Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Businesses OS X Operating Systems News Apple

Apple to Settle with Tiger Leaker Vivek Sambhara 71

Posted by timothy from the innocent-whistling dept.
AC writes "According to DrunkenBlog which has the court papers, Apple will settle their case against Sunny (Vivek Sambhara) who was accused of taking a developer release of Tiger and putting it on a torrent site. Sunny was the student who gave an interview, and had Steve Wozniak donate to his defense. It is noted in the article that there is still a named defendant going to court and "a score of jon does"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple to Settle with Tiger Leaker Vivek Sambhara More

Apple to Settle with Tiger Leaker Vivek Sambhara

Comments Filter:

  • Sensationalized (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HRbnjR ( 12398 ) <chris@hubick.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @08:57PM (#12288535) Homepage
    The article has this overwhelming tone of "thank god the poor kid was saved" and "this could happen to anyone", but I don't think it could. I certainly don't agree with how Apple handled the situation, but in my opinion this guy should have had more sense. I think taking a pre-release from an early access developer program and creating a torrent for it should set off alarm bells in anyones head. I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.

    • Re:Sensationalized (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Baricom ( 763970 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:06PM (#12288607)
      Apple handled this well. Had they followed through with their threat, the negative publicity from such a stunt would be enormous. (For comparison, consider how most people view the RIAA right now.) Yes, he should have had alarm bells in his head, along with a flashing sign with "IDIOT" in red letters. The settlement is good for everybody - he got a second chance, and Apple didn't destroy their customer goodwill in one fell swoop.

    • Re:Sensationalized (Score:5, Insightful)

      by qw(name) ( 718245 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:11PM (#12288646) Journal
      I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.
      You're right. This couldn't happen to anyone. For him to do what he did, Sunny needed to willfully create and make available the image. He signed (either electronically or physically) an NDA to get the early release so he has no excuse whatsoever.

    • Re:Sensationalized (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I have a hard time believing he didn't understand the possible repercussions of his actions in this case.

      Suppose he was that stupid. I want him penalised as harshly as possible, to lower the chance of him breeding.

      Humanity demands it! Won't somebody think of the gene pool?

      • Perhaps, but if we penalised stupidity harshly enough to remove people from the gene pool (!) then governments around the world would be decimated.

        There'd probably be only a handful of people running the planet.

        Of course, being super-intelligent (or at least, not morons) they'd probably work together to ensure a new golden age of peace and prosperity for the planet.

        Thanks heavens we live in a civilised world, where even the sub-moronic have the right to breed and populate the world in their image.
        • Funny, that. In the second novel in the trilogy I'm writing, one of the subplots is that idiots are mass-deported to another planet. (Granted, a lot less extreme than removing them from the gene pool, but still a fascinating "what-if" story. The end effect is similar for everybody but them....)

          Not quite the Douglas Adams view of surreptitiously deporting everyone who does a useless job, though I can see why one would come up with such an idea if one ever did government/civil service work. My story sho

        • It's unlikely that part of the remedy granted to Apple in a case like this would involve sterilization or death.

    • Re:Sensationalized (Score:3, Insightful)

      by topham ( 32406 )
      Every time I get en envelope with pre-release software from Apple in it it comes with a small piece of paper, about 3x5 which states the material is confidential.

      This guy is supposed to be a med student; does this mean he's going to say 'sorry, I didn't read the last page on how to perform this surgery'.

      He's an idiot and caused himself self-inflicted trouble. Why should I feel sorry for him? (I am glad to see something was worked out which is acceptable to all parties).

  • Serves him right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ryan Koppanhaver ( 322330 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @09:21PM (#12288697)
    This leaves no bad taste in my mouth - Apple acted correctly from the start. Sunny broke a legal and binding contract, unlike the people sued by the RIAA who had no contractual agreement.

    The rule about not suing poor people is oft quoted. I have heard it used by more than one poor student I know as a justification for any action they care to take. They figure that there are no consequences to their actions. This lawsuit is a consequence with a capital C. Frankly, if this convinces students that their actions might just have consequences, then it was worth the trouble.

    Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended. You may not - Sunny did not in this case - but you most certainly can. That is a valuable lesson, and it appears that it was learned.

    Had Sunny driven drunk, he might have faced felony criminal prosecution, jail time, and a lot of problems in future life, even if he did not hurt anyone. One extra drink at a bar, and a misjudgment about your own impairment, and your life takes a sudden, dramatic, explosive downward turn. Sunny had a misjudgment that took about the same amount of time, and harmed about as many people as getting caught in a holiday sobriety test. He suffered worry, but his life was not ruined, he did not get jail time, and he did not have to give up his future. That was quite a win for him, and I suspect he, and a lot of other people, are going to be more careful in the future.

