Apple Lawyers Strike Back at Valleywag Over Tablet Bounty

[sishaw]

Actually, after a short bit of legal research:

Breaking a contract isn't illegal - it's just a breach of contract and happens every day of the week.

18 U.S.C. 1832. Theft of trade secrets

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is
related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed
in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of
anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that
the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly -
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes,
carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception
obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws,
photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies,
replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or
conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the
same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted
without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1)
through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any
offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more
of such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

People who are interested may also want to read this article:

http://information-security-resources.com/2009/11/08/federal-statutes-aid-trade-secret-prosecution/

 

[Becordial]

There could be civil liability, not criminal. "Illegal" is kind of a generic term. If you mean violation of criminal law, probably not (unless Cali makes it such a violation to disclose or cause to be disclosed trade secrets, which I don't know, not a California lawyer). However, while contract breaches do "happen every day," they are also compensable in damages. Civil lawsuits happen every day, too.

Nicely said. And I agree, the term illegal is used generically to cover a range of perceived sins. Arguably, despite some of the hyperbole, most courts would argue that a matter like this be treated as a civil matter. Commercially that'd make more sense too, I suspect.

 

[Markov]

I think it's painfully obvious that the tablet exists. Anyone who denies it at this point either wants attention for being ignorant, or their head is in the sand... lol

 

[knightlie]

Ohhhhh Great , Another one.

Can somebody get some knee-pads for these guys ?

So are you predicting failure too, just like your pin-up pal Ballmer? Can we come back and mock you later when the tablet is a greater success than HPs cheapo photo frame PC, or will you be too busy trolling over the next Apple product?

Sad.

 

[Becordial]

18 U.S.C. 1832. Theft of trade secrets

(clipped)

That's a very interesting find.

 

[BrettJDeriso]

You know, I'm as much of a Mac slut as any Apple fanboy on this site, but this is just plain ridiculous. Other than the obvious publicity this stunt earned Valleywag, who cares??

The fact that Apple's lawyers slapped a C&D on a company attempting to solicit trade secrets proves that the tablet exists?? Are you serious?? Maybe Apple's lawyers are merely trying to -I don't know- establish or maintain precedent.

Let's assume the tablet doesn't exist, and no announcement is forthcoming in twelve days. I know, silly, right? Indulge me. This is not the first time a company has had to slap an injunction on outside forces who would attempt to obtain privileged information. And they certainly don't need to be protecting one particular product to put the brakes on such a practice. Apple's lawyers would move to discourage bounties like this whether the tablet existed or not.

Twelve days, people. In twelve days, the hype will either be confirmed or quashed. Other than journalistic bragging rights, what would early confirmation of Apple's intentions really accomplish? Does anyone really think Dell or HP or Samsung have a product so ready for market that getting a twelve-day (or less) jump on Apple's big reveal will make an iota of difference to their sales numbers?

Again, I am a HUGE Mac desciple, so don't flame me for thinking this behavior -this close to an official media event- is just this side of lunacy.

 

[gnasher729]

Breaking a contract isn't illegal - it's just a breach of contract and happens every day of the week.

It is not just breach of contract, it is also giving away a trade secret, which is criminal.

If Apple plans a secret birthday party for Steve Jobs, and the caterer is under NDA and tells MacRumors about it, that is just breach of contract, because that secret birthday party is not a trade secret.

If Apple plans to introduce a new computer, and a web designer is under NDA and tells MacRumors about it, that is breach of contract + giving away a trade secret, which is much more serious.

 

[tjgriffin]

Valleywag is being really childish about this thing. I kinda doubt they have the cash they're offering in the first place. Give me proof of that before we even start talking about proof of the tablet. As this poor lawyer clearly explains there's simply not a way the contest can run without violating the law. This could wind up in court or worse- here's more of my take.

Sure there is! No one wins the prize. The very "rules" of this contest make it impossible to win. So you're probably right that they don't have the money. They don't need it.

Inferences aside, Apple's statement confirms the eminent release of a multi-touch toilet as much as a a tablet.

