tomokun said:
I know...all the macs today have the same number of FireWire ports as the Macs in 2004.
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 Loses in Asteroid Lawsuit Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know...all the macs today have the same number of FireWire ports as the Macs in 2004.
CHROMEDOME said:I know...all the macs today have the same number of FireWire ports as the Macs in 2004.
With the laptop line it's actually farther back then that, from the day FireWire first started. ~2000 (FW ibook) thing is that every says that since the AL had both 400/800 ports while the MBP has only 1 of either.
Perhaps cornfedgrowth has already answered you, but I'd consider the person from the Pentagon legally responsible and I wouldn't be clear about whether the reporter was guilty of a crime. The reporter might be immoral or irresponsible to publish the information, but that's not the same thing as legal responsibility. In the case of national security, I assume there are additonal laws involved, and also that the reporter would be much more likely to know from the start that the leaker was in violation of the law.Dr.Gargoyle said:
In addition to comparing this case to a national security leak, we might compare it to someone giving me a stolen Mac as birthday present. If I don't know it's stolen, am I guilty of receiving stolen property? If I give it to someone else, am I further implicated in a crime? What if I sell it and give the money to the gift-giver? What if I suspected it was stolen? What if I obviously should have known it was stolen but claim I had no inkling?
Somewhere between these extremes lie the nuances the courts had to decide in this case, balancing protection of business information with free press issues. Perhaps it was decided on specific technicalities. Or it may have come down to who knew what when.
First Amendment was a brilliant idea on how to protect the democracy. The present case is not about protecting democracy, it is about a business trying to keep its intellectual property secret. There is nothing sinister or illegal about Apples wish to keep their property secret. Businesses must be allowed to protect their intellectual property. Just consider if someone gave up the source code of windows (ok, ok, ok - bad examplebluebomberman said:
), the formular of a drug, or a specific production method. A third party receives the information and make it a public information. Should this be legal? Wouldn't just the possiblity that it could be legal decrease the incentive to invest in research? In what way would this benefit society? In what way does protecting the informant and the receiver benefit society? The intention of the First Amendment was never to protect intellectual theft. It was written to protect society. The interpretation of the First Amendment in the ruling is not protecting the society, but rather a threat to the very fundament of the society. The ability to form a binding agrement is crucial in more or less all areas of human interactions. If we corrupt contract law, we corrupt the very core of society.Again, a NDA is a contract. Contracts are legally binding. Aiding criminal actions are illegal, hence pubishing this information on the web or in a journal should also be considered as illegal. If we choose to void this contract, what prevent us from ignoring other contracts?
* sorry about the rant...it is very late here almost 4 am*
Doctor Q said:
If I gave you Mona Lisa for your birthday, don't you think you should be able to realize that it wasn't mine to give away? Since I seriously doubt that Thinksecret's informer is Steve Jobs (It would elevate the RDF to a new level
), Thinksecret should know that the information they received was illegally acquired. They should realize the information they received was a result of an illegal activity. Hence it is illegal. Any successful attempt to hide behind the First Amendment diminishes the value of the constitution.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
a) Reporters don't sign NDAs.
b) Free speech is constitutionally protected. NDAs are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
c) Apple's Asteriod is not a case of national security.
I believe the First Amendment doesn't technically apply to ALL forms to free speech (it refers specifically to restriction of free speech and freedom of the press by Congress), but it has grown to encompass all branches of government and is a hallmark of American civil society.
Again, I must emphasize that the bar for compelling journalists (at least, until recently) to reveal sources is pretty darn high. The Valerie Plame case is the exception, not the rule.
This legal analysis should not be constituted as actual legal advice from a trained member of the American Bar Association, but rather just some dude who received a grade of B from his Constitutional Law class.
Apple clearly has recourse against people who signed an NDA and then broke the agreement. But this is about sites who received info FROM the NDA-breakers. Unless it can be shown that these sites offered incentives to make people break their NDAs, then I don't see what basis Apple would have for action against them.
It doesn't seem like anyone from ThinkSecret et al was bribing people to break NDAs, so Apple SHOULD lose this. And get back to pursuing its own NDAs.
It doesn't seem like anyone from ThinkSecret et al was bribing people to break NDAs, so Apple SHOULD lose this. And get back to pursuing its own NDAs.
Dr.Gargoyle said:First Amendment was a brilliant idea on how to protect the democracy. The present case is not about protecting democracy, it is about a business trying to keep its intellectual property secret. There is nothing sinister or illegal about Apples wish to keep their property secret. Businesses must be allowed to protect their intellectual property. Just consider if someone gave up the source code of windows (ok, ok, ok - bad example
Again, a NDA is a contract. Contracts are legally binding. Aiding criminal actions are illegal, hence pubishing this information on the web or in a journal should also be considered as illegal. If we choose to void this contract, what prevent us from ignoring other contracts?
* sorry about the rant...it is very late here almost 4 am*
Excuse me - could you show me the NDA contracts that PowerPage.org, AppleInsider.com and ThinkSecret.com signed with Apple? No? That's right - that's because they didn't. The issue isn't whether NDA contracts are legal/lawful/whatever - the issue is - none of those sites signed any contracts with Apple, thus have no "NDA" obligations with Apple.
The other issue - should the sites be forced to reveal their sources? I'd say "no", but that's my opinion.
inkswamp said:
I love Apple's products, but they really pissed me off with this lawsuit which was wrongheaded from the start. This is a bad day for Apple, but a great day for basic freedoms. I'll support Apple as long as they continue making great products, but they can take a flying leap with this lawsuit. I'm thrilled that they lost.
