Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple files complaint against former contractor:leaked Power Mac G4 details
- Thread starter medea
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree except for the Xerox vs. Apple one.
Xerox INVITED Apple execs over to see what PARC was up to. They never made Apple (as far as I've ever read) sign any kind of NDA's or other business contracts regarding their technology. If they had, you know that Xerox would have taken them to court, they were/are a huge company and Apple was a small time player back then.
Originally posted by Dunepilot
So you're saying if he had given us made-up details like half the cranks that supply so-called information to rumour sites, you'd be happier.
Don't make me laugh
No, that's not what I'm saying. A rumor in this case is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth" Websters. So, as soon as information has proof of authenticity, it can no longer be a rumor.
My point is that the information published was not a rumor but rather a technical document that accurately described a product. In addition, again assuming the allegations are true, this guy published the information illegally. As a result, I don't feel the least bit of pity for him.
At the time, we _were_ "without known authority for its truth".
A lot of people said the schematic pdf was bogus based on various misunderstandings such as the illustration of vertically-mounted hard drives, and a lot of others expressed disbelief in the photograph of the MDD case, saying that it was either a Photoshop mock-up or a custom modification that someone had done to an earlier G3/4 tower variant.
By your definition, I assume you only enjoy a "rumor" for as long as its validity is in doubt - therefore, once you know something to be true, via proof of authenticity, you would have preferred that the person stuck by his non-disclosure agreement and (according to the law) withhold information from this interested community. That position just isn't consistent with someone who benefits from, or is interested in, this website.
Do you really think we'd ever get any details about upcoming developments if it weren't for people slipping on their NDAs? It's not like you'd find out anything any other way in Apple's tight-lipped current climate.
MacRumors involvement, timing?
A couple of interesting thoughts come to mind...
1) The (apparent) first posting of this info was here, by AppleP58.
2) Less than a week ago, MacRumors increased its security settings. Email addresses must be verified, thus (only theoretically of course) eliminating the ability for a user to post to the forums without providing a trace back to their real identity.
I wonder if MacRumors was tipped off to the investigation, or perhaps even served with a court order to help trace P58's identity? P58 certainly knew the right stuff.
A couple of interesting thoughts come to mind...
1) The (apparent) first posting of this info was here, by AppleP58.
2) Less than a week ago, MacRumors increased its security settings. Email addresses must be verified, thus (only theoretically of course) eliminating the ability for a user to post to the forums without providing a trace back to their real identity.
I wonder if MacRumors was tipped off to the investigation, or perhaps even served with a court order to help trace P58's identity? P58 certainly knew the right stuff.
Like most other people, I primarily come to this site for entertainment. Some of the threads I enjoy, others I don't. But I would never want anyone to break the law for my entertainment.
All I'm saying is it looks like this guy took a risk and got caught. The info may have been a rumor to us but it certainly wasn't to him.
BTW - by Webster's definition, it is not possible to enjoy a rumor after there is proof or authenticity because it is no longer a rumor at that point. However, I am interested in this site because I often find it to be fun. I enjoy the rumors component because so many here are so passionate about Apple and some of the speculation and justification is so outrageous. I have also benefited from other's opinions or first hand information on products. Some of the non-Mac discussions can be pretty interesting too.
Re: Poor Jose
I agree. I came to this site just a few weeks before he leaked those photos, and I thought it was all super cool. Then that ******* groovebuster spoiled everything.
What annoys me is that APPLE58 or whatever his name is isnt a employee of apple. So why should he be punished when he leaks something. The press like the paparatzi (hell will freeze over before I can spell that) have no problem taking visual evidence of rumors and news, so why cant APPLE58 leak the photo and PDF?? Is it because he doesnt have the cash to fight a battle with the apple legal department?? Im so confused with this whole legal thing, could someone answer these questions? Thanks
As for APPLE58, fight the battle with apple, I think you did nothing wrong, as long as you arnt an employee of apple. God bless.
I agree. I came to this site just a few weeks before he leaked those photos, and I thought it was all super cool. Then that ******* groovebuster spoiled everything.
What annoys me is that APPLE58 or whatever his name is isnt a employee of apple. So why should he be punished when he leaks something. The press like the paparatzi (hell will freeze over before I can spell that) have no problem taking visual evidence of rumors and news, so why cant APPLE58 leak the photo and PDF?? Is it because he doesnt have the cash to fight a battle with the apple legal department?? Im so confused with this whole legal thing, could someone answer these questions? Thanks
As for APPLE58, fight the battle with apple, I think you did nothing wrong, as long as you arnt an employee of apple. God bless.
Re: Re: Poor Jose
Uh he was employeed as a contractor and as such had to sign a privacy agreement which he in turn broke which means he did indeed do something wrong and illegal, "fight the battle with apple"? Im sorry but Apple has every right to persecute this man and he deserves whatever sentence he gets, why does he deserve it? because he knew exactly what he was getting himself into and he still did it, that is a choice he made and now well he will have to deal with it. I do not feel sorry for the person in question, apple isnt screwing mr.lopez, mr.lopez screwed himself.
Re: MacRumors involvement, timing?
As for the whole issue, Jose shouldn't have posted the pictures anywhere. But if people want to screw themselves then by all means do it here so I can see the hardware pictures.
The only problem with that is the fact that APPLEP58 would have been unable to post new threads or attachments until his e-mail was verified.
As for the whole issue, Jose shouldn't have posted the pictures anywhere. But if people want to screw themselves then by all means do it here so I can see the hardware pictures.
APPLEP58 did do something illegal and I agree that I find MacRumors as an news/entertainment site, one that I find entertainment value in and I find the discussions on possible and new Apple products stimulating. However I wouldn't ever want someone to ever do something completely illegal, and possibly hurting the very company I love and respect just for my own entertainment value.
That being said I don't see that Arn/MacRumors as a possible "Rat", It seems to me that Jose went behind Arn's back started posting illegal material in the forums, before anyone at MacRumors could find any validity to it, and in doing so it put up MacRumors credibility up at stake and possible legal action.
APPLEP58 screwed his own self, and in doing so possibly hurt the MacRumors community and website. Personally I would hope that we would hang him out to dry, Arn could have gave him anonymity had he gone threw the right channels, being a news-site after all, but instead he went behind his back and put this website at risk.
So I say screw Jose/APPLEP58.
That being said I don't see that Arn/MacRumors as a possible "Rat", It seems to me that Jose went behind Arn's back started posting illegal material in the forums, before anyone at MacRumors could find any validity to it, and in doing so it put up MacRumors credibility up at stake and possible legal action.
APPLEP58 screwed his own self, and in doing so possibly hurt the MacRumors community and website. Personally I would hope that we would hang him out to dry, Arn could have gave him anonymity had he gone threw the right channels, being a news-site after all, but instead he went behind his back and put this website at risk.
So I say screw Jose/APPLEP58.
Funny...where is GROOVEBUSTER...
quote:
Originally posted by APPLEP58
unfortunately, that would be far too identifying...
Of course, because it would identify you as a bull-****ter! You don't have a clue about the specs I bet!
As if you are the only person who would know the specs before. To tell people about the case is not worse than giving the specs.
But I bet you just got the hint yourself about the new G4s somewhere and now you want to get the credits for it!
I don't see why else a newbie would drop in and "spill some beans".
So if you know something about the specs tell them to us! If you don't .... ****!!!
groovebuster
__________________
Look & Feel of Windows: "I LOOK at the product and I FEEL that it doesn't solve my problem."
Maybe groove will testify for APPLE58 and convince the jury that he's innocent..
quote:
Originally posted by APPLEP58
unfortunately, that would be far too identifying...
Of course, because it would identify you as a bull-****ter! You don't have a clue about the specs I bet!
As if you are the only person who would know the specs before. To tell people about the case is not worse than giving the specs.
But I bet you just got the hint yourself about the new G4s somewhere and now you want to get the credits for it!
I don't see why else a newbie would drop in and "spill some beans".
So if you know something about the specs tell them to us! If you don't .... ****!!!
groovebuster
__________________
Look & Feel of Windows: "I LOOK at the product and I FEEL that it doesn't solve my problem."
Maybe groove will testify for APPLE58 and convince the jury that he's innocent..
Re: Re: MacRumors involvement, timing?
I was more thinking of preventative measures for future "problems" like this. There is (arguably) some level of responsibility for the webmaster to ensure illegal stuff isn't posted here. Having a trace back to the poster provides a partial "out" if this happens again. It's acceptable to protect him/herself.
