Ugh. I think I probably should clarify where I stand.
I don't have a problem with Apple trying to keep things secret. I don't have a problem with them trying to ferret out leaks in some ways. What I have a problem with is how they tried to ferret out these leaks - by trying to force journalists to surrender sources. What compounds this further is that in the last case that they handled like this, Apple v. Does, they were found to have not performed the internal investigation that the law mandated that they had to perform before they could even think about filing suit against the rumor sites.
Now, the question is why not do an internal investigation? Well, one reason is that Apple has a reputation for being an excellent employer. Internal investigations, even when handled well, are messy. They can erode employee goodwill towards the company. So, Apple probably thought that putting financial pressure on the hobbyists who ran these sites would quickly garner them the names, without inflicting any damage on their reputations. Instead, they lawyered up, and put Apple through a legal fight that harmed their reputation.
Again, I'd like to point out that when Apple v. Does was winding through the courts, everyone and their brother involved with journalism was filing amicus curiae briefs on the side of the defendants. Why? Because the case was treading new ground. Part of it was the status of bloggers as journalists in the eyes of the law, but part of it was how companies can handle leaks. One thing that's really bothered me is how the fact that one party may have signed an NDA can create obligations on another party. I don't get how that can work.
And if Apple had won the right to squeeze a reporter for their sources, how long to you think it would have been before every major company and the government would have started using that ruling to force reporters to divulge all their sources? People want to talk about chilling effects, but that would have pretty much frozen out journalists.
To make it short, I don't begrudge Apple the right to protect their secrets. But it's THEIR responsibility to do so. Not society's. Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants tight information control and the reputation of an open employer. But the only way it can get that is by offloading its responsibilities to society. And we need to tell Apple "No."
And if Apple had won the right to squeeze a reporter for their sources, how long to you think it would have been before every major company and the government would have started using that ruling to force reporters to divulge all their sources? People want to talk about chilling effects, but that would have pretty much frozen out journalists.
This. This right here. So exaggerated and unnecessary.
I mean I'm in law school, and even I can't see this slippery slope.
Yes, Jeff, companies should protect their work. But not at the expense of the First Amendment.
Contrary to your opinion, the first amendment doesnt protect trade secrets.
If the NYT printed apple trade secrets or asked for apple trade secrets they would be liable to be sued.
Now, the government doesnt have trade secrets, because its not a business. So this really cant apply to them, especially because the specifics that any newspaper are looking for, are explicity dealing with things the government should not be doing, which is explicitly covered by the first amendment[and various free speech laws]
Goumindong on
0
Options
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Jesus, this is almost as if Purina were to come to our sales people and started pumping them for information about what our next big innovation was going to be. Hell yes we would do what we had to in order to make them stop.
If Apple gear is truly the best, then it should stand out no matter what.
It does stand out no matter what.
That does not mean Apple should turn a blind eye to its leaks, or not pursue third party sites that facilitate and publish such leaks.
I'm not saying that companies shouldn't control information flows - but when that's your competitive advantage, it's probably time to take a step back and figure out what's wrong.
Information is every company's competitive advantage. The entire marketplace is built on information.
Seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about here.
Now, the question is why not do an internal investigation? Well, one reason is that Apple has a reputation for being an excellent employer. Internal investigations, even when handled well, are messy. They can erode employee goodwill towards the company. So, Apple probably thought that putting financial pressure on the hobbyists who ran these sites would quickly garner them the names, without inflicting any damage on their reputations. Instead, they lawyered up, and put Apple through a legal fight that harmed their reputation.
Stop speculating. Do you or do you not know for sure that Apple did an internal investigation? You don't? Well, it's funny because you seem to hate Apple so god damn much you've already made up your mind despite solid evidence.
I can just go ahead and claim that this time Apple probably did do an internal investigation, because they have looked at past cases and seen that not doing an internal investigation cost them the case.
But again, that's just speculation.
And if Apple had won the right to squeeze a reporter for their sources, how long to you think it would have been before every major company and the government would have started using that ruling to force reporters to divulge all their sources? People want to talk about chilling effects, but that would have pretty much frozen out journalists.
Slippery fucking slope.
To make it short, I don't begrudge Apple the right to protect their secrets. But it's THEIR responsibility to do so. Not society's. Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too - it wants tight information control and the reputation of an open employer. But the only way it can get that is by offloading its responsibilities to society. And we need to tell Apple "No."
No, it's not just their responsibility. They have leaks, fine, I'm sure they are doing something about that internally (investigation or no). But when a website goes around publishing those leaks and multiplying the damage caused by the information leaks, to the possible extent of causing Apple to lose a significant portion of its competitive advantage and not benefit anyone except Apple's competitors, that website is to blame for it too.
Spreading or facilitation of the spread of trade secrets is a crime.
Think about it this way -- and I know this is not about trade secrets, but the same logic applies -- if there was a leak in FBI spouting information that is critical to national security, and some newspaper published this information, would you blame FBI, the newspaper, or both for undermining the nation's security? You'd blame both.
Blame is not a zero-sum game. Which means...
Again, let me state my point - protecting Apple's trade secrets is Apple's - and ONLY Apple's - responsibility.
...you are wrong.
--
And holy shit, the part about First Amendment was pure stupid.
You know how Apple-haters are. Anything that even slightly resembles a controversy, anything they can get their hands on to fuel that hatred, is enough to make them go apeshit.
Hell, I'm as anti-corporation as one can get, and I don't particularly like Apple -- they make nice products but that's about it -- yet I don't see anything wrong with what Apple did. All I see is some guy spewing bullshit and jumping to conclusions in light of lack of evidence (in regards to internal investigation).
