Memo to Apple: Lay Off Your Fans

[MacBytes]

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Memo to Apple: Lay Off Your Fans (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050317140259)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

[humancodex]

hypothesis:
A boycott of WWDC keynote 2005 can drive Apple to "think different"...???

OK, is't just a satiric commentary! :- ) but "rumors sites" are very usefull, and all Apple's fans are very important to spread the brand.
éh, Macguy's you have the best "viral" marketing system and you try to sanitize it...

It's a 'métaphore'! :-)

Thanks

[nagromme]

I hear there are SOME "fans" who do not share Apple's secrets with competitors. In some ways it seems as though Apple isn't going after those fans.

Apple should be bound by the law, and the Bill of Rights, for sure. They can NOT be bound by "always do what rumor fans want no matter what" as some would imply.

Rumor sites can be good for Apple in many ways. That doesn't mean rumors never hurt.

So the legal precedent issues interest me far more than what Apple is "doing" to "hurt" me as a "fan."

[tpatricks]

I hear there are SOME "fans" who do not share Apple's secrets with competitors. In some ways it seems as though Apple isn't going after those fans...
I have no doubts that Apple is clearly in the right on this issue. Trade secrets were released before Apple wanted (clearly a violation of a few NDAs).

Free speech may very well be intimidated by Apple's action, but certainly not harmed. Free speech requires, as the judge said, "public interest" issues, not an "interested public."

If coughing up trade secrets harms Apple's ability to compete against the Borg-like Microsoft menace, then don't cough 'em up.

[Sun Baked]

Heck even IBM and Motorola pull stuff from their sites when it comes to their attention (ie, the 970GX and 970MP info), and they are big enough to fight Apple if they wanted.

ATI paid a penalty far higher than the DePlume agency ever will for their loose lips... and it took a lot of hard work for them to get back into the groove.

But get a small LLC led by a "writer" and he thinks he doesn't have to acknowledge Apple's requests to remove content. In fact he says it's his right to post it.

Plus, he's a fan... :rolleyes:

[eric_n_dfw]

Apple has to put teeth behind their NDA contracts; if they don't then nobody will respect them and they'll have leaks all over the place.

People seem to take "free speech" to weird extreems - a reporter for a major newspaper would be just as wrong if they encouraged someone to do something illegal just to get a story. You can't encourage people to do things like that and expect the courts to support it.

[nagromme]

Free speech requires, as the judge said, "public interest" issues, not an "interested public."
Agreed, but I'm still concerned about any precedent here being applied more broadly the next time. It's an important new situation--web journalists vs. traditional--that seems more important to me than Apple's particular situation.

I'm not saying Apple should lose this, but HOW they win it, if they do, will have consequences.


You can't encourage people to do things like that and expect the courts to support it.
Encouragement or incentive does sound like a key factor here.

[clayj]

Apple has to put teeth behind their NDA contracts; if they don't then nobody will respect them and they'll have leaks all over the place.

People seem to take "free speech" to weird extreems - a reporter for a major newspaper would be just as wrong if they encouraged someone to do something illegal just to get a story. You can't encourage people to do things like that and expect the courts to support it.I agree, but the folks at Thinksecret and other web sites don't sign NDAs with Apple; Apple employees do. If Apple wants to stop leaks, they need to start looking at their own people for leaking info, not the people who publish info that's leaked to them. It's not like the Thinksecret guy broke into Apple and stole information; it was handed to him by someone with insider knowledge.

[J-Squire]

I agree, but the folks at Thinksecret and other web sites don't sign NDAs with Apple; Apple employees do. If Apple wants to stop leaks, they need to start looking at their own people for leaking info, not the people who publish info that's leaked to them. It's not like the Thinksecret guy broke into Apple and stole information; it was handed to him by someone with insider knowledge.

Doubtful. Most likely, ThinkSecret asked employees it knew were bound by non-disclosure agreements to reveal information about Apple products in order to benefit the ThinkSecret website.
I doubt employees that have signed these agreements just call up the editor of the site and disclose all these details for the sake of it. And the editors are aware that these people are under non-disclosure agreements. ThinkSecret is bringing on the trouble when it publishes this stuff.

[clayj]

Doubtful. Most likely, ThinkSecret asked employees it knew were bound by non-disclosure agreements to reveal information about Apple products in order to benefit the ThinkSecret website.
I doubt employees that have signed these agreements just call up the editor of the site and disclose all these details for the sake of it. And the editors are aware that these people are under non-disclosure agreements. ThinkSecret is bringing on the trouble when it publishes this stuff.Sure, but the fact is that the Apple employees are talking when they shouldn't be. If the guy from Thinksecret calls, the standard, unwavering response should be, "I'm sorry, you need to talk to <x>", where <x> is the spokesperson/designated press contact. This is not rocket science. If Apple employees can't be trusted to follow the terms of their NDAs, there's a problem. You can't blame the Thinksecret guy for the fact that some Apple employees are blabbermouths... soliciting for information is not the problem. Giving it away when so solicited is.

[Sun Baked]

Oh well, we will find out somewhere around 4/12/2005, I hope Nick's got this date marked down on his calendar -- it'll be an important day in his life, unless it gets delayed.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-05-CV-033341

[J-Squire]

Sure, but the fact is that the Apple employees are talking when they shouldn't be. If the guy from Thinksecret calls, the standard, unwavering response should be, "I'm sorry, you need to talk to <x>", where <x> is the spokesperson/designated press contact. This is not rocket science. If Apple employees can't be trusted to follow the terms of their NDAs, there's a problem. You can't blame the Thinksecret guy for the fact that some Apple employees are blabbermouths... soliciting for information is not the problem. Giving it away when so solicited is.

I guess it all comes down to what made them reveal the information to ThinkSecret. If ThinkSecret in any way coaxed the information out of the employees, ie. giving them some form of bribe in return for disclosing information, then Apple has every right to sue.

A good article for both sides of the story:

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/thinksecret-apple.asp

[J-Squire]

From Article: "The 2005 Legal Business Awards Names O'Melveny & Myers "The Best US Law Firm in London""

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=81010

[angelneo]

...... "real" journalists from being forced to divulge sources. I have no doubt that ThinkSecret, which I've found to be an increasingly reliable and responsible source of information, makes the cut....

Really? I have read some other articles about ThinkSecrets saying otherwise. It's a rumor site, not a news source.

[suntzu]

You can't blame the Thinksecret guy for the fact that some Apple employees are blabbermouths... soliciting for information is not the problem.

Actually some of the blame can rest on the Thinksecret guy. If I worked for the IRS and handed you a folder with all of Joe Schmo's information, could you legally publish the information?

It's correctly assumed that such information is private and that the employee signed some kind of agreement to not disclose the information. The same idea applies to ThinkSecret. Can they honestly say that they or any knowledgable person would not think any type of agreement existed (in this case an NDA) between the company holding the information and the employee who works for them?

[jchen]

If I worked for the IRS and handed you a folder with all of Joe Schmo's information, could you legally publish the information?
The judge seemed to indicate (and precedent allows) that you could publish the information if there was sufficient "public interest" not if there was merely an "interested public."

It's correctly assumed that such information is private and that the employee signed some kind of agreement to not disclose the information. The same idea applies to ThinkSecret. Can they honestly say that they or any knowledgable person would not think any type of agreement existed (in this case an NDA) between the company holding the information and the employee who works for them?
And the issue of whether or not ThinkSecret deserves the same protection as a "legitimate" news operation/journalist isn't much of an issue.

Apple's actions may indeed put a damper on some "free speech" issues, but I'm for Apple on this one. While I am part of the "interested public" who wants to know what's coming from Cupertino, there is no overriding "public interest" which allows for a journalist to "knowingly" divulge secrets, trade secrets, or anything else which may harm Apple's competitive position in the industry.