersedes any protection that may be reserved under copyright law.
A less extreme context would be, if the manual illustrated a defect that made the product physically dangerous to the user. The scenario in the article is NOT terribly distant from that, and the line does not have to be drawn close to "this defect may cause the unit to catch fire."
The public interest of this disclosure is more important than any case the company can make for its suppression.
The only exception would be, for instance, if it turned out that this is not the actual service manual that is used in the field. Then it is misinformation and the company has a right to not be falsely represented in the media.
If it's an accurate criticism, the company has very little that they can actually ask a court to order.
There is no lawsuit on this, and there won't be one. Nothing to see here.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Whoever leaked that document to somethingawful broke the law.
Out of interest, what law is that they're breaking? I understand that "trade secrets" have some measure of legal protection, but I don't think merely claiming something is "confidential" automatically makes it a trade secret. Failing that, seems to me the worst anyone disseminating this "confidential" information could be accused of is contract violation. Which is not "breaking the law", it's breaking a contract.
Unless you're saying the law they're breaking is copyright infringement, in which case a fair use claim could certainly be argued and your first sentence is invalidated.
Unless there's something else? I thought the only IP with any measure of protection was patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets...
Unless you listen to SCO, of course :)
Once again, people are ascribing to malice something that's more easily explained by stupidity. And in situations like this, corporations are profoundly stupid. Apple clearly has a policy that to hassle people who "steal" their IP. The only way to implement such a policy is to assign some low-ranking dweeb to cruise the web and look for this "stolen" IP. When he sees it, he fires off a C&D letter. He does not have the discretion to say "Oh, I should give them a pass, that's probably fair use."
You've obviously never worked in any private organization bigger than a little league team. If you had, you'd know that Apple, and all enterprises like it, have thousands of discretion-free low-level dweebs like the one just described. Ascribing some deeper purpose to such people is silly.
Well Rich is sure to make the most of the free publicity; the stupidty demonstrated by Apple lawyers is the kind of material on which he thrives. Apple is dealing with someone who has built his career on the art of savage ridicule. If you want to be mercilessly mocked on the World Wide Web then have a laywer send a letter to Lowtax.
So Apple's clownboat lawyers have just spawned a wave of Anti-Apple publicity. What might have been confined to SomethingAwful has now propagated to Gizmodo and Slashdot and will spread from there. And the lawyers have not only spread bad publicity about Apple, they are generating more of it themselves: Not only has Apple screwed up with heat sink grease, Apple has screwed up AND their lawyers are trying to cover it up. Apple would benefit from keeping a tighter reign on its lawyers; because they see only the legal aspects of any issue, they are prone to do great harm to Apple's public image in pursuit of insignificant legal points.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Sounds like someone wasn't smart enough to get through engineering school and still has feelings of inadequacy.
I have never seen a company run into the ground by technical staff. I only wish I could say the same about managers. They frequently take about as much time analyzing a problem to underand the solution, as you have with this story about Apple. As is common with Slashdot stories, there's not information here to arrive at any objective conclusion.
Yes, having too much heat sink goop between in the thermal interface is bad. Yes, you need to have a very small amount in that area.
But there is nothing wrong with putting more on as long as you apply sufficient pressure to squeeze the extra out. And that is what Apple's picture shows. A thin film in the thermal interface area and big globs around the interface area.
The film on the interface area is slightly thick, but it's not so thick that it would cause significant problems. It's not any thicker than the film that I saw on my NVidia 6800 Ultra or 7800GT when I removed the heatsinks to replace them with other cooling solutions.
And as to the lawyers thing, Apple just said to remove the link. It is illegal in this country to link to copyrighted material, not just to host it. Otherwise, bittorrent trackers would be legal, right?
This story is way out of control lately. I'm glad people are getting the message that putting a lot of TIM (thermal interface material, also known as heat sink goop) on is unnecessary. Maybe next time around they could actually learn enough about cooling to know what to look for in a picture of others' work.
Additionally, note that electrical conductivity is not an important characteristic of TIM. In fact, it is typically electrically non-conductive so that if you have a little spread out onto nearby circuits (say, the multiplier resistors on top of an Athlon) it won't short stuff out. TIM only has to conduct heat. It does it better than air (which is what would otherwise fill a void space), and that's about it. That's why you use as little as possible.
Honestly this is all a mountain out of a molehill. All someone had to do was post a picture of their own laptop and not use Apple's copyright restricted info and this wouldn't have even happened.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Then why the fuck do you act like one, fuckhead? Jeezus, umpty billion people in this thread have pointed out the concept of Fair Use (It's the same as you photocopying one page of a book at a uni library to use in a school assignment), and yet the Apple Fanbois, yes, including you, moron, continue to fucking bleat about how fair and innocent and morally fucking righteous Apple is.
Talk about sheer mindless stupidity.
Is that a violation of intelectual property law, is there not an exception for portecting public safty?