Come on guys, hiring some investigators to do an internal investigation is a way better idea than having your lawyers openly pursue the opening provided by the then-unclear legal status of bloggers in a court of law where everyone plays by the same rules
You know, you all should really read the Apple v. Does ruling. The judge actually answers a lot of the points you all have made. Some salient quotes:
We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.
Apple first contends that there is and can be no public interest in the disclosures here because "the public has no right to know a company's trade secrets." Surely this statement cannot stand as a categorical proposition. As recent history illustrates, business entities may adopt secret practices that threaten not only their own survival and the investments of their shareholders but the welfare of a whole industry, sector, or community. Labeling such matters "confidential" and "proprietary" cannot drain them of compelling public interest. Timely disclosure might avert the infliction of unmeasured harm on many thousands of individuals, following in the noblest traditions, and serving the highest functions, of a free and vigilant press. It therefore cannot be declared that publication of "trade secrets" is ipso facto outside the sphere of matters appropriately deemed of "great public importance."
This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court's words, "an interested public." In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information.
Here, no proprietary technology was exposed or compromised. There is no suggestion that anything in petitioners' articles could help anyone to build a product competing with Asteroid. Indeed there is no indication that Asteroid embodied any new technology that could be compromised. ... The newsworthiness of petitioners' articles thus resided not in any technical disclosures about the product but in the fact that Apple was planning to release such a product, thereby moving into the market for home recording hardware. ... Such a secret plan may possess the legal attributes of a trade secret; that is a question we are not here required to decide. But it is of a different order than a secret recipe for a product. And more to the point, the fact of its impending release carries a legitimate interest to the public that a recipe is unlikely to possess.
"More generally, we believe courts must be extremely wary about declaring what information is worthy of publication and what information is not. At first glance it might seem that Asteroid is nothing more than a hobbyist's gadget with no ponderable bearing on the great issues of the day. But such an impression would be, in our view, erroneous. ... [Apple's entry into the audio production market] would inevitably contribute to blurring the line between professional and amateur audio production, and hence between professional and amateur composing and performing, in much the same way that the personal computer coupled with telecommunications technology has blurred the distinction between commercial and amateur publishing. The decentralization of expressive capacity represented by such developments is unquestionably one of the most significant cultural developments since the invention of the printing press."
"It is often impossible to predict with confidence which technological changes will affect individual and collective life dramatically, and which will come and go without lasting effects. Any of them may revolutionize society in ways we can only guess at. The lawful acquisition of information necessary to anticipate and respond to such changes is the birthright of every human, formally enshrined for Americans in our state and federal constitutions. The publications at issue here fully implicated that birthright and the interests protected by those constitutional guarantees."
And ege, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that Apple didn't investigate the ThinkSecret matter, considering that it was at the same time approximately as Apple v. Does. And finally, why should I be beholden to Apple's interests, short of being bound by a contract I signed with Apple? This is what I find the most offensive - the attitude that Apple's well being somehow trumps my rights.
Finally, while yes, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does make the disclosure of a trade secret for profit a crime, the UTSA must be interpreted in the context of the framework of the Constitution. At best, it will be bound by the limitations imposed by the First Amendment. At worst, if it is in conflict with the First Amendment, then it must give way.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep dragging in Apple v Does.
It was resolved in 2006. Apple v de Plume was filed in 2004 (pro tip: 2004 comes before 2006, so it isn't like Apple was ignoring the precedent from Apple v Does when they filed). At the time Apple v de Plume was filed, the legal protection of bloggers as journalists was horribly unclear, and frankly Apple's lawyers would have been quite negligent to not pursue the opportunity that lack of clarity afforded.
And on top of that, the ruling in Apple v Does has no fucking material impact on Apple v de Plume. I'll try to explain this in small, simple words:
Apple v Does was a suit filed against the unknown leakers in which Apple sought to subpoena their names from several bloggers, Think Secret among them. The court correctly slapped down the subpoenas.
Apple v de Plume was a separate suit against Think Secret for violation of California's Trade Secret laws, which Think Secret was fairly clearly guilty of.
Finally, while yes, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does make the disclosure of a trade secret for profit a crime, the UTSA must be interpreted in the context of the framework of the Constitution. At best, it will be bound by the limitations imposed by the First Amendment. At worst, if it is in conflict with the First Amendment, then it must give way.
Look, regardless of the interpretation, the First Amendment does not -- or at least should not -- give anyone the right to release classified information that causes direct, undeniable and undue harm to a person or an entity.
I mean this comes down to what we covered in the lyrics thread: you have to draw the line somewhere. In this case, I think the line drawn by the UTSA is quite reasonable. When Apple's trade secrets are released, the company loses money, and as a result people may lose their jobs or at the very least get paid less for their work. I am going to say this is far worse than some guy being ordered to shut down his website.
And ege, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that Apple didn't investigate the ThinkSecret matter, considering that it was at the same time approximately as Apple v. Does
What is unreasonable is reaching conclusions in light of lack of evidence.
Do you or do you not have evidence with regards to whether Apple has internal investigations under way?
I have absolutely no idea why you keep dragging in Apple v Does.
It was resolved in 2006. Apple v de Plume was filed in 2004 (pro tip: 2004 comes before 2006, so it isn't like Apple was ignoring the precedent from Apple v Does when they filed). At the time Apple v de Plume was filed, the legal protection of bloggers as journalists was horribly unclear, and frankly Apple's lawyers would have been quite negligent to not pursue the opportunity that lack of clarity afforded.
