Apple Legal vs Bloggers

[dejo]

Rumors do little to hurt Apple and a lot to do soft marketing for them, you know... MARKETING?!?! Something Apple doesn't do ANY of aside from the iPod and a couple Intel ads you don't know they exist or make computers meanwhile Dull has their bait-and-switch ads for total junk running ad nauseam and Windoze has their ads aimed at the clueless demographic (like they need more clueless lusers?).

I think you are only considering TV advertising. There are plenty of other places Apple advertises. Trade magazines, for example.

 

[iwannabeaninja]

Asteroid description

Asteroid was going to be a box where you could plug in 5 different 1/4" or XLR instruments that went out to your mac via firewire. Each input had it's own volume slider. It would have retailed at around $80, but too much information was leaked by Think Secret a while ago and thus Apple pulling the product. Shortly after the whole legal bit with Think Secret, Apple sold the product to M-Audio which turned out to be two products: the iControl and the Projectmix I/O. Both of which are more than $80. The iControl has no instrument inputs except for a MIDI in. The Projectmix I/O is far too expensive for the average musician but includes 8 1/4" or XLR inputs and also doubles as MIDI faders. Asteroid would have sold like hotcakes even at $100 and would have been the least expensive piece of hardware in it's category.

 

[gwangung]

I believe that Apple -- or any other company -- has a right to protect their trade secrets. The problem is that this case isn't about trade secrets at all, it's about lifting the veil of secrecy and hype that surrounds future Apple products. These news sites aren't posting trade secrets or the design plans for the Death Star, they're simply stating Apple's product roadmap and potential future products.

That IS a trade secret (and has been defined as such in nearly every court in the land).

What? You don't think competitors wouldn't like to get that? And you don't think that sort of thing would help competitors? Um. Right.......

 

[gwangung]

I think you are only considering TV advertising. There are plenty of other places Apple advertises. Trade magazines, for example.

And, of course, marketing is not equivalent to advertising....

 

[dejo]

And, of course, marketing is not equivalent to advertising....

You got that right!

 

[Crikey]

That case is pathetic.. the fact that Apple completely hides its products before release is good for their business but bad for the consumer, especially when the product typically sucks. I mean when it comes to the iBook.. it is starting to sound more and more like an Asus notebook with OSX installed on it. Big deal. Lots of reasons for secrecy there..

Nice job by the judge.. Asteroid is nothing fance whatever. Currently, Presonus Firebox is not only a very high quality firewire preamp, but it is compatible with mac.

Nice troll.

Where is your basis for saying "Asteroid is nothing fancy whatever."? Has Asteroid ever been released, so we really know what it is and does, or whether it "sucks"? I don't see any Apple-branded audio interface hardware in their Apple Store online.

That's what baffles me about this lawsuit. Why is Apple suing people for releasing rumors about a product they apparently never bothered to complete? And if Apple really plans to release an audio interface, why have they waited until most of their potential customers have already bought something from someone else? The competition has been at it long enough that prices are falling as the market space becomes commoditized. Not the ideal time to enter a market.

I don't buy the claim that the project was cancelled because a rumor site leaked a basic idea of what kind of product the code-name referred to. It's more likely Apple realized they couldn't make a device with the planned feature set at the planned price point (if they had, I agree with an above poster that it would have been a hit). I think the project was cancelled because they decided it would be hard to compete with low-end M-Audio and Griffin stuff on one hand and with pro-sumer MOTU and DigiDesign stuff on the other, in a commoditizing market.


Crikey

 

[pavetheforest]

Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!

What's really funny about this is the fact that if Microsoft or some other huge corporation did this, all of the Macboys on this site would be freaking out, saying how "big, bad and evil" those companies are. Yet, I guarantee, many people in the future of this thread will spin this the opposite way, saying how they support Apple all the way and the lawsuit "makes sense." I can see it now...sometimes the blinders are on pretty tight around here...

another dell person speaking out line! ! ! your in the wrong part of town WINDOZE MAN.......

wait a second...............................