FYI, I don't consider MacRumors a "rat" if they helped Apple track P58. If a court order (or similar) showed up asking me for some info, I'd sing like a bird. I'm sure P58 knew the rules and knew there would be consequences if caught.
In a way I hope this goes to trial, as I'd love to learn how they caught him. But I'm sure it'll be settled. I'll forecast no jail time, and maybe a $10,000 fine. It'll be hard for Apple to show it was really hurt by this. Some users delayed purchases (hence interest lost due to delayed profit) but not much else. It's to set an example, and well executed.
I was more thinking of preventative measures for future "problems" like this. There is (arguably) some level of responsibility for the webmaster to ensure illegal stuff isn't posted here. Having a trace back to the poster provides a partial "out" if this happens again. It's acceptable to protect him/herself.
FYI, I don't consider MacRumors a "rat" if they helped Apple track P58. If a court order (or similar) showed up asking me for some info, I'd sing like a bird. I'm sure P58 knew the rules and knew there would be consequences if caught.
In a way I hope this goes to trial, as I'd love to learn how they caught him. But I'm sure it'll be settled. I'll forecast no jail time, and maybe a $10,000 fine. It'll be hard for Apple to show it was really hurt by this. Some users delayed purchases (hence interest lost due to delayed profit) but not much else. It's to set an example, and well executed.
Can anyone post the complaint...
I'd like to see the legal documents... I know they're public record. Can anyone post the Legal Complaint so we can form educated opinions about Apple's position?
I'd like to see the legal documents... I know they're public record. Can anyone post the Legal Complaint so we can form educated opinions about Apple's position?
Re: Re: Apple files complaint against former contractor:leaked Power Mac G4 details
Well said - we all knew a new G4 tower was about due: all that was really leaked to us was that it would be another El Capitan variant, and that it would take 2 optical drives and 4 hard drives. Apple is way out of order on this one.
If people like Jose don't give us the hardware previews we really want, then the best rumours we'd get would relate to software, which is a whole lot less exciting to the whole macrumors.com community than a hardware advance.
Did they ever catch the person who leaked photos of the G4 cube before it came out? I hope not.
Well said - we all knew a new G4 tower was about due: all that was really leaked to us was that it would be another El Capitan variant, and that it would take 2 optical drives and 4 hard drives. Apple is way out of order on this one.
If people like Jose don't give us the hardware previews we really want, then the best rumours we'd get would relate to software, which is a whole lot less exciting to the whole macrumors.com community than a hardware advance.
Did they ever catch the person who leaked photos of the G4 cube before it came out? I hope not.
hmmm
ok so in researching this case, I found info in the 2000 case and one thing that is similar is the name Doe 1, in this case both Mr.Lopez and the unnamed person refered to as Doe1 are charged, and in this article Ill post below from 2000 Doe1 is also referenced as well as other Does, so It would appear the two are connected:
Apple files suit against 'John Doe'
by MacNN Staff
Wednesday, August 2, 2000 @ 3:00pm
In another move to protect its closely guarded secrets and prevent the disclosure of advanced product information, Apple Wednesday announced it is suing "John Doe," an unnamed invidual, for leaking company trade secrets on the Web.
The suit represents the first of its kind of the computer maker in recent history. Unlike other recently filed suits by other companies designed to shore up leaks, including Adobe's recent suit against MacNN, Apple is targeting the individuals responsible for the leak rather than the outlets that published the information.
Speculation exists that one individual named in the suit may have gone by the name "Worker Bee," who posted images and information regarding future Apple products in the AppleInsider forums in June.
Prominent sources have also indicated that Apple issued a subpoena this afternoon to Yahoo! Inc., asking the company to identify the IP address of a user that created a Geocities site that housed the images in question.
The suit itself, filed this morning in California, is extremely ambigous, claiming that Apple has no knowledge of the source's true identity. According to legal documents obtained by MacNN, the source, referred to as Doe 1, might have been working with up to twenty four accomplices.
"Apple is informed and believes and alleges that defendant Doe 1 is an individual. Apple does not know the true name of defendant Doe 1 and therefore sues this defendant pursuant to Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure," the suit states. "Apple will amend this Complaint to state the true name of this defendant once Apple discovers this information."
The legal document also claims that Apple is in the midst of pursuing "Does 2 through 25," and will launch action under the current suit when their identities are known."
The lawsuit charges each unknown source with damages sprouting from unauthorized public access to Apple products under development.
"In Apple's experience, public knowledge of future products often lesses sales of existing Apple products," the document states. "As a result, Apple maintains and protects Future Product Information as a trade secret."
In addition to listing all "reasonable" measures that the company has taken to protect "trade secrets," the suit mentions that every employee must sign an "Intellectual Property Agreement," which was obviously breached in this case.
The company claims that "beginning in or about February 2000, Doe 1, alone or in concert with Does 2 through 25, began disseminating Apple Future Product Information to the public. Among other things, Defendant or Defendants posted digital images of undisclosed future Apple products on publicly accessible areas of the Internet."
More specifically, the source is said to have posted images of the Apple Pro Mouse and dual-processor G4 machines to rumor-based forums.
No mention of the G4 Cube was noted in legal documents released today, however, an all-encompassing paragraph does recognize that the source has "publicly posted trade secret information about other Apple products that Apple has not publicly released or disclosed as of the date of the filing of this Complaint."
The company alleges that the source gave information out via "improper means such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and/or espionage."
Damages were also requested, though no set amount has yet been established. "The amount of such damages cannot be proven at this time but will be proven at trial," the document claims. "Apple is further entitled to recover from Doe 1 the gains, profits, and advantages that Doe 1 obtained as a result of the misappropriation alleged herein."
The suit also indicates that actions by the source "were both willful and malicious," and requests "an injunction restraining the Doe 1 from misappropriating Apple's trade secret Future Product Information."
The company claims that without successful legal measures, they will be hurt in a competitive market. "Apple will suffer great and irreparable harm and damage, which damage will be difficult to ascertain, and Apple will be without an adequate remedy at law."
Apple had no comment at press on the matter.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP is representing Apple in the case.
Im surprised the connection has not been made publicly yet.
ok so in researching this case, I found info in the 2000 case and one thing that is similar is the name Doe 1, in this case both Mr.Lopez and the unnamed person refered to as Doe1 are charged, and in this article Ill post below from 2000 Doe1 is also referenced as well as other Does, so It would appear the two are connected:
Apple files suit against 'John Doe'
by MacNN Staff
Wednesday, August 2, 2000 @ 3:00pm
In another move to protect its closely guarded secrets and prevent the disclosure of advanced product information, Apple Wednesday announced it is suing "John Doe," an unnamed invidual, for leaking company trade secrets on the Web.
The suit represents the first of its kind of the computer maker in recent history. Unlike other recently filed suits by other companies designed to shore up leaks, including Adobe's recent suit against MacNN, Apple is targeting the individuals responsible for the leak rather than the outlets that published the information.
Speculation exists that one individual named in the suit may have gone by the name "Worker Bee," who posted images and information regarding future Apple products in the AppleInsider forums in June.
Prominent sources have also indicated that Apple issued a subpoena this afternoon to Yahoo! Inc., asking the company to identify the IP address of a user that created a Geocities site that housed the images in question.
The suit itself, filed this morning in California, is extremely ambigous, claiming that Apple has no knowledge of the source's true identity. According to legal documents obtained by MacNN, the source, referred to as Doe 1, might have been working with up to twenty four accomplices.
"Apple is informed and believes and alleges that defendant Doe 1 is an individual. Apple does not know the true name of defendant Doe 1 and therefore sues this defendant pursuant to Section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure," the suit states. "Apple will amend this Complaint to state the true name of this defendant once Apple discovers this information."
The legal document also claims that Apple is in the midst of pursuing "Does 2 through 25," and will launch action under the current suit when their identities are known."
The lawsuit charges each unknown source with damages sprouting from unauthorized public access to Apple products under development.
"In Apple's experience, public knowledge of future products often lesses sales of existing Apple products," the document states. "As a result, Apple maintains and protects Future Product Information as a trade secret."
In addition to listing all "reasonable" measures that the company has taken to protect "trade secrets," the suit mentions that every employee must sign an "Intellectual Property Agreement," which was obviously breached in this case.
The company claims that "beginning in or about February 2000, Doe 1, alone or in concert with Does 2 through 25, began disseminating Apple Future Product Information to the public. Among other things, Defendant or Defendants posted digital images of undisclosed future Apple products on publicly accessible areas of the Internet."
More specifically, the source is said to have posted images of the Apple Pro Mouse and dual-processor G4 machines to rumor-based forums.
No mention of the G4 Cube was noted in legal documents released today, however, an all-encompassing paragraph does recognize that the source has "publicly posted trade secret information about other Apple products that Apple has not publicly released or disclosed as of the date of the filing of this Complaint."
The company alleges that the source gave information out via "improper means such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and/or espionage."
Damages were also requested, though no set amount has yet been established. "The amount of such damages cannot be proven at this time but will be proven at trial," the document claims. "Apple is further entitled to recover from Doe 1 the gains, profits, and advantages that Doe 1 obtained as a result of the misappropriation alleged herein."
The suit also indicates that actions by the source "were both willful and malicious," and requests "an injunction restraining the Doe 1 from misappropriating Apple's trade secret Future Product Information."
The company claims that without successful legal measures, they will be hurt in a competitive market. "Apple will suffer great and irreparable harm and damage, which damage will be difficult to ascertain, and Apple will be without an adequate remedy at law."
Apple had no comment at press on the matter.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP is representing Apple in the case.
Im surprised the connection has not been made publicly yet.
Look, the rumor sites help Apple. Does anyone with half a brain here think that only MacGeeks like us are the only ones who read these rumor sites? These sites are read by people in the mainstream media, (some of who post here, I can even attest to this personally). All companies (and even some individuals) use publicity to their advantage and even profit, and Apple exists to generate profit. I do have a problem if MacRumors or any rumor site which relies on confidential info leaked by others offers up those sources to parties that can hamper them legally. If it wasn't for these slackjaws, there wouldn't be any rumor sites, or the meager ad money that they generate to keep their sites up. Let's face it, Apple benefits from rumor sites, how many Dell Rumors.com's are there ?!?!
Xerox and Apple??? How do you figure? Xerox gave Apple all the stuff Jobs could 'remember' in return for Xerox being able to purchase a million $$$ in Apple stock at insider prices... that was, what, late '82? Have any idea what Xerox's stock in Apple is worth today? Do some research....
No wrong, at least in this case. The user in this case started posting in a half-arse way, w/o the approval of MacRumors and in doing so he wasn't a source in the since of say a news site. So when the gentleman in question decided to just post it upon the forums he do so at his own merits, and MR was under no obligation to keep this person secret, especially. if what he was doing something illegal, which he was.
Now had APPLEP58 given the information to MR and then had MR posted up the info up as news, Arn/MR would have been under no obligation to give up their sources. And even then I have never seen MacRumors post up actual PDFs or blazing new pictures of yet to be released products up on their website from these sources that they have. Not saying that they haven't posted PDFs and pictures, but I haven't ever seen it ever done threw a supposed "Anonymous Source". If they did so they could be left up to scrutiny and lose credibility, and personally I find MR the most credible rumor sites out there.
So I see no problem with MacRumors giving up one poster's name that wanted to so desperately to void his confidentiality contract w/ Apple just so he can be "kewl". APPLEP58 knew what he was doing when he posted and he should of taken the right precautions, he didn't so screw him. No company should have an employee that would drop corporate secrets at the drop of a hat, nor should any rumors site should ever be able to trust someone like that, that being someone who gives info out so freely that could hurt a company it respects. Rumors are done threw out of love for someone or something, it should never go on to hurt that very thing.
That (apology) happened already a long time ago. Interesting how self-righteous people become on things like that. And that apology is something that is really none of your business.
I see some people called me an ******* in here! .... I couldn't care less, but it shows that they are not better than the person they want to see in me.
And to Mr. Distorted again... my behaviour has nothing to do with him being a criminal. I don't owe him anything as well as he doesn't owe anything to me. If he is so stupid to break the law just to get a little bit attention, then it is his problem, but definately not mine.
Merry X-mas!
groovebuster
Can you please help me on that one...
Does that mean it would have been better (what is crap, because I did and especially you know, since we exchanged PMs about it)...
Or does that mean I was forced to do so (what is also BS, because you were asking me friendly if I could possibly do that and I agreed without hesitating right away, but how you would have put pressure on me anyway?)?
groovebuster