Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses Censorship News Apple

Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas 251

Posted by CowboyNeal from the avoiding-a-pr-nightmare dept.
ido writes "Apple has agreed to hold off on serving subpoenas related to their John Doe civil suits against some free press journalists to reveal sources releasing Apple's "trade secrets." This is related to a previous article." The original story has some more background info as well. While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas More

Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas

Comments Filter:

  • Enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:07PM (#11706958) Homepage
    Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.

    Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.

    Apple is a profitable company, it doesn't need lawsuits to stay in business, cetainly not chasing its own tail or shooting in the dark lawsuits.

    • Re:Enough (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Apple has successfully use subpoenas in the past. However, if they lost this case, they would have no ability to legally threaten people in the future.

      Basically, they're withdrawing now to maintain the power to get stuff pulled from rumor sites when the ACLU and EFF aren't looking.

      • Re:Enough (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They're withdrawing now because they have milked this for all the publicity they can get out of it and because they don't want the leak to be found.

        They now look like the innocent high-tech company producing advanced products, spied upon by an industry that supposedly awaits every move Apple makes breathlessly. And the Mini looks like an advanced, hot piece of technology because, well, who would bother to spy on a dud?

        Come on, do you really believe this whole thing wasn't scripted by Apple from beginning

      • Re:Enough (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kplusplus ( 617856 )
        Who said they were withdrawing? Seems like a courtesy that they extended, as Apple knows it is in the legal right. It has the law on it's side so whatever the EFF may try, they will lose, Apple will continue it's subpeonas and they will fire someone.

        The only reason why they are so adamant about this is Asteriod as it was leaked over 6 months ago and the actual product still has yet to reach the market. So when people suggest the scenario that someone might see what they are working on and beat them to mark
      • Apple has successfully use subpoenas in the past. However, if they lost this case, they would have no ability to legally threaten people in the future.

        AC, I applaud you on using trademark law to make it seem like Apple has to sue. I'm sure that joke went over a lot of people's heads, including the people that moderated you Interesting.

    • Re:Enough (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:46PM (#11707194)
      Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.
      Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment. The target should of been the leak, not the one posting the information.
      Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.
      Actully, no. There are many other ways to identify leaks - the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted. Apple chose to misuse the civil laws for it's own bludgeon instead - Stamping on free speech.
      Apple is a profitable company, it doesn't need lawsuits to stay in business, cetainly not chasing its own tail or shooting in the dark lawsuits.

      then they should of thought of that before doing something as assinine as this lawsuit. It was all Jobs's anger at a percieved "Loss of Thunder" which using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was the equivalent of a mountain out of a molehill. //sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.

      I think three seconds should be sufficient.

      • Re:Enough (Score:4, Insightful)

        by v1 ( 525388 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @10:03PM (#11707504) Homepage Journal
        Has Apple received extra PR attention? Yes.
        Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment. The target should of been the leak, not the one posting the information.

        They are trying to target the leak, but to do that they have to find out who it is. The logical person to ask is the reporter. Apple's secrecy about their new products is a well-known fact, and any reporter that has a "confidential source" approach them with details about Apple's next as-yet-unreleased product knows they are receiving trade-secrets and that this is illegal. The reporter's only possible defense is to claim that they didn't realize they were receiving trade-secret information, and considering that's effectively the purpose of those rumor sites, it's a bit like suprnova claiming they don't knowingly host illegal torrents. "Yeah, right, whatever."

        Has Apple made it clear that it can and will do what it takes to suppress any leaks? Yes.
        Actully, no. There are many other ways to identify leaks - the best being drop multiple hooks to people that are suspected, and watch for the fake hook to be posted. Apple chose to misuse the civil laws for it's own bludgeon instead - Stamping on free speech.

        Apple is admittedly going after the easiest target. It's also the most effective target. I wouldn't be surprised if the "anonymous source" received something in return for his information. As long as there's someone willing to hand something out, there will be takers. Apple has already used "hooks" more than once to identify (and terminate) leaks. It's just a game of whack-a-mole though, as there are probably dozens of anonymous sources at work in Apple. The reporters are the other end of the chain, and are stationary targets. Apple is going after both ends of the deal, but really, which one makes more sense to go after, from either a resource perspective OR an effectiveness perspective?

        Looked at another way... if my laptop is stolen, and a week later I find it at Joe's Pawn Shop across town, and it still has the nameplate on the lid that says "this laptop is property of (myname), if found, please call (phone number)", I should have every right to be pissed off at the pawn shop owner for not having contacted me, AND I think it's quite fair that I expect the pawn shop owner to turn over the name of the person that pawned it to the police. Accepting stolen property is illegal. Accepting property you resonably believe to be stolen is also illegal. There should not be much difference between property and trade secrets, they should be treated the same for these purposes.
        • It is my understanding that there is nothing illegal about distributing trade secrets. Specifically, trade secrets are information that enterprises keep to themselves instead of publishing under copyright or registering under patent law.

          The point is that patents oblige a certain level of disclosure that inventors or their companies are uncomfortable disclosing, and so gamble on keeping them secret instead of patented, in the hope of keeping the secret to themselves longer.

          It is, however, legal to pursu

          • "Stolen trade secrets are not illegal; employees giving them away is illegal."

            Thats assuming that the employee signed a contract or non disclosure agreemnt saying that they woudld keep information like this confidential.

            • Of course, the other thing about trade secrets is that employees should know when they are handling them; I don't think it takes an NDA in that case. Corporations are strong.

              And it would be contract violation, which isn't criminal (neither is the trade secret stuff mind you); evidence rules are much more lenient.

              Overall, I'm in agreement that Apple did this to put the fear of god into their leak, and are backing off now that that's accomplished.

          • Re:Enough (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Richard_at_work ( 517087 )
            Distributing trade secrets to unauthorised parties in the US is an offence under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So yes, it is illegal. As is knowingly receiving and acting upon information which contains trade secrets - which these rumour sites are, as another poster said, build upon. Apple did have a leg to stand on when it came to the Journalist - they had received information that could only be a trade secret at that time. There is no law protecting reporters sources, and a court can (and does [bbc.co.uk]) order

      • Why? (Score:2, Troll)

        by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
        What does the First Amendment have to do with this case? I quote:
        Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        How does this apply here?

      • Re:Enough (Score:2, Informative)

        by Moofie ( 22272 )
        "dirty tactics to supress the first amendment."

        Private entities cannot, by definition, suppress the first amendment. The first amendment binds the government, not citizens or corporations.

        It might be not very nice, but it's not unconstitutional.

      • Re:Enough (Score:3, Insightful)

        by l4m3z0r ( 799504 )
        FUD, saying that Apple was attempting to suppress the first amendment is absolutely a lie. They weren't trying to silence the press they were trying to extract the sources from the press.

        Two very different things. Now consider that the first amendment says nothing about a journalists sources being protected. Apple was just trying to take the shortest path to discover who the leak was.

        //sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.

        Well you should be modded flamebait/t

      • Re:Enough (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jamesbrown1000 ( 39200 )

        Yes, So much so to show that they are willing to use dirty tactics to supress the first amendment.

        Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

        Please educate yourself on the differences between Congress -- a branch of the United States Government -- and Apple Computer, Inc. -- a public corporation.

        Apple can and will do what it feels is legally viable and permissable in this arena. When Jobs gets Congress to pass a law, and the President to sign it, then we can ta

  • Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Avyakata ( 825132 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:08PM (#11706969) Homepage Journal
    "Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity."

    Pre-teen girl: Lyke OMG!!1!11!1!!! did u c how apple dragged all the peeps to court or somethin'?? I totalie wont by a ipOd now!

    Ya...I don't think it'll shake down that way....

  • The Real Deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:08PM (#11706973)
    While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

    They probably caught the employee who was leaking.

  • Apple makes the right choice again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:10PM (#11706980) Journal
    Sometimes, when I feel most let down by Steve Jobs for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company, he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again.

    No one wants to see the fans and lovers of the Macintosh persecuted for trying to find ways to love the company more, and that's what this is: just another way for Mac fans to find out more about the company.

    On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable, as it is part of business, to keep future plans as secret as possible to keep the dogs on Wall Street at bay. However, it was really disappointing to see Apple trying to exact its revenge on those who love it the most.

    I'm glad Steve Jobs made this decision. He continues to lead the company in the right direction and bringing us, the loyal Apple fans, the most advanced computers of today.

    • Re:Apple makes the right choice again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erich.keane ( 823495 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:15PM (#11707009)
      I stand by the theory that it is a bad idea to start suing your best free advertiser! I really dont care how much "hey look whats coming" data is released early, the worst it can do is raise interest in the product! I understand you may say that it lets competitors into the game a little early, but honestly, who other than apple fanatics gives a crap about what they are making? I know people copy them, but again, still not direct competition. Suing a HUGE apple fan site is the worst way to get good publicity.

    • Re:Apple makes the right choice again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:19PM (#11707030) Journal
      Hmm. Perhaps.

      Steve (and I have a *lot* of respect for the guy) is as hard-nosed as the next businessman. Apple's been around for a looong time now (in computer-time, of course) and it's a professional organisation now, with all that that entails.

      Steve (if it was him that made the final decision - it could have been 'Legal') won't have done it to be cuddly. He'll have done it for sound business reasons - the best path for the business is to do X, we'll do X. It could be that he thinks perhaps he's put the fear of [insert random deity] into those who would have continued to leak, and he's satisfied with that... It could be that Apple really do have to do more before they can issue subpoenas.

      Apple's a cool company. They make cool hardware and the best damn unix workstation I've ever used (prior to OSX I wasn't impressed, but I am now :-). That doesn't mean their money-men, legal folks, HR etc. aren't just as 'bad' (read: for the company at any cost) as everywhere else (with suitable apologies to those who buck the trend).

      Simon.

    • Re:Apple makes the right choice again (Score:5, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:19PM (#11707031)
      I'm glad Steve Jobs made this decision. He continues to lead the company in the right direction and bringing us, the loyal Apple fans, the most advanced computers of today.

      You work for Apple's PR department, don't you.
    • "Sometimes, when I feel most let down by Steve Jobs for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company, he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again."

      What are you talking about? It didn't say they were dropping the subpoenas, they are holding off because the EFF is filing for a protective order for its clients. If The EFF succeed then Apple fails and is still evil. If the EFF fails, Apple with get their subpoenas and is still evil.

    • Sometimes, just when I'm afraid that some big company is going to trample over a fundamental right again, the EFF gets up and stands in their way. Every success is a reminder of why I'm a member, and really, every failure is too-a reminder of the urgent need.

      If you're going to be a fan, then for godsakes, pick an organization worth your time. Apple isn't one, they're just another megacorporation, who'll gladly use the threat of a lawsuit to stifle speech they dislike. They've clearly shown that.

      • What fundamental right is it that Apple is trampling? The right to disseminate private information?

        Like if I got your credit card number, and published it on my website?

        Whether we value it or not, these details are the heart of Apple; Apple's products are their monetary core, their creative core, their everything.

        If a competitor gains an advantage through these publications and rumors, then it is Apple that gets hurt; not the rumor sites (though maybe indirectly), not the readers (again, maybe indirectly), but Apple.

        So I ask again: Apple is trampling our fundamental right to share sensitive and private data, and you think it's okay that they've backed off? Wait until someone gets insider info from a credit card warehousing company and publishes it online.

        • That analogy is flawed. I imagine Apple and their employees hold many corporate credit cards, and if this guy got hold of and published them, he should be forced to stop. If he has done so, you might want to submit a story of your own, that changes the dynamics of the whole thing. However, until then, let's work with what he HAS done.

          A better analogy would be if you put up on your website that I had just thought up a great new product and would be bringing it to market shortly. I'm sorry, but I don't buy

          • And according to your quote, how does the First Amendment apply? Has Apple gone to Congress to legislate away blogs, fansites, rumor sites, or private websites?

            What Apple has done is the opposite actually, using legislation (subpoenas) to force these people to TALK. A subpoena is, "A command to a witness to appear and give testimony."

            So what is the First Amendment right we're losing? The right to remain silent? No speech has been abridged, no press has been silenced.

            • It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source is an abridgement of freedom of the press. Apple is attempting to do just that. Therefore, Apple is attempting to chill freedom of the press. And I do imagine if they thought they had a hope in hell of winning, they'd be suing to shut the site down.

              The First Amendment covers rights other than free speech, that's just the most "famous" one, so to speak.

              • Is that so? Then why are courts doing it [bbc.co.uk]? I quote:

                A US appeals court has ruled that two reporters must testify about their sources in an investigation into the leaking of a CIA officer's name.

                and

                "There is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought," Judge David Sentelle wrote in his decision.

                Previously, US District Judge Thomas F Hogan had ruled that Cooper must testify "regarding alleged conversations they had with a specified executive branch official".

                It seems quite pl

            • The suppression of free speech isn't the issue. The idea is that the "right" of reporters to not reveal their sources encourages a well-functioning media, which is crucial for democracy.

              That said, I think that these things can't all fall under a general rule. The Valerie Plame situation is a pretty icky one, as is the dissemination of confidential corporate information.

              I kind of like your credit card analogy, though I'd change it from having "someone" publish it on a web site to having an established

    • Re: Apple makes the right choice again (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gidds ( 56397 ) <slashdot@NospaM.gidds.me.uk> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @09:01PM (#11707269) Homepage
      it was really disappointing to see Apple trying to exact its revenge on those who love it the most.

      It's not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of trying to find out who in their own organisation is leaking information in breach of their NDA. Isn't that a more reasonable aim?

      It's also a matter of trying to prevent the more gratuitous rumours spreading. You can argue all you want that rumours are good for Apple, and maybe some are, but they're a double-edge sword, and one that Apple has no control over. For example, an over-optimistic rumour, or even a completely true but mistimed one, could easily cause large numbers of people to hold off buying one particular model in the false expectation that something better was about to be released. That sort of thing could do quite serious damage.

      While the rumour sites are just guesswork and good-natured speculation, then they're relatively harmless; but when they get a reputation for inside information and lots of people start trusting them, then I don't think they're doing anyone any good in the long run, not even Apple fans.

  • Makes no difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MunchMunch ( 670504 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:15PM (#11707010) Homepage
    I wonder if anyone expected Apple to actually go through with it, seeing as how the damage was already done and after Macworld, it would be moot times two.

    The fact is they know they can scare off other websites in the future with legal action, and they'll continue to do so--that they ended up having to put their money where their mouth was here is simply to show that they'll actually take the first steps if necessary.

    This site was an exception to the rule--the rule being, if you are a large corporation, you can send a takedown notice anywhere for any reason, no matter how spurious, and 99% of the people will comply. That is still true today, and the fact that Apple finally was called on one bluff really doesn't change much.

  • this won't be popular (Score:5, Insightful)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:18PM (#11707020)
    this won't be a popular position (probably), but i think it's rather unfortunate.

    i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't

    however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected

    i was kinda interested to see how the whole suit would pan out in court... i thought the EFFs argument was sound, but apple seemed to have a strong case

    i was really curious about how that one would go
    • Agreed that this is just a simple case of information leak that did not have any drastic consequences. However, what if there are leaks of information of a more confidential nature in the future?

      Apple has always stayed ahead of the game by innovating and bringing out things that its competitors never quite thought about - leaks of this sort would put ideas into the heads of its competitors, which could be bad for business.

      And besides, if someone is ready to violate an NDA for a little gain, who knows what
      • Has anyone even claimed that the person/people leaking this info to Apple fan/rumor sites was receiving money for the information?

        It seems to me more like this info was leaked by a Mac fan to other like-minded folks who buy the majority of the products sold anyway. Attacking these people for "NDA violations" isn't much different than record companies suing the biggest Metallica fans for p2p sharing some Metallica songs. Legally, yeah, you can do it - but how sensible is it really? Bite the hands that fe
        • Your analogy is flawed. You're working for a company and you have signed an NDA. No matter how big a fan you are, that does not give you the right to violate the agreements you've signed with your employer.

          If Metallica's manager were to bring out the tunes and lyrics of albums Metallica hasn't even recorded yet, you might have a closer to the analogy.

          This does not fall under the realm of IP law, rather under contract law. The guy violated an employer-employee contract no matter what. I think Apple would b

          • Re: BUT - where's the gain here? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @10:27PM (#11707682) Journal
            Ok, as long as we're nitpicking analogies here, let's correct yours too.

            This guy (supposedly, though is this even known yet?) working at Apple and violating said NDA doesn't seem to be some sort of upper-management type. Rather, he/she is probably just another average employee who happened to be part of a group working on one of these projects.