    What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.

    If nothing else, such leaks make Apple less likely to distribute proprietary information in the future. I need that information, and I want companies to trust in their NDAs, as otherwise, they will not tell me what I need to know to plan my future products. So, I do want people to take an NDA seriously, just like I want people to take all contracts they sign seriously. You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.

    • Re:Serves him right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wallykeyster ( 818978 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:19PM (#12289178)
      To be fair, he didn't sit down with Apple Legal, his parents, and an attorney, then sign a clear NDA. As I understand, he signed up for an ADC account and had to click an electronic agreement before proceeding. He admits that sharing it on an invite-only torrent site was wrong, but he claims that he didn't have a full grasp of the ramifications at the time. I have no trouble believing this

      What I do have trouble with is you equating this with drunken driving. Breach of contract is a whole different ball game than a dangerous criminal activity. Yes, what he did was wrong (both legally and ethically) and he admits it. He is a Mac fan and claims to feel terrible about doing something to damage Apple. It looks to me that Apple did the right thing in suing him and in taking it easy on him once the details came out. He learned something from the event and didn't lose his future in the process.

      • Re:Serves him right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by citog ( 206365 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:45PM (#12289338)
        Not understanding the full ramifications worries me a bit - he's 23. He's been around long enough to have a basic understanding. That said, it's not worth 'hanging' someone of his age over a civil issue.
        • Only problem I have is they called this guy a "LEAKER".

        • If he didn't fully understand what it means to have an ADC account, didn't completely read the full electronic agreement, and had never uploaded anything to a Torrent site, why is this worrisome? Sure, he is med student, but how many of us top geeks actually read the contents of the EULAs we accept when installing HL2 or Adobe Acrobat Reader? When was the last time you made it through Clause 14-A-ii in the click-through license?

          • Re:Serves him right (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            If said license is a fucking non-disclosure agreement, I've read through every single one (and that's several, including the Apple Developer Connection agreement).

          • Re:Serves him right (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 20, 2005 @03:07AM (#12290424)
            So let me get this straight.

            1) I sign up to an Apple Developer Connection account.
            2) Click past license agreement, non disclosure, etc.
            3) I download pre-release materials that I know aren't available to the general public.
            4) I then publish said materials on a P2P network

            This guy (remember, he's not a kid, he's an adult) is a fscking idiot, pure and simple.

            I get that he didn't read the contract, who the hell does. But once he took step #4 the click-through agreement doesn't even matter - he didn't even need to sign a non-disclosure contract to get sued. If he even made a copy for a friend he could get sued into the gutter. Copyright law was broken, pure and simple. Just because he thought he thought the internet was anonymous and it wouldn't get back to him is no excuse for taking step #4.

            Personally, I feel sorry for whoever end up with this guy as their doctor. The complete lack of foresight speaks to his judgement, and his decision to take up the sob story after realizing the consequences of his actions speaks to his character.
          • Apple makes it quite abundantly clear throughout the Apple Developer Connection program by various means that most software you get through the program is considered confidential and under an NDA. There's a big section on different pages that tells exactly what you're not allowed to do with each piece of software that you're given, and if someone claimed to say that they never saw it, I'd be quite unable to believe them. I know I've certainly seen it a bunch of times (I have an ADC membership).

    • Re:Serves him right (Score:4, Interesting)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @11:12PM (#12289481)
      Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended.

      Yes, that's the way things are, but it's not the way things have to be. Apple could have chosen not to sue him.

      In Apple's defence, they played this very well. They sued, then settled for what everyone is assuming are reasonable terms (and not $10k or whatever the RIAA suits have been). The fear people had was that Apple was just going to act like the greedy bully that corporate America tends to create.

      Had Sunny driven drunk

      That's an awful comparison. Drunk driving kills, maims, and is an all around public danger. Copying a pre-release program might cost Apple a couple of ADC sales.

      What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.

      I disagree with you on the magnitude of this, although I agree there are differences. When you click "I Agree" it's not equivalent (I'm speaking about it being truly equal, not just legally equal, which it may or may not be) to reading it, understanding it, and knowingly agreeing to all of the terms. Likewise, with buying a CD, you are legally agreeing to the terms of copyright law, which include "agreeing" not to make copies for people.

      You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.