V V V V😀

 

[fixyourthinking]

Note

Note that it's the press trying to twist this for sensationalism and actually listening to the EFF (for senationalistic argument) ... not Apple that is saying that bloggers aren't journalists.

Apple isn't agreeing or disagreeing with the premise that bloggers are journalists ... they are disagreeing that ANYONE has the right to report trade secrets as news.

This case, if decided in Apple's favor will be a REAL blow to blogger's rights ... just the opposite effect of OGrady's and the EFF's intentions.

I have had a similar argument against my blog recently ... it was being fought over a REAL issue for the court to decide ... whether or not I was a journalist ... previous cases have said that it's not the medium, it is the content that makes a journalist a journalist. If the intent is to report news ... then there is an intent to be a reporter; therefore a reporter (and journalism) exists.

Apple isn't arguing OGrady's intent ... it is arguing the fact that NO ONE ... certifiable tv journalists, radio reporters, CNN, NBC, FOXNEWS ... none of them have the right to report trade secrets ... which is (in the hands of OGrady) STOLEN PROPERTY obtained = against the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

The bloggers should not be held responsible since they did not break laws to get the information

They did break laws ... AppleInsider and Ogrady (and others) knowingly accepted confidential business plans, diagrams, and designs. Think Secret EVEN SOLICITS for you (yes YOU) to break the law and "give them dirt" ... the Think Secret site has an ad that says "GOT DIRT?" CALL this #. Reporting or disseminating trade secrets publicly is against the law ... read the UTSA.

A company can't make everything trade secret or at will ... obviously a future product is a trade secret ... obviously Apple doesn't want its competitors to know what it has in the pipeline.

I love rumors sites ... but there are ways to speculate, overhear, and creative extrapolate --- THAT is the hype that we all like ... not hurting Apple by potentially hurting their impact of groundbreaking hardware and applications.

 

[YoNeX]

Let me throw my 2cents into this.

Working for a company that has A LOT of sensitive material, we had to sign a NDA. It states clearly and we get heavly trained that we cannot disclose any of the activities or announcement that goes on in the facuility. This would be known as insider information. If anyone was to disclose the information, they would be in a lot of trouble, including legal troubles. The company has to protect their information and against competitors, granted like any business.

Now the address at hand is whether its justifiable for Apple to go after the person who published the insider information (who got it from an Apple employee) and the ISP of the publisher. That is the question at hand arguing. The way in which the publisher would get away with no having to reveal his sources is if he gets journalism protection. So it becomes a case of whether or not bloggers are considered journalists or not.

Making a case arguing against company secrets is lunacy. I like to see someone argue that company secret should not be kept secret. To EFF: While your have a good initative to protect the right of the people, you have to remember that what they did was unethical and probably illegal. You may say that anything can be considered trade secret, and sure I'll agree with that. But something only becomes illegal when you take action against it. I'm sure a company won't take any action if you just publish the cafeteria menu or like the special Friday. But once you decide to publish information that affects their business, that is when it gets serious and they will take action. Don't try to compare the difference between the government and business now, they are two different entity and should be treated that way.

To the person who publish it, you take the responsiblity of what ever you publish, whether true or not. Do not try to be ignorant and say you didn't know, its your responsiblity to check your sources and ask the necessary questions to get your answers (sound familiar? this is a journalist). Even if you don't take the responsibility, the source of the information knows that anything that isn't out in the public, is company secret and most likely cannot be disclosed (see example above for why you can get away for posting certain stuff or not). The person most likely signed a NDA and broke it, and should be punished accordingly. Now how Apple gets to find out this person is where it gets hazy.

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

Asteroid was going to be a box where you could plug in 5 different 1/4" or XLR instruments that went out to your mac via firewire. Each input had it's own volume slider. It would have retailed at around $80, but too much information was leaked by Think Secret a while ago and thus Apple pulling the product. Shortly after the whole legal bit with Think Secret, Apple sold the product to M-Audio which turned out to be two products: the iControl and the Projectmix I/O. Both of which are more than $80. The iControl has no instrument inputs except for a MIDI in. The Projectmix I/O is far too expensive for the average musician but includes 8 1/4" or XLR inputs and also doubles as MIDI faders. Asteroid would have sold like hotcakes even at $100 and would have been the least expensive piece of hardware in it's category.

I seriously doubt Apple would pull the product just because "too much information was leaked" by a rumor site. Crap! Now we won't see new MacBooks because too much information was leaked about them. 😱 🙄

More than likely if a company like Apple doesn't follow through with a project, it is because it would not be a worthwhile investment for them. Simple economics.

 

[iPie]

Some definitions (from Finance Glossary and Wikipedia):

Inside Information:
Price-sensitive information about a company that has not yet been made public.

People who use the information either to make a profit for themselves or for someone else are committing a criminal offence (insider dealing).

The inside dealer does not have to work for the company for his dealing to be an offence. So a stockbroker, or merchant banker, who knows about an impending takeover deal who buys shares in the target company with the intention of making a profit, is guilty. If he gets a friend to buy the shares, he is still guilty. In theory, the net is cast quite wide. In practice, insider dealing prosecutions are rare, and successful ones rarer still because the allegations are so hard to prove.

Note the difference between insider dealing (an offence) and directors dealings (not an offence).

Trade Secret : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information used by a business to obtain an advantage over competitors within the same industry or profession. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information", while in others they are a subset or example of confidential information.

The sanctioned protection of such type of information from public disclosure is viewed as an important legal aspect by which a society protects its overall economic vitality. A company typically invests time and energy (work) into generating information regarding refinements of process and operation. If competitors had access to the same knowledge, the first company's ability to survive or maintain its market dominance would be impaired. Where trade sectets are recognised, the creator of property regarded as a "trade secret" is entitled to regard such "special knowledge" as intellectual property.

The precise language by which a trade secret is defined varies by jurisdiction (as do the particular types of information that are subject to trade secret protection). However, there are three factors that (though subject to differing interpretations) are common to all such definitions: a trade secret is some sort of information that:

* is not generally known to the relevant portion of the public;
* confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);
* is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Trade secrets are not protected by law in the same manner as trademarks or patents. Probably one of the most significant differences is that a trade secret is protected without disclosure of the secret.

....there's more.

In any case, if AAPL wants to keep secrets secret, they should just do a better job of it. Wow, this is a real lesson in how to squander goodwill.

 

[gwangung]

I seriously doubt Apple would pull the product just because "too much information was leaked" by a rumor site. Crap! Now we won't see new MacBooks because too much information was leaked about them. 😱 🙄

More than likely if a company like Apple doesn't follow through with a project, it is because it would not be a worthwhile investment for them. Simple economics.

Depends. If it's in a core, existing market like a laptop, then they certainly wouldn't drop it.

For a peripheral market or one they were contemplating moving into....maybe. Maybe not...but it's not as clear cut.

 

[gwangung]

In any case, if AAPL wants to keep secrets secret, they should just do a better job of it. Wow, this is a real lesson in how to squander goodwill.

Like...trying to find the identity of the leaker?

By the way, in the eyes of the law, Apple doesn't have to be perfect....they have to make reasonable efforts. Marking things CONFIDENTIAL and making people sign NDAs are reasonble efforts.

 

[matticus008]

I'm not denying on what is or isn't law, however that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't.

So you're saying that Apple should lose its case because you don't agree with the law that provides the cause for suit? You do realize that that's functionally equivalent to saying that a murderer should get off because you disagree with capital punishment, right? (Before anyone gets all huffy, I'm not saying it's morally equivalent in the slightest.)

Additionally, "subject of efforts" and "under the circumstances" are beyond vague and imho could mean absolutely anything in the mind of a corporation.

In my mind, based on #2, a corporation could say nearly anything is a "trade secret."

Well that's what we do in courts--determine what is and isn't a correct interpretation of the law. Even if the law is crystal clear, people can and do try to twist around it, and the judge is the one to look at the case and say, "don't do that!"

 

[regre7]

I'd think Apple could argue that the leaks reduced their profits since the usual shock and awe tactic isn't available if product details (or even existence) is leaked. I did a bit of research for a project on corporations, and while I'm nowhere near an expert on corporations, I remember reading that a corporation must maximize its profits, which is usually translated into the highest stock price possible. By not going after the source of the leak, it could be interpreted as not maximizing their profits.

I could be wrong, I tried to find the source for the profit maximization idea but I can't find the page within Wikipedia (and before you ask, yes I searched the page entitled "Corporations")

 

[JoeG4]

Not inventing a new form of technology, just plugging a guitar into a computer....

I agree. Sheesh. 😀

 

[Caiwyn]

In my mind, based on #2, a corporation could say nearly anything is a "trade secret."

You misunderstand. Both criteria #1 and #2 have to be met in order for the information to be a trade secret under the law. Yes, #2 is pretty broad, but when you apply #1, it's not.

Again, EFF (or anyone else) isn't perfect. However, if "zealot" means protecting (as well as proclaiming) my digital rights then I'm a zealot too.

I think it's obvious that's not what I meant. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect digital rights, and most of the time the EFF does have good intentions. But I think I've demonstrated that they're overzealous about their cause to the point of it interfering with their success -- idealism without pragmatism doesn't win a court case, as they have repeatedly shown. In trying to defend PowerPage, they've managed to threaten and coerce the ISP that hosts PowerPage more than Apple ever did. It sounds to me like they're so intent on proving their point that they're willing to contradict their own principles.

So I ask you, if it is counter-intuitive, is the best way to go about protecting your digital rights is to do nothing? Corporations and our own government have destroyed your digital rights. I have called/e-mailed my representatives; I've supported the EFF; I've signed petitions. Sorry, but I'd rather do something than nothing. If it ends in failure and causes legal precident, then so be it.

I've contacted my representatives at times as well about many of these same issues, and signed a petition or two myself. But if you want to donate to an organization that actively works to protect your rights, the ACLU does a much better job of it than the EFF does. There are plenty of options out there. What I am saying is that the EFF misrepresents themselves, their clients, and their cases, to the detriment of the community that supports them.

 

[fixyourthinking]

In any case, if AAPL wants to keep secrets secret, they should just do a better job of it. Wow, this is a real lesson in how to squander goodwill.

O'Grady's intentions have nothing to do with good will or "fandom" or love of journalism ... he posts these "trade secrets", solicits for these "news bits", and coerces others for this information for THE SOLE PURPOSE of artificially raising his hit totals so he can whore the figures in front of advertisers. PERIOD!!!

I would even venture to say that there is malice involved.

 

[jenkij]

Let me throw my 2cents into this.

Now how Apple gets to find out this person is where it gets hazy.

Exactly, but it looks like they are more interested in going after the people that were told the trade secret than the person who told it?

 

[gnasher729]

Can somebody please explain to me just how apple keeps their new products and the release dates of their products a complete secret until the day it is released? I'm sure somebody who works at apple is going to tell someone, like a close friend or family member. Or what about the people who work in the factories in China, they must know???😕

You know, when I started working at the company that I work for now, I signed an employment contract. Not only did I sign it, I actually read it as well. And that employment contract says quite clearly that I am not allowed to divulge to the public any confidential information of my company, or any confidential information of any of our customers or partners. And I am quite sure that if I leaked anything out that was of any importance, they would come after me, I would lose my job, which I would regret very much, it would likely have a negative impact on future employment, and might have expensive legal consequences. Other reasons for keeping my mouth shut is that they pay me good money, and I wouldn't want to cause any damage to the company, and anyway, I would consider it extremely unprofessional and pathetic to give away any company secrets. By the way, I am not employed by Apple Computer.

In the case of Apple, I think what happens before they let you know anything that is secret, will be like this: Your manager talks to you. He says: We have work to do, but it is secret. Are you interested? If you say yes, he will tell you that if you talk about to anyone, you will be fired, crucified, buried alive and eaten by crocodiles, but not necessarily in that order, and he gives you a document to read and sign that says exactly that. Until you sign, and you can demonstrate that you have understood that document, you learn nothing.

 

[TheAnswer]

Mac Mini...

...I think the big "trade secret" that got lost here is that Asteroid, except for the ports, looked exactly like the Mac Mini.

 

[elo]

The EFF is becoming an increasingly useless and hypocritical organization. Let's take a look at the facts:

1. Apple isn't arguing that bloggers aren't journalists. In fact, they are arguing that bloggers and journalists should be held to the same standards.

2. Apple isn't arguing that journalists can't print confidential information. They are arguing that the journalists do not have the right to withhold the identity of their sources when that confidential information constitutes a trade secret.

3. The EFF is just using the same FUD tactics they accuse everyone else of using.

4. Even when the EFF is in the right, they almost always lose, setting dangerous precedents. They clearly don't know how to pick their fights.

Personally, I'm with Apple on this one. Anyone else who withholds information in a court case is charged with obstruction of justice, so what makes journalists so special? The first amendment guarantees journalists the right to print information, not to keep their sources confidential.

Journalists will argue that source confidentiality is necessary to freedom of the press, and that is why many states have "shield laws" for reporters that grants them this privilege. But it seems to me that in cases like this, the very act of giving this information to journalists is a crime, or at the very least a breach of contract that must be resolved by the courts.

Allowing journalists to deny the courts a path to justice when they are participants in the criminal act itself seems to me a dangerous loophole, especially when the journalist profits directly from the exchange of such information.

Very well said. The weight of legal scholarship is strongly against the idea of a reporter's privilege at this point, and for good reason. It hardly chills free speech to require that reporters be held to the same standard as everyone else where they are the only source of evidence critical to a court's adjudication of a case.

Incidentally, most people may not realize that the so-called reporter's privilege is a very new idea. At common law, this was not deemed necessary or desirable.

 

[gwangung]

Journalists will argue that source confidentiality is necessary to freedom of the press, and that is why many states have "shield laws" for reporters that grants them this privilege. But it seems to me that in cases like this, the very act of giving this information to journalists is a crime, or at the very least a breach of contract that must be resolved by the courts.

I think this is a relevant thought. For example, if a reporter published the security codes for a person's home or their bank account number, I don't believe shield laws would apply, because the act of publishing that information constitutes an actionable tort in and of itself.

 

[barstard]

Apple has a right to go after this leak. I know this is an ancient point, but isn't a corporation meant to have the same rights as a citizen? If that is the case, if a person divulged your personal information without your permission, ie Medical info, financial info. to someone who could profit off of it, then you would have a reasonable chance of winning a case, IMO. This is the same. If Apple is doing something illegal, then being a whistleblower should be protected, but not if they were just developing products with no illegal activity.

Sorry for the incomprehensible post!😀

barstard.

 

[California]

It is a clear and simple case, and Apple is in the right.

Property rights trump the right of the so-called "journalist" to free speech.

And in the case of the blogger, his speech wasn't "free". He made money off of it. At Apple's expense. This is about business. And timing.

And as for China, they don't have to leak the secrets. They just rip off Apple's designs and drown the market with cheap counterfeits. Seen the fake Shuffles? Chinese. Probably Chinese who worked at the Apple factory.

Since there is no free speech in China, and there are no property rights, per se, in China -- everything and every company belongs to the State, so the nation of China is actually ripping off Apple. And Disney. And Warner's. And the record companies. And Honda, M. Benz, GM, etc., etc., with their knockoffs of Western intellectual property.

Apple is just going after Think Secret here because they CAN. They can't sue a country, especially a country they like to believe they are doing business with...