Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Businesses Government Apple News

Apple Ordered to Pay Blogger Legal Fees 161

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the bruising-the-bottom-line dept.
inetsee writes "Apple has been ordered to pay legal fees for two web sites that reported on an in-development Apple project code named 'Asteroid'. According to the article on WebProNews, Apple was ordered by a Santa Clara County court to pay almost $700,000 in legal reimbursement to AppleInsider and PowerPage after the court agreed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation legal team that the web sites 'qualified as legitimate online news sites' engaging in trade journalism. Apple had claimed that it had a right to protect its trade secrets, but the EFF successfully argued that 'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Ordered to Pay Blogger Legal Fees

Comments Filter:
  • More of This, please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:10PM (#17830932) Homepage
    I lament the fact that acquiring justice, or clearing your name from a SLAPP, requires so much money. I think that there should be punitive damages in addition to legal fees when companies go after individuals in this way.
    • by AlHunt (982887) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:49PM (#17831408) Homepage Journal

      I lament the fact that acquiring justice, or clearing your name from a SLAPP, requires so much money.
      As usual, the lawyers win. Class Actions are what always scald my ass. The consumers get a free CD and the lawyers collect $2.5M in legal fees.
      • by damsa (840364) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @04:47PM (#17833602)
        The lawyers in this case are the EFF which I believe is a non profit.
      • by caitsith01 (606117) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @06:45PM (#17835452) Journal
        IAAL. If you don't like it, you have a few options other than bitching about lawyers:
        1. educate yourself about the law and represent yourself if you think it's such a low-value service
        2. act politically to get the laws simplified
        3. act politically to develop mechanisms to resolve disputes in a non-litigious manner
        4. act politically to get the state to provide substantially more assistance for litigants who aren't wealthy
        5. go back to stabbing each other with pointed sticks to resolve disputes (this might be quite effective for class actions)
        6. modify human behaviour so that people no longer fight with each other

        Note that if you consider these options unfeasible, 1 is caused by your own lack of ability, time or skill, 2, 3 and 4 are political problems which are in your own hands as much as they're in anyone's, and 5 and 6 are wired into us by evolution (or God/magical pixies if you're from the bible belt).

        Otherwise perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence. Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.

        In my view there is a tendency to regard lawyers as a rip-off simply because of the nature of the service, fighting it out to establish one's rights in circumstances which are frequently viewed as unfair or unnecessary, rather than the much more palatable "help me doctor, I'm sick/dying" or "help me, engineer, I need to build X".

        The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.
        • Exactly. It's not as though the consumers did any work. At best, they found a form to fill out so that they could be contacted by a lawyer when a settlement is reached, and then they went right back to watching TV. And who's paying the bills before the settlement is reached? The lawyers carry the case out of pocket...because it's not like the affected consumers are willing to put down a deposit.

          A substantial amount of legal fees goes to actual costs--do you know how much it costs to ship overnight 4 boxe
        • by BootNinja (743040)
          I don't know about anybody else, but I tend to think that doctors are overpaid too.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AlHunt (982887)

            I don't know about anybody else, but I tend to think that doctors are overpaid too.
            $175.00 for a "first time", 20 minute visit to the doctors office. $100, thereafter.
            Essentially, $300/hr to see a PA.

            The $75?
            It's for "seting up a new patient". A handful of papers (most of which *I* filled out) and a file folder, for $75. Gimme a break ...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AlHunt (982887)
          Interesting that you take such exception to my comment. I could run a tally of outrageous fees charged by your profession, but I'll simply refer you to overlawyered.com [overlawyered.com] where they do a great job.

          I might also suggest we return to the Roman system where advocates couldn't charge fees but could only receive gifts after the fact. Until Claudius came along and screwed things up. Or a "loser pays" system would certainly free up the courts.

          I don't dislike lawyers. Had dinner with a lawyer last week, in fact.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bataras (169548)
          >> perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence.

          please. so is engineering. yet engineers don't charge their clients 300$/hr. Yeah, maybe an engineer at IBM is billed out to other large corps at near that much. But an individual engineer working face to face with an individual client damn sure doesn't ask 300$/hr. Yet I've sat personally with lawyers and been t
        • by syousef (465911)
          Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.