            Therefore, it's not at all like "Metallica's manager" bringing out tunes and lyrics Metallica didn't even record yet. It's much more like some guy working at the record company, maybe in the shipping or marketing dept., leaking out a preview of some of the supposed new lyrics on a Metallica fan-club site.

            If so, I once again say - despite it being technically illegal under contract law, I'm not sure I'd opt to pursue it. It's easy enough to turn a "blind eye" to it, realizing that it's more beneficial to let it go than to attack your own customer-base.

            (In fact, it's arguable that Metallica already learned this lesson. They *did* raise a huge legal stink about their music being distributed as MP3s, and what became of it? Their next big album release was relative failure, and you now hear just as many people scoff at their name as rave about them being "metal gods" and what-not. Meanwhile, I'd say they stopped about 0% of the trafficing of their music over the net and gained practically nothing in "new sales" from their actions.)
    • Then you have get into the issue are Bloggers and Website publishers covered under freedom of the press? If so then is everybody that puts up a website covered under freedom of the press? I will bet the traditional press will say no.

    • Re:this won't be popular (Score:5, Insightful)

      by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @09:00PM (#11707267)
      i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources

      There's nowhere in 'freedom of the press' that says no one has to say where or how they got the information they pressed. Journalists claim that keeping sources secret is needed to get ahold of some information in the first place but we should all remember that journalists and their sources are fallable people with personal biases. It's way too often (especially recently) used to promote the journalist's personal agenda to make an indignant show of "protecting" sources. As if how dare anyone question a journalist! Well, if you can't reveal the source so its validity can be confirmed then it's an unsubstantiated rumor; journalists who say 'someone told me x but I can't tell you who so you can have a way to verify my story' should be laughed out of town.
    • i don't think the journalists should be required to divulge their sources... i really don't

      however, i don't think that those who try to turn their backs on NDAs for personal gains should be protected

      The two are not in conflict. The journalists didn't sign NDAs.

      Apple should have management procedures in place to track sensitive information and find leaks, or, where that is impossible due to the nature of the information, they should not make the information's secrecy commercially vital.

      If they can't

  • The facts are more nuanced (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:19PM (#11707028) Homepage
    From the article, and quoting EFF's Newitz:

    "Newitz said that "Apple may have a case" in suing anonymous individuals for violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the Act holds liable those who receive trade secrets that were knowingly misappropriated), "but the issue is how they're getting the information." She said that Apple's actions are following a "tortured route" and that the company seems to be attempting to "beat these journalists with litigation."

    The EFF's position is that the Web sites in question are viable journalistic endeavors, which places their writers under reporter shield laws, both at the federal and state level.

    The federal shield law, which is based on the First Amendment, guarantees the "free flow of information" and allows reporters to assure sources that they will remain anonymous.

    "There is a loophole--it's not that a reporter never has to give up information," Newitz said. "They can be forced to reveal sources only if every other source is exhausted." Newitz said that she felt Apple has not come close to examining other potential methods of identifying the parties who leaked confidential information; she said that to her knowledge, Apple has never performed or admitted to performing an internal investigation into NDA (nondisclosure agreement) violations.

    The facts of this case are a bit more nuanced than I have seen discussed so far. Does the First Amendment protect a reporter's right to withhold identify his or her anonymous sources? Yes. There are times when a reporter is asked to break this bond, and we are seeing a current case [theglobeandmail.com] over the probable felony that resulted from revealing Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation where the issues are much more serious than this Apple business. In this more serious case, a crime was committed, and a couple of levels of courts have ordered the reporters to identify their sources or else face contempt charges. The New York Times, among others, continues to fight this pressure to reveal anonymous sources so as to protect the precendent for future anonymous sources.

    This Apple case is not nearly as important, and no court is going to go around ordering reporters to reveal Apple news sources the way they are with those associated with the White House who may have committed a felony. And not only is the Apple case involving less serious information, it seems Apple hasn't even done the basics first: Conduct thorough in-house investigation into which employee is doing the leaking. Even the EFF says that once Apple has done everything else, forcing a news source to report the identity of an anonymous source might be on the table, from the legal perspective.

    So for now, Apple is backing down. But this is not the clear-cut case that we've seen. It may yet come down to the Apple news sites being asked to reveal their sources, for it may well be that some Apple employees are violating the terms of their employment. And that's what Apple is really trying to do: Find employees who are violating contract rules. But first they have to do everything else to find out this information before they think of asking a reporter to give up his or her information. But that could yet happen.

    • Re:The facts are more nuanced (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To reiterate your point: Most First Amendment cases are a balance between the rights of different parties. Obviously High Treason (in Plame case) versus telling people about a computer 1 week early are two entirely different things.

      It's questionable whether the Mac Mini was a Trade Secret to begin with, since Apple had no intention of keeping it secret. A new product doesn't rise to the same level as Coke's Secret Formula, Customer Lists, and other things that the Trade Secret law was designed to protect.
      • Imagine if someone had leaked the iPod, iPod mini, iTunes Music Store, or iPod Shuffle N months ahead, enough time for a competitor like Sony, Creative, Dell, etc, to release something to deflate their announcement.

        Why, then, does the existence of such a product or development not rank as highly as Coke's formula?

        If Pepsi could make Coke, that would shatter Coke's hold on the market.

        If Creative made iPods, wouldn't that similarly destroy Apple's position in music players?

  • Now if this was Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All the anti-microsoftites would feel vindicated about their campaign to ensure everyone else hates MS too.

    Instead, since it is Apple, people will give them the benefit of the doubt or even be on Apple's side.

  • Protecting One's Sources (Score:3, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:27PM (#11707076) Homepage Journal
    Closely related: Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are going to have to go to jail [editorandpublisher.com] if they don't reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame affair.

    We wonder if AppleInsider and Think Secret staff will do the same.
    • I'm not entirly clear on the Plaime affair. If I understand things correctly, it should be considered an act of treason to leak an undercover CIA operative's name, right? So why aren't more people worked up about it, and why aren't the journalists involved bending over backwards to provide the necessary information?

      If it really was treason, then wouldn't protecting those sources also be treason? Shouldn't the whole bunch just be sent to jail to rot (Or be executed if we were at war?)

      Am I completely off

      • If it really was treason, then wouldn't protecting those sources also be treason? Shouldn't the whole bunch just be sent to jail to rot (Or be executed if we were at war?)

        Am I completely off base here?

        No, but you live in a country where things are politically correct, there are only shades of gray, and moral equivalence is invoked to explain away anything.

        I mean, 29% of the country just voted for a guy who, while a reservist, went to Paris to meet with the some of the highest officials of a country we

      • Re:Protecting One's Sources (Score:4, Insightful)

        by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@@@alum...mit...edu> on Friday February 18, 2005 @02:26AM (#11709111) Homepage

        It isn't treason because you can't make a good case that leaking the undercover CIA operative's name was part of a plot to betray the United States. That doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, and it was probably a criminal act under other statutes, but it isn't treason.

        In any case, there's no reason to think that the journalists who have been held in contempt of court know who the culprit is. They are NOT the journalists who published the CIA agent's name. They are other journalists who interviewed people about the leak. The prosecutor who is demanding to know their sources is on a fishing expedition.

        On the other hand, there is one person who almost certainly does know the identity of the leaker, namely Robert Novak, the columnist who published the agent's name. I think he belongs in jail himself. The legitimate news value of this was small. It certainly didn't justify exposing a CIA agent. Why isn't Robert Novak in jail for contempt of court? I submit that it is because he is a long-time right wing flak who did exactly what the Bush people wanted him to do.

      • I should have thought of this before. Here's the definition of treason in the US Constitution (Article II, Section 3):

        Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
        Perhaps in some circumstances exposing an agent could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but in this case that would be quite a stretch.

  • "Does little for one's popularity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bonch ( 38532 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:27PM (#11707081)
    Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

    More likely, their mission of letting people know they take product leaks seriously was accomplished. I always expected them to drop the suits--they were just saying, "Hey, we can't have our shit getting leaked, and we are not afraid to pursue it legally if we have to."

  • No ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kitzilla ( 266382 ) <paperfrog&gmail,com> on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:30PM (#11707092) Homepage Journal
    While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

    No, they're just saving themselves paperwork. No point filing until the Superior Court of Santa Clara County rules. Nothing moderate or altruistic happening yet.

  • "What is a 'journalist'?" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:53PM (#11707226)
    In the most recent slashdot story [slashdot.org] posted on this topic, I asked the question, "What is a 'journalist'," considering that there are current, in force US law(s) that may have been violated [slashdot.org] by a 3rd party knowingly revealing information that could reasonably be assumed to be protected by a confidentiality agreement, and in the ensuing insistence that these web sites should be protected as "journalists", I got an array of replies about what constitutes a "journalist":

    "A person is acting in a journalist capacity when they provide non fiction information about contemporary events to an audience [via a medium other than direct speech]. Those are the criteria." [slashdot.org]

    "I don't see why bloggers can't be considered journalists." [slashdot.org]

    "...anyone can be a journalist if by journalist you mean someone who distributes information (regardless of accuracy) to a public audience (regardless of size). Bloggers? They're journalists. Editor of your high school newspaper? Yep, journalist, too." [slashdot.org]

    "I think that many websites constitute being called a 'journal' ... and hence the creators of the journal are called 'journalists'" [slashdot.org]

    "...a journalist is anyone who can get their documented beliefs published." [slashdot.org]

    "Even the lamest 'blog is a "journal" unarguably. So yes, anyone with a web site is a "journalist". The government should not get into the business of determining who's a "legitimate journalist" and who's a "illegitimate journalist not worthy of the protections of freedom of the press". To do so would amount to licensing journalists, which I think is very much the wrong idea." [slashdot.org]

    "It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything." [slashdot.org]

    "A journalist is anyone reporting news to the public. That could be by handbill, newspaper, broadside, web site, word of mouth, by scribbling on a piece of paper. It should be as broad as possible. Spreading of information == good." [slashdot.org]

    Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?

    Or does it not work both ways?
    • Now, considering all of these replies that insist that Nick Ciarelli (of Think Secret) and these other websites are "journalists", and anyone who's apparently got any kind of website at all on any topuc should be considered a "journalist", certainly that means that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is a "journalist" too?

      Or does it not work both ways?/

      The situation with Jeff Gannon doesn't even begin to compare and you know it.

      Yes, Jeff Gannon/Games Guckert is a journalist, and deserves all of the legal and

  • Oh, so that's how it's done (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Thursday February 17, 2005 @08:59PM (#11707258)
    So now the plan is:

    1. Get some information on future Apple products.
    2. Make a web-site with said information.
    3. Call yourself a "journalist" to protect the people who leaked the information.
    4. Sell adverts on the site so that you can...
    5. Profit!!!

    The idea behind protecting a journalist's sources is so that people will talk to reporters in confidence, particularly about shady goings on, so that journalists can be free to expose all the gory details without fear. That's all very laudable.

    This is different. Here the leak itself is the shady thing. Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - money, fame, revenge, make himself feel good, whatever. "Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets.

    There's no dark dangerous secret here that needs to be exposed for the public good. This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so.
    • Um, aren't trade secrets and NDA's and all that pretty much all about greed, too? For that matter, most journalists will tell you they'd take a bit of risk to get a big scoop, because that is how they get fame and... a bigger paycheck.

      Disclaimer: I am NOT commenting on whether these profit-minded constructs (NDA, trade secrets, and soliciting the violation of 'em for a for-profit tattler website) are good or bad. Just noting some irony.

      Oh, and journalists' ability to protect sources has few limitations

      • Um, aren't trade secrets and NDA's and all that pretty much all about greed, too?

        Ummmm, no.

        Shooting for a real-world example that has nothing to do with intellectual property here:

        Business #1 is an automobile manufacturer. They come up with a new car that has an amazing paint job, one so awesome looking that everybody buys these cars, even though the engine could probably be improved a little bit.

        Business #2 is an auto detailing shop. They send guys out into the field to find these new cars and us

      • This ain't one of 'em, and for good reason, since it'd be too easy for a large corporation to cast a chilling effect on whistleblowing by stringing together some chain-of-profit in court, then retaliate on the whistleblower once they were outed.

        Except there are laws to protect true whistleblowers. And, for the record, telling some rumor site detailed info on a soon to be released product that causes no harm to the general public or the government, does not count as whistleblowing.

        Now, if the person ha

      • we're seeing one in the US headlines now, with two reporters facing jail time for refusing to reveal who violated national security by outing a CIA operative

        I honestly can't see why these two reporters are protecting their source. Supposedly, someone (or some people) wanted to settle a score with the operative's husband and decided that the best way was to ruin this lady's career. This was a criminal act under Section 421 of Title 50 of the United States Code (better known as the Intelligence Identit
  • It didn't help Palm back when they decided to issue cease-and-desist orders to websites/fansites with "Palm" in their name.

    Pissing on your most ardent fans is pretty stupid -- when will companies figure this out?

    If you don't want information to get out before you're ready, you have two options:
    1. Get ready sooner.
    2. Release lots of bogus information so nobody knows when the rumors are legit (personally, I think this strategy is both more fun and easier to do)

  • any actual evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by justins ( 80659 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @10:18PM (#11707606) Homepage Journal
    Has Apple aired any actual evidence in court that there was an NDA breach? Somehow it seems that literally any one of thousands of low-wage workers in some foreign land could have sent word of a product before release.

    If Apple hasn't shown that there must have been an NDA leak, and used some other methods to investigate the source of the leak, there's no way this guy should be compelled to reveal his source. They're just bullying him.

  • Astoundingly Inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)

    by smart2000 ( 28662 ) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Friday February 18, 2005 @12:26AM (#11708377) Homepage
    The article, along with most of the responses and "facts" are astoundingly inaccurate. I should know, I'm the person who was served the subpoenas. They have already been served (as in, they are in my hot little hands). What has been stayed is the production. "Stayed" is a $5 lawyer word for delayed. In this case delayed while the EFF and Apple work out their differences between themselves or in front of a judge. If the EFF is successful in quashing (another $5 word) the subpoena, then Apple will get nothing.

    Please keep in mind that the entire linked article is based on spin from a policy analyst for the EFF. Also contrary to what was reported in MacWorld and in the documents filed by the EFF, no email has been turned over to Apple.

  • In a previous comment, someone postulated the idea that Apple did the lawsuits soley to drum up media buzz and would probably drop them altogether right after MacWorld.

    I would tend to think that in light of recent events, that poster was dead-on accurate.
  • Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

    Doubt it. Your average person, and the average Mac user probably hasn't even heard about this.

    People here oftern blab on about how doing X is going to affect the company's image. But the truth is, only a small group of people even read or follow these kinds of things.

    • You don't need 100% of people to tune into these debates to make a difference.

      Indeed even if a small or even tiny proportion register their displeasure with Apple in one way or another, they will take notice.

      There are many reasons for this. If sufficiently many people protest it is an indicator that Apple's original policy was perhaps morally wrong, and they didn't realize it at first. In concrete terms it means that if thing turn really sour and they find themselves in a court of law in front of a jury,
  • Apple as a company has always sucked huge donkeyballs. I remember the late 80's and early 90's when they were still riding high on the high margins of the Macintosh. The arrogance of the company was almost unbearable. From the outside they seem humbler these days but my friends who still have to work with them the culture inside Apple is still very much the same.

    Apple, great products but the company sucks. See this website for another example of Apple's actions.

    http://tellonapple.org/
  • Apple dropped the plan to sue people because they got more than their money's worth of free promotion out of this. I think I'm going to try this model next time my company come out with something:

    1. Create a really cool artsy product that works well.
    2. Leak it to bloggers...
    3. Wait for buzz to begin.
    4. Threaten to sue bloggers to get major links from media outlets to bloggers.
    5. Get some DCMA takedowns done and get more major press coverage. Links are now 1/2 gone so people really want to be in the know.
    6

  • a counter point. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cenonce ( 597067 )
    The public seems to think that journalists get some extra First Amendment protection above and beyond everybody else. Actually, they do not. Journalists must use the same means as everyone else in obtaining their information. They do not get a "journalist" exception to breaking the law to get the information or publishing it.

    It is easy for people (including the EFF) to jump behind the banner of "free speech" especially when the Plaintiff is a big corporation. But free speech is not an absolute right.
  • Only a tiny percentage of Apple's market is aware of these lawsuits, so it is unlikely that Apple is motivated by a desire to maintain its popularity with that little band of geeks and fanatics.

    Apple brought the suits in pursuit of a business objective, and if/when it withdraws the suits, that will also be in pursuit of a business objective.

    I really doubt Apple is worried about the few people who would not buy an Apple product simply because they don't like how it does business.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close