 

[BlindGoldfish]

Fake

Honestly, that letter from "Apple's Attorney" looks fake. I work with attorneys for a living, and it just doesn't come across as something they would write. Who knows though.

 

[alhedges]

Most of the internet lawyers and internet lawyer wannabees who are posting on this topic should ask for a refund from internet lawyer (wannabee) law school.

First of all, it is not illegal to breach a contract, nor is it illegal to induce someone to breach a contract. Almost every time a sports coach is fired there is a breach of the contract - there are consequences, of course, but it is business as usual.

Second, it is not *at all* clear that a picture of an iTablet is a trade secret. A trade secret is not anything that people want kept secret; a trade secret is something that derives its value particularly because it is secret. Software source code is typically a trade secret, as is the classic example of a trade secret - the formula for Coca-Cola.

It's hard to see how a photo of a device that will be made public in two weeks is a "trade secret". If it is, then macrumors is probably also guilty of disclosing trade secrets by publishing early photos of iphones. But I doubt that either are actual violations of trade secret laws.

I will also point out, as other commenters have, that there are many ways that Valleywag's conditions could be met without anyone violating a NDA.

 

[Peace]

Most of the internet lawyers and internet lawyer wannabees who are posting on this topic should ask for a refund from internet lawyer (wannabee) law school.

First of all, it is not illegal to breach a contract, nor is it illegal to induce someone to breach a contract. Almost every time a sports coach is fired there is a breach of the contract - there are consequences, of course, but it is business as usual.

Second, it is not *at all* clear that a picture of an iTablet is a trade secret. A trade secret is not anything that people want kept secret; a trade secret is something that derives its value particularly because it is secret. Software source code is typically a trade secret, as is the classic example of a trade secret - the formula for Coca-Cola.

It's hard to see how a photo of a device that will be made public in two weeks is a "trade secret". If it is, then macrumors is probably also guilty of disclosing trade secrets by publishing early photos of iphones. But I doubt that either are actual violations of trade secret laws.

I will also point out, as other commenters have, that there are many ways that Valleywag's conditions could be met without anyone violating a NDA.

That's exactly why I now believe Apple is behind the Valleywag stuff.

 

[sishaw]

It's hard to see how a photo of a device that will be made public in two weeks is a "trade secret".

No, it's not. There could be something unique about the design that is a trade secret and would be revealed by a picture, and which by being revealed early would cause Apple to lose a competitive advantage. The fact is, you don't know and I don't know. If Apple is claiming trade secret protection, then there just might be something to it.

As for the term "illegal," it is an imprecise term and probably should not be used in this context. Even if 18 U.S.C. 1832 were applicable, I gather that it is rarely used.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

There could be something unique about the design that is a trade secret and would be revealed by a picture

Like the robotic arm? In that case, this sounds like incontrovertible proof that that particular rumor is true.

In case it hasn't made its way over here yet, Motus Machine Inc. rcvd an order for their *entire* years production of their new "Marvin" robotic arm units. The Sr Sales Exec said not to order any replacement parts for the remainder of 2010, because Apple had bought them all up for its tablet device. She also said they've ordered the first run of scramjet engines for the next iPhone project, but that might just be in prototype stage.

 

[charlituna]

yes, the point about scoops is to be the first to publish

by saying they WON'T publish before launch negates the whole point of actually getting the info.
`

they never said they wouldn't publish. they just said they wouldn't pay.

but they also said don't do anything illegal, likely knowing that anyone with that kind of info is in Cali were spilling it is against the law (and would get the person fired, likely blacklisted etc). and they likely knew that just saying they would play is against the law and would prompt the letter and were hoping for a few careless words that would allow them to claim they got proof that a tablet does exist -- something none of the tech sites has gotten.

in a way, a bold and somewhat clever move

 

[recordprod]

I think Steve Jobs, Valleywag, and the lawyers are all in cahoots to keep the world talking about the product we all know will be announced in less than two weeks. This will probably even make the network news. You can't buy advertising like that!

Mark

Exactly. It's 2010. This is how you create a media frenzy for a tiny fraction of the spend. Brilliant marketing by Apple.