          With the exception of the medical profession which acts equally reprehensibly, you're talking about groups that make money by charging large sums of money to large entities (companies). Meanwhile you're advocating lawyers being allowed to profiteer from individuals who don't have those kinds of resources. Your problem is you couldn't care less whether you
          • With your attitude I'd never hire you and if I did by accident hire you I'd sack you the first time you treated me with contempt. Your implication that anyone who requires your help is somehow at fault is just plain reprehensible. You work in a profession that encourages this sort of behaviour. There are good lawyers and doctors around, but it's despite their professions not as a result of them.

            Way to completely miss my point. My point was not that it's the client's 'fault' that they need a lawyer (although you will find that, for some mysterious reason, in about half the cases that go to trial this turns out to be the case...). My point was that there is an underlying suggestion that lawyers somehow generate work out of thin air in order to rob the unsuspecting townsfolk, and it is simply not true. Or, to put it another way, I was trying to suggest that if you really want to avoid lawyers, th

    • I think that there should be punitive damages in addition to legal fees when companies go after individuals in this way.

      How about the reverse? What if an individual goes after a corporation and loses? Should they then have to foot the bill for the corporation's expenses AND get punitive damages assessed?

      I don't think I like the ramifications of that. "Hey, Joe Sixpack - you can sue us for crippling your wife, but you know what? We've got hundreds of lawyers on our side and deep pockets. Odds are you're fuc
    • In California, there is a trade secrets law [findlaw.com], which some Apple employee under NDA obviously violated for these Web sites to find out. Apparently your idea of justice allows a reporter to willfully assist in breaking this law, with impunity. I realize that /. seems to think that there should be no patent or copyright, but not even trade secrets? This from the tinfoil hat types who don't want the government listening in on their conversations and tracking their phone calls and library books? I guess privacy an
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gordgekko (574109)

        As an AAPL [google.com] stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.
        It's good to know you value freedom of speech as cheaply as Apple's stock price.
      • Who has to answer for breaking a NDA is the person that did so, not the person reporting the disclosure, they did not sign anithing with Apple.

        I know that your clearly unbiased point of view is making your blood boil, but frankly we can afford that in the interest of allowing free dissemination of important information by whistle blowers.
    • A writer I work with had a situation along these lines with a subpoena from the city of Chicago regarding alleged police brutality we reported on [viewfromtheground.com].

      The good news is that we won, and that, combined with this decision and a few others, there is starting to be some good precedent for shielding online journalism from gratuitous subpoenas -- specifically, the decision in this case (which came down while our subpoena battle was still raging, but wasn't applicable because of jurisdiction), says that a person who

    • by Lars T. (470328)
      If you read the original article [macnn.com] (or just about any other article about this) instead of just the summary of an rehash, you'ld know that:

      The EFF asked the court for a multiplier (a.k.a, "loadstar") of the actual legal fees to compensate for the double contingent risk presented, i.e., both the risk of not prevailing in the defense of the subpoenas and the risk of succeeding, but without the circumstances necessary to obtain legal fees. At the low-end of traditional multipliers, which can range from 2-4 under

  • by popo (107611) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:13PM (#17830980) Homepage
    Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

    This isn't flamebait... (I love my Mac) its an observation that IMHO
    over the past year Apple seems to have been far more agressive at implementing
    "control" measures through legal means -- not as bad as MSFT, but a far cry f
    rom the "We want everyone to love us" attitude of the past.

    My question is: what changed? And is this the Apple of the future? Or
    is this a result of some shift in management attitudes. (Or a case of
    money and power corrupt, no matter who you are?)

    • by Thansal (999464) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:18PM (#17831040)
      Actualy these types of things have been around for ages with Apple. They are VERY trigger happy when it comes to protecting their secrets. The only big difference is that as they gain more market/mind share (and as the internet grows), the chance of some one managing to reveal Apple's secrets, and so we see more instances of Apple doing 'evil' things.
      • Is this the same Apple that had cabinet covers closed with velcro strips? The biggest problem in getting into an Apple ][ was removing the TV set that sat on top.

        The fact that there weren't any Apple ][ clones was due more to the big diversity in personal computer models at the time than any trade secret. If you wanted to build a computer in those days, it was easier to put together an S-100 machine than to try cloning an Apple. But every detail about the Apple, from the ROM listings to the video chroma wav

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jerry Coffin (824726)

          The fact that there weren't any Apple ][ clones was due more to the big diversity in personal computer models at the time than any trade secret.

          Please see the site exclusively devoted to Apple II clones [apple2clones.com]. Virtually all of these (a couple hundred or so) were put out of business by Apple suing them.

          Don't get me wrong: I think in most of these cases, Apple had a perfect right to sue. Many of these didn't even make an attempt at being legal or legitimate at all, just using outright copies of the Apple I

          • by idontgno (624372)

            and (IIRC) Tandy's GUI system (sorry, I don't remember its name).

            Deskmate [wikipedia.org]. I've only used version 3.something, so I don't recall any UI changes (driven by Apple or anyone). On the other hand, knowing what I know of Apple's history of zealously protecting whatever it percieves as its IP, it seems plausible. I'm just too lazy to look up your claim.

    • by oohshiny (998054) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:27PM (#17831138)
      Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy

      Apple makes nice products, but the notion that they are "the good guy" is a fiction created by their marketing.

      For example, in the 80's, they legally threatened many people over GUIs and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI. They have done more for establishing DRM than Microsoft. They keep ripping off ideas from other companies and open source, and they don't give a damn about stepping on other people's trademarks or open source project names.

      Overall, Apple's record is decidedly mixed.

      My question is: what changed?

      Only your perception, really.

      If anything, Apple has actually become significantly nicer over the last couple of decades, and their products have improved as well.
      • by mattkime (8466)
        >>and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI

        Can you back that one up? Its new to me.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by oohshiny (998054)
          In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by idontgno (624372)
            And let us not forget that bastardized 25-pin "not nearly enough grounding" pseudo SCSI connector standard they championed. Meh.
          • by Lars T. (470328)

            In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context.

            IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.

            Unlike others, they did not ship SCSI cards where only one channel worked together with scanners.

    • by fistfullast33l (819270) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:28PM (#17831156) Homepage Journal
      Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

      Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's. Try finding a non-Apple printer for a Mac before 1990 - doesn't exist. Apple has always protected their financials (see: iPhone and Verizon deal) and their IP/Technology. It's not a bad thing, it's just how they've always done business. You could argue that the reason the PC gained such a market share over Apple is because IBM didn't engage in litigation as much and allowed the third party market to flourish. Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.
      • by Laur (673497)

        Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.
        Even more ironic, now Macs are PCs.
      • by Afecks (899057)
        It's not a bad thing

        Frivolous lawsuits aren't a bad thing?
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.

        I think this is the first time I've seen "loose" be used correctly on slashdot! Congratulations!
      • Maybe Apple can represent the next Good Guy Doll(TM).

        "Hi my name is Chucky and i'm your friend to the end...Howdy HO! HA HA HA HA HA"
      • They never licensed their technology to outside companies,
        They did briefly license Mac technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Offic ial_Macintosh_clone_program [wikipedia.org]
        Once the licensees started to become successful, Apple cut the rug out from under them.
      • by Lars T. (470328)

        Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

        Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's.

        Bullshit. They licensed their technologies at their conditions - it's non of your business if few were willing to meet those conditions (like Apple also make money on the deal). Care to back up your other claims?

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:28PM (#17831158) Homepage Journal

      They've never been "the good guy". They've gone through periods of being "the innovative guy" without doing too much evil for people to dislike them, but they're also the pioneers of the "look and feel" lawsuits that caused immense damage in the 1980s, and, especially concerning the Macintosh, have always had an absurdly controlling and proprietary attitude towards it. Even their attempts at open source have either been forced (Objective C was originally closed, and NeXT were forced to open it by the FSF, likewise WebKit et al are open because they're required to be by licensing), or with legal catches and a less than forthright approach (such as Darwin, and the evil APSL.)

      They're the (mythical) Mussolini of the computer world, revered by many for making the trains run on time, but with a slap of dictatorial control most of us steer away from.

      Apple's strength is its ability to package together interesting new products that inspire much of the industry. That's it. It's not a charity, indeed it makes IBM look warm and cuddly.

      • by gentlemen_loser (817960) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @08:10PM (#17836618) Homepage
        First off, in business, there are very rarely "good guys" and "bad guys". In that sense, I agree with you that Apple has never been the "good guy". There are companies that go about achieving their end goal (making profit) ethically, and those that do not. I would very strongly put Microsoft in the latter category and Apple somewhere in the middle.

        I do not think that the APSL, or Darwin for that matter, is evil. It is simply structured to protect Apple's revenue generating interests. As a case in point, I would firmly place Redhat as one of the "good guys" - to use that terminology. They regularly contribute to the community and in some respects, were instrumental in getting Linux accepted into the Enterprise. However, the GPL is a two edged sword. Now you have a company like Oracle (whom I can not stand), offering Linux support for 1/2 the price. Their contributions to the community are completely non-existent, but because of the GPL wording, it is entirely possible that they put Redhat out of business. In the end, this ultimately hurts everyone, with the exception of Oracle's shareholders. I firmly believe that should they ever start offering support for mySQL we'll see another great company go under.

        All parties being discussed: 1) Oracle, 2) Redhat, 3) mySQL, and 4) Apple are (for the most part - I will not start a debate on iTunes and DRM here) operating within their legal bounds. However, the APSL protect's Apple's hard work while the GPL allows an asshole company like Oracle to sweep in and destroy other companies by taking complete advantage of their work. My ultimate point is that one can not attack a company for operating within the bounds of law. Either the law, or the license agreements, need to change.

        The immediate solution to the Oracle problem is to append: "If you are Oracle Corporation, or any wholly or partially owned subsidiary, or affiliated with Oracle Corporation in any manner, you are hereby restricted from distributing or providing support for the product released under this GPL."

        And then we can adjust it from there to dissuade anyone else from engaging in similar practices :)
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:31PM (#17831176)
      The truth is that I don't think they ever were the "good guy." I think that's just an image they successfully cultivated. It's unfair that they've been held up this way all these years, while MS got kicked in the head as the "bad guy."

      And before I get modded down or flamed, yes, MS has done a lot of bad stuff, no doubt. But, as a person, Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that.

      -Eric

      • by sacrilicious (316896) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @04:26PM (#17833194) Homepage
        Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that.

        There are numerous ways to skin the related math. Comparing myself to Bill Gates, Gates wins hands down in terms of total amount donated, or percentage of holdings donated. On the other hand, I slaughter him with regard to scarcity of personal holdings remaining after all donations.

        There's humor in my point above, but seriousness too. Bill Gates has not had to live without anything purchasable that he's wanted, whereas I've had to live without quite a lot of things that by varying degrees are "essential". Doesn't make me a better person than Gates, but conversely his pain-free, involved-as-he-wants-to-be actions don't make him a better person than me.

        This line of thought applies when comparing Gates to other execs as well. How many of these execs have as much money as Gates to start with? How much did they have left when their donations were tallied up? How much in excess of some arbitrary standard of living/possessing did those amounts clock in at? All these questions are fundamentally aimed at discerning how much was really "given" in a way that cost the giver something, vs simply rearranged. If a corporate exec donates a billion dollars and keeps ten million for a lengthy retirement, how does that compare to a starving child who gives away a piece of bread and dies as a consequence? Who gets more "good guy" karma points?

      • This reveals a significant lack of knowledge of history. It seems to be more the rule than the exception for US tycoons to give away their money when they die, trying to purchase a good image for posterity. A simple example is The Rockefeller Foundation [rockfound.org].

        From my point of view, Gates has his fortune from various forms of market manipulation to force people and institutions to pay his company - in other words, a form of theft. He has been stealing from hospitals, from charity institutions, from schools, a

      • by Lars T. (470328)

        But, as a person, Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that.

        In German we have a saying: "Do good and talk about it". Al Capone also knew about it, he financed a soup kitchen. I'm not going into all the odd dealings of the BMGF, but there seem to be far more than for other charitable organisations. Like giving away MS products, or investing in companies that are the cause of the problems of the people they are charitable to.

    • Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

      This isn't flamebait... (I love my Mac) its an observation that IMHO
      over the past year Apple seems to have been far more agressive at implementing
      "control" measures through legal means -- not as bad as MSFT, but a far cry f
      rom the "We want everyone to love us" attitude of the past.

      My question is: what changed? And is this the Apple of the future? Or
      is this a result of some shift in management attitudes. (Or a case of
      money and power corrupt
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ryan Amos (16972)
      What changed?

      Apple became profitable and successful, and thus a target. Much of their marketing strategy relies on secrecy and misdirection; it makes sense if you're developing new products that are unique in design, you don't want your competitors ripping off your hard-worked design before your product has a chance to establish itself as a "brand-name." Nobody would have cared back in the pre-iMac days, but Apple is a trendsetter now, so competitors watch them closely.
    • by LKM (227954)
      Apple is doing lots of crappy things (like forcing DRM on every iTunes download even when the rights holders don't require it), but in this case, I don't really get all the brouhaha. An employee of Apple leaked their trade secrets. Apple tried to figure out who it was and sued some rumor sites (btw, they aren't blogs). They lost, but I think they had a fair chance of winning, and it was their right to try it. What exactly is "evil" here?
    • I *used* to be an Apple fanboi... less and less lately :(

      See http://anonymouslemming.blogspot.com/2007/01/alway s-eviltm.html [blogspot.com] for my latest discovery about Apple...
  • Hallelujah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816)

    I realize that this comment isn't going to win me any friends in Apple-land, but it's good for everyone (Except maybe Apple shareholders) if Apple's wrongdoings and attempts to intimidate news outlets into not carrying the news are exposed to a wider audience. A lot of people out there (including many slashbots) see Apple as the Brave Crusader out to kill the Microsoft dragon, but this view could not be farther from the truth. In reality, Apple is just another corporation, really not significantly better o

  • whoo eff (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:14PM (#17830992) Homepage
    this is why I support them. /me proudly wears my eff hat....
    • this is why I support them. /me proudly wears my eff hat....

      Did you get yours? I'm still waiting for mine from last time I donated. I even set them an e-mail asking where it was, which they curteously ignored...
  • I was once attacked by a big company... We settled quickly, and my legal expenses were about $6K. I suppose, it could've become 10 times that, if it lasted longer, but $700K?..

    • If there were actual facts Apple could have cited which gave them reason to make a valid legal claim, like public libelous statements, or statements made to affect Apple's share price or something similar, the litigation costs would be many millions minimum.

      The way it is set up these days, even a small court case can wind up generating $25k-50k per month in billings to your firm, before you ever get anywhere near court, and then the fees go dramatically up during trial.
      • by mi (197448)

        The way it is set up these days, even a small court case can wind up generating $25k-50k per month in billings to your firm

        Ok... So, how long did this last?

        before you ever get anywhere near court, and then the fees go dramatically up during trial.

        How dramatically? Like 10K per day? Maybe... But by these numbers, this case should've been like 10-20 months in the making ($500K) plus 20 days of arguing in court (another $200K). I don't think, it was anywhere near this long — was it?

  • And here I thought there wasn't any money to be made off blogging anymore, turns out you just need to be the blogger's lawyer instead of the blogger. I wish there was any amount of common sense I could display that'd earn me $700,000.
  • OK, I certainly don't live under a rock, but $700,000 in legal fees? Holy crap! Maybe IT wasn't the right field to get into!!!!!
  • Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Smidge204 (605297) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @02:21PM (#17831078) Journal
    'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'

    This sounds like it has some pretty big implications on freedom of the press, making it easier for journalists to keep their sources confidential (important if you want to keep your sources!)
    =Smidge=
    • by Skadet (528657)
      No, this is a very old issue. Many states have these so-called Shield Laws [wikipedia.org] to protect the press' sources.

      One of the main arguments for shield laws is that nobody inside a corrupt organization (read: corrupt government) would speak to a reporter for fear of retribution.
  • I want to know more about "asteroid"
    • by nursegirl (914509)
      Asteroid is apparently firewire audio interface [appleinsider.com] for Garageband. Basically, so you could plug in a keyboard, guitar or microphone and record. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a big deal, seeing as M-Audio sells the same thing in both USB and firewire.
  • by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday January 31, 2007 @08:58PM (#17837098)
    I've always said Jobs is dangerous. We gotta be happy that things now are as they are (Mac has a mere 2-3% market share, and as for consumer products like iPod - let it thrive, no much harm done, it's just a fancy nice mp3 player).

    Bill Gates' original vision was to spread computers into every home, and make hardware a commodity platform, make the real product the software that makes this hardware useful.

    Job's vision is more sinister though: this guy believes in perception, in hype, in marketing, and in easy to use and swallow products fed to the masses. A control freak.

    Isn't it crazy how much work they've put on the iPhone (and deliver a nice, albeit expensive product), only in the end to cripple it by not allowing to tap its power with custom software? This is pure Jobs right there.

    And you can be sure Apple's strange behavior towards rumor sites is coming straight from Jobs.

    And there's a site that said the product was a Apple hoax deliberately created to catch where the leaks are coming from. Possible, but we have a real world example of what possibly really happened:

    Did you know that months before Microsft announced the Tablet PC platform Apple was getting ready to release their own Tablet Mac? Well, just because they couldn't be first to the market and grab that "mindshare", Jobs scrapped the project. I bet he's now waiting for the Tablet PC idea to die and be forgotten, before he tries again.

    • by bky1701 (979071)
      Mod parent up. With all his power, Bill Gates has done less evil than Steve Jobs has with as little power as he has. I don't want to see the world where Apple is in Microsoft's place.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...