      Good advice, but I don't think it's fair to place all of the burden onto the end user. I don't mean removing all liability of the consumer. Just that it makes it far to easy to prey on those who don't really understand the legal consequences of their actions.

      In comparing this to Apple's and the RIAA's actions, I think Apple struck a fairly acceptable balance--they didn't ream the guys, but didn't let them off scot-free either. The RIAA really shouldn't be, essentially, stealing $10k from people who are just doing what everyone's doing (I know, just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right, but if everyone's in a gang, you at least know killing people is wrong, but how many people really think copying music on the internet is wrong?).
      • The crux of your argument appears to be "I don't think leaking confidential software is really so bad." Unfortunately, Apple does not share this opinion, and Vivek agreed, in the eyes of the law, to align his opinion with Apple's when he got his ADC account and agreed to the NDA accompanying it. Had they decided to throw the book at him, there's nothing in current contract or IP law that could have stopped them.

        And it's simply insane to argue that he may not have understood the consequences of his action
        • I don't understand what you're trying to say here...

          The crux of your argument appears to be "I don't think leaking confidential software is really so bad."

          Remove the word "confidential" (how "confidential" is it, really, if anyone is allowed to buy it for $500?), and that's generally what I'm saying.

          Unfortunately, Apple does not share this opinion, and Vivek agreed, in the eyes of the law, to align his opinion with Apple's when he got his ADC account and agreed to the NDA accompanying it.

          Right.

          Had

  • What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wallykeyster ( 818978 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:02PM (#12289050)
    Apple would be stupid to let the issue go completely and Sunny was clearly in the wrong. Apple got an admission of guilt and any of their property he still had, and he got off with a slap on the wrist. Considering the situation, it looks like it turned out relatively good for everyone. Pushing it further would only bring more negative press to Apple and what's the point of getting a big court judgment against a college student?

  • no surprise (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dammit Jon Doe, you can't stay out of trouble can you?

  • John Does? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is there any list of the IP addresses of the unnamed defendants? I'm sure a number of people would be curious to know if they might be about to be screwed...
  • Does anyone know what the terms of the settlement were? I could not find this info in TFA. I see a lot of posts claiming victory for one side or the other, but how do we know if we do not know what the terms of the settlement were? Or am I missing something?
    • According to the PDF [drunkenblog.com] linked from TFA, a judgment was entered in favor of Apple. Sunny was permanently barred from possessing, controlling, copying, sharing, etc, any information or property belonging to Apple, and he had to return all information gained via his ADC account. BTW, the limitations do not apply to any Apple hardware or software purchased in a retail setting, so this doesn't limit him from remaining a Mac fanboy. It just means that he can't be in the early adopter club. It also means that he

  • Give me -1 (Score:1, Troll)

    by Ilgaz ( 86384 )
    What the heck Wozniak was thinking? That guy is either stupid or been used by some big company to hurt Apple.

    He is a pirate, stealing years of work of real people.

    Also responsible for dozens of machines crashing, problems if you think other way. No, I don't feel sorry for those pirates.

    Bittorrent, a great idea is wasted by pirates. Thats why I have to pay god damn $30 more to package company to get 1982 style CDs while I have 512kbit sitting idle here and a cd recorder.

    I'd get myself courted to defend R
  • Isn't it "John Doe"? I thought the whole point was a generic name... Jon (short for Jonathan) seems more specific... Just lookin out for the Jon Doe's of the world who's homonyms just can't keep themselves out of trouble...

  • Forgiveness (Score:3)

    by thewiz ( 24994 ) * on Wednesday April 20, 2005 @12:27PM (#12293960)
    In many of the posts on this story, I see quite a bit of "Apple should have sued his pants off", "Sunny was an idiot", "He's and adult and should pay for his actions", etc. In this day and age, we seem to have gotten used to beating up people for making mistakes under the idea that they should have "known better". We all have done things in our past that seemed justifiable or logical at the time, but later we realize it wasn't a wise thing to do.

    Did Sunny do something illegal? Yes.
    Should he have take the time to read the agreement he agreed to when he signed up for the ADC account? Yes.
    Should he have posted it to a p2p network? No.
    Did he admit that he had made a mistake? Yes.
    Has he learned from this mistake? Yes.

    Apple chose to go easy on him, not just to prevent bad PR, but also to show that they are willing to forgive their customers for making mistakes. Even Steve Jobs isn't perfect and has made mistakes (remember NeXT?). Perhaps we all need to be more forgiving the next time someone makes a mistake against us. You'll find that most people won't make the mistake again.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close