Apple has decided to not appeal a recent Court of Appeals decision that barred the company from issuing a subpoena to online journalists, bloggers, and their ISPs. Apple had nearly 40 days to file an appeal, but recently filed a case management statement officially saying that it did not appeal. The statement noted that the Appeals Court overturned the trial court on the protective order issue and “Apple did not appeal that decision”.
GREAT news!
OK, so I heard Apple will have this awesome new octo-woodcrest machine that will only be $700. It will come in aluminum colors. It will have the annanounced ATI X3200, and will come with 256 MB RAM with dual 500 GB IBM Hitatchi laptop drives. My friend Andy confirmed this.
Oh yea, and Microsoft will buy Apple tomorrow.
…and will come with 256 MB RAM…
LMAO! Classic
Since it comes from Nath… I mean the anonymous person that I got this NDAed document from proves it. But you must take it as a RUMOUR even though I have proof.
kthx
– ThinkStolenNDAs
…
On the bottom: A separate civil lawsuit against rumor site ThinkSecret is still pending.
It’s not completely over. *wink* *wink*
Without knowing any details, I can confidently say that the new Apple product will be the greatest innovation ever realized by mankind, it will catapult Apple’s marketshare to stratospheric heights, it will amaze us all with its elegance and integration, and it will mark the doom of Microsoft, Intel, Linux, and all those other philistines who have the audacity to not be Apple.
Modded up for your sense of humor
Censorship is always ugly, whether it’s coming from drab totalitarian governments or trendy tech companies.
I love my iPod and OSX is fine, but this was way over the line.
Censorship is always ugly, whether it’s coming from drab totalitarian governments or trendy tech companies.
I love my iPod and OSX is fine, but this was way over the line.
There is a difference between rumour and leaking of future product details.
Oh, and you don’t think that censoring is new?! New Zealand government had a white paper written up on the unbundling of the local loop, the documentation was for the eyes of the recievers of the document only, but someone leaked it; the government tracked it down after finding it got into the hands of the said monopoly Telecommunications company – is it evil to track down a document which was designed to actually benefit the public!?
You’re quite welcome to setup a website and play the parlour game that is, “what is Apple going to do next”, but there is a big difference between speculation and leaking of company secrets to the point that the information is 100% accurate, thus deflating any possible marketing momentum the said company would need in its marketing effort.
Yes, but under the constitution, people are entitled to freedom of speech, unless they themselves give up that right for the most part (sign an NDA), it endangers others (screaming fire in a crowded place), etc.
Now, all anyone is saying here is that Apple doesn’t have the right and shouldn’t be suing people who are talking about information they received, when these people did NOT sign a NDA. ThinkGeek has absolutely no NDA with Apple. Apple doesn’t have a right to sue them for leaking their trade secrets or other confidential information. Apple DOES have a right to sue the person who did sign the NDA and who violated it.
What Apple has ultimately been doing is suing people who do not have a NDA with Apple for violating this NDA with Apple.
These organisations disclosed information, knowing full well that the information being disclosed is a breach of an NDA.
These organisations had two options, either publish the information and expect some repercussions OR approach Apple, explain that you’ve received information from a source, disclose the source, and not publish the information.
These sites violated the NDA by proxy; it is a pretty simple open and shut case.
Unfortunately or fortunately, there is no law against the conduct referred to as ‘violating an NDA by proxy’. In fact, there are US laws, in particular the California Shield laws, which specifically protect people doing just this from having to reveal their sources.
Recall that an NDA is a civil contract. It is binding on those who have entered into it, and only those that have entered into it. As far as anyone else is concerned, it is irrelevant to their conduct. Just because someone tells me something which he has learned under NDA places me under no different legal obligations about publication from if he had not been under NDA. Nor is there any legal obligation on me, before I publish something, to find out if it may be covered by some NDA the supplier has signed with someone. How could there be? I have no way of knowing how many NDAs are floating around America. Unlike statutes, they are not published anywhere.
This is the key difference between civil contracts, which bind those who have entered into them, and criminal laws, which regulate everyone’s conduct. The same thing keeps coming up with EULAs. Violating the terms of a EULA is also not against the law, though it may expose the violator to civil suit.
Not that we should condone the behaviour of the leakers. If Apple is good enough to work for, its good enough to respect an NDA you’ve signed with it.
These sites violated the NDA by proxy; it is a pretty simple open and shut case.
They did not violate anything, Kaiwai. They had no contract with Apple, so how on earth can they breach or violate it?
The only problem here are the Apple employees who leaked the information. They are at fault, they have commited breach of contract (which is not a criminal/civil offense, I might add), and Apple should do its best to find out who these people are.
However, not via the press. The press has a special position in a democracy, and that special role is defended by the fact that it can refrain from disclosing sources. Without this protection, the press cannot function. Take away this protection, and the press is DEAD. Without this protection, Nixon could’ve just sued the Washington Post, forcing them to reveal who Deep Throat was.
Journalism is not a protected profession, like i.e. a docter of surgeon is. This is for the better, as who should decide what a “real” journalist is? Journalism needs to be an open profession as to prevent an elite from establishinh itself, an elite that will do anything to kill off competition or breaths of fresh air.
I am happy the judge in this case ruled in favour of free speech and freedom of press. I may not be an American, so it doesn’t affect me anyway, but I am happy for US citisens, who, without really knowing it, just held on to an important piece of freedom.