I don't know if Apple even intended to win. But they sure did scare the hell out of the leakers. Which means that the case wasn't pointless.
Ha-ha, Apple. Too bad for you.
Actually, too bad for us. If Apple didn't choose to fight these stupid lawsuits, they could lower the price of all their Macs by $100 each.
Actually, too bad for us. If Apple didn't choose to fight these stupid lawsuits, they could lower the price of all their Macs by $100 each.
How exactly? Would people be less likely to buy Apple products if they heard about them a month before they were released? Most companies do preview products before they are released after all, some months and years before they're released.ariza910 said:
Apple's culture of announcing products as they do is fun and makes for a cool culture of rumor sites, but I'm hard pressed to imagine how the Asteroid product was in anyway negatively impacted by the leak. Its not like hundreds of 3rd party products came to the market to replace it.
No, the Asteroid leak and subsequent cancellation and lawsuit was all about Steve's bruised ego and subsequent throwing of toys out of the pram.
Rumor sites like MR and ThinkSecret do a lot to feed the Apple geek community. What other company has such devotion amongst its customers, that they hang off of every rumor? Rumors and leaks like this feed the devotion, not hurt it, Apple should realise this and hold back on the lawyers.
Sun Baked said:
If they can't prove their case in civil court, I would imagine they don't have a prayer in criminal court. Rules are much looser regarding evidence, reasonable doubt in civil court than in criminal court.
Good.
Lawsuits that make your company look like they are picking on the little guy (Even if it is true or not.) is never a "good thing".
pizzach said:
Lawsuits that make your company look like they are picking on the little guy (Even if it is true or not.) is never a "good thing".
I agree. In the late 19th century, the local papers in a lot of cities were one man shows and some of them now employ a lot more people. Just because the material does not go through a printing press should not make anybody any less of a journalist.bluebomberman said:
pizzach said:
Well, then short of loaning early Macs to Microsoft, that was the single dumbest strategic move Apple has ever made. Once it's been settled legally that sites cannot be held liable for information passed on by those breaking NDAs, there will be absolutely nothing to fear. I can think of nothing that would embolden rumors sites more completely than the knowledge that they are legally in the right in doing so. And that was brought about by Apple themselves.
I suspect that whoever at Apple dreamed up this brilliant move will be promptly "steved."
From the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which almost every state has passed into law in some form:dwighteb said:
Emphasis mine.
I think Apple shot themselves in the foot when they didn't investigate internally as much as they could have, and by not disclosing specifically what they had and hadn't done in order to find the leak. (You can find that in the decision, which everyone should read at least part of before posting)
If someone passes on info to a rumors site, it hardly constitutes 'illegal' activity. It may be a breach of a contractual agreement between Apple and an employee, but that is NO concern of the rumors site, nor should it be.
Macrumors, for example, is NOT contracted to do anything for Apple.
Apple is a commercial enterprise whose SOLE purpose is to make profit from customers. If the employees arent playing fair then Apple needs to sort that out in-house, as many others have said already.
Trade secrets? A bloody firewire box? Wow.
This was always about Stevie boy getting angry over sweet FA.
I say grow up Steve, and remember that the rumor sites are a big chunk of FREE advertising, and are frequented by the loyal Apple fans who buy the products. Why should you care if we get info on Apple products?
Talk about a storm in a teacup.......do the rumor sites get their costs awarded against Apple? They should.
Macrumors, for example, is NOT contracted to do anything for Apple.
Apple is a commercial enterprise whose SOLE purpose is to make profit from customers. If the employees arent playing fair then Apple needs to sort that out in-house, as many others have said already.
Trade secrets? A bloody firewire box? Wow.
This was always about Stevie boy getting angry over sweet FA.
I say grow up Steve, and remember that the rumor sites are a big chunk of FREE advertising, and are frequented by the loyal Apple fans who buy the products. Why should you care if we get info on Apple products?
Talk about a storm in a teacup.......do the rumor sites get their costs awarded against Apple? They should.
"Hopefully Apple will have the case filed in criminal court, should make everyone happy -- and put to rest whether or not the material was a trade secret."
Forget it.
There is no crime. No-one has stolen a trade secret - they have merely reported the possible existence of a new product.
No-one has published diagrams or code or schematics of any kind.
I state right now that Apple will bring out a 8 or 10 gig nano within 12 months.
Sosumi.
Forget it.
There is no crime. No-one has stolen a trade secret - they have merely reported the possible existence of a new product.
No-one has published diagrams or code or schematics of any kind.
I state right now that Apple will bring out a 8 or 10 gig nano within 12 months.
Sosumi.
I'm glad to hear that Apple lost this case. The case was not about protection of trade secrets, it was about forcing journalists to reveal their sources. The press isn't free if they have to fear reprisal for publishing things, even controversial things. Whoever leaked the information may have broken a contract, but the rumor sites (whom I consider legitimate journalists) did nothing illegal at all, and should be allowed to maintain the secrecy of their sources. This is important in a broader context than just Apple's plans. It sets a precedent for bloggers as real journalists.
Is it a coincidence that this case should be decided, and shortly thereafter it's revealed that Apple is working on a new Mac for education -- and on AppleInsider, no less (one of the defendants)? Maybe this will inject some new life into Apple rumor sites.
tomokun said:
why are they killing it off? what a bad move.
the ipod moved away because it doesn't need firewire.
firewire is needed for video stuff - usb is awful for that and hardly any devices support that for that reason.
'pro' hard drives need firewire for decent transfer rates, and i don't see their market dying.