Comments on: Apple lawsuit: Thinking different?

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says Steve Jobs is about to leave a big blot on what was an amazing legacy.

Most of you are missing the real point.

1. Trade secrets are just that- TRADE SECRETS. If government secrets were revealed to the public by a reporter that there was an agency with a new technology that will ensure that terrorists do not get on planes, the government would jail you, without a doubt.

2. The Trade Secrets revealed by these "reporters" are not a health hazard or concern to anyone, and therefor should remain protected and under secrecy by Apple.

It's one thing to report rumors going around about that new G5 Powerbook with built in Blu-ray disc compatibility, dual processors and liquid cooling, it's another to reveal key sales plans and strategies from a folder labeled FOR APPLE EMPLOYEES ONLY.

If you want to start talking about freedom of speech violations, start taking a look at the Patriot Act, or go live in Cuba or China. We'll see what you think of freedom of speech then.

3.

[quasarstrider]

Happened before

It's one thing to report rumors going around about that new G5 Powerbook with built in Blu-ray disc compatibility, dual processors and liquid cooling, it's another to reveal key sales plans and strategies from a folder labeled FOR APPLE EMPLOYEES ONLY.

Apple has forced people to remove pictures and/or descriptions of products before they were announced before.

[Norseman]

Put yourself in Steve's shoes, Mr. Cooper!

Apple has a well-deserved reputation for being one of the true innovators in the tech world. Their designs and products get copied soon enough after they're released. If you ran Apple, would you want information about your future products being made public knowledge so that someone else could rip off your designs, maybe even before you released them? I don't think so! I believe that Apple has a well-thought-out long-term product strategy. They owe it to their stockholders to keep this from becoming public knowledge and jeopardizing their future!

Apple employees sign a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently, Mr. Cooper, you think it's no big deal for them to completely disregard it--as long as it keeps the press happy. I totally disagree!

Point missing

The case Apple is making, is not over inaccurate reporting. On
the contrary it is over very accurate reporting - if I am not wrong
- a music related product called "Asteroid", including a complete
sketch allegedly taken from a confidential Apple slide show. The
product is not yet released so the accuracy is yet to be verified
though (but the specifics were rather detailed).

Point here is that the rumor sites are free to do just that; report
and analyze rumors. These are not rumors anymore - it is inside
information and product details. There is no doubt that there is
harm done to Apple on this (to monetize it is obviously
ompossible) and there is no doubt that noone has the right to
redistribute such information - just as noone has any right to
redistribute other stolen or dubiously acquired goods!

I really can't understand why anyone would seriously claim
breach of first amendment rights on this... these guys are
nothing more than paparazzis, someone has been in the
bedroom of a celebrity - and some other guy published the
bude photographs... you really believe that it is a human right to
do so? I think both of them deserve to go to jail!! (if that
celebrity were doing something seriously illegal on the other
hand - but then the images still belong with the police - not
with the gossip press!)

[quasarstrider]

What if someone leaked that the government planned to raise taxes

Or that Microsoft planned to introduce a new compulsory licensing program?

[John Kuzak]

music related product called "Asteroid"

http://www.analogstereo.com/seat_toledo_owners_manual.htm

you nailed it

For those who haven't truly been paying attention, the question isn't about protecting trade secrets, it's about the way that Apple is going about trying to find out who leaked them. I've talked about this with one of my friends and we're both VERY conflicted about this. On one hand, as many have said, Apple is just trying to protect trade secrets. The issue here is, do they have the right to get that information from sites like Think Secret that clearly have access to information that they shouldn't. Is think secret liable for posting information that it got from someone else without even knowing if it's true or not? Or can Apple get information from them so that they can find out who's doing this? This is a VERY sticky issue with an answer that isn't as clear-cut as it seems. I'm no lawyer so I have no idea what is legal, but ethically, which is the larger question, is a question that has no simple answer.

[Stormspace]

Be careful...

"2. Is there any journalistic distinction between a professionally trained, edited and cross-checked publication and a teenager in his mother's living room?"

When we start defining who can release information to the general public we cease to have the freedom we are enjoying. Anyone should be able to publish information and enjoy journalists rights. That's why it's called Free Speech.

RE: Becareful...

I agree about your caution on freedom of speech. But I still can't buy that this has anything to do with freedom of speech. Let me give an example why this is so hard for me to accept. Let's say if a hacker just cracked a bank database and obtain bunch of customer social security numbers. He saw a offer from a rumor site for people's social security numbers. So the hacker send all those numbers to the rumor site for posting. Now, can the authority subpena the rumor site to track down this hacker? Is that a violation of freedom of speech?

[Steve Tsuida]

Speaking of reality distortion fields.

Charles Cooper compares Apple's lockdown on their trade
secrets, to Nixon's lockdown on White House business. That's
right Apple suing bloggers for the names of their trade-secret
leak sources is identical to Nixon trying to cover up dirty work in
the office of the President of the United States of America. I
know I can see the similarities. Let's see: One is a
publicly traded corporation that lives or dies on it's speed to
market with innovative products, always hounded by imitators.
The other was a man tasked with upholding the US Constitution
and entrusted with power over the worlds' deadliest army.
Totally the same thing huh?

Suing someone for passing information protected by
nondisclosure agreements to the press isn't undermining the
freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Frankly, the
person who signed that NDA agreed (by signing) to limit their
expression anyways, so I'm not going there.

Here's the thing. C|Net has a burr up their ass concerning all
things Apple (who doesn't buy enough ads). Apple sues a few
spies and suddenly it's spun like Apple is slaughtering their
loyal base. What loyal base? With a stagnantly 3% market share
it's not like this cult following earns Apple's favor. Screw em and
sue 'em when they spy on you. Look at who's really buying Apple
hardware & software, look at who's driving their growth. It's not
the culties. It's not the bloggers. Worst of all, it's not nerds like
the nerds at C|Net who suddenly feel the sting of
marginalization and have to raise holy hell to keep themselves in
the conversation.

Ugly truth:
Techno rumor sites aren't in the same boat as the regular press.
The people don't need to know what the next iPod will look like.
If Apple were secretly processing millions of doses of Smallpox,
then fine, leak that and demand freedom of the press. If they
were cooking the books or shipping deliberately busted
keyboards, then again, fine, leak that and demand freedom of
the press. But product design? Sorry, no. That's not need-to-
know and squashing public espionage isn't going to undermine
journalism or usher in some kind of corporate-controlled police
state. The sad thing is C|Net knows that, but the police state
story is more fun to run. If that's the New Journalism, then why
protect it anyway?

Homework:
Matter by merit, not by megaphone.

Steve Tsuida,
Blogger, Designer, adherent to NDAs.

A Question of Law

As a "tech" critic, you make your point (as well as place yourself
in the politically correct Nixon-hating "circle"), and as a
journalist you have a right to express your personal opinion, but
the legal question underlying Apple Computer's suit seems to
escape your scope. Not to belabor the point (of a democracy and
nation of laws), but doesn't Steve Jobs have a right to know who
appropriated the intellectual property (trade secrets) from within
his payroll? Isn't the federal regulation of corporations meant to
protect their "bread and butter," which in this case is creative
marketing and design, from adulteration or "corruption" by
outsiders?

BTW, I don't think it's wise to be flippant about the Nixon White
House... just look at Dan Rather!

[John Kuzak]

democracy and nation

http://www.analogstereo.com/seat_leon_owners_manual.htm

Motives

In law, motives play a big part. At what point do you draw the line on a corporation's manipulation of its own information wherein it benefits its own interests only and basically cheats the businesses and customers involved in the purchase of their products?
I know that the law would most likely not cover this, but it would be a shame if the only way to combat Apple's negative secrecy was to cause people to stop buying their products. I contend that Apple doesn't need to have the secrecy it now pushes for, its mostly to protect its corporate greed, not to protect themselves against other manufacturers stealing their ideas.
Apple at one time supported its dealer network very well. I've watched over the past decade as the company has done more to ruin its reputation with distributors, resellers and existing customers than I thought could be possible. This is sometimes like watching a bad relationship from the outside, where one partner is constantly abused, yet chooses to stay because of some perhaps misplaced loyalty or evangelic feelings.
I think Apple's motive is based on greed and uses the plea of secrecy to deceive, not to protect.

Proof of loss

I think there would be a loss to those individuals whose personal information was obtained.
Apple should have to prove loss, with a finite cost attached, before any judge should be siding with them in this. The only loss to Apple would be if they chose to ignore their stiff contracts with distributors, resellers, and customers, and played ball in making sure none were screwed by Apple's path to product improvement.
The speed of development in hardware and software is dizzying in this day and age, making it more difficult to make decisions on when to jump on the bandwagon and integrate a computer into your personal or business life. The only sure thing is, the entire industry is going to feel more like you're renting the technology rather than buying something with any shelf life whatsoever.
The question here is one of ethical, customer-friendly, corporate behaviour - somewhat of an oxymoron...
If you get a chance, watch a movie made by a UBC prof in Vancouver BC, entitled "The Corporation". When behaving as their mandate dictates, corporations exhibit psychopathic traits.

The "law" is clear

If you sign on the dotted line not to divulge information regarding products before release, you are bound to that agreement, that is "the law".
Unfortunately, the law seems to do as much to assist in hampering human rights (the patriot act) as it does in protecting them.
It would be interesting to see what the motive of the person (or people) who leaked the information was - perhaps they were paid (financial reward). I'm sure that Apple has their own corporate spies out there collecting information, and that they would hardly turn a blind eye if information showed up in their possession that could benefit their own financial reward. The difference is that Apple just does what Microsoft and every other major corporation does, they "acquire" new technologies.
Yes, the law is the law, but dirty corporate business seems to be the norm today. Steve is just playing ball with the rest of the corporate world, good or bad, it's what it is.
Again I state, Apple is using the law to protect itself from its own authorized distributors, resellers, and customers, not from other manufacturers stealing their ideas. Why else would they have started the journey to do their own stores nation-wide? They're like a kid who can't keep friends to play with. Play with Apple, you'll get burned, it's only a matter of time. Wonderful product, but your own financial livelihood (sp?) may be jeopardized if your own competitor can buy better production equipment than you can one day after you figure you're retooled to the finest available... You were, but that was at 9 pm last night - the new products rolled out at 9 am today...