Reliable Leaker Known as 'Kang' Hit With Warning From Apple

[ThemePro]

How do we know it's the real Apple that sent these warnings? A leaker getting a warning from Apple is a gift from the gods and Kang called it an achievement. If Prosser claimed it, I would take it with a grain of self-promotion hype salt. If Apple really did sent it, it's just more confirmation that Cook needs to replace their general counsel.

 

[Khedron]

Prosser should be serving 5 years for his MacBook Pro trolling

If a company can threaten ruinous lawsuits because it’s profits might be affected by free speech then democracy is dead.

 

[Wildkraut]

It's just a matter of time till Apple sue MacRumors for distributing leaked infos and images.

 

[Realityck]

I generally like the reliable leakers. But, when I worked for Apple Retail, one of the company standards—not to be violated—more or less said, "If you wouldn't want Steve to see it in the newspaper or on the web tomorrow morning, don't say or share it in anyway today." The leakers sometimes do deceive, though perhaps not by intent. And leaking most certainly can hurt Apple's business. You cannot believe until you've worked in Apple Retail on the sales floor just gullible and uninformed customers can be and with such misguided confidence.

Perhaps the main problem with some of the leaks is that they are dropping hints focused too far into the future of possible products? When you start forecasting with rumors on delays and which year a product will likely appear, you are setting up all those gullible and uninformed customers an incentive not to purchase. Perhaps that is all captured by Apple staff that they pass on up the chain. Some of this is just all Apple's making such as the Apple Silicon models replacing older computers, but phones might be a sensitive issue as it's harder to innovate a very mature product.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Hmm, this is an interesting dilemma. I love rumors, but:

If Kang's leaking inside info the Apple is right to go after him.

If Kang's just guessing and giving his opinion, Apple is NOT RIGHT to go after him.

If Kang's actually leaking info, but hiding behind the "free speech" trope, Kang is a scumbag, like soldiers fighting out of a hospital or a school.

Not sure which is true here, but it all feels slippery.

 

[Abraxsis]

Hmm, this is an interesting dilemma. I love rumors, but:

If Kang's leaking inside info the Apple is right to go after him.

If Kang's just guessing and giving his opinion, Apple is NOT RIGHT to go after him.

If Kang's actually leaking info, but hiding behind the "free speech" trope, Kang is a scumbag, like soldiers fighting out of a hospital or a school.

Not sure which is true here, but it all feels slippery.

If Kang hasn't signed any NDAs he is under no obligation to keep his mouth shut. Maybe, instead, Apple should go after the people who are leaking the information to Kang.

And are you REALLY comparing kang leaking some insider information of people killing sick people and kids? Seriously?

All kang needs to do is preface all his posts with "It's my opinion that ...." and Apple can't touch him, whether it is legit insider information or not. If nothing else, Apple is pulling a Streisand Effect ... by going after these guys legally, they only boost their credibility. Proving that what they are saying is a little too close to the truth.

 

[bluespark]

Except literally none of this matter since my understanding is that Kang and the others noticed are not in the US, so US law does not apply. Not unless they meet minimum contacts test to the US somehow; which I have no idea who these people are but doesn't sound like they have any ties to the US in any way.

So their law could be if you do x the spaghetti monster comes after you. Who knows what their country's laws say.

It's still, as a lawyer myself, underhanded and wrong. Legally correct doesn't put you on the moral high ground. And then preaching about fundamental rights while abusing some peoples'; EVEN IF it is legal to do in their country. Feels very....slimy to do.

Notice how they haven't sent it to US people as far as has been reported, because they would likely be considered the press here and protected rebroadcasting the information.

It matters in the sense that some here (including the post to which I responded) stated that Apple has no legal recourse if there was no contract between Apple and Kang. The purpose of my post was to correct that misapprehension.

To your jurisdictional point, look at those cases addressing specific jurisdiction where "published" content caused injury within a U.S. jurisdiction, and also consider the possibility that any alleged illegality involved the use of confidential information generated, stored, and/or copied/stolen here, even if that information also existed elsewhere. This could get quite fact-specific, but it's not at all a stretch to imagine relevant scenarios involving the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a U.S. court. Apple also could proceed in a non-U.S. jurisdiction and then rely on international treaties for enforcement. That's pretty common in international business litigation.

 

[medazinol]

Not sure how reaching Apples lawyers can be here? If the leaker isn’t employed by Apple, isn’t selling the information, isn’t gaining earnings from it. Then surely they have no legal right to block them from leaking the information? Surely the law applies to the leakers sources or whoever is under a contract or NDA with Apple?

Remember Nick dePlume at ThinkSecret? Apple shut them down for leaking stuff

 

[dlondon]

They only benefit from the positive "leaks" and those that don't actually reveal mysterious products that have yet to be released.

How did Apple benefit when last year 120 Hz was denied to exist? There were obviously people who were waiting for it so they just went with Android that had this feature.

I don’t think Apple loses that much business because people are unhappy that speculated or expected features are missing from their latest products.

 

[I7guy]

People should be allowed to "speculate" all they want based on "whatever evidence they have at hand" without corporate Men in Black trying to zap articles with their neuralyzer.

Speculation is fine. Corporate espionage isn't. Which one "Kang" was engaging in, likely we won't know...

 

[jlc1978]

If Kang hasn't signed any NDAs he is under no obligation to keep his mouth shut. Maybe, instead, Apple should go after the people who are leaking the information to Kang.

All kang needs to do is preface all his posts with "It's my opinion that ...." and Apple can't touch him, whether it is legit insider information or not. If nothing else, Apple is pulling a Streisand Effect ... by going after these guys legally, they only boost their credibility. Proving that what they are saying is a little too close to the truth.

I am not sure why people think Apple has no recourse against leakers. Publishing something is not a get out of jail free card; you are still liable for actions that can result in civil or criminal charges.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Key word is Congress, something Apple is not quite yet.

It matters in the sense that some here (including the post to which I responded) stated that Apple has no legal recourse if there was no contract between Apple and Kang. The purpose of my post was to correct that misapprehension.

Thank you.

To your jurisdictional point, look at those cases addressing specific jurisdiction where "published" content caused injury within a U.S. jurisdiction, and also consider the possibility that any alleged illegality involved the use of confidential information generated, stored, and/or copied/stolen here, even if that information also existed elsewhere. This could get quite fact-specific, but it's not at all a stretch to imagine relevant scenarios involving the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a U.S. court. Apple also could proceed in a non-U.S. jurisdiction and then rely on international treaties for enforcement. That's pretty common in international business litigation.

Good points. I'm not sure why people seem to think that just because someone is not a US Citizen/resident/in US that they can't be hauled to court in the US or elsewhere by a US Company. It may not be easy, and we can argue the merits of such extra-territorial enforcement, but it is not impossible.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

If Kang hasn't signed any NDAs he is under no obligation to keep his mouth shut. Maybe, instead, Apple should go after the people who are leaking the information to Kang.

Nope. He may (I made no assertion, just speculated) actively be initiating the revelation of sensitive docs.

And are you REALLY comparing kang leaking some insider information of people killing sick people and kids? Seriously?

No.

All kang needs to do is preface all his posts with "It's my opinion that ...." and Apple can't touch him, whether it is legit insider information or not. If nothing else, Apple is pulling a Streisand Effect ... by going after these guys legally, they only boost their credibility. Proving that what they are saying is a little too close to the truth.

Sounds like you're one of those people that think that just because they verbalize an "opinion" that they're not to be held responsible for their impact.

Got it.

 

[Absolute Trainwreck]

Only 2 things I got out of this are:
- Apple has no idea how laws surrounding this work because he’s under no obligation to keep his mouth shut having signed 0 NDAs. Or maybe they know and are just trying cheap scare tactics
- now I know which leakers are the most effective and accurate. Thanks apple!

 

[I7guy]

Only things I got out of this is:
- Apple has no idea how laws surrounding this work because he’s under no obligation to keep his mouth shut having signed 0 NDAs. Or maybe they know and are just trying cheap scare tactics
- now I know which leakers are the most effective and accurate. Thanks apple!

Do you really believe what you wrote?

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Except for "...obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech".

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Flight Plan]

It’s the leaking that generate hypes which generates hysteria which generates sales

This is more true than you know!

This would be Apple's only legal standing to issue cease and desist memos in this case though


They have no legal foot hold if they have no previous contractual obligations with these individuals.

Right, but SOP is for the lawyers to notice (threaten) everybody.

Or he's just scared of being bullied in court by one of the richest companies on earth.

Walmart does that to a lot of people every year. If you ever check out in the self checkout, you could get a letter with a law firm's name on the letterhead, saying you were caught on camera shoplifting at Walmart. In one story I read, the law firm demanded $250 up front...or be dragged into court.

It's Walmart! So of course a lot of people sent in their $250.

I’ve been telling you guys… Apple is not playing games anymore! It’s game over for the leakers.

Kang some advice for you… change your title to become an Analyst or some rich investor…

You’ll get away with a lot… 🤫 Cash is King... Money rules the world.

No, having money will make you MORE of a target. It may be that nothing short of a pronoun change will be required to atone for this type of sin (even if there's no evidence to support the accusation).

Could it happen? I think we just wait and see.

 

[macrumorsuser10]

This case is dead in the water in America. First amendment protections apply since he isn’t an Apple employee. Apple is just being a bully.

This statement is completely wrong. The First Amendment only applies to the government blocking free speech.

 

[Northgrove]

I may be biased, but this doesn't quite sit right with me.

Apple ought to have at least his identity first rather than just sending out "we don't like what you post so stop, it's supposed to be a surprise for later". Also - infringement? Sketchy oneliners on Twitter? Seriously? I can see it with leaking entire pages of documentation but come on.

 

[duervo]

Or he's just scared of being bullied in court by one of the richest companies on earth.

meh … if it ever got to that point, I’m sure at least one lawyer will jump at representing them for free. Taking this at purely face value, there’s more than one reason to do so.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Is this the end of rumors?

Rumor has it.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Only 2 things I got out of this are:
- Apple has no idea how laws surrounding this work because he’s under no obligation to keep his mouth shut having signed 0 NDAs. Or maybe they know and are just trying cheap scare tactics
- now I know which leakers are the most effective and accurate. Thanks apple!

If Kang came into possession of information illegally obtained (by him directly or from other) he can face legal repercussions for disseminating the information. The fact that he has never signed a NDA with Apple means nothing.

 

[EugW]

meh … if it ever got to that point, I’m sure at least one lawyer will jump at representing them for free.

You make it sound like going to court against one of the richest companies on earth wouldn't be so bad if he got free representation.

 

[davpel24]

If Kang came into possession of information illegally obtained (by him directly or from other) he can face legal repercussions for disseminating the information. The fact that he has never signed a NDA with Apple means nothing.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong with respect to information he simply got from someone else, regardless of how that other party obtained the information. It is neither illegal nor would it subject Kang to a viable civil lawsuit for reporting on information obtained from sources. Period.

 

[edvj]

 

[jlc1978]

Except for "...obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech".

I guess a purist would argue you still have the right to speak in those cases, just choosing to do so will result in consequences; unless the government attempts prior restraint. Prior restraint, IMHO, is what is key in the government's restricting speech.

Walmart does that to a lot of people every year. If you ever check out in the self checkout, you could get a letter with a law firm's name on the letterhead, saying you were caught on camera shoplifting at Walmart. In one story I read, the law firm demanded $250 up front...or be dragged into court.

It's Walmart! So of course a lot of people sent in their $250.

Cite? All I can find is people who shoplifted getting a demand letter.

meh … if it ever got to that point, I’m sure at least one lawyer will jump at representing them for free. Taking this at purely face value, there’s more than one reason to do so.

I bet a lawyer would like to know all the facts before jumping in; especially since, depending on the facts, could get complicated.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong with respect to information he simply got from someone else, regardless of how that other party obtained the information. It is neither illegal nor would it subject Kang to a viable civil lawsuit for reporting on information obtained from sources. Period.

Look up "Tortious interference". I am not saying that is what he has done but you can be subject to a "viable civil lawsuit for reporting on information obtained from sources."