Is Gawker's "Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt" Illegal? 172
theodp writes "Not too surprisingly, Apple was not amused by Valleywag's announcement of an Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt, which offered cash prizes ranging from 10K-100K for info about the much-anticipated new Apple device. The promo prompted a threatening cease-and-desist letter from Apple's lawyers, which Valleywag deemed the most concrete evidence yet that there may indeed be a tablet in the works. But is the Scavenger Hunt really illegal, as the attorney claimed? The jury's still out, but Slate concludes Apple's got a pretty good case, although it notes that Valleywag's unconventional Scavenger Hunt 'stunt' may not really be all that different from 'reporting' practiced by mainstream publications like the WSJ."
Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal. Now are they asking someone to do something illegal? That is another question. In order to deliver the information they seek, is the party required to do something illegal? Surely it may be something where a civil law suit may result, but is such law limited to criminal acts?
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. There is absolutely nothing illegal about talking about a commercial product before release. It's entirely a civil matter.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking a civil law is still illegal. (Put differently, you don't have to commit a criminal act for something to be illegal.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you breach an enforceable contract, the party with whom you had the contract may be entitled to some redress, but I don't think that breach of contract is considered "illegal"; it is merely "breach of contract".
Now, it may be that certain types of contract breaches could successfully be termed by a plaintiff as fraud, and there are specific statutes surrounding fraud which define what sorts of behavior are legal and which are not. But breaking
Re: (Score:2)
The question of whether something is illegal/unlawful is a separate one from what the remedy is for the breach.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course freedom of speech gets in there as well and constitutions take precedence over criminal laws and of course criminal laws takes precedence of civil contracts. In point of fact the only real laws that apply in the civil arena, is contractual law and the most important part there is, it is strictly illegal to write a clause into a contract that infringes criminal law and that clause can and often does invalidate the entire contract. So you can't really sue someone for damages but you can avoid payin
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the onus to follow the law fall on the person providing the information? If a person were to say break into Apple and snap pictures and then provide the pictures to Gawker, wouldn't they be the party to prosecuted, not Gawker? From reading the Slate article [slate.com] it appears that Gawker might be protected if they are not actively soliciting people to break the law and reveal trade secrets. If an individual shows up at their office with the product and assures the editors that they have the right to sha
Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a clause from Gawkers contest rules:
By submitting any photo or information to Gawker Media, you hereby represent and warrant that the submitted photo or information does not and shall not infringe on any copyright, any rights of privacy or publicity of any person, or any other right of any third party, and you have the right to grant any and all rights and licenses granted to Gawker Media herein, including but not limited to all necessary rights under copyright, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances;
That makes it pretty clear that they don't expect people to share information illegally.
I guess everyone involved gets some publicity though.
Copyright is not the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a clause from Gawkers contest rules:
By submitting any photo or information to Gawker Media, you hereby represent and warrant that the submitted photo or information does not and shall not infringe on any copyright, any rights of privacy or publicity of any person, or any other right of any third party, and you have the right to grant any and all rights and licenses granted to Gawker Media herein, including but not limited to all necessary rights under copyright, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances;
That makes it pretty clear that they don't expect people to share information illegally.
I guess everyone involved gets some publicity though.
No, it doesn't. The disclaimer only covers copyright violations. There are plenty of laws you can break besides copyright law.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you sure?
I would point you at the part where it says "on any copyright, any rights of privacy or publicity of any person, or any other right of any third party" and then to the part right after that where it says "you have the right to grant any and all rights and licenses granted to Gawker Media herein, including but not limited to all necessary rights under copyright, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances", which is pretty clearly not limited to copyright.
Given that I quoted the last half of it
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this has anything to do with showing illegalities. Apple loves this sort of attention and the legal threat is their standard procedure. If they hadn't made legal motions against this I think there would have been many more people wondering what they're up to. The C&Ds and legal motions is Apple's way of generating even more publicity via the Streisand Effect.
I always wonder if these events are just astroturfing at it's finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Action: Somebody does something that Apple doesn't like; Reaction: Apple sues them. If it's not illegal, the court will throw it out, but by then the "act of suing" will have already taken place. This serves both to promote the notion that "thou shal
Re: (Score:2)
offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.
I think something has been overlooked here... the scavenger hunt does NOT suggest doing anything illegal. It actually has legitimate basis if you look at it from another admittedly fairly unlikely angle.
Apple's had enough experience in the NDA arena that I think we can expect nearly flawless coverage. But there remains the possibility that someone, somewhere, was allowed access within cameraphone range of an iSlate without being NDA'd
Re: (Score:2)
But there remains the possibility that someone, somewhere, was allowed access within cameraphone range of an iSlate without being NDA'd.
No need for a cameraphone, although the irony of using an Apple iPhone to spy on the iSlate would be hilarious. All you need to do is be within security camera range... And thanks to a blind love of 1984 style Big Brother, that is everywhere, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Apple is the type of company that allows its dev teams to take their work home with them, or anyone to let even a mock-up device leave their facility until it's ready. Though arguably the closer the launch date, the more likely something along those lines would occur, but it'd be days before the launch, and at that point a blurry image would probably
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing was said or suggested about paying someone to do something illegal.
Follow the first link and see Exactly what it offered.
If Apple is bold enough to bring a "secret" device out in public and photos are obtained its their own damn fault. In this country trade secrets are only protected as long as you keep it secret. Bring it out in public, or allow someone to take pictures, and all protection is lost.
I think the lawyer opened himself up for a bar inquiry by sending a threatening letter before the fa
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the entire offer was a Joke, the courts could consider the offering of money as an inducement to violate trade secrets, thus giving the Go Ahead to the pursuit of a major lawsuit. Anyone who actually accepts the money and provides what has been requested, then opens them up to a criminal investigation of Industrial Espionage. "Jonny Menomic" was based upon the entire precept of Industrial Espionage wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not what is at issue here.
What is at issue is whether a private entity has a right to control information about itself, aside from what it must disclose to meet its legal obligations (e.g. in SEC filings).
To a first approximation, the way the law in the US works with respect to private secrets is once you let them out of the bag, they aren't secrets any longer. That embarrassing purchase you made on Amazon? They can tell the world all about it. In fact, you have to assume to *do*, they just do i
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:5, Informative)
"Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal."
Ummm.... inducement to break an NDA violates a civil statute. Therefore by definition it is illegal. Thus the civil penalties. It is simply not a criminal act under the Calif. code cited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple wouldn't sue if there wasn't a product in the pipe. That's how you can tell when Apple is bringing out a new product - they start sending C&D letters.
It's a funny old way to do PR releases.
Re: (Score:2)
inducement to break an NDA violates a civil statute
"I'll give you $5000 to tell me stuff about the Apple Tablet" != "I'll give you $5000 to break your NDA and tell me stuff about the Apple Tablet.... anonymously, of course."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd hate to work for a company that was always threatening me. I feel bad for the people who work there... what a miserable way to live.
I'm unaware of any company which openly allows their employees to disclose trade secrets, with nary a threat of termination or disciplinary action.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So in your world, telling someone about a company's products is the same as murder?
Um, no. GP said nothing of the sort. GP in fact said nothing about the severity of the crime. If you want to make a real comparison, ask yourself if hiring someone to murder is illegal, as murder is illegal.
Or you could baselessly insult a commenter that didn't even attempt to make factual statements, and in fact is clearly just raising questions.
Now are they asking someone to do something illegal?
Such as?
Last time I checked, telling people about a company's product isn't illegal.
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
You seem to have missed the question mark, noting that GP was asking a question not making a statement of fact.
On topic, to me this seems a bit grey. Obtaining inf
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
The legal problem is not the NDA, but opening a trade secret to the public. Both doing it and inducing a person to do so is illegal under Californian law.
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not illegal to take a picture of Steve Jobs stuck in traffic and deciding to fire up his iTablet to pass the time.
Nothing in the original offer (see 1st link in story) said that someone had to break in, or break a NDA or any such.
Opening a trade secret is also not against the law once the trade secret somehow leaves the private offices of the holder. You can't hire buglers, but you can hire long-lens photographers.
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Apple's campus is not Jerhico, buglers would have little effect.
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:5, Informative)
Last time I checked, telling people about a company's product isn't illegal.
IANAL, but I can read Wikipedia (emphasis added):
Another significant development in U.S. law is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1831–1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, 18 U.S.C. 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. (The statutory penalties are different for the two offenses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secrets
So, as an example, if Apple could argue that the information in question is a trade secret (and they have done so in the past) then divulging that information may very well be a crime.
PS: You should work on your reading comprehension before you go around calling people idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if apple keeps it absolute secret. Drive one down the street to Steve's house and you pretty much gave up secrecy. Hold it up by a window while training "Geniuses", ditto.
The key word is "Theft". It is not at all clear that a photograph is theft. If it were there would be no paparazzi in California.
It's in the wording, I think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they had actually _required_ that submissions be obtained within the bounds of the law, there's nothing Apple could have remotely done to them about this, even if they don't happen to like it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not even sure that matters. It's like saying "go rob a bank, but make sure you do it legally."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean you want me to become a CEO of a bank? Surely that is illegal yet?
Re:It's in the wording, I think.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yup, if they're smart they'd have just put a checkbox on the submission form:
"By checking this box you declare that you are not barred by law from sharing this photo."
If they later get complaints to the contrary they can of course take the photo back down (after taking the proper time to investigate the complaint and ensure that it is legitimate). After all, how could they tell that the photo was posted illegally?
Re: (Score:2)
If they later get complaints to the contrary they can of course take the photo back down (after taking the proper time to investigate the complaint and ensure that it is legitimate). After all, how could they tell that the photo was posted illegally?
By "after taking the proper time to investigate" do you mean giving everyone, their brother, sister, cat, dog and grandma a chance to mirror it, convert it into art and write it into poetry [loyalty.org] to allow ensure that it's protected under Amendment 1?
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor is that Apple is going to announce it anyway in about 10 days, so it's not like anyone (besides Apple and Gawker, possibly) will give a shit about all this after that, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they don't encourage [gawker.com], they advise.
If you read between the lines, it seems like they encourage doing the opposite of what they advise...
Re: (Score:2)
controlled leak (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this article is still serving their agenda. All publicity is good. Last week's Apple publicity was about how Apple masterminds controlled leaks. This week's Apple publicity is about how Apple stops leaks. It's irrelevant what the news says, because the key concept is "Apple is doing something".
Sometimes people say "I'm not buying any Apple products in protest against their consistently unethical behaviour". But with a few very rare exceptions, those people were never Apple customers anyway. In a very
I'll claim the prize (Score:2, Informative)
The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes. There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it. The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 G
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Me, I have no idea why a short-term preview of some computer hardware could be worth so much money. Seems ridiculous, and overly fanboi-ish/hyped...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, tablets are a niche, and the iPod touch fills in a lot of that niche. Secondly, the new device is expected to fill in between the ipods and the laptops, but a tablet would likely be more expensive than the laptop (unless Apple has some seriously revolutionary technology that none of us have heard of). Third, there is a huge obvious market for an Apple netbook (have you ever met anyone who thought of getting an Apple
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, I'm going to say once again, tablets just aren't that useful compared to laptops with keyboards.
A lot of the rumors point less to a generalized tablet and more to something like a super-high-end Kindle. Imagine a sleeker version of the Kindle DX with a hybrid e-paper LCD screen capable of displaying web pages or movies in full color, including a multitouch screen and a modified iPhone OS.
Still rumor at this point, but it makes a little more sense than the idea of marketing it as a low-end netbook in tablet form at a $1000 price point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. They're already selling audio books. It's not a stretch at all.
I just have to wonder, at what point do they rebrand the iTunes Music Store? I guess they've already dropped the "Music" part of the name in most places, but "iTunes" hardly seems fitting anymore for the name of the store or the application itself. The store sells movies, TV shows, and software in addition to "tunes".
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs hates netbooks, they aren't going to be releasing a netbook under his watch. The MacBook Air is the closest thing you're ever going to see to a netbook from Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the Air. I remember how the Macbook Air was loved and praised here as Yet Another Apple First here on Slashdot, on the grounds that it was a mm smaller than the smallest laptop. Then they promptly went very quiet, as netbooks appeared on the market, offering much smaller devices at about 10% of the price, and we never heard about the Air again...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a strategic lawsuit (Score:2)
Ooh, Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion. They're just artificially creating marketing hype.
How is this different ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Public View (Score:4, Insightful)
If the contest were to get images of the tablet in public, it too would be legal. But when would that happen? Realistically, never.
Cars however to be well tested, have to be driven on real roads - and so are out in public often enough that people can get perfectly legal spy shots (though the cars usually have some kind of misleading or obscuring trim).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does the practicality of getting legal pictures of the device have anything to do with it? If someone that isn't NDA'd gets a picture of a car, it's fair game. If someone who isn't NDA'd gets a picture of this tablet thing, then it's fair game. Legal action against the contest organizers just because it will be hard or impossible to actually collect on the prize is stupid, and missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm genuinely curious as to what I'm apparently missing here? Would someone care to actually explain, or is my crime just doubting the Church of Jobs?
Corporate Espionage (Score:2)
Probably Illegal (Score:2)
Not necessarily. (Score:2)
While Apple may be keeping it under wraps, it is still conceivable that Apple may expose someone to the tablet without making them sign an NDA. A preemptive lawsuit ASSUMES that everyone that knows about the tablet is under NDA, but you can never make that assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to assume that since Apple's lawyer pretty much said anybody you could get some information worth anything is under an NDA and breaking it. Let's assume there exists a list somewhere of everyone who is SUPPOSED to have seen it and in turn is under an NDA. If you get useful information from someone who isn't on that list, I have no doubt Apple will sue that person to find out who on that list they got it from and go after them. If by some chance, the person the source got it from wasn't on t
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter what their lawyer said. It is still possible and conceivable. Hell, it could happen due to forgetting to give someone the right paperwork. Or any other possible scenario, really. It doesn't really matter what Apple says.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter what their lawyer said. It is still possible and conceivable. Hell, it could happen due to forgetting to give someone the right paperwork. Or any other possible scenario, really. It doesn't really matter what Apple says.
You're right that it's possible. Given Apple's security policies, though, it's extremely unlikely.
I once worked for a company that contracted with Apple to tend Macintosh retail displays at Circuit City, Sears and other retailers. I had absolutely no access to advance, proprietary information or trade secrets but I still had to sign an Apple NDA. I suspect that anyone who visits 1 Infinite Loop has to sign one before they are even allowed to leave the lobby and I'd be very, very surprised if any of the prot
What NDA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that like saying Coca Cola couldn't sue you for offering cash for (either in its entirety or a part of) their secret coke recipe unless they are willing to show you an NDA that has their coke recipe?
I don't see their legal team agreeing with you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What if it does exist but is nowhere near ready?
Would images of this device hurt potentially Apple's sales of laptops if people see leaked shots of something that may or may not be ready for market and may or may not be released any time soon, who decide to hold off on buying an iPhone or macbook because they feel the tablet is close and might be just what they want.
If they are working on a tablet (and it is likely they are) it can be just as damaging for information to come out through a leak compared to a
Re: (Score:2)
If this scavenger hunt is illegal, it would also be illegal for me to offer $10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone.
The phone itself? That would probably be theft...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal....
The existence of contracts, including NDAs, do not have to be disclosed to anyone other than the signatories.
Controlled leaks. (Score:2)
I think if the nature of Apple's controlled leaks gets to be put up for grabs here, then what defense does Apple have?
Quite frankly I just want Apple to shit or get off the pot. It's been nearly a decade and a half that the supposed tablet's been rumored. Let's either get it out or say once adn for all, "NO."
Really?! (Score:3, Insightful)
This may be a bit off topic - but don't people have better things to do? I, for one, will likely come across one of the many news stories that are sure to be published if/when Apple releases this thing. At that point, I will read the story, read reviews, visit Apple's web site, and determine if this device is something I would like to purchase.
Until then, I'm going to go do other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stories like this are for people who are being rational, and might be putting off the purchase of a competitor's product, so they can obsess endlessly about how awesome this product is and how it will change everything and how they absolutely must have it RIGHT NOW even thought they don't know what it is or what it does.
Doing it Legally (Score:2)
It's possible to find this information legally.
There's certain places in the world that have different views on IP law, and while contractually bound from doing such a thing here, such provision might not hold up there.
civil action vs. criminal action (Score:2)
It is fully within Apple's right to send the cease-and-desist letters to Valleywag. Its basically telling them "if you continue this, we will sue you for damages, and we will win." I see no action taken by the attorney general on anyone's behalf, since almost all speech -- even speech prohibited by another party by contract -- is protected by the US constitution. However, the constitution does not protect you from the consequences of that speech, including being sued for large sums of money.
What if Valle
Gawker websites (Score:4, Interesting)
They really are just paparazzi "journalists" and we don't really need their type plaguing the technology sector. It would be nice if they went away.
who cares ? (Score:2)
really, who does ?
idiot grad for headlines about news of no import whatosever.
rather probably orchestrated by Apple marketing.
The Reply is worse (Score:2)
In exchange for not getting sued they're basically being locked down to where they can no longer directly post any "leaked" information on any of their websites, and they're being told they have to notify apple of the source.
Can the absence of a product be a trade secret? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that Apple's legal threat is tacit admission that the iTablet (or whatever such a product would be called) exists. I mean, how can you sue for inducing someone to violate the trade secret that a particular product does not exist? Is that even a trade secret?
Come on guys, porno (Score:2)
They really want it to be a secret! Really (Score:2, Insightful)
A) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline
or
B) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I completely agree. Personally I'm getting sick of all of these apple tablet articles that seem to get posted at least once every 5 hours.
slashvertising (Score:4, Interesting)
Get used to it. It is exactly the same kind of campaign /. ran the six months before (and two years after, too) the iPhone came out. They are getting paid to feature articles about Apple products. It is the only way to explain why there have been hundreds of iPhone articles and about one (1) about N900 which is a phone that kicks iPhone's butt in every possible way. With free software to boot. I guess it keeps the bills payed.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed], on all your "facts".
Is the superiority of the N900 the reason it is outselling the iPhone so heavily. Or is it the MMS support?
Re: (Score:2)
No, my point with the MMS was "you should';t buy an iPhone because it can't even do a simple thing like MMS that even really basic shitty phones can do! hah!" posts that flooded the boards before the ability was added to the iPhone natively (which replaced the MMS app that was free on the app store - you know, built using the SDK apple released for the phone to fill in a missing feature. As soon as people realised it didn't have built in MMS someone wrote an app and gave it away for free.
If we're going by t
Re: (Score:2)
Look out! Nerdrage!
The Big Mac may not be haute cuisine, but it's good enough for most people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even more damning is how slashdot did not cover the appstore .ipa's being cracked.
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you actually use MMS anyway? Given the choice of email, bluetooth, wifi, etc. it seems to me that MMS is only used for legacy purposes. The awesome thing about the N900 is if you really need MMS that badly, you can implement it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical slashdot response. "I don't use feature 'foo' so it's pointless, but if it lacks feature 'bar', my nerdragometer goes into the red zone. Oh, and just do it yourself!" Give me a fucking break, the N900 seems to do everything except what, you know, paying customers want. People want phones, not phone construction kits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People drilled Apple for not having feature x, y and z. Now after several OS updates and all the features added, people still drill Apple for not having them from day one!
Sorry but the iPhone is the better smartphone. Don't take my word for it, but Nokia's.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10423779-17.html [cnet.com]
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/01/04/nokia.claims.new.hardware.and.services.key/ [electronista.com]
http://www.techmeme.com/100104/p17 [techmeme.com]
The question is, in 2011 will they match where Apple is now, or where Apple will b
It's the new Duke Nukem Forever (Score:2)
Indeed - it's the new Duke Nukem Forever. I suppose the Daily Iphone Story is getting old hat, so now it's moving on to vaporware. I could understand it if the point was to ridicule (as with DNF), but I get the feeling that these stories are serious...
I suspect many posters here are completely ignorant of the non-vaporware actual tablet devices that currently exist, due to the lack of coverage on them, and therefore claim the Apple tablet (if it's ever released) to be the another Apple "first". And then use
Re: (Score:2)
Vaporware?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure most of us have been tired of small minded insecure bigots for a lot longer than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as sick as we are of the Apple tablet and "Google Nexus Causes Cancer" stories.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crap
I think it's safe to assume that there are a lot of people who are not sick of hearing about the Apple tablet. I also do not think your command to for Slashdot to stop posting about it is going to be heeded.
Do you also post to auto sites asking them to stop posting about new car rumors? Or gaming sites to stop posting about SC2 or whatever? Would doing so even make any sense?
Re: (Score:2)
It's incredibly unlikely, but not impossible.
Anything could be illegal. (Score:3, Funny)
"It would not be possible for Noah to do in our day what he was permitted to do in his own...The inspector would come and examine the Ark, and make all sorts of objections." -- Mark Twain
Re: (Score:2)
There was no "inspector" involved here. This wasn't some regulatory action by the government or repressive law.
It was a big corporation with their on-staff bully lawyers threatening to sue the shit out some bloggers in civil court for the crime of giving the big company publicity.
Don't try to make this some sort of evidence of a repressive regime, neoshroom.
Plus, Noah didn't have to worry about "examiners" because he had the Examiner-in-Chief the Lord God Jehova