And on top of that, the ruling in Apple v Does has no fucking material impact on Apple v de Plume. I'll try to explain this in small, simple words:
Apple v Does was a suit filed against the unknown leakers in which Apple sought to subpoena their names from several bloggers, Think Secret among them. The court correctly slapped down the subpoenas.
Apple v de Plume was a separate suit against Think Secret for violation of California's Trade Secret laws, which Think Secret was fairly clearly guilty of.
Um, because it's relevant?
Let me repost a quote from the Does ruling. And I'll bold the important point, so you don't miss it.
This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court's words, "an interested public." In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information.
Did you get the judge's point? The trade secret laws can only hold sway to the point at which they conflict with the freedom of the press.
Edit: Also, dePlume had filed a countersuit under CA's rather strong anti-SLAPP law. Which explains why Apple really wanted this to go away.
This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court's words, "an interested public." In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information.
Did you get the judge's point? The trade secret laws can only hold sway to the point at which they conflict with the freedom of the press.
Edit: Also, dePlume had filed a countersuit under CA's rather strong anti-SLAPP law. Which explains why Apple really wanted this to go away.
So what are you looking for here? Do you think Apple shouldn't have filed suit? They settled. Everyone's happy. Apple didn't even get what you think they shouldn't. What's the problem?
This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court's words, "an interested public." In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information.
Did you get the judge's point? The trade secret laws can only hold sway to the point at which they conflict with the freedom of the press.
The judge's ruling is with regards to the case he is considering (Apple v Does). He's ruling on Apple's (lack of a) right to simply issue subpoenas to bloggers for names and expect the courts to uphold those subpoenas. He is saying that the blogger, or any other journalist, can not be compelled via subpoena to give up the name of his sources in a trade secret lawsuit because the "statutory quasi-property right" (trade secrets) hold less weight, and must give way, to the First Amendment right to acquire and share information, which the journalist's right to keep his sources secret enables.
But in Apple v de Plume, Apple doesn't want names, they're simply prosecuting Think Secret for violating California's Trade Secret laws. And because this isn't about forcing a journalist to divulge the names, the Apple v Does ruling has precisely
ZERO
FUCKING
RELEVANCE
to Apple v de Plume. The only way Apple v Does could have relevance at all would be if it had overturned California's Trade Secret statutes, which it didn't, because the case at hand in Apple v Does had nothing whatsoever to do with California's Trade Secret statutes; it was, AGAIN, all about whether or not Apple could subpoena names from bloggers, who weren't clearly legally entitled to journalistic protections at the time Apple filed the case. So the fact that the judge in Apple v Does based his ruling on the idea that free speech protection of source's anonymity trumped Apple's right to protect its trade secrets said absolutely nothing about whether or not Think Secret stood in violation of California's Trade Secret laws.
If you honestly think I'm wrong, then explain to me why Ciarelli isn't suing his lawyers for being asleep at the fucking switch because Apple v Does so obviously impacted the status of California's Trade Secret laws. Explain to me why the legislature hasn't been forced to re-draft said laws to deal with the impact on their validity that you insist comes out of Apple v Does.
Do something convince me you have a half a clue what your talking about.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple leaked the Mac/Intel rumors, because a) they knew most people in the know wouldn't believe it, and b) in order to cushion the blow.
Anyway, Steve Jobs has always been a showman. The company is just as much about vision as it is about technology. That's the price of brilliance.
And if Apple had won the right to squeeze a reporter for their sources, how long to you think it would have been before every major company and the government would have started using that ruling to force reporters to divulge all their sources? People want to talk about chilling effects, but that would have pretty much frozen out journalists.
This. This right here. So exaggerated and unnecessary.
I mean I'm in law school, and even I can't see this slippery slope.
The difference is whether or not it's in the public's best interest to know that information. And why that information was being kept secret. If a company is dumping illegal waste in the streams and plans to keep it secret, then yeah, protect that shit. However, considering the fact that anythign on ThinkSecret would have been revealed to the public anyway, it's really, really, really hard to claim that there was anything sinister about it. So why were they keeping it secret? Oh, for the sake of trade. Which is protected by law.
I mean, imagine if someone linked the design plans for the first iMac during early development. The cheap knock offs would have had their knockoffs ready in half the time. Not good.
I mean, imagine if someone linked the design plans for the first iMac during early development. The cheap knock offs would have had their knockoffs ready in half the time. Not good.
And then apple wouldn't be able to sell their overpriced computers on pure kitsch appeal, oh no
I mean, imagine if someone linked the design plans for the first iMac during early development. The cheap knock offs would have had their knockoffs ready in half the time. Not good.
And then apple wouldn't be able to sell their overpriced computers on pure kitsch appeal, oh no
Yes, and as a result, Apple goes bankrupt, your Rio MP3 player still sucks, Windows doesn't have OS X to copy from, and you're still stuck using your floppy drive and Parallel ports.
Aesthetics do not add to functionality but who wouldn't want a smart and muscled man, instead of just smart, or muscled?
It's not even about functionality or aesthetics.
It's simply about being different. That is what the whole brand is based on.
This is a challenge that lies in front of Apple these days; as Apple products get more and more popular, they become less and less different. Everyone has an iPod. Everytime you walk into a Starbucks you see ten different people with Macs, and very few PCs. So Apple has to come up with cooler and cooler shit, and do it more and more quickly.
The need to stay different is a very strong driving force behind Apple's innovation, which is why they are so successful.
The only reason they are able to convince regular consumers, people who could give a shit whether they're using Windows Vista Gimped Edition 2007 or Mac OS X 10.5.2 Mustard Tiger, that this $2000 laptop is better than this $1300 laptop, is because they're in a position to control the message on their products from top to bottom. Every visible machination of Apple Incorporated is carefully timed and calculated for maximum sell -- they pick a time and place to unveil each product, and are very careful to generate as much buzz as possible without ever divulging what they are about to reveal, even if it's really just a slightly updated computer or mp3 player, to facilitate convincing everyone in the room that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is their main advantage over other market players, and frankly the main reason why they are still in business. So I find it unsurprising that they would choose to defend their trade secrets with such enthusiasm.
This is woefully off topic, but are you referring to this laptop?
Apple has had technological advancements over the years. Honestly, I watched the MacWorld expo of the first iPod launch the other day, and it still impresses the hell out of me. "Holy shit, why haven't the other guys been doing this?" They deserve props for their innovation. And yeah, that includes aesthetics. Holy shit, aesthetics can affect mood and behavior. I was listening to a radio show the other day talking about how different screen savers could be used for different moods. So heaven forbid that Apple put some care into it.
Apple's main problems is that a) people copy them, and b) lack of hype. Being able to control when they release their info handles both. Good for them.
This is woefully off topic, but are you referring to this laptop?
Apple has had technological advancements over the years. Honestly, I watched the MacWorld expo of the first iPod launch the other day, and it still impresses the hell out of me. "Holy shit, why haven't the other guys been doing this?" They deserve props for their innovation. And yeah, that includes aesthetics. Holy shit, aesthetics can affect mood and behavior. I was listening to a radio show the other day talking about how different screen savers could be used for different moods. So heaven forbid that Apple put some care into it.
The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware.
That's misleading, though. It was the fastest Vista laptop because it was the fastest laptop they had tested until that time. 3 weeks later they got an even faster Eurocom D900C Phantom-X which at that point became The Fastest Vista Laptop, but that's not as quotable I suppose.
That's misleading, though. It was the fastest Vista laptop because it was the fastest laptop they had tested until that time. 3 weeks later they got an even faster Eurocom D900C Phantom-X which at that point became The Fastest Vista Laptop, but that's not as quotable I suppose.
Rating all computers based on what amounts to peak horsepower (at the fly no less, not even at the wheels) is also misleading. Most people who use computers don't play Oblivion on their computers. I don't have any studies to back that up so you can call me a liar if you want but that would just be silly.
Anyway claims like this:
The only reason they are able to convince regular consumers, people who could give a shit whether they're using Windows Vista Gimped Edition 2007 or Mac OS X 10.5.2 Mustard Tiger, that this $2000 laptop is better than this $1300 laptop, is because they're in a position to control the message on their products from top to bottom.
Are backed by what exactly? I'm mostly curious because I'm a consumer who couldn't give a shit whether I'm using Vista, XP or OSX so long as my shit works consistently, and I switched from XP Home to Leopard this year without really looking into what sort of hype and rumors were flying around before making that decision. I was sold on a MacBook from playing with my friends' iBooks and PowerBooks. I don't think their hyping up their next big thing had any real role in my purchasing decision since I didn't know or care what they were hyping at that point. I don't think their just "being different" did it either because frankly a Compaq would have been different from my game-box too, in the sense that stabbing your cock with an ice-pick is different from masturbating.
I think I was swayed by design. Little things like the power-cord that isn't inevitably going to break loose the solder-joints that connect the power jack to the board turning the whole machine into a loss like my first laptop. I like that it's clean, doesn't have stupid hunks of ugly spraypaint-silver plastic cladding all over it like it thinks it's a Pontiac SUV or some shit. I like how I don't have to know anything about the OS to use the thing without breaking it. I like Spaces. I like how somehow I can run iTunes on this machine constantly without running into any slowdowns where if I tried to run iTunes and Firefox at the same time on my Windows machine they would start a war to hoard all of my system-resources for themselves, and without my having to do anything like my computer was the fucking middle-east or something. I like how installing Firefox on this thing was so easy I didn't know I had done it. I like how the touchpad is fucking huge compared to every Sony, IBM, Toshiba, HP and Compaq touchpad I've ever been forced to use, and how the button has the same area as the spacebar so I don't have to look at it to hit it.
I'm sure there are plenty of Mac owners who bought their Mac because their name is Raven and they're just better than you, but I think these generalizations need a bit more backing than a three year-old webcomic and the generalized ire of people with such power-issues that they go crazy if they don't fully control every last function and floating point their computer performs. I really think that the reason Macs are generally regarded as more popular with people who do graphic-design and artsy shit might actually have something to do with, y'know, design.
Oh and my MacBook was $1300 after adding AppleCare. I wasn't going to pay $2000 for any laptop, laptops aren't for gaming unless you're willing to throw stupid amounts of money at something that's only going to have a 1 year use-life if that.
Beyond that all anyone's doing here is either getting pissed off at Apple for being good at marketting or being Senjutsu.
That's misleading, though. It was the fastest Vista laptop because it was the fastest laptop they had tested until that time. 3 weeks later they got an even faster Eurocom D900C Phantom-X which at that point became The Fastest Vista Laptop, but that's not as quotable I suppose.
Rating all computers based on what amounts to peak horsepower (at the fly no less, not even at the wheels) is also misleading. Most people who use computers don't play Oblivion on their computers. I don't have any studies to back that up so you can call me a liar if you want but that would just be silly.
I... don't really see what that had to do with my post.
That's misleading, though. It was the fastest Vista laptop because it was the fastest laptop they had tested until that time. 3 weeks later they got an even faster Eurocom D900C Phantom-X which at that point became The Fastest Vista Laptop, but that's not as quotable I suppose.
Rating all computers based on what amounts to peak horsepower (at the fly no less, not even at the wheels) is also misleading. Most people who use computers don't play Oblivion on their computers. I don't have any studies to back that up so you can call me a liar if you want but that would just be silly.
I... don't really see what that had to do with my post.
I guess you would have to know the context of the post you were replying to. The point of identifying that machine through a link was to establish a way to convince buyers to buy a $2000 MacBook Pro instead of a $1300 something-Vista. That argument relies on the assumption that the differences between the two computers boil down to nothing more than peak horsepower at the fly, that the OSes aren't sufficiently different to validate a preference for one or the other, that there aren't any substantially different design-choices in the way the machines are built, that there's no software that only runs on one or the other, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, I assumed you had read what was going on before you replied.
My pardons for misinterpreting a reply consisting of naught but "". I assumed you were making a lolPCs response usually associated with that PCWorld quote.
My pardons for misinterpreting a reply consisting of naught but "". I assumed you were making a lolPCs response usually associated with that PCWorld quote.
It effectively flumped the argument it was intended to, I just happened to think it was also funny. When you then criticized the reasoning in broad terms I pointed out that those broad terms are terrible terms by which to rate a computer.
I think the problem is you read an entire encyclopaedia between the lines of Schrodinger's post, *which can be summed up with "Apple makes hardware and aesthetic innovations that amaze me". How PCWorld's admission of quality somehow counters that is anybody's guess.
I think the problem is you read an entire encyclopaedia between the lines of Schrodinger's post, *which can be summed up with "Apple makes hardware and aesthetic innovations that amaze me". How PCWorld's admission of quality somehow counters that is anybody's guess.
*the post, not the assumption
I didn't read anything that isn't a required assumption for his claims to be coherent. Also the argument being replied to wasn't from Schrodinger, it was from Azio. So Schrodinger's post isn't where you're supposed to be looking.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited December 2007
I'm having a hard time getting upset that Apple filed suit to protect some trade secrets that were floating out of a site on the internet. It's not exactly the Pentagon Papers.
Take some time and read through the Does decision. Read the language that the judge uses. I think he's pretty clear in smacking down the use of the UTSA to quash journalistic efforts. The summary, I think, makes that point VERY clear:
It is often impossible to predict with confidence which technological changes will affect individual and collective life dramatically, and which will come and go without lasting effects. Any of them may revolutionize society in ways we can only guess at. The lawful acquisition of information necessary to anticipate and respond to such changes is the birthright of every human, formally enshrined for Americans in our state and federal constitutions. The publications at issue here fully implicated that birthright and the interests protected by those constitutional guarantees.
And no, contrary to your assertion, Does did not need to strike down trade secret law. All it needs to do (and this it does) is to affirm that any trade secret law must tread carefully around the umbra of the Constitutional protections afforded all US citizens. Finally, Ciarelli probably settled because he was tired. He's had to deal with this lawsuit for his entire college career. And Apple probably offered the settlement because they exhausted every possible way to deep-six the anti-vexatious lawsuit countersuit filed in response (for those of you who don't know, CA has one of the toughest statutes against SLAPPs in the US - losing the countersuit would have been a big blow) - and failed. (It's also the main reason the de Plume case stalled - the CA statute shuts down all discovery until the matter of the countersuit is resolved.) Ultimately, I think that Apple's case was very weak - it ultimately hinged on if Apple could really prove that Ciarelli actively solicited information for gain, and the causal chain that Apple would have used to prove this would have all but guaranteed that every single news agency in the US would have backed him.
Will: As the Does judge pointed out, the dangers of picking what news merits protection and what doesn't is much more dangerous.
I have absolutely no idea why you keep dragging in Apple v Does.
It was resolved in 2006. Apple v de Plume was filed in 2004 (pro tip: 2004 comes before 2006, so it isn't like Apple was ignoring the precedent from Apple v Does when they filed). At the time Apple v de Plume was filed, the legal protection of bloggers as journalists was horribly unclear, and frankly Apple's lawyers would have been quite negligent to not pursue the opportunity that lack of clarity afforded.
And on top of that, the ruling in Apple v Does has no fucking material impact on Apple v de Plume. I'll try to explain this in small, simple words:
Apple v Does was a suit filed against the unknown leakers in which Apple sought to subpoena their names from several bloggers, Think Secret among them. The court correctly slapped down the subpoenas.
Apple v de Plume was a separate suit against Think Secret for violation of California's Trade Secret laws, which Think Secret was fairly clearly guilty of.
Didn't you say you were a law student? if I can catch you on this you're probably not a very good one.
This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court's words, "an interested public." In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information.
This states unequivocally that trade secret protection laws only extend to the point at which they overlap the first amendment, and at that point they have no further weight. The judge further states that the release of information to an interested public cannot constitute a violation of trade laws because of it's protected status under the constitution, which by definition supersedes all other legislation. It also states that an interested public cannot be defined due to the troubling precedent that attempting to define legally what is in the public interest sets, and therefore any information released to the public by someone not under direct legal obligation to maintain the secrecy of that information is protected by both free speech, and freedom of the press.
Edit: also, I take issue with your assertion that apple's lawyers would have been negligent for not taking advantage of blogger's vague legal status in their maneuvering to circumvent the United States Constitution. Legal status aside, freedom of the press is in spirit an extension of freedom of speech, and a protection for those who wish to publish their opinions, which certainly includes bloggers from a logical if not legal standpoint. The tone and content of your statement seems to encourage looking for loopholes in the constitution in order to get ahead. This folks, this guy right here, this is why we all hate lawyers so goddamn much.
Didn't you say you were a law student? if I can catch you on this you're probably not a very good one.
Maybe that's because I'm not a fucking law student? I'm not even a student, for fucks sakes.
The tone and content of your statement seems to encourage looking for loopholes in the constitution in order to get ahead. This folks, this guy right here, this is why we all hate lawyers so goddamn much.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm done with this shit
sorry for responding with the same level of arrogant vitriol as you, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen I suppose.
He did nothing of the sort.
P.S. the Does case has nothing to do with the UTSA. It says you cant subpeona information from bloggers relevent to some other issue because they are journalists. It says nothing about their liability for publishing trade secrets. I.E. you cant go fishing for sources from journalists.
This is why Think Secret folded, because they knew they were going to lose. Why? Because they activly participated in the misappropration of trade secrets. Interestingly enough, if Think Secret had fought and failed, they may be legally obliged to hand over the names because now that information would have been complicit in the damage done to the company, and relevent to who all was liable. Which its in apples best interest to go for, because the more names they have the more reparations they are likely to be able to recover, and in Think Secrets best interests to hand over because otherwise they are likely to be hit with a much larger debt.
ed: Remember, judges do not have to accept settlements. If the Does case applied, the judge would have thrown out this case and there would have been no need to even get this far.
Posts
Ahh, now I understand.
Alright, now this pisses me off.
This. This right here. So exaggerated and unnecessary.
I mean I'm in law school, and even I can't see this slippery slope.
Contrary to your opinion, the first amendment doesnt protect trade secrets.
If the NYT printed apple trade secrets or asked for apple trade secrets they would be liable to be sued.
Now, the government doesnt have trade secrets, because its not a business. So this really cant apply to them, especially because the specifics that any newspaper are looking for, are explicity dealing with things the government should not be doing, which is explicitly covered by the first amendment[and various free speech laws]
It does stand out no matter what.
That does not mean Apple should turn a blind eye to its leaks, or not pursue third party sites that facilitate and publish such leaks.
Information is every company's competitive advantage. The entire marketplace is built on information.
Seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about here.
Stop speculating. Do you or do you not know for sure that Apple did an internal investigation? You don't? Well, it's funny because you seem to hate Apple so god damn much you've already made up your mind despite solid evidence.
I can just go ahead and claim that this time Apple probably did do an internal investigation, because they have looked at past cases and seen that not doing an internal investigation cost them the case.
But again, that's just speculation.
Slippery fucking slope.
No, it's not just their responsibility. They have leaks, fine, I'm sure they are doing something about that internally (investigation or no). But when a website goes around publishing those leaks and multiplying the damage caused by the information leaks, to the possible extent of causing Apple to lose a significant portion of its competitive advantage and not benefit anyone except Apple's competitors, that website is to blame for it too.
Spreading or facilitation of the spread of trade secrets is a crime.
Think about it this way -- and I know this is not about trade secrets, but the same logic applies -- if there was a leak in FBI spouting information that is critical to national security, and some newspaper published this information, would you blame FBI, the newspaper, or both for undermining the nation's security? You'd blame both.
Blame is not a zero-sum game. Which means...
...you are wrong.
--
And holy shit, the part about First Amendment was pure stupid.
You know how Apple-haters are. Anything that even slightly resembles a controversy, anything they can get their hands on to fuel that hatred, is enough to make them go apeshit.
Hell, I'm as anti-corporation as one can get, and I don't particularly like Apple -- they make nice products but that's about it -- yet I don't see anything wrong with what Apple did. All I see is some guy spewing bullshit and jumping to conclusions in light of lack of evidence (in regards to internal investigation).
just ask HP
And ege, I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that Apple didn't investigate the ThinkSecret matter, considering that it was at the same time approximately as Apple v. Does. And finally, why should I be beholden to Apple's interests, short of being bound by a contract I signed with Apple? This is what I find the most offensive - the attitude that Apple's well being somehow trumps my rights.
Finally, while yes, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does make the disclosure of a trade secret for profit a crime, the UTSA must be interpreted in the context of the framework of the Constitution. At best, it will be bound by the limitations imposed by the First Amendment. At worst, if it is in conflict with the First Amendment, then it must give way.
It was resolved in 2006. Apple v de Plume was filed in 2004 (pro tip: 2004 comes before 2006, so it isn't like Apple was ignoring the precedent from Apple v Does when they filed). At the time Apple v de Plume was filed, the legal protection of bloggers as journalists was horribly unclear, and frankly Apple's lawyers would have been quite negligent to not pursue the opportunity that lack of clarity afforded.
And on top of that, the ruling in Apple v Does has no fucking material impact on Apple v de Plume. I'll try to explain this in small, simple words:
Apple v Does was a suit filed against the unknown leakers in which Apple sought to subpoena their names from several bloggers, Think Secret among them. The court correctly slapped down the subpoenas.
Apple v de Plume was a separate suit against Think Secret for violation of California's Trade Secret laws, which Think Secret was fairly clearly guilty of.
Look, regardless of the interpretation, the First Amendment does not -- or at least should not -- give anyone the right to release classified information that causes direct, undeniable and undue harm to a person or an entity.
I mean this comes down to what we covered in the lyrics thread: you have to draw the line somewhere. In this case, I think the line drawn by the UTSA is quite reasonable. When Apple's trade secrets are released, the company loses money, and as a result people may lose their jobs or at the very least get paid less for their work. I am going to say this is far worse than some guy being ordered to shut down his website.
What is unreasonable is reaching conclusions in light of lack of evidence.
Do you or do you not have evidence with regards to whether Apple has internal investigations under way?
Um, because it's relevant?
Let me repost a quote from the Does ruling. And I'll bold the important point, so you don't miss it.
Did you get the judge's point? The trade secret laws can only hold sway to the point at which they conflict with the freedom of the press.
Edit: Also, dePlume had filed a countersuit under CA's rather strong anti-SLAPP law. Which explains why Apple really wanted this to go away.
So what are you looking for here? Do you think Apple shouldn't have filed suit? They settled. Everyone's happy. Apple didn't even get what you think they shouldn't. What's the problem?
The judge's ruling is with regards to the case he is considering (Apple v Does). He's ruling on Apple's (lack of a) right to simply issue subpoenas to bloggers for names and expect the courts to uphold those subpoenas. He is saying that the blogger, or any other journalist, can not be compelled via subpoena to give up the name of his sources in a trade secret lawsuit because the "statutory quasi-property right" (trade secrets) hold less weight, and must give way, to the First Amendment right to acquire and share information, which the journalist's right to keep his sources secret enables.
But in Apple v de Plume, Apple doesn't want names, they're simply prosecuting Think Secret for violating California's Trade Secret laws. And because this isn't about forcing a journalist to divulge the names, the Apple v Does ruling has precisely
ZERO
FUCKING
RELEVANCE
to Apple v de Plume. The only way Apple v Does could have relevance at all would be if it had overturned California's Trade Secret statutes, which it didn't, because the case at hand in Apple v Does had nothing whatsoever to do with California's Trade Secret statutes; it was, AGAIN, all about whether or not Apple could subpoena names from bloggers, who weren't clearly legally entitled to journalistic protections at the time Apple filed the case. So the fact that the judge in Apple v Does based his ruling on the idea that free speech protection of source's anonymity trumped Apple's right to protect its trade secrets said absolutely nothing about whether or not Think Secret stood in violation of California's Trade Secret laws.
If you honestly think I'm wrong, then explain to me why Ciarelli isn't suing his lawyers for being asleep at the fucking switch because Apple v Does so obviously impacted the status of California's Trade Secret laws. Explain to me why the legislature hasn't been forced to re-draft said laws to deal with the impact on their validity that you insist comes out of Apple v Does.
Do something convince me you have a half a clue what your talking about.
Anyway, Steve Jobs has always been a showman. The company is just as much about vision as it is about technology. That's the price of brilliance.
The difference is whether or not it's in the public's best interest to know that information. And why that information was being kept secret. If a company is dumping illegal waste in the streams and plans to keep it secret, then yeah, protect that shit. However, considering the fact that anythign on ThinkSecret would have been revealed to the public anyway, it's really, really, really hard to claim that there was anything sinister about it. So why were they keeping it secret? Oh, for the sake of trade. Which is protected by law.
I mean, imagine if someone linked the design plans for the first iMac during early development. The cheap knock offs would have had their knockoffs ready in half the time. Not good.
Well, that certainly explains why Mac OS always trumped windows 3.1 in sales back in the day.
I suspect from your interest on the subject that you're a Mac user. So think carefully about that one.
Yes, and as a result, Apple goes bankrupt, your Rio MP3 player still sucks, Windows doesn't have OS X to copy from, and you're still stuck using your floppy drive and Parallel ports.
Masterstroke
ed: No really, just quoting this because it pretty much ends the thread regarding apples actions regarding trade secrets.
It's not even about functionality or aesthetics.
It's simply about being different. That is what the whole brand is based on.
This is a challenge that lies in front of Apple these days; as Apple products get more and more popular, they become less and less different. Everyone has an iPod. Everytime you walk into a Starbucks you see ten different people with Macs, and very few PCs. So Apple has to come up with cooler and cooler shit, and do it more and more quickly.
The need to stay different is a very strong driving force behind Apple's innovation, which is why they are so successful.
Apple has had technological advancements over the years. Honestly, I watched the MacWorld expo of the first iPod launch the other day, and it still impresses the hell out of me. "Holy shit, why haven't the other guys been doing this?" They deserve props for their innovation. And yeah, that includes aesthetics. Holy shit, aesthetics can affect mood and behavior. I was listening to a radio show the other day talking about how different screen savers could be used for different moods. So heaven forbid that Apple put some care into it.
Apple's main problems is that a) people copy them, and b) lack of hype. Being able to control when they release their info handles both. Good for them.
Rating all computers based on what amounts to peak horsepower (at the fly no less, not even at the wheels) is also misleading. Most people who use computers don't play Oblivion on their computers. I don't have any studies to back that up so you can call me a liar if you want but that would just be silly.
Anyway claims like this: Are backed by what exactly? I'm mostly curious because I'm a consumer who couldn't give a shit whether I'm using Vista, XP or OSX so long as my shit works consistently, and I switched from XP Home to Leopard this year without really looking into what sort of hype and rumors were flying around before making that decision. I was sold on a MacBook from playing with my friends' iBooks and PowerBooks. I don't think their hyping up their next big thing had any real role in my purchasing decision since I didn't know or care what they were hyping at that point. I don't think their just "being different" did it either because frankly a Compaq would have been different from my game-box too, in the sense that stabbing your cock with an ice-pick is different from masturbating.
I think I was swayed by design. Little things like the power-cord that isn't inevitably going to break loose the solder-joints that connect the power jack to the board turning the whole machine into a loss like my first laptop. I like that it's clean, doesn't have stupid hunks of ugly spraypaint-silver plastic cladding all over it like it thinks it's a Pontiac SUV or some shit. I like how I don't have to know anything about the OS to use the thing without breaking it. I like Spaces. I like how somehow I can run iTunes on this machine constantly without running into any slowdowns where if I tried to run iTunes and Firefox at the same time on my Windows machine they would start a war to hoard all of my system-resources for themselves, and without my having to do anything like my computer was the fucking middle-east or something. I like how installing Firefox on this thing was so easy I didn't know I had done it. I like how the touchpad is fucking huge compared to every Sony, IBM, Toshiba, HP and Compaq touchpad I've ever been forced to use, and how the button has the same area as the spacebar so I don't have to look at it to hit it.
I'm sure there are plenty of Mac owners who bought their Mac because their name is Raven and they're just better than you, but I think these generalizations need a bit more backing than a three year-old webcomic and the generalized ire of people with such power-issues that they go crazy if they don't fully control every last function and floating point their computer performs. I really think that the reason Macs are generally regarded as more popular with people who do graphic-design and artsy shit might actually have something to do with, y'know, design.
Oh and my MacBook was $1300 after adding AppleCare. I wasn't going to pay $2000 for any laptop, laptops aren't for gaming unless you're willing to throw stupid amounts of money at something that's only going to have a 1 year use-life if that.
Beyond that all anyone's doing here is either getting pissed off at Apple for being good at marketting or being Senjutsu.
I guess you would have to know the context of the post you were replying to. The point of identifying that machine through a link was to establish a way to convince buyers to buy a $2000 MacBook Pro instead of a $1300 something-Vista. That argument relies on the assumption that the differences between the two computers boil down to nothing more than peak horsepower at the fly, that the OSes aren't sufficiently different to validate a preference for one or the other, that there aren't any substantially different design-choices in the way the machines are built, that there's no software that only runs on one or the other, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, I assumed you had read what was going on before you replied.
It effectively flumped the argument it was intended to, I just happened to think it was also funny. When you then criticized the reasoning in broad terms I pointed out that those broad terms are terrible terms by which to rate a computer.
*the post, not the assumption
I didn't read anything that isn't a required assumption for his claims to be coherent. Also the argument being replied to wasn't from Schrodinger, it was from Azio. So Schrodinger's post isn't where you're supposed to be looking.
Senj:
Take some time and read through the Does decision. Read the language that the judge uses. I think he's pretty clear in smacking down the use of the UTSA to quash journalistic efforts. The summary, I think, makes that point VERY clear:
And no, contrary to your assertion, Does did not need to strike down trade secret law. All it needs to do (and this it does) is to affirm that any trade secret law must tread carefully around the umbra of the Constitutional protections afforded all US citizens. Finally, Ciarelli probably settled because he was tired. He's had to deal with this lawsuit for his entire college career. And Apple probably offered the settlement because they exhausted every possible way to deep-six the anti-vexatious lawsuit countersuit filed in response (for those of you who don't know, CA has one of the toughest statutes against SLAPPs in the US - losing the countersuit would have been a big blow) - and failed. (It's also the main reason the de Plume case stalled - the CA statute shuts down all discovery until the matter of the countersuit is resolved.) Ultimately, I think that Apple's case was very weak - it ultimately hinged on if Apple could really prove that Ciarelli actively solicited information for gain, and the causal chain that Apple would have used to prove this would have all but guaranteed that every single news agency in the US would have backed him.
Will: As the Does judge pointed out, the dangers of picking what news merits protection and what doesn't is much more dangerous.
This states unequivocally that trade secret protection laws only extend to the point at which they overlap the first amendment, and at that point they have no further weight. The judge further states that the release of information to an interested public cannot constitute a violation of trade laws because of it's protected status under the constitution, which by definition supersedes all other legislation. It also states that an interested public cannot be defined due to the troubling precedent that attempting to define legally what is in the public interest sets, and therefore any information released to the public by someone not under direct legal obligation to maintain the secrecy of that information is protected by both free speech, and freedom of the press.
Edit: also, I take issue with your assertion that apple's lawyers would have been negligent for not taking advantage of blogger's vague legal status in their maneuvering to circumvent the United States Constitution. Legal status aside, freedom of the press is in spirit an extension of freedom of speech, and a protection for those who wish to publish their opinions, which certainly includes bloggers from a logical if not legal standpoint. The tone and content of your statement seems to encourage looking for loopholes in the constitution in order to get ahead. This folks, this guy right here, this is why we all hate lawyers so goddamn much.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. I'm done with this shit
He did nothing of the sort.
P.S. the Does case has nothing to do with the UTSA. It says you cant subpeona information from bloggers relevent to some other issue because they are journalists. It says nothing about their liability for publishing trade secrets. I.E. you cant go fishing for sources from journalists.
This is why Think Secret folded, because they knew they were going to lose. Why? Because they activly participated in the misappropration of trade secrets. Interestingly enough, if Think Secret had fought and failed, they may be legally obliged to hand over the names because now that information would have been complicit in the damage done to the company, and relevent to who all was liable. Which its in apples best interest to go for, because the more names they have the more reparations they are likely to be able to recover, and in Think Secrets best interests to hand over because otherwise they are likely to be hit with a much larger debt.
ed: Remember, judges do not have to accept settlements. If the Does case applied, the judge would have thrown out this case and there would have been no need to even get this far.