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.
I'll say it again - read the decision. Read the language used. It's clear what the judge's intents were.
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.
Here's a hint - if ThinkSecret knew they were going to lose, don't you think that Apple would know they were going to win? And if that's the case, why the fuck would Apple settle? As you pointed out, a decision in favor of Apple would be a boon for them - not only would they get the list of leakers and send a message to other rumor sites, but it would set a precedent that would be very useful to Apple. It's literally illogical, if Apple knew they had the upper hand, for them to settle instead of going for the jugular.
In other words, if ThinkSecret really WAS on the ropes, the settlement never would have happened. Remember, ThinkSecret filed an anti-SLAPP countersuit in the state that has the MOST aggressive anti-SLAPP statute in the US, in 2005. What I think happened was that Apple delayed on de Plume, hoping that Does would go their way. When that didn't happen, they then tried their hardest to get the countersuit dismissed. When THAT failed, Apple realized that They. Were. Fucked. and that's when the settlement came out.
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.
Please, show me a judge who's going to toss an amicable settlement.
In other words, if ThinkSecret really WAS on the ropes, the settlement never would have happened. Remember, ThinkSecret filed an anti-SLAPP countersuit in the state that has the MOST aggressive anti-SLAPP statute in the US, in 2005. What I think happened was that Apple delayed on de Plume, hoping that Does would go their way. When that didn't happen, they then tried their hardest to get the countersuit dismissed. When THAT failed, Apple realized that They. Were. Fucked. and that's when the settlement came out.
Okay, but why are you so judgmental about it? You seem to be mad that they filed suit in the first place. How are they supposed to find out what their exact rights are in this legal grey area without suing?
Okay, but why are you so judgmental about it? You seem to be mad that they filed suit in the first place. How are they supposed to find out what their exact rights are in this legal grey area without suing?
Two reasons. First, I find trampling on one of our most important freedoms to be a bit...offensive. Second, if it had been Microsoft, everyone would have been calling for their blood. But since it's Apple, it's okay.
I'll say it again - read the decision. Read the language used. It's clear what the judge's intents were.
It doesnt matter how many times you say it, it doesnt change what the ruling was on.
Here's a hint - if ThinkSecret knew they were going to lose, don't you think that Apple would know they were going to win? And if that's the case, why the fuck would Apple settle?
Because they would never be able to recieve compensation for the damages. Making it easier to just shut the site down and not pay layers to press on for more years with no monetary recourse.
If this decision says what you say it does, why in the world would ThinkSecret ever have folded? And why wouldnt he have backers from major journalistic sources? And why wouldnt be be sueing his lawyer for incompetency?
Please, show me a judge who's going to toss an amicable settlement.
One who has a ruling sitting in front of him explicity granting the defendants claim in a civil suit. Which is exactly what you are claiming has happened.
Remember, ThinkSecret filed an anti-SLAPP countersuit in the state that has the MOST aggressive anti-SLAPP statute in the US, in 2005.
You mean he filed an Anti-SLAPP claim under extreemly favorable [to him] Anti-SLAPP legislation? The most favorable in the nation? Why next you are going to tell me that he showed up to court! Ill be he even has a lawyer defending him!
Of course he filed an anti-SLAPP suit. Why wouldnt you?
Okay, but why are you so judgmental about it? You seem to be mad that they filed suit in the first place. How are they supposed to find out what their exact rights are in this legal grey area without suing?
Two reasons. First, I find trampling on one of our most important freedoms to be a bit...offensive. Second, if it had been Microsoft, everyone would have been calling for their blood. But since it's Apple, it's okay.
I'm pretty sure no one would care if it was Microsoft, either. It's just not really a pressing issue, and has nothing to do with the rest of the company. Apple has had an aggressive legal team since the beginning. Maybe this is hypocritical considering the way that MacOS started, but that was 20 years ago and Xerox didn't exactly feel like persuing Apple in court. Apple doesn't want the same thing to happen to them, so they try to protect their trade secrets the only way they can, through the legal system. They've exhausted all other avenues by this point. It's not like after losing Apple v. Does they were just going to give up and say "Okay, guys! Sorry! You can post whatever you want now! By the way, we've got a new ultra-slim Macbook coming out!" They've got a right to continue to try and protect themselves, and they will keep doing it no matter what.
And, you know, you're right. It's very much about having control, and no one is arguing that. Apple has benefited greatly from having control, and not having full disclosure of their product announcements, and it does a lot of good for them. They can announce a product and have it on store shelves the same day. They can announce what they want, when they want, and leave the rest of it a complete mystery. Microsoft might want to give the Apple method a try, instead of releasing feature lists for Windows Longhorn 5 years ago, and then when only reaching a third of those goals by three years ago, giving up on them and splitting off things like WinFS into Windows 7, and just giving people Vista. The consumer reception of Vista might have gone over a lot better if they didn't promise so much and deliver so little, and that's something Apple doesn't like to have to worry about.
It's unfortunate that their marketing strategies lead to things like this lawsuit, but it's definitely within their rights to protect themselves any way they can. If the lawsuit had no legal merit, it should have been thrown out. The fact that it wasn't, and ended in settlement, says that it was either a legitimate claim, or a major failing of our legal system. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the latter than the suit itself.
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.
I'll say it again - read the decision. Read the language used. It's clear what the judge's intents were.
Maybe if you bold and italicize words for no reason, people will listen to you more. Entire quotes deserve the treatment!
Seriously man, the Does case has shit to do with the latest case. Let it go and don't tell me to "read the decision". I read it. I understand it. You do not.
Apple has had an aggressive legal team since the beginning. Maybe this is hypocritical considering the way that MacOS started, but that was 20 years ago and Xerox didn't exactly feel like persuing Apple in court. Apple doesn't want the same thing to happen to them, so they try to protect their trade secrets the only way they can, through the legal system.
Q from E-mail:
Woz, Did you feel wrong stealing outright from Xerox, and what did you think when Microsoft stole from Apple? Do you think Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry? Plan on going back to Apple? Also, can you point out more of the minor flaws in the movie? Thanks, David
WOZ:
Steve Jobs made the case to Xerox PARC execs directly that they had great technology but that Apple knew how to make it affordable enough to change the world. This was very open. In the end, Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology. That's not stealing outright.
Apple didn't get any stock from Microsoft. Nor was Apple dealt with openly in this area by Microsoft.
Posts
I'll say it again - read the decision. Read the language used. It's clear what the judge's intents were.
Here's a hint - if ThinkSecret knew they were going to lose, don't you think that Apple would know they were going to win? And if that's the case, why the fuck would Apple settle? As you pointed out, a decision in favor of Apple would be a boon for them - not only would they get the list of leakers and send a message to other rumor sites, but it would set a precedent that would be very useful to Apple. It's literally illogical, if Apple knew they had the upper hand, for them to settle instead of going for the jugular.
In other words, if ThinkSecret really WAS on the ropes, the settlement never would have happened. Remember, ThinkSecret filed an anti-SLAPP countersuit in the state that has the MOST aggressive anti-SLAPP statute in the US, in 2005. What I think happened was that Apple delayed on de Plume, hoping that Does would go their way. When that didn't happen, they then tried their hardest to get the countersuit dismissed. When THAT failed, Apple realized that They. Were. Fucked. and that's when the settlement came out.
Please, show me a judge who's going to toss an amicable settlement.
Okay, but why are you so judgmental about it? You seem to be mad that they filed suit in the first place. How are they supposed to find out what their exact rights are in this legal grey area without suing?
Two reasons. First, I find trampling on one of our most important freedoms to be a bit...offensive. Second, if it had been Microsoft, everyone would have been calling for their blood. But since it's Apple, it's okay.
It doesnt matter how many times you say it, it doesnt change what the ruling was on.
Because they would never be able to recieve compensation for the damages. Making it easier to just shut the site down and not pay layers to press on for more years with no monetary recourse.
If this decision says what you say it does, why in the world would ThinkSecret ever have folded? And why wouldnt he have backers from major journalistic sources? And why wouldnt be be sueing his lawyer for incompetency?
One who has a ruling sitting in front of him explicity granting the defendants claim in a civil suit. Which is exactly what you are claiming has happened.
You mean he filed an Anti-SLAPP claim under extreemly favorable [to him] Anti-SLAPP legislation? The most favorable in the nation? Why next you are going to tell me that he showed up to court! Ill be he even has a lawyer defending him!
Of course he filed an anti-SLAPP suit. Why wouldnt you?
I'm pretty sure no one would care if it was Microsoft, either. It's just not really a pressing issue, and has nothing to do with the rest of the company. Apple has had an aggressive legal team since the beginning. Maybe this is hypocritical considering the way that MacOS started, but that was 20 years ago and Xerox didn't exactly feel like persuing Apple in court. Apple doesn't want the same thing to happen to them, so they try to protect their trade secrets the only way they can, through the legal system. They've exhausted all other avenues by this point. It's not like after losing Apple v. Does they were just going to give up and say "Okay, guys! Sorry! You can post whatever you want now! By the way, we've got a new ultra-slim Macbook coming out!" They've got a right to continue to try and protect themselves, and they will keep doing it no matter what.
And, you know, you're right. It's very much about having control, and no one is arguing that. Apple has benefited greatly from having control, and not having full disclosure of their product announcements, and it does a lot of good for them. They can announce a product and have it on store shelves the same day. They can announce what they want, when they want, and leave the rest of it a complete mystery. Microsoft might want to give the Apple method a try, instead of releasing feature lists for Windows Longhorn 5 years ago, and then when only reaching a third of those goals by three years ago, giving up on them and splitting off things like WinFS into Windows 7, and just giving people Vista. The consumer reception of Vista might have gone over a lot better if they didn't promise so much and deliver so little, and that's something Apple doesn't like to have to worry about.
It's unfortunate that their marketing strategies lead to things like this lawsuit, but it's definitely within their rights to protect themselves any way they can. If the lawsuit had no legal merit, it should have been thrown out. The fact that it wasn't, and ended in settlement, says that it was either a legitimate claim, or a major failing of our legal system. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the latter than the suit itself.
Maybe if you bold and italicize words for no reason, people will listen to you more. Entire quotes deserve the treatment!
Seriously man, the Does case has shit to do with the latest case. Let it go and don't tell me to "read the decision". I read it. I understand it. You do not.
Oh, not these rumors again: