Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

What's Apple's Legal Basis For Blocking Cube Previews? 288

Posted by Cliff from the why-crap-on-the-free-press? dept.
Iapetus asks: "Apple has sued (or threatened to sue) a number of Web sites for displaying information / pictures of products that they have not yet announced. My question is what is the legal basis for Apple forcing these sites to remove the information? It seems to me that unless the Web sites had a non-disclosure agreement with Apple, they should be free to display whatever information they can gather. I understand Apple going after the supposed employee that leaked the info, that I can see, but not going after sites that are simply displaying this information. Personally I don't believe that this has done any harm to Apple, the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway. So I don't see any 'material harm' being done either way." I honestly don't see the big deal here, either, and I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's Apple's Legal Basis for Blocking Cube Previews? More

What's Apple's Legal Basis for Blocking Cube Previews?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Let's stick to the question (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    a set of computers whose one distinguishing feature appears to be their color.

    -built in USB in all systems
    -built in Firewire in most systems
    -inexpensive wireless networking ($100 option on all systems)
    -Gigabit ethernet built in to all their towers, 10/100 on cheaper models
    -easy setup
    -superior user interface
    -induction cooling means no fans needed in the iMac or the Cube
    -vastly superior color correction technology
    -efficient RISC-based CPU
    -groundbreaking industrial design
    -maniacal attention to detail in all phases of development
    -free off-line storage space via iDisk

    The colors may be all that you noticed, but that says more about you than it does about them.

  • Suggestion for a new Apple logo... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...how about a rainbow-colored, Soviet Union-style hammer and sicle?
  • I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.

    Yeah, they've never done *that* before.

    :wq!

  • F.U.D = Fear.Uncertanity.Doubt (not distrust)
  • At which point, since the lawyers have been following this case, site B produces the contract they made Company A sign when the specs were handed over, which says that the specs have been provided legally and for journalistic purposes and Company A is being an incompetent whiny b*tch (yes, that is legal terminology).
  • First of all, Apple owns the copyright to its own pictures of its products. If pictures of the Cube surface, and those pictures were taken by Apple, they have a right to say how those pictures are used.

    Second, much of this information originates from people who have signed an NDA, a legal agreement not to disclose certain information. If I break my NDA to tell you about the cool new Windows emulation box on OS X, that makes the information you have the product of an illegal action. As such, by accepting the information you probably accept some of the liability. (Maybe, this is my weakest reason).

    Third, these are trade secrets until they are released products. Apple doesn't always ship products soon after secrets are released, and if another company can posess those secrets and bring a product to market based on them before Apple can, Apple has a problem. Corporate espionage is bad enough when you don't have to worry about your best projects getting outed on the Web.

    Finally, rumors often hurt the sales of existing machinery. I spent years waiting for the right computer to come along because every one I read about on the rumors sites was just a little bit better than the one I was lusting after previously. I know others do. Rumors may increase lust but they don't actually increase copulation (sales)... in fact, rumors hurt sales of end-of-life machines, which still perform very well and need to be sold. Apple stands to benefit economically from a powerful 'here's our new thing' introduction than a piddling of rumors building up. Thank god both the original iMac and the Cube rumors were nothing compared to the real thing. Also, if Apple, for some reason, decides not to release something when the rumor sites say they will, people get upset and disgusted at Apple; it affects stock market performance, even! And that's not Apple's fault; it's the fault of the people who read the rumors and treated them as gospel.

    So that's why I think Apple works so hard to maintain its secrecy. What legal basis they have I don't know - IANAL, and don't want to play one here.
  • *the photos were most likely copywrighted
    In this case it's acceptable use.

    *Apple asked the sites to remove and they refused. This is not a case of the person not knowing what they were doing was wrong
    Apple asking them to remove it doesn't make it wrong to still display them. Well, not legally at least.

    *info leaking too early could hurt competition
    Then make sure it doesn't leak...

    *info leaking too early could damage chances at getting a patent on the item - once an idea is in the public domain, it is no longer patentable, even if only your design is in the public domain.
    The images aren't public domain - they're copyrighted by Apple. And even if they weren't, the image of something being public domain doesn't make the thing itself public domain.

    *Rumors sites are fun for the fanatics, who have already decided whether or not to buy apple, but they don't actually generate new sales of products, so they aren't losing any business by shutting them down
    Since when is not losing business a reason to do something?

    All in all, your arguments are extremely week. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. Actually, I think Apple made a huge mistake pulling out the legal guns. The pictures were only posted on Apple rumour sites, and the design was so out of the ordinary that it would have been disregarded as fan fiction had Apple not jumped. The Apple cube is now right in the middle of the spotlight, exactly the opposite of the effect they wanted to reach.

    Or did they?

    Could this all be a ploy to get the attention? To get Apple back in the headlines? If that's so, three words come to mind: Hook, Line and Sinker.

    )O(
    Never underestimate the power of stupidity
  • Stolen material is not covered under fair use.

    But, correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't Apple posted the images themselves? So then, if the images originate from the leak, it wouldn't be fair use, but if they originate from Apple's site, it would. It's impossible to prove either.

    )O(
    Never underestimate the power of stupidity
  • are they really able to do that? Can't the websites claim some sorta thing like reports do when they can hide their sources?
  • Point 1 and 2 are reasons (whether they are correct points or not, i dont know -- IANAL) why this would be legal, points 3-5 are NOT reasons why this would be legal. Actually I have not seen any solid information yet. Does anyone know if this is leagal or not? -- one person says "It's illegal: copyright violation" another says "leaked trade secrets are not protected under copyright laws". Does anyone have an informed opinion, or are all these just opinions?

    Actually, 3-5 are reasons. I mean, you can sue someone because you looked up their name in a phone book and chose them, but you will be counter-sued, because you had no basis on the lawsuit. 3-5 give potential ways that Apple was losing money. If apple was losing money, they have a basis to sue. They may not win, but the countersuit wouldn't either...

    Trade secrets aren't protected. But, a copywright is still a copywright, whether it is public info. Every propreitary document I have has both a confidentiality statement and a copywright at the start. It is the intellectual property of my employer. A document is copywright because you say it is, not because it is blessed by the government.

    -nosilA

  • I think that Adam Penenberg [slashdot.org] would be the man to talk to about that. I imagine that Apple would sue the website if they refused to abide by the subpoena. (Also, they'd be found in contempt of court.)

    -Waldo
    -------------------
  • Hence, the joke.

    Next time I'll try to be more obvious in my humor.

    How about this:

    The Justice Department brought a lawsuit against Apple Computer (AAPL) yesterday over their "There's always room for iMac!" campaign. The Gov't charged them with diluting the Jello trademark and confusing consumers. A class-action suit is pending as well, from angry iMac owners who, eager to try their fruit-flavored iMacs, chipped their teeth on the hard plastic casings. The only winners in this long, sad ride were the investors who thought they had bought into "some fruit company". Fortunately, we the American people are being protected by these fraudulent product promotions and deceptive advertising once again by our loving government.
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

  • Re:And? (Score:2)

    by Danse ( 1026 )

    What law, and/or precedent are you basing your statements on?

  • Re:And? (Score:2)

    by Danse ( 1026 )

    Which means you'd have to prove you haven't had any kind of contact with any of Apple's proprietary information. You can't prove that.

  • Sure, but if what the quote from the earlier post is true, then these laws go way beyond just covering corporate espionage. I don't believe that that's an accident.

  • The corps must have spent some big cash to get that kind of legislation passed. Why should anyone but the leakee be responsible for a corporation's inability to keep its secrets? Nobody else signed a contract with them. Nobody else should be bound by law to keep their secrets. The answer, as the quote above points out, is money. The last thing we need is more laws to constrain us so that corporations have an easier time making money. If a corporation doesn't want to make its secret public via a patent, copyright, etc, then it shouldn't receive government protection.

  • If a corporate employee violates his NDA and gives info to a friend, and I get it from his friend and post it on my website, am I liable? What if I give it to someone else, and they give it to someone else, etc, until someone finally publishes it? How far does the chain go?

    I'm asking this because these laws basically seem to give a coporation carte blanche to prosecute anyone publishing any information that they don't want made public. They simply have to declare that it's a trade secret. All of their employees have likely signed contracts to the effect that they are not allowed to disclose any company information to anyone not directly employed by the company for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, obtaining information through any possible means could be traced directly to a security lapse by an employee of the company, and therefore would be covered under the trade secret law. That is why this will serve as a tool for corporate censorship of the press and of individuals. The movie "The Insider" is a good example of how the press can be censored by a corporation. Even though the information is extremely important for the public to know, and even though they have signed no contracts with the corporation, they can be coerced into silence with the threat of a bankrupting lawsuit.

    Granted, the Mac pics weren't earthshakingly important to the public, but the same principle applies. We can't really judge what's important, or to whom, or why. There should be equal protection for all speech such as this.

    Maybe someday we'll realize that you can't just slap a legal muzzle on people for revealing the truth, even though it's not to your benefit. Unfortunately, until something is done about laws like this, that's exactly what will happen.

  • He didn't say that. He's saying that comparing physical property to "intellectual property" is like comparing apples and oranges. They aren't the same, even though big business is lobbying hard to get them treated the same (with pretty good success so far), so the CompUSA analogy is not valid.

  • "Intellectual property" is not the same as physical property. Even though corporate interests are trying to get that changed, it's just a fiction created by them so that they can justify the censorship and absolute control of information that they are striving for.

  • Intellectual property is a fiction created by those who want you to believe the crap you just posted. It is not the same as physical property. Physical property laws don't, and shouldn't, apply. IP laws are used to create artificial scarcity to profit corporations that control most methods of distribution. Now that they've managed to corrupt the copyright and patent systems, they're starting to flex their new muscle.

  • Re:And? (Score:2)

    by Danse ( 1026 )

    You automatically own the copyright to works that you create. You don't have to explicitly state that they are copyrighted. Therefore the copyright on the Tommy/Pam tape was owned by them. That didn't make a difference. I'm not responsible for maintaining their privacy. Nor am I responsible for maintaining Apple's privacy. The government offers them ways of controlling their information, but they chose to take it upon themselves with this information. I don't think they should be allowed to use the law to bludgeon those who publish the information that they receive unless they have some sort of contract with Apple that says they will not. Why is it that corporations should have so much more privacy protection than actual citizens of this country? That's just twisted.

  • I'm not an expert in trade secret law, but isn't the burden of keeping trade secrets secret on the company? I mean, once the info is leaked, it isn't a trade secret anymore. The only way they would have a case against the websites would be if the sites had received the information from Apple directly, and had signed an NDA.


    As I understand it, a trade secret may remain "secret", as long as reasonable steps were taken to protect it (NDA's, marked documents, etc.). If it is leaked, a competing company can usually not legally use the information until they get the same information though an untainted source.

    I'm not sure how the laws of trade secret apply in this case, where the publications are clearly not competing with Apple.
    --
  • That shows how much you know. Jobs has learned to work much better with his team and the synergy that exists between his creativity and the excellent engineers at Apple has resulted in the resurgence of a company that most left for all but dead three years ago.

    The difference between this steve jobs and the old steve jobs is that he has learned how to manage a company. His ways may conflict with your 'any information I want is mine' mentality, but under his leadership Apple has revitalized itself and is _finally_ on track to ship a modern OS.

    I don't like everything about Jobs, nor do I like everything about Apple. But unlike any other company I know, the people at Apple truly believe that they are driving the computer industry forward and that they can provide innovative tools for their core markets. They think they can change the world and they often do.

    Do I sound like an Apple apologist? Answer me this.. what other computer company could have made fashion as much a part of the computer as its internals? Everyone who thinks that Apple is about making cute toy computers needs to think more critically - exploring the detail and attention that goes into their products reveals that Apple is creating an experience, like Disney or MGM might. Look at the way the power buttons on the monitor and cube pulse in sync! Look at the way the iBook's power light 'beats' slowly on and off while it sleeps.. Look at the integration of software and hardware that only they can do.

    Sure, they've got lots of problems. I've read of iMacs catching fire. I'm sure other computers have done that, too. It only shows that Apple or its manufacturing plants aren't perfect. Neither is Jobs.

    The point is, he may be a little too imperial and dictatorlike than you can stomach. However, he has passion in Apple's work; he wants to change the world, again and again, and he and his engineers and designers are as much artists as they are technical wizards.

    Passion, more than anything else, drives invention. If that is Job's mistake; if that is what he hasn't figured out, then I don't agree with you.

    So tell me, FreeUser, what exactly did they do that was wrong? Give me a list.
  • I'm beginning to wonder when/if Apple will see the errors of their ways and realize what they are doing to themselves.

    Probably about the time they file for Chapter Eleven. Though with Steve Jobs' inability to ever recognize his prior mistakes, I wouldn't be surprised if, even then, they never figured out just what it was they did wrong.
  • But the law doesn't talk about "intellectual PROPERTY", it talks about "patents", "copyrights", and "trademarks". The term "intellectual property" is a convenient (and misleading) shorthand to refer to that diverse collection of laws that grant certain people special rights for a limited amount of time.
  • Stereotypes don't exist in a vacuum. If Mac Freaks(tm) didn't buy the latest'n'greatest from Apple pretty much every time there was a new release, Apple would have been bankrupt years ago. Mac fans upgrade almost as instinctually as corporate IT departments upgrade their MS Office. After all, the new Apple slogan is "Think Different", not "Think Independently".
  • <disclaimer>
    IANAL, so everyone off my case. =)
    </disclaimer>

    I'm not sure it's entirely true that anyone can be sued for any reason. It is at least expected that a plaintiff have a cause of action [lawyers.com] - that they have been wronged in some way, and that they attribute the wrong to the defendant. I can't sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit, but I can sue someone for wearing an orange leisure suit if it made me violently ill.

    Regrettably, I would be likely to lose this case.

  • (almost forgot...)

    If memory serves (I haven't read the cease and desist orders, or any subpoenae), Apple's cause of action is that the pictures of the Cube constitued a trade secret, and their publication caused harm to Apple as a company. This seems a little counter-intuitive (read: bullshit) considering that they published identical pictures the next day, but like I said before, IANAL.

  • You're allowed to use copyrighted pics if it's for the purpose of criticism, commentary, news reporting, etc. It's fair use.

    All these mp3's on my harddrive suck.

    (think about it)
  • 1. How can Apple sue sites that post info about rumored products?
    Apple (just like you and me) can file a lawsuit against anybody, anytime, for any reason. "Suing" just means "filing a lawsuit." I can sue you because the color of your eyes causes me mental anguish. My suit will be thrown out in a heartbeat, but I can file the suit. There would be no benefit to my doing this, of course, but a major corporation, with lots of money and a legitimate-sounding complaint can make defendants spend a lot of money to get the suit thrown out. For many people, the cost of defense against what is essentially a frivolous suit is not worth it; they'll fold. (I know I would - I've got a family to feed, you know?)

    2. Why would Apple sue these sites?
    Hype, man, hype. Apple is saying "Our new computers are so INSANELY great, they're so TOP SECRET that we will sue people just for posting PICTURES of the CASES!" Hypothetical conversation, overheard on street - "Have you seen the new Mac?" "No! But I have heard that they are so cool! I want to see one!" "Not only do I wish to see one, I also wish to buy one!"

    3. Could Apple win?
    Not knowing ANY details about the cases, I don't know. But I would suggest that it is possible to trademark the way your product looks. If Apple trademarked their products' appearance, they would be expected to aggressively defend against unauthorized use of that trademark, or else face the loss of the trademark. Apple could certainly trademark the "secret" code names of their products (BHA, anyone?), and could then likewise defend against unauthorized usage. Rumor sites would then be reduced to "We heard about this cool new product Apple is making - we can't tell you what it's called, we can't show you what it looks like, and everyone at Apple is afraid of getting fired, so we can't tell you where we heard it from, but boy is it cool!" Don't know about you, but I consider unsubstantiated rumors to be pretty worthless (MS press releases, anyone?)
  • On the other hand, I took the pictures off of AppleInsider and posted them on my own site. Thereafter I was sent a notice of infringement letter by Apple.

    So did I obtain the images through illegal means?

    Kevin Fox
  • Basically trade secrecy laws can be enforced on the person who stole the secret, via espionage, violation of NDA, employee agreement, or whatever.

    A trade secret is still a trade secret as long as it has not been 'widely disseminated' to the public. As long as it was just in the hands of a few rumors sites, it was not widely disseminated, but if it was on the sites and was read by a few thousand people, it starts crossing that line.

    The most interesting bit to me is that every NDA I've ever read (except for ones written on napkins during business lunches) states that the relevant party only has to keep the information learned a secret until he or she hears the information from a third party to which he or she has not signed an NDA.

    Basically this means that even if Joe Apple Contractor leaked the info to AppleInsider, Apple would have to prove that he didn't get it from another rumor board first.

    As for the cease and desist letters sent out to everyone who posted the pictures (including me), that's simple strongarming. As long as Apple doesn't know for certain that the publisher doesn't have an NDA or other confidentiality agreement with Apple, Apple can tell them to take it down and threaten legal action. Anyone can threaten legal action against anyone else. whether they'd win is another matter entirely, but in many cases (including AppleInsider, MacInTouch, and MacOSRumors) the expense any legal action would entail, valid or not, represents a threat large enough to warrant taking down the info to appease Apple.

    This, my friends, is the heart of F.U.D., and unless someone were to organize, fight, and win a class-action harassment suit against Apple, don't expect anything to change. More to the point, such a class-action suit probably wouldn't win, because while the Cube was still conceivably a trade secret, most courts would probably agree to Apple's rights to attempt to protect it in the manner they did.

    Of course the punchline is that if they hadn't fought, or better yet, if they send out a barrage of badly photoshopped mock-ups of the Cube along with the real ones, nobody would have believed it anyhow.

    Kevin Fox
  • In the Grand Old American Justice System, you don't really need a good legal reason to sue someone. You can sue for "alienation of affection" in this country, or "causing emotional distress." You can sue whoever you want for whatever you want. You may not win, but you can sue.

    What's really going on, is Apple has a big bunch of lawyers on retainer, and are using them to bully smaller parties into doing things their way.
    The small guys can't afford the legal battle, so they capitulate. Apple doesn't have to win the lawsuits ... in fact, they probably hope that they never make it to court. Lawyers count on the expenses being high enough that the other party will want to settle.

    If the guys who published those pictures had a big cadre of lawyers (or really deep pockets), they would just thumb their noses back at Apple (and, maybe, countersue for restraint of trade or something).

    The system sucks. (Even though, once in a while, one of those ridiculous things that people sue for is actually legitimate. Not in this case, as far as I can tell).

    -
    bukra fil mish mish
    -
    Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
  • Nope.

    Selling the pictures, or the right to view the pictures would be.

    There may or may not be fair-use protection for the users of the pictures, considering they wrote an article about the upcoming hardware.

    They could have been completely safe if they'd hired an artist to draw the cubes, from the pictures, and simply displayed an artist's rendition. This completly gets around copyright issues (because it's not the same picture) and would let them display it.

    The simple fact that there's an upcoming product could never be considered a trade secret, there's nothing there that a trade is based on. Trade secrets are things like the Coke-a-cola formula, how they get the caramel into the milk chocolate, etc.

    That said, the legal climate these days allows suing with no rational basis and because even in malicious lawsuits, in civil court, the defendant has to pick up the tab which means that big companies always win.

    IMHO There should be a HUGE punishment for malicious lawsuits, maybe 10% of a company's gross profits, or something. And yeah, that's designed to put the majority of offenders out of business after one or two obviously stupid lawsuits.
  • Sorry, but this is basically completely wrong.

    The main difference under copyright law between non-commercial & commercial use is the penalty: non-commercial use only gets actual damages, commercial use gets puntative damages as well. The commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is considered in determining whether an infringement falls under fair-use, but it is only a factor, and non-commercial use quite often will still be illegal.

    Another aspect is the context & substance of the violation: Reading a single sentence of a book will virtually always be considered fair use since I'm not really effecting the merchantability of the book (though your specific example of charging to hear the sentence concievably would result in violation).
  • On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).

    That has nothing to do with anything. The basic criterion for fair use of a portion of a copyrighted product is that the sample is sufficiently small that it doesn't serve as a replacement for the product it is taken from.

    This would seem to suggest that these websites have no right to copy the entire picture. However, the pictures in question haven't been treated as products by Apple, but rather as speech. They use them to tell the world what their product looks like, not to sell for profit as a product on their own. That makes any sort of copyright protection practically impossible to enforce.

    Copyright protection is based on commercial value. Basically, you can only sue someone for your losses. If you try to sue someone for distributing publicity shots that are publicly available from your website, you'll probably end up paying their legal costs for malicious litigation.

    While, technically, any copyright violation like this is a tort, when no damage is done to the commercial value of the copyrighted work itself, successful litigation is impossible (this is part of why the GPL is legally questionable; since the copyright holder doesn't gain any unique profit to himself, it could be argued that no damage could be caused and thus no grounds for financial restitution could ever be found due to noncompliance with GPL terms, so anything under the GPL is effectively in the public domain).

    So this could perhaps be called "back door" fair use: it is allowed because copyright was never designed to protect this kind of thing, so the mechanisms of enforcement don't work, not because specific exceptions for it were written into copyright law.

    (IANAL)

    ---
    Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
  • Apple sues because that is part of its corporate culture. A lot of it has to do with Steve Jobs. The man is very intelligent and can be brilliant at times. But he also has the emotional development of a 2 year old. When I see things like this I think of the rondroids and their crusade against freedom of information. Actually the cases aren't that similar. Apple is pissed because someone stole the show from them. $cientology is pissed because people are making things known about them that are as damaging as they are true. Apple really shouldn't be suing anyone, except maybe the original source of the leak within their company. If they want to stop leaks like this from happening, they need to tighten up on their own security. The fact that a leak happened should tell them that something within their own organization needs to be corrected. Not that its time to wage war against some of the very companies that are helping keep them afloat. Do you suppose this is what they mean by Think Different? Lee
  • No, it's not. The pics weren't publiclly released yet and, as such, cannot be used under fair use. It's literally the same thing as walking into GM's research facility, snapping a few pics, and publishing them.

    As soon as Steve said, "And oh... one more thing" the pictures did become fair game under fair use,

    ----
  • >I think Apple is sueing for one perfect reason >(other than Steve Jobs having his show >stolen): They don't want rumors of new >products floating because they want to sell >out their old stuff from the shelves before hot >new things are announced. Not entirely true. If you buy from the Apple store up to two weeks prior of a new model release (or revision), they will upgrade your machine to the new model/revision if you send it in. My girlfriend's mom works at a print shop, and they just bought eight iMacs---of the previous release. Fortunately they bought direct from Apple and only week prior to the convention. They called Apple, sent them back, and Apple sent them new iMacs and ended up with eight faster/better/cheaper machines for the price of their original order. AND, if you can prove that your Photoshoping is based upon your own assumptions and suppositions, no, they can't sue you.

    ----
  • Stolen material is not covered under fair use. Here [slashdot.org] & Here [slashdot.org]

    ----
  • Considering how many devices have jumped on the translucent blue bandwagon, it's understandable that Apple would like to have the money they spent on artistic design to be worth something. If they design a certain case, and it's leaked months before they want it to, and others start copying the design, then Apple has just lost the uniqueness in their design for that product much sooner.

  • This is not the kind of question that should be posed to Slashdot readers, of all people. You'll get armchair takes on this from people with no legal understanding whatsoever, and lots of "what should be" rather than "what is." Then each of these will degenerate into clueness discussion threads.
  • Those cars are usually fotographed on the open roads, so those pictures are what anyone could have seen. This also means that no NDA was signed at any time by the people taking the pics. In the apple case a worker breached an NDA (or at least that's what apple says, but that's not the point here), so an agreement was broken. It all comes down to whether there is an agreement/contract or something like that was broken.

    At least, that's what I can come up with...

    //rdj
  • There is a phrase around Apple called "getting Steved". This happens when someone argues too forcefully with Jobs in a meeting, and crosses some imaginary line. That person is fired on the spot, a.k.a. "Steved". I think the same mentality is behind this legal action. Jobs may not be able to make non-employees lose their jobs for leaking the photos, but he'll make things as disagreeable as he can.

    Walt
  • This is true -- but doesn't explain why it shouldn't be legal. It explains why Apple can be upset, and why they could internally discipline leakers, but not why the receivers of that information shouldn't be protected. For instance, official journalists would have protection from this sort of suit, so why shouldn't online reporters?
  • I am constantly amazed with the uninformed posts regarding intellectual property! In short: That's not how it works, bucko. In this case, they have no right to sue the people with the 'stolen' photos of the Cube, nor ask for them to be handed over, nor interfere with their publishing. They have a beef with the fellow that handed the pictures out, that's it.
  • The other parties are liable if, and only if, they had certain knowledge that the individual forwarding the pictures had broken NDA, or had conspired with or coerced the individual to do so. Not even Mac Rumors would go so far as any of those.
  • Oooh, oooh!! He called us 'Mac freaks'!

    Hey! Thin-skinned politically correct guy! Get over it. We're all freaks, of one flavour or another. Knowing you are is the first step to recovery.
  • Wrong.. Intellectual property comes in flavours, like the iMac. One flavour is copyright, another is trade secret. (A third flavour, patent, is not concerned)

    SW is a copyrighted work, and copyright is what gives Lucas the right to go after everyone connected with its unauthorized distribution.

    The Cube is protected by a non-disclosure agreement, and that alone. The NDA only gives Apple the right to go after the one leaking the information, and only if that individual has agreed to the NDA.

    They're lawsuit fishing, using the court to force people to disclose information Apple has no right to. They don't know who leaked it.
  • Leaks can be damaging to any company. Leaked information about products which have not yet been released generates rumors and informs competitors.

    Rumors usually work *against* a company in one of two ways: either they generate undue hype before a product's release, resulting in ludicrously high customer expectations when the product is finally released; or they generate undue criticism of a product before it is finally released. Either way, rumors can drastically damage a new product launch.

    And in terms of the competition, letting a competitor know what you are up to is never a helpful policy.

    - Keith
  • you must be a buddy of Jon Katz and believe that everyone that reads /. is a freak or a geek.

    I'd like to think I'm a normal, average joe that likes to play with computers (but earns more than most white collar workers)
  • they are not trying to sue the companies hosting the sites. they are only trying to get information about the identities of the people posting the information because they believe that the people(s) posting this information are Apple employees that could be guilty of breaking the NDA's they signed.

    As others have noted as well as multiple news outlets, many of apple's products are built on hype and secrecy, and that their stock price can be affected by this information being leaked before Apple officially leaks the info. Remember, Apple is one big orchestra and Jobs is the conductor. He doesn't like a tuba laying out a blast in the middle of a quiet spot in the music.
  • I would imagine reporting on the existence of certain hardware and using pictures of that hardware would fall under fair use. The only thing the website would need to do is properly attribute the author of the photos. If the author wished to remain anonymous, the website could keep that information secret, and use the numerous shield laws in existence for protection.

    On the other hand, if the website was directly profitting from those pictures (i.e. selling the pictures themselves) I think they could be in trouble (I don't think that happened though).

    I'm not an expert in trade secret law, but isn't the burden of keeping trade secrets secret on the company? I mean, once the info is leaked, it isn't a trade secret anymore. The only way they would have a case against the websites would be if the sites had received the information from Apple directly, and had signed an NDA.

    I find this whole affair alarming in that it is further evidence for the continuing erosion of our rights, and increasing aggressiveness on the part of corporate America in trying to underine our rights and exercise total control over everything. If we are not careful, it won't be long until we live in a world were corporations monitor your life down to the most minute detail. You will be forced to live your life as they see fit, and the only information you will have is what they deem appropriate. If some of thses issues are not dealt with in the Supreme Court sometime soon, we are all in big trouble.

    -Vercingetorix

  • I bet after Apple gets their names, they drop the suit, too.

    It's rapidly becoming a common way to find names of anonymous sources. File a "John Doe" lawsuit and then supoena the sites where the information was posted. Then drop the suit and engage in a round of firing people.

  • I'll add one:
    • Rumors (true or not) of fantastic new hardware negatively impact the sale of currently available hardware.

    Too many people want the latest greatest whether or not it's better.


    --

  • Did you even read the question?

    Yes but apparently you didnt

    I honestly don't see the big deal here, either, and I wonder why Apple would do such a thing which only, in the end, alienates their own customer base.

  • Intellectual PROPERTY, still Property
  • So, in my example: the store CompUSA has no right to sue the charity to get the computer back? to ask them to get it back? or to ask them not to use it?
  • PISSED at my previous one -->

    I go out and get the Debian Source CD. I strip out every REFERENCE TO GPL in the Source CD as well as any mention of LINUX or DEBIAN. I give it to my FRIEND joe and tell him its NOT DEBIAN or LINUX or GPLed. He begins to sell it as Joeian and doesn't release stuff under GPL as it was required? Will GNU sue Joeian? Will Slashdot get MAD? Will LINUX nuts scream horrors at Joe? YES.

    The guy in the APPLE case got the pictures of the CUBE and info under a NDA (all employees sign NDA, Jobs ain't that dumb) and gives it to web sites to release it. Mmmm, he signed a agreement and violated it. Mmmm, now should the web sites be gotten? YES, they should.

    Otherwise, by your LOGIC we have a perfect way to beat the GPL. Remeber, the GPL is a contract. an NDA is a contract.
  • Anology:
    if I work at CompUSA (I do not, but example) and steal one of their Computers and donate it to charity. I tell the charity that it is my old machine and I don't use it. Then CompUSA tracks down the stolen computer and demands it back from the charity, should the charity give it back? YES, they SHOULD ITS called "POSSESSION of STOLEN PROPERTY"

    and that applies to this case.
  • This term seems to be under some discussion here, so I thought it apropo to find a legal definition of the term. This [virginia.edu] is a paper that I found discussing the definition of a trade secret, how a company demonstrates that something is such, a quick history of the law and a description of the elements that have to be included in a lawsuit alleging that a secret has been stolen. Very interesting, and it seems that, yes, just about any piece of information can be classified as a trade secret provided some relatively vague standards are met.
  • With this instance it caused no harm. If anything it definately helped them and built interest in the little cube. But from a corporate point of view supposed someone had leaked the info about the cube2(Too tired for a good name). Apple is planning on introducing this in 3 weeks at Macworld(or something). However 2 weeks before the show the info is leaked and is everywhere. Apple does not deny it people say they will release it blah blah blah. 1 week before the show the people at Apple realize a huge flaw that causes the cube2 to violently explode destroying everything in a room when you open IE on it.(Don't ask where that came from) Suddenly they have to yank the product, come up with a cover story for why they are not releasing the product(plus explain why there are several dead beta testers) and convince everyone they are not a vaporware company. Suddenly they look really bad. Whereas had nothing been said they would have merely looked average at the show. I am not advocating lawsuits but I can see where they are coming from.
  • Allowing clones and then killing them off, now alienating the people that provide them with a living. I'm beginning to wonder when/if Apple will see the errors of their ways and realize what they are doing to themselves.
  • Steve Jobs is a showman first, CEO second. Nothing makes him happier than suspense. Someone robbed his thunder, and as a result he went out for blood.

    People copy images all the time in 'sneak peeks.' The whole thing reminded me of the fake 'code' names that movies sometimes give themselves while in production to protect themselves from leaks (for any fellow star wars geeks here, "Blue Harvest" was the codename for Return of the Jedi while it was being made), or car disguises when test vehicles are being driven. Its all about drama.

    'Course, once Jobs went on the warpath, his lawyers could probably find something suable with everyone. Bah.

    -s

    http://students.washington.edu/steve0/ [washington.edu]
  • Historically, trade secrets weren't property. Trade secret law derived from contract law, and only bound those who had agreed to keep the secret. Trade secrets were discouraged; patents and copyrights, with disclosure and limited life, were legally preferred. In recent years, this has changed a little; there's now some ability to enforce trade secret rights against third parties. Those rights are limited, though, and generally end with public disclosure of the former trade secret.
    Anyway, here's the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. [orrick.com]
  • Anybody else see a frivolous lawsuit as a method to generate publicity?

    Grins --

  • Here's what I found (at http://execpc.com/~mhallign/crime.html [execpc.com]):
    On October 11, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996" into law. The theft of trade secrets is now a federal criminal offense.

    This is a major development in the law of trade secrets in the United States and internationally. The Department of Justice now has sweeping authority to prosecute trade secret theft whether it is in the United States, via the Internet, or outside the United States.

    Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization.

    The Act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.The definition of a "trade secret" in the Act generally tracks the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act but expands the definition of a trade secret to include the new technological ways that trade secrets are created and stored. There's a ton of other useful information out there as well, including various state laws and supreme court decisions.

    End of Quote

    I had done research on trade secret law about five years ago, and even then there was a lot of case law supporting trade secret protection. Many states have laws that are applicable, in addition to the federal laws. To find other good sites, just search: I typed in "Trade Secret Law" in my browser, and its search returned dozens of good hits, including the above.

  • Steve likes surprises and if you ruin his thunder you'll have to pay dearly.
  • Unless there are new laws I'm not aware of, as far as I understand it (and I have studied this recently), by definition, trade secrets are NOT protected by law.
    This is wrong, at least as far as California is concenred. California (as have a large number of states, actually) has enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. See Civil Code section 3426 et seq. It provides a cause of action for misapproriation of trade secrets. In this case, there was presumably "misappropriation" because the rumor sites disclosed apple's trade secrets, which were obtained "from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief (apple) to maintain its secrecy." In other words, if you get trade secrets from someone who has violated an NDA to give you the information, your disclosure consitutes misappropriation.
    I too have studied this issue recently, and in fact have litigated some trade secret cases. This isn't just a scare tactic (although that may be its primary purpose), as the law provides for monetary damages, and, in the right circumstances, exemplary (i.e., punitive) damages and attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees would be a big hammer here, because apple's damages are probably pretty small (they introduced the cube a couple of weeks later, so what great loss did they suffer during that time?). But Apple could easily rack up $200,000 in attorneys' fees prosecuting one of these cases.
  • Maybe the shock here comes from a few too many geeks buying into Apple's marketing hype. Sure, Apple looks all warm & fuzzy next to Microsoft... but at the end of the day, they are a secretive, proprietary stronghold who WOULD act like Microsoft if they were in a position to do so.

    Since Apple included a huge poster insert of the cube in the latest issue of Newsweek, everyone should by now realize that the 'cube' is an overpriced piece of junk with no expandable slots and is designed for Apple designer freaks who will buy anything, as long as it is packaged in a cute way. Only $1800 for the cube... $500 for the cheapest monitor... combined with Apple's lock-tight marketing campaign = new summer homes all around for Apple execs.

    Apple & Microsoft can both go to hell.
  • Blockquoth the poster:
    As far as I know, it is okay to publish copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder if it's not-for-profit.
    Unfortunately, in this case, you don't know all that far. Let me quote the relevant part from 10 Big Myths of Copyright Explained [templetons.com]:
    2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
    False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's essentially the only difference. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.
    Of course, Apple is going to have to argue that free publicity hurt their commercial prospects -- I have no idea how easy that is to do in court.
  • Pretty much any country that wants to be a part of the WTO has to play by IP rules similar to those in the US. That means that any developing nation that wants loans or trade agreements from the big boys will get strong-armed into adopting "the party line" on intellectual property, drugs, taxes, etc.

    Welcome to the modern networked world, everyone...where big business has just as much power as government in every country, and can intimidate, sue, and surveil you anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
  • Is the publishing of generic information in an online magazine considered a misappropriation of trade secrets or journalism?

    Journalism.

    Too bad for them, publishing "general information" is not what they did.

    What constitutes a trade secret? (I really want to know)

    Those who saw the Cube before its announcement signed a trade secret aggreement which forbid them from leaking the information. The publishers involved are believed to have known about this agreement when they distributed the leaked info and pictures. Like the previous poster pointed out, this is kind of like fencing stolen goods.

    The bottom line here is that legally, Apple is probably right. They are being dicks, but as far as the law goes they are probably right.

  • the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway.

    How nice it is to log onto Slashdot and be stereotyped and insulted for my choice of platform.

    "Mac Freak" is equivalent to "Linux Zealot". People who buy stuff, or like it just because of the logo.

    The door swings both ways on /, even if it is more one way than another. Go figure, a predominately Linux newsite would do that.

  • Yes, it's the intellectual-property equivalent of buying stolen property. Even though you didn't steal it yourself, you're still not allowed to have it.

  • You're allowed to use copyrighted material in more situations than that, and that's important to know.

    As far as I know, it is okay to publish copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder if it's not-for-profit. That is to say, I can say "In Section 4.3.1 we saw how functions can be passed as parameters." (Weiss, Efficient C Programming, 1995), even though I'm not Mark Allen Weiss, because people aren't paying me to hear that sentence. Of course, a news operation, critic, commentor, or otherwise may make a profit from his claims, but that's acceptable. You just can't say "Pay me $5 to hear me quote Mark Allen Weiss."

    Profitable operations like that require agreement from the copyright holder. Furthermore, in an acceptable (but without permission) display of copyrighted material, it is necessary to give the copyright holder credit for the information on display.

    As long as those pictures actually did belong to Apple (they weren't fakes), it was stated that they belonged to Apple, and the sites didn't charge for them (I saw the pictures, and I didn't pay anything), I don't believe there is any legal basis for a law suit.

    I don't believe.

  • Personally I don't believe that this has done any harm to Apple, the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway. So I don't see any 'material harm' being done either way.

    The material harm in leaking the info prior to the big release is a marketing/branding issue. First impressions last a long time, so when a company releases a new product, they try to control the first impression as much as possible. This is doubly important when you're releasing something, like the cube, that's very different.

    Basically, if pictures of the cube were widely available for too long, people would form their own impressions of it BEFORE Apple could explain the purpose of the cube. Worse, competitors could find ways to dismiss the product before its release. (e.g., You're not Borg. Why would you want a cube?)

    Take the Linux Watch for example. Many of us probably looked at the picture before reading the IBM release. And a lot of us thought "That's cute, but why would I want a watch that can run a webserver but can't tell the time?" So we formed our own impression and dismissed IBM as idiotic. But IBM's purpose was to prove that Linux could be scaled down to a wristwatch. Had this been an actual product, IBM would have lost potential business from the people who dismissed the watch without reading the purpose. A controlled launch helps to alliviate some of these problems.

    Was Apple being a tad hyper? Probably. But they're taking a risk in releasing such a different product, and it's understandable that they want to manage the release as much as they can.

  • Re:And? (Score:3)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @09:21AM (#871102)

    This begs the question, where did AppleInsider get the pics? Was it from an Apple employee? Someone else with access to Apple? Is it illegal to publish rumors if they are in the form of a graphic?

  • A couple of points (well, 3) (Score:3)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:38AM (#871103) Journal
    First, there's an interesting article in today's TidBits [tidbits.com] about this issue. Among other things, it points out that there's a plausible case that rumors sites have a negative impact on Apple.

    Second, the current focus of Apple's lawyers is on the individual(s) who did violate NDAs, not on sites who use that information.

    Third, regarding Cliff's comment -- remember that Apple is a real company that needs to make a profit, and does so by selling distinctive hardware and software. It's unfair to expect it to be as cuddly as a Linux start-up that sells a product someone else makes, doesn't and never will turn a profit and whose primary business activity is keeping its stock price inflated by "demonstrating that it gets the community."

  • Lots of reasons (Score:3)

    by nosilA ( 8112 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:26AM (#871104)
    There are a very large number of reasons why this is legal, and actually not that "big bad evil company." Some of these have been posted to previous articles, but I will attempt to encapsulate the biggies.

    *the photos were most likely copywrighted
    *Apple asked the sites to remove and they refused. This is not a case of the person not knowing what they were doing was wrong
    *info leaking too early could hurt competition
    *info leaking too early could damage chances at getting a patent on the item - once an idea is in the public domain, it is no longer patentable, even if only your design is in the public domain.
    *Rumors sites are fun for the fanatics, who have already decided whether or not to buy apple, but they don't actually generate new sales of products, so they aren't losing any business by shutting them down

    I haven't seen Apple's analysis, but it is entirely possible that they will lose money out of info being released early, and if they aren't vigilant in stopping this early release of propreitary info, they are setting a bad precedent for future secrets leaking.

    This is Apple's business decision and perfectly legal. It is not free speech if you are posting someone else's property.

    -nosilA
  • As best I can tell, what Apple really wants to do is issue a subpoena to the websites to find out what Apple employee leaked information. There's little or nothing to be gained from actually suing the sites for monetary damages.

    Hey, where's Jim Tyre when you need him? :)

    -Waldo
    -------------------

  • Law suite don't require a legal basis (Score:3)

    by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:20AM (#871106)
    It is a little known fact that anyone can be sued for any reason.

    To bring a lawsuit requires no legal basis whatsoever, though winning one usually (not always!) does and, in some states, even persuing one beyond the initial hearing phase generally does.

    Despite anti-SLAPP efforts and legislation there are many, many frivolous lawsuits which clog the system, wreck lives, and poison the social fabric.

    It would not suprise me if Apple were engaged in such a suit, using the power of the legal system as a proxy for thugs in persuing a policy of intimidation and fear, in order to maintain iron-fisted control of their products' announcements, releases, and, yes, even rumors.

    Misguided? Yes. Unenlightened? Obviously. Wrong? Most certainly. Legal? Quite probably.

  • Same basis as the blocking of the deCSS code (Score:3)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:20AM (#871107) Homepage Journal
    The reasoning is that the web sites were distributing material that could only have been obtained through illegal disclosure of trade secret information.

    This is the same reasoning the MPAA is using to block the distribution of deCSS code.

  • Trade Secret Law (Score:3)

    by Xenu ( 21845 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:18AM (#871108)
    My understanding is that if you have a trade secret that was obtained improperly, and you know it, you are not legally free to pass the trade secret on to other people.

  • Re:Trade Secret Law (Score:3)

    by Xenu ( 21845 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:38AM (#871109)
    From THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY FOR TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION [execpc.com], R. MARK HALLIGAN, ESQ.

    Liability for trade secret misappropriation is not limited to actual trade secret violators. A variety of third parties can get caught in the "web" of trade secret misappropriation if such persons knew or had reason to know that they are the recipients of unauthorized trade secret information. Third-party liability for trade secret misappropriation is a critical component of trade secret law because often third parties are the only ones with "deep pockets'" for the recovery of damages for trade secret violations.

  • Not at all a "Legal Urban Myth" (Score:3)

    by TheDullBlade ( 28998 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @09:07AM (#871110)
    Of course, you can sue anyone for anything, and of course, you can be punished for suing someone for something utterly baseless. The number of lawyers who get disbarred is just more evidence of how you don't need any justification to initiate a lawsuit.

    Those of us who have been plaintiffs know that it's already hard enough to win a judgement when you are totally in the right.

    If you look a bit harder, you realize the reason for that is that being totally in the right is often only one relatively minor playing piece. It's usually enough to tip the balance when both sides can hire nearly equally good lawyers and have equally suitable clients (a client who is a talented deceiver is worth a whole team of $1000/hour lawyers), and occasionally there's enough evidence that only an incompetent lawyer could lose. However, the law is so absurdly complicated and poorly worded that often a good lawyer can bring up any number of technicalities and inexplicable precedents which only an equally good lawyer can counter. If you throw a jury into the mix (an average group of people with typically weak logic and ignorance of the law, who are then told to put aside their common sense and decide purely on legal issues), there's no telling what will happen; they aren't even held accountable for their decision.

    It seems to me that it is quite common for both corporations and individuals to threaten lawsuits that have no real legal basis, and not unheard-of for them to win despite this. The cure is not to make it harder and more dangerous to sue (as you seem to be protesting the suggestion of such), but to simplify and clarify the whole body of law and let lawyers argue the uncertainty of the facts rather than the uncertainty of the laws. Of course, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

    ---
    Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
  • > What would happen if a leak like this
    > got to say the New York Times, and they
    > published it. Apple wouldn't have a leg
    > to stand on.

    1) The NY Times probably isn't going to knowingly violate fair use as defined under the Berne Convention [cornell.edu].

    2) It doesn't matter if its the NY Times, MacOS Rumors, or Slashdot. The legal grounds are the same regardless of the company.

    Regarding the car thing: This is a different situation. The pictures are snapped in public during the road testing of new vehicles and are not product glamor shots comissioned by the company itself. If Apple's engineers decided to take, say, a pre-release iBook to the park someday, and I happened to take a picture of them using it in public, Apple could do very little legally except beg me to not publicize the photo. (Or just give me an iBook to shut me up!)



    ----
  • (that aren't related to the legal question)
    1. The element of secrecy and suprise is a very important aspect of staying competitive. Every month, every week, every hour makes a difference as far as competitors working to duplicate or one-up a new product.
    2. The element of setting expectations: if the rumors are wrong, reasonable and exciting, then they set expectations that may be hard to live up to.
    3. If the rumors are currently correct, that doesn't mean that last minute announcement changes won't be made, thus disappointing people or revealing problems to competitors. True rumors make it more difficult for a company to "turn on a dime" and avoid customer/competitor/supplier problems.
    Having said all that, I like reading speculative info about new cool stuff...

  • Re:And? (Score:3)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @10:20AM (#871113)
    Another question: What if I make up really good fake pictures in Photoshop and send them to some Mac Fanatics web site. And suddenly it turns out that Apple is going to bring out a product which look almost like my fakes? Will I or the Mac web site be sued?

    The American legal system is very strange.

    Actually, in this case it's more like reality is very strange. The American legal system is supposed to encompass all of this strangeness.

    It's quite a task, especially when technology goes screaming by us so very quickly these days.

  • Simple Reason (Score:3)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:20AM (#871114) Homepage Journal
    Because Steve jobs is very controlling, and he likes to have the most bang for hi8s buck so to speak, if everyone knows about the cube the day before steve is supposed to tell everyone, this rains on his parade, making steve mad. look what he did to ATI over the leak they had over the new cube, why would you think mac sites would fare any differently? In the apple world, you either do things steves way or you get "steve'd" As many mac websites are finding out.

  • Yet Another Polite Comment..... (Score:3)

    by Bill Daras ( 102772 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:34AM (#871115) Homepage
    the Mac freaks are going to buy the stuff no matter what Apple does, and no one else gives a damn anyway.


    How nice it is to log onto Slashdot and be stereotyped and insulted for my choice of platform. If anyone ever wonders why many Mac owners have a negative attitude towards x86 users, look no further than ignorant comments such as this.

    I wonder what the response would be if I stuck a completely unnecessary and untrue line about all Linux or Windows users being 400 pound acne faced, Star Trek uniform wearing and utterly clueless Linus/Gates worshipers onto the end of a story?

    I would probably have an army of rabid Penguins released into my house in the dead of night!

    The point is, be more respectful.

  • Here's what a SLAPP is (Score:3)

    by Benwick ( 203287 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:31AM (#871116) Journal
    You should tell 'em what SLAPP is since they probably don't know: a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Usually designed to hold the public off of a boycotting/voting sort of situation until after the problem can be resolved, or hidden (in environmental terms, "greenwashed"). For example recently a collection of Minnesota timber workers sued environmental lobbying groups that had successfully finagled some legislation, claiming that the groups' environmental philosophy was religious and therefore their legislation violated the separation of Church and State. Now, obviously they weren't going to get away with this ridiculous claim, and in addition, they were sueing the wrong parties. However, "winning" isn't the goal of a SLAPP. The environmental groups (which were small and local) were sufficiently tied down by the legal dilemma that they were momentarily diverted from their anti-logging mission. Ultimately they were defended pro bono, and the press on behalf of the environmentalists made the loggers look so stupid that all the loggers' clout was pretty much ruined. The SLAPP had completely backfired.

    I think most SLAPP's backfire, in the end; market forces may preempt the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. I eagerly await Apple's SLAPP in the face by the public.

    Hope that helps.

  • Re:Trade Secret Law (Score:3)

    by LowneWulf ( 210110 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:28AM (#871117)
    Unless there are new laws I'm not aware of, as far as I understand it (and I have studied this recently), by definition, trade secrets are NOT protected by law. A trade secret protected by law is a patent, or a copyright. And in either case it's not a secret anymore. That's the big thing they say about trade secrets in any intellectual property couse - trade secrets are up to you to keep secret, and if you need legal protection, you have to use a patent, a registered industrial design (which would have covered Apple in this case), a trademark, or a copyright. But then Apple couldn't surprize anyone, so it'd defeat the point.

    Though with all the lawsuits these days, who knows, there's probably a precedent somewhere. But for the most part it's probably just scare tactics.

  • More Info... (Score:4)

    by aberkvam ( 109205 ) <aberkvamNO@SPAMberque.com> on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:56AM (#871118) Homepage
    In the first place, the actual lawsuit is against the people that actually broke the NDAs. Apple is not suing the people that posted it on their web site. They did demand that some web sites remove the images [macintouch.com] but nothing ever came of those threats.

    As for why Apple is fed up with this type of behavior, it's because they are afraid of losing market share. Much of Apple's current business plan seems to be creating new things that aren't that hard to reproduce (clear optical mouse, cube-shaped computer, easy-to-use movie software). Much of Apple's sucess rides on being the only ones offering such products. If a competitor had knowledge of Apple's plans six months before Apple released products, they could possible bring a competitive product to market, perhaps before Apple. This would effectively negate Apple's edge.

    Also if Apple's customers know that a new product line is coming out, they might not buy into the current line. Can't happen, you say? Look at Kaypro. They announced the new version of their computer a year before it shipped. People got excited about the new version and stopped buying the old version. With no money coming in, Kaypro was barely able to finish the machine and wandered into backruptcy soon after.

    Apple isn't the only one doing this. Adobe is suing Apple Insider over their previews of Photoshop 6 and ImageReady 3. I suspect that as the Internet continues to facilitate the rapid spread of information we will see more and more of this type of thing.

    An MWJ editor wrote a very good analysis [tidbits.com] of this subject. Check it out for more details.

  • And? (Score:5)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:21AM (#871119)

    So what? You're allowed to use copyrighted pics if it's for the purpose of criticism, commentary, news reporting, etc. It's fair use.

  • Which countries allow this? (Score:5)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:23AM (#871120) Homepage Journal
    So trade secrets that are leaked illegally can not be published in the US. How many countries have this level of protection for trade secrets?

    If a trade secret is disclosed, it's no longer a trade secret. However, if a trade secret is disclosed illegally, even if everyone on Earth knows it, it is still protected information in the US, it seems.

  • Re:And? (Score:5)

    by HerrNewton ( 39310 ) <thoiigd3pn5p25001 AT sneakemail DOT com> on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @08:34AM (#871121) Homepage
    Here's the pertinent portion [cornell.edu] of the Berne Convention [cornell.edu] which the U.S. Senate ratified shortly after its inception in 1967. Note that in order for a work to be usable under fair use, it has to be discovered in a legal manner which usually means that the publisher can be reasonably certain that it was obtained through legal means. In this case, it's fairly doubtful that the original publisher wasn't aware that they were publishing materials leaked in violation of an NDA.

    ----
  • Did you notice the similarity between the pics displayed on Apple's website and the pics on the sites being sued? They were the same photos, photos which I imagine Apple holds the copyright for. THAT'S the legal basis.

  • Re:Trade Secret Law (Score:5)

    by richardbowers ( 143034 ) on Tuesday August 08, 2000 @07:53AM (#871123)
    Um...no. Try searching on "Trade Secret Law" :)
    Here's what I found (at http://execpc.com/~mhallign/crime.html [execpc.com]): On October 11, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Economic Espionage Act of 1996" into law. The theft of trade secrets is now a federal criminal offense. This is a major development in the law of trade secrets in the United States and internationally. The Department of Justice now has sweeping authority to prosecute trade secret theft whether it is in the United States, via the Internet, or outside the United States. Section 1832 of the Act makes it a federal criminal act for any person to convert a trade secret to his own benefit or the benefit of others intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of the trade secret. The conversion of a trade secret is defined broadly to cover every conceivable act of trade secret misappropriation including theft, appropriation without authorization, concealment, fraud artifice, deception, copying without authorization, duplication, sketches, drawings, photographs, downloads, uploads, alterations, destruction, photocopies, transmissions, deliveries, mail, communications, or other transfers or conveyances of such trade secrets without authorization. The Act also makes it a federal criminal offense to receive, buy or possess the trade secret information of another person knowing the same to have been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without the trade secret owner's authorization.The definition of a "trade secret" in the Act generally tracks the definition of a trade secret in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act but expands the definition of a trade secret to include the new technological ways that trade secrets are created and stored. There's a ton of other useful information out there as well, including various state laws and supreme court decisions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close