Apple Fails Due Diligence in Trade Secret Case 236
Brett writes "Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the
company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage. This is quite a bit of a problem because Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself
before threatening journalists. From the article, "It appears that Apple has adopted a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to dealing with rumors sites. The company took no
depositions, required no oaths from its employees, and failed to subpoena anyone related to the company or the development of the device in question.""
Oh, well... (Score:2, Funny)
Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Insightful)
People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing. The only up shot to this I can think of is we'd have been spared the silly KDE vs GNOME battles. OF course that's because if Apple had their way, neither would exist.
They're no better than Microsoft, SUN or even SCO, but because they're considered an underdog in the hardware and OS wars, shenanigans like this are given a free pass.
What gives?
We're talking about a company who took until version TEN to have a decent OS, and still ships their laptops with one frigging mouse button, even though they cram as much functionality into the alternate mouse buttons as any Windows developer.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.
Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Informative)
So what? Do you really believe that Apple had the right to "copyright" items like overlapping windows?
Microsoft (filth tho they are) were IMO able to reimplement Apples GUI if they so chose.
Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)
Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.
Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple. [utexas.edu]
Choice quote from the article:
Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.
so what?
I don't believe they should have - they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?
Apple are a great company - they make nice hardware, a reasonable Unix like system to run on it and are innovative in many ways.
But it doesn't mean we have to defend them when they're clearly wrong.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:4, Informative)
Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)
I remember seeing them in OS/2 before Windows 95 came out.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
I remember seeing them in OS/2 before Windows 95 came out.
OK - I should have said "they appeared in non-apple operating systems first" (fwiw I found this information at wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
But it doesn't really change my point does it? All GUI developers copy useful GUI features from each other.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you mean, but Apple vs Microsoft was a copyright case, not a patent case.
I'd note one big patent UI precedence though - Adobe's patents for movable tabs that one sees in say Photoshop but never in non-Adobe products.
Broad software patents are not valid in most parts of the world. I note that Opera - a European browser contains movable tabs. [opera.com]
From the linked article:
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Informative)
The very link you provided contains the following statement: "Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings." More links. [google.com]
they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?For the GUI, no. For Quicktime (AVI), tes [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
OK - the statement as worded was correct in a legalistic sense. However, many take Apples share off to mean that Xerox ceded Apple all rights to their UI. This is simply not true - as the Xerox lawsuit link I provided shows.
they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Informative)
The very link you reference says this:
And another reference [mac.com]:
Re:Wait...are you serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Follow the link for some history and yes you will find support for the claim.
MacWord released in 1985 (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel [wikipedia.org]
I should know as I extensively used them in my first love affair with the Mac platform in undergraduate school 1984-1989.
B
Re:Wait...are you serious? (Score:2, Informative)
Apple gave Microsoft the development kit for development of Microsoft Excel [wikipedia.org], which was first launched on the Mac in 1985 and Word the same year. At that time, Microsoft was DOS only.
Re:Wait...are you serious? (Score:3, Informative)
Excel [wikipedia.org], while not Microsoft's first spreadsheet, originated on the Mac in '85. Windows didn't get their share until '87.
Anm
(PS- nice slashdot id, neighbor)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Insightful)
The main difference between Microsoft and Apple as I see it: Apple makes great software and hardware. Microsoft makes crappy software and decent hardware.
Lots of people love Apple. This has nothing to do with the company's treatment of rumour sites or any other legal matters. It has to do with the great hardware and software Apple makes.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but that's just your opinion. I bought a Powerbook last summer to start playing with OSX. I just sold it a couple of months back and went back, happily, to XP. I couldn't stand their interface. No, let me clarify...the interface was nice, but I found it terribly difficult to use. Too mouse-centric, and considering the mouse is a PITA with its one button, that didn't work for me. It might be nice and simple for first time users and long time Mac users, b
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, some of this guys are control freaks, DRM-lovers, RIAA-bitches, that are no different than MS/SCO/SUN troops.
What IS different is the organizational culture of Apple and other companies. I believe it is better than Microsoft's, Sun's and, definitely, SCO's. That I like, and because of it Apple is capable of making great products not only because they want big profits but for the sake of doing things right.
Sometimes it seems that they are forced to do "Good Things", or that their intentions are not 'pure', like some interactions with the OS community.
But look at their DRM strategy compared to M$. They looked at things from the user's perspective and tried to change the views of the RIAA to match the 'reality' of us. I don't think this was only motivated by profit but because Apple 'thinks different' than M$.
As for the case at hand: I don't think Apple should be suing those websites. They should plug their leaks.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2, Interesting)
A friend of mine interviewed for some iPod special projects group at Apple. When asking for specifics about the position, he was told that he shouldn't care what he was working on as long as it was for Apple.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Not one, but TWO! (Score:2)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a small company, they have no monopoly in any market, and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer. They simply out-compete everyone else by producing a superior product (superior at least, in the definition of most consumers).
Microsoft on the other hand, has a monopoly in several markets, and exploits their position to maintain the monopoly at the expense of innovation, and ultimately the customer. Microsoft does not maintain their dominance in the market by producing a superior product (even the die-hard Microsoft apologists would conceed that point), they do it by force. Shady business practices, bastardization of standards, etc.
So yes, Apple pulls some stunts, like this one, which it should be criticized for. But to use this kind of misstep as an excuse for the absolutely unholy way Microsoft operates is to make a huge mathmatical mistake ;-). Microsoft has several orders of magnitude more impact on societ than does Apple, and therefore Microsoft -has- to be held to even higher standards.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
HAD. What was the last thing MS did that mattered, versus the last thing Apple did that mattered (iPod). I think one could make the argument that Apple is more culturally relevant right now than MS.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why can't I play songs purchased from iTunes on my Creative player?
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Insightful)
Predatory would be more along the lines of Creative suing Apple for using menus on its music player.
If you want to buy a Creative player, that's fine. You can do so, and use every online music provider that's not Apple--none of which will let themselves work on an iPod, either, I might add. Apple's not saying you can't play any music on your Creative player, just that you can't buy it from them in particular.
Do you think it's predatory that
You can! Apple tells you how! (Score:3, Interesting)
Turn their old "RIP MIX BURN" ad campaign on its head.
MIX the songs into a playlist about 70 minutes long.
BURN them to CD.
RIP them to MP3.
In some cases there MAY be a detectable loss of quality from the re-encoding, but if you cared about quality you'd have bought the original CD instead of the lossy-compressed online versions anyway.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why can't I play songs purchased from iTunes on my Creative player?
Same reason you can't see AIM buddies on your yahoo IM tool. Apple *created* their own network (iTunes). It's theirs to use. No other company has the RIGHT to inherently have their products work with with it. Compare and contrast this with Microsoft who has repeatedly *actively sabotaged* other companies' products from working with their system, especially when that system was pre-existing and open (hint: microsoft.com sent bad headers toOpera browsers).
Both Apple and Microsoft are evil to some degree, but the depth of their evil is entire leagues apart.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Apple is a huge company.
"and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer."
They prevent other companies from providing iTunes compatible hardware, and they prevent other companies from providing iPod compatible software. This is preying on other manufacturors at the expense of the customer. Note that I don't deny they have a right to do this, but they clearly do it.
It's a good damn thing for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait patents foster innovation. Right....
Nail on the head (Score:2)
Apple would OWN the GUI, and real graphics work would be next to impossible without it, because everything necessary would be patented.
Apple wanted to be what Microsoft is, they just have some good marketing pushing a neuvo Hippie image.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
> tosses out a lawsuit.
Because Apple makes great stuff, as opposed to the M$ monopoly offal that we are forced to use at work.
jfs
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
No, it's not OK. But the reality is that if you are going to be a jerk, people are far more likely to tolerate you and make excuses for you if you produce something they appreciate and find important, than if you don't.
So I guess the lesson is, don't be a jerk if you don't have to. If you can't help it, at least have some redeeming qualities.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
In my house I happen to have two documents - one is the instruction manual that came with an Apple
Anyone with half a brain can flip through both books, look at screenshots, and realize that they are almost identical. This is not a "KDE copies the Windows UI", this is "Wow, if I had not looked at the cover of the book, I would not be able to identify some of these screenshots correctly."
Based on that
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Apple sued for Windows 2.0, which did have overlapping windows, and had broadly similar look-and-feel as the Macintosh GUI.
BTW Apple threw away lots of creds for this stupid move and haven't quite recovered. It should be a lesson for all, no matter what your behaviour later on, one really stupid & evil move does stick, and for a long time, as this thread
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Microsoft, by concentrating on software, helped build an industry of interchangable hardware and software. They are to thank for low cost, reliable (mostly) PC components. Even Apple has benefited from the technology, leveraging low-cost chipsets for disk drives, USB, keyboard and mouse controllers, etc.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to control everything--hardware and software. If it were feasable, everything would be propr
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2, Flamebait)
You seem to think that your impression of the prevailing
I, as an individual, am not being inconsistent.
I think Apple products are largely dumbed down and lame. I think they're a collection of jerks who wanted to be monopolists, but didn't have the business savvy in the 1980's to pull it off, and have been culturing an underdog, hippie image ever since.
I dissent from what you see as the
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
I don't want Apple to completely take over. I just want there to be real, solid competition. The sort of competition that drives real innovation, and keeps developers from only working with on platform because it is "dominant".
I want Apple and Microsoft to outright go to war. Bloody, no-holds-barred war. When this happens, we win; neither company will try fun
Ha! (Score:2)
However, if Apple makes a legal mistake, that should be the topic of conversation?
Look, Apple is doing amazing things. They deserve - and will continue to deserve - immense credit. They're certainly much m
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
No, it just means the press is reporting more of the good things they do.
Remember, the "News" media is there to get our eyeballs delivered to advertisers, not to actually inform us.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
While networking, memory management and multitasking were lacking, Windows 3.1 was a decent OS, and DOS is second only to a good BASH prompt in overall power.
And they were both fairly light on processor usage.
That's not why Apple sued Microsoft. (Score:2)
They sued because Microsoft had made an agreement with them about what they were going to do with Windows. Then Microsoft decided the agreement meant one thing, Apple decided it meant another, and the judge sided with Microsoft.
It was Xerox who sued over whether anyone else could have a GUI. Because, after all, they did invent it. The judge said 'you idiots, you waited too long' and that was the end of it.
So? (Score:2)
True. But so what. It's now the best OS out there. Do you tell people you meet "it took 3.5 billion yours for you to evolve so clearly you are a crap person?" Before OSX Apple was in a rut producing second rate products. The company reinvented itself. It seems wrong to hold its past against it, just as I no longer joke about the BSOD now that MS have had a stable OS since 2000.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
I would say there are not enough laywers in the world for that :)
People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing.
See? Now that is what we call FUD, in case you wondered. They sued because of certain similarities in the GUI. And they sued because they had a contract with MS, of which Apple thought MS would have viola
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.
And if you think failure rates and quality problems are any different, read Ars Technica. They just are not.
It would be lovely if it were different, especially for us users, but the facts are alas not so.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're correct, there is very little difference in this so called 'Apple hardware' especially given the manufacturers are not in fact Apple, but Asustek and Quanta [macworld.co.uk] - the former outselling their own so called 'PC' laptops to Apple branded computers 10 to 1.
It is largely a well propogated myth that 'Apple hardware' is in any way better than that of other brands and there can certainly be no real claim of innovation in the industrial design department outside of superficial stylistic impositions on case and chassis design. Where cooling is concerned it can safely be said that the powerbooks are perhaps the most poorly designed of any portable's I've come across; many colleagues in fact prop their's up on a book just to allow for air to circulate underneath the thing.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
What bullshit. Up until the Dell reference I saw your point, but you cannot tell me that a G5 c
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
I'm largely talking about laptops. That said the G5 tower I was working with heavily until recently was well laid out but certainly nothing special where componentry is concerned - anyone that has actually built their own PC tower from parts can open up a G5 tower and tell you that. They'll also tell you it does look fantastic from the outside. This said IBM's G5 PPC chip is where the real appeal lies.
Apple makes a brand, not hardware, and a very good brand at that. Don't imagine a plant in Cupertino, ra
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Compare and contrast.
http://www.hitmancomputers.com/IMAG0056.JPG [hitmancomputers.com]
http://www.billnoll.com/g5/030/ [billnoll.com]
No differences? (Score:2)
Hm, perhaps you better go let your eyes be checked:
DELL [digitalmedianet.com]
Apple [digitalmedianet.com]
And IMO especially Apples mainboards ARE [970eval.com] beautyfully laid out.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Logic boards 1 through 4 for my iBook disagree.
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Insightful)
cue a record - disk jockey
QA record - terrible
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (Score:2)
Probably true. Don't get me wrong, my first computer was a IIe and I love my iBook, and I respect a lot of their company's values, but they're not flawless. I suspect a major reason they don't get called on it is that they're not really in a position to do nearly as much damage as Microsoft. It's the difference between being threatened with bodily harm by Richard Simmons instead of
Summary misleading? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The First Amendment requires that compelled disclosure from journalists be a last resort," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Apple must first investigate its own house before seeking to disturb the freedom of the press."
Is the only source of this information in the summary this quote from an attorney working against Apple? If so, something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact.
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2, Insightful)
So this is more like an attempt by his attorney to establish as a fact that he's a journalist.
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2)
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
From the reg article:
Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one. The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.
*Everyone* is upset that Apple sued the websi
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here you go [slashdot.org]
The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.
No. The OP tried to make the entire summary sound incorrect.
Court documents
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2)
No, the OP said, "The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:"
In other words, he wasn't saying that the "entire summary" was incorrect, but that the conclusiveness the summary conveys isn't well supported.
Court documents appear to back this [Apple's failure of due diligence] up.
I agree, but that wasn't the point. The point wasn't that "Apple did no wrong", but that the basis of this claim is a
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2)
if that were true, everyone with even a small bit of sense could see it.
the reason people get pissed off is that apple customers seem to defend them even in cases where the action isn't approved of by the rest of the computer using population.
personally, as i have grown up i have lost all sense of "loyalty" to companies and corporations. they simply, from my point of view, don't deserve anything of the kind.
i give them money in exchange for services/products. that
Re:Summary misleading? (Score:2)
Exactly. My understanding of the law is that Apple must first exhaust all reasonable alternatives, not all alternatives. The EFF seems to want to claim that deposing up to all employees would have been reasonable; Apple disagrees.
That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be interesting to see what Apple's lawyers think about it. Maybe, just maybe, they have a slightly different point of few. Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.
Re:That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a criminal lawsuit. This is a civil case.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
If this wasn't the case, you would have companies making sweeping allegations and suing with no evidence. But no company [wikipedia.org] would ever do that, would they?
Re:That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
The story is that the judge unsealed the documents, and those documents show that Apple didn't fulfil its obligations to investigate internally FIRST. Besides, this is the EFF, they usually pick their causes well. I trust their legal actions much more than any corporations, because they're not out just to make money, they're here to protect people's rights.
I wonder if that's grounds for a malicious pro
Subject to the plaintiff's action (Score:2, Interesting)
Sitting in a different jurisdiction, knowing little about U.S. law, I find myself asking: So all it takes for a U.S. corporation to compel a journalist (or anybody else) to reveal his source is that they conduct an internal investigation?
I understand we are talking about the First Amendment here, about fundamental civil rights. You should be able to talk to the press and trust them not to reveal their source unless some action of your o
Re:Subject to the plaintiff's action (Score:3, Informative)
If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all. If a company can prove that it
Case Summary from EFF (Score:5, Informative)
Here [eff.org] is a comprehensive summary of the case at EFF's site. The coverage has obvious bias, but informative nonetheless.
Moles aren't stupid enough to self incriminate (Score:4, Insightful)
"Of fucking course I didn't tell Apple Insider anything".
The mole may not even have known about a deliberate leak, similar to earlier this morning reading about Yahoo mail updates - this was 1st posted:
I saw the new interface when my cousin, who works for yahoo was visiting [slashdot.org]
Re:Moles aren't stupid enough to self incriminate (Score:2)
That is re-dick-u-les (Score:5, Interesting)
When the story first broke that apple was sueing rumor sites I withheld judgement, you see I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist, I also understand the letters NDA, and what they mean to a company, and what they mean to me when I sign one. I do feel that as a journalist I have protections given to me by the US constitution protecting me and everyone for that matter from persecution and prosocution as a result of what I write.
That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company. We need to recognize that we do have great freedoms and powers in the press but that we need to make sure we use those powers and freedoms responsibly, for example not outing a CIA agent that isn't doing anything more then her job, that isn't say stealing from the Repbulican National Convention headquarters, but is making our country a safer place. You know that thing we refer to as common sense.
We as a society also need to infer and compel in to people that when they make a resonable agreement with someone be it a company or other individual or institution, they need to be held to that agreement, meaning if employee's of apple did disclose information about an upcomming product and had signed an NDA, and the upcomming product was not part of a large and publicly damaging scandal they had no right to reveal that information to a third party, and thusly the third party doesn't have the right (even under freedom of the press / speech) to reveal that information to the public.
Re:That is re-dick-u-les (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, balances are lacking in a lot of ways. The other side of the coin is that in this industry, everything is under NDA. When I accept employment, I have to sign a paper that says basically my employer owns everything that crosses my mind, and I can't talk to anyone about anything that the company owns. E
Re:That is re-dick-u-les (Score:2, Interesting)
I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist
You certainly do. It's spelt "suing", not "sueing"; "prosecution", not "prosocution"; "acknowledged", not "aknowlaged"; "Republican", not "Repbulican"; "reasonable", not "resonable"; and "upcoming", not "upcomming". Also, proper nouns tend to start with a capital letter, and apostrophes aren't used for plurals. You need more commas too.
I don't usually play spelling/grammar nazi, but your spelling a
Re:That is re-dick-u-les (Score:2, Funny)
You missed this wonderful construction. Sounds like a self-proclaimed "jurnallist" to me.
Re:That is re-dick-u-les (Score:3, Insightful)
Or to put it more succintly: "With great power comes great responsibility"
Actually it isn't that surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Instead ask the "journalist" himself.
Again, Apple SHOULD have done checks at home, just to be on the safe side of law at least.
Re:Actually it isn't that surprising (Score:2)
If you don't use resources you have, why have them?
If I was working at Apple (I don't) intending to leak secrets (which I wouldn't), and knew that they monitored everything, but never looked at those monitors to see what happened, you bet I'd use company resources to leak things. When I send something from an anonymous source, I'm not trustworthy. Anyone can say anything, if I can make my leaks come from apple, I'm not just anyone, I'm clearly an Apple insider, and thus more trustworthy.
If Apple isn't
Innovation doesnt mean you can walk over people (Score:2, Interesting)
History is full of great but evi
Apple did something wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple did something wrong? (Score:2)
Apple still got what it wanted. (Score:2, Insightful)
Only a problem if Apple wanted to WIN a law suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Devils advocate... (Score:2, Interesting)
My guess is they did it to scare the people who were leaking, just to prove that they CAN do something, without actually DOING something.
But then again, I'm just speculating.
The summary is wrong (Score:2)
This is clearly wrong. The law requires nothing for a lawsuit but an allegation. Most companies actually get the desired result from these kind of lawsuits because the defendent doesn't have the money to fight it. The only way you can recover your money from the plaintif is if you can prove the plaintif knew the lawsuit was bogus, but judges rarely (mea
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2)
They tried to shut me up when I insisted that Bruce Perens was carrying Bill Gates' love child.
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:3, Interesting)
And to be honest, the amounts of money being demanded for use of the trademark (in Australia) are small change to the companies involved.
Would you like to see Micro$oft release a software product called Linux, just because Linus didn't retain the trademark on his own product?
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2)
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2)
YES YES YES! I would love to see that.
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html/ [ilaw.com.au] explains it a bit.
It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft [cnn.com] or Lindows [internetnews.com], Microsoft could and would sue me.
*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:3, Informative)
Then why not find out? Google it:
Linus Clarifies the Linux Trademark [kerneltrap.org]
Linus went on to underscore the fact that policing trademarks is not a method of making money, quite the opposite due to Lawyer fees, "not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it."
The Linux Mark Institute
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2)
The obvious question is then, "Why start a lawsuit over a story about a product that never existed?"
Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (Score:2, Interesting)
What the hell part of this was meant to make sense?
Apple suddenly can have their software pirated due to the result of a legal case in a completely different arena of the law?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Indeed what on earth was the grand parent talking about?
Granted the OS is pretty, but we're comparing ancient to modern, compare Vista to Leopard (or whatever it will be called) for a fair comparison.
Compare Apple's Office products to MS', who makes the better software?
Re:Just Curious... (Score:2, Informative)
You're welcome.
Apple went to the court and asked the judge: "Please make these journalists tell who leaked our trade secre