Is the Apple case as important as Deep Throat? Of course not. However, us modern democracies use the system of jurisprudence. If the judge had sided with Apple, Nixon II could have used THIS case as jurisprudence to force the Washington Post into revealing Deep Throat II. Do you think any whistleblower would EVER want to talk to the press again, if Apple would have won, knowing the rich and powerful could easily find out who they are?
Would you want to live in such a world? Where the rich and powerful can just push the press around, to their liking, and thus deter anyone from shining lights on the darker sides of companies and governments?
Apparantly, you do. Luckily, the judge in this case did not. And we all won.
Thom, stop trying to be mellow dramatic by dragging out the traditional red herring of the so-called ‘1984 state’ if you don’t get your own way.
There are laws already which protect whistle blowers; the issue isn’t about unearthing corruption or missdeeds, it is about one individual who took it upon his or herself to break an NDA and disclose that privilaged information to a third party.
Pepsi for example, received confidential information pertaining to a new Coca Cola product; Pepsi decided to do the honorable thing and notify the authorities and Coca Cola in regards to this finding, and are working to unearth the individual.
In the case of the issue at hand, the relevant sites had the opportunity to say no, we will no accept information sourced through people who have disclosed information in violation of NDA; they had that option, and I’m sorry, just because you find the idea of ethics something difficult to understand, doesn’t mean that all of us in ‘cyberspace’ are willing to use every excuse in the book to justify our actions.
they had that option, and I’m sorry, just because you find the idea of ethics something difficult to understand, doesn’t mean that all of us in ‘cyberspace’ are willing to use every excuse in the book to justify our actions.
A journalist’s job is to report what he learns, not to protect marketing strategies.
As far as ethics go, it could be debated that keeping information they have access to would violate their own code of ethics.
Thom, stop trying to be mellow dramatic by dragging out the traditional red herring of the so-called ‘1984 state’ if you don’t get your own way.
It is not a red-harring; are you argueing that if the judge had sided with Apple, future parties would NOT have used this specific case as jurisprudence? And not to be pedantic, but it’s ‘melodramatic’– just so you know
.
There are laws already which protect whistle blowers; the issue isn’t about unearthing corruption or missdeeds, it is about one individual who took it upon his or herself to break an NDA and disclose that privilaged information to a third party.
And again, that third party has complete freedom to do whatever the hell he wants with that information.
Other than that, legally speaking there is little difference between a new upcoming product, or misdeeds within a company. As I already epxlained a few times, if the judge had sided with Apple, any company being faced with a whistleblower could use THIS specific case as jurisprudence, forcing the press to reveal who this whistleblower is– with all the consequences that come with it (ever saw ‘The Insider’?).
One of those consequences would be that potential whistleblowers would think twice about going to the press with relevent information. And that would be the end of journalism.
Pepsi for example, received confidential information pertaining to a new Coca Cola product; Pepsi decided to do the honorable thing and notify the authorities and Coca Cola in regards to this finding, and are working to unearth the individual.
Great. However, you do realise that Pepsi is a company, and not a member of the press? Pepsi can be sued by Coca Cola, so Pepsi did not do this because Pepsi is somehow ethical; they did it out of fear and nescesity.
In the case of the issue at hand, the relevant sites had the opportunity to say no, we will no accept information sourced through people who have disclosed information in violation of NDA; they had that option, and I’m sorry, just because you find the idea of ethics something difficult to understand, doesn’t mean that all of us in ‘cyberspace’ are willing to use every excuse in the book to justify our actions.
They had the opportunity to say no, just like the Washington Post had the opportunity to say no. They both did not, and you can argue, like archiesteel said, that they both did their job well as journalists– one on the government, the other on their topic of interest, Apple.
I also know a lot of stuff that falls under NDAs. I do not publish that information; and the things I know relate to companies of all shapes and sizes. I do not publish this information because I do not want to jeopardise the people who I got the information from, because they told me the information knowing I’m a man of my word, and hence I will not ‘betray’ them.
The people leaking to the websites, however, knew perfectly well who they were dealing with. They did it on purpose, and they know that the people they were talking to could not be held accountable for the leak; only they themselves can.
If the leakers are real men, they step forward and be accountable. Because THEY, and THEY ALONE have crossed a line (and Apple of course, for going after the wrong people).
Kaiwai,
The people who had the ethical as well as the contractual obligation were the Apple staff, and they had that obligation to Apple.
The journalists/bloggers had no obligations either ethical or contractual to Apple.
You say “the relevant sites had the opportunity to say no, we will no accept information sourced through people who have disclosed information in violation of NDA”.
Yes, they had the opportunity. But they had no obligation either ethically or in law.
“These sites violated the NDA by proxy; it is a pretty simple open and shut case.”
If it was a simple open-and-shut case, why did they lose it?
Because, your legal analysis doesn’t make any sense. Bloggers didn’t violate an NDA because they never signed one. They simply didn’t break the law.
Apple is not a law-enforcement body with investigatory powers, and their agreements with employees are not laws. Nor is it wrong or unethical for people to disobey some random company. They are not paying my salary, they have no business compelling me to hand over information.
Oh, and you don’t think that censoring is new?! New Zealand government had a white paper written up on the unbundling of the local loop, the documentation was for the eyes of the recievers of the document only, but someone leaked it; the government tracked it down after finding it got into the hands of the said monopoly Telecommunications company – is it evil to track down a document which was designed to actually benefit the public!?
For one, you can’t compare New Zealand with the U.S. Freedom of Speech is entrenched in the U.S. constitution in very clear words, and its reach is quite extended.
Second, I don’t believe that there was any reason for the document you mentioned to be kept secret…there is a tendency in modern societies to make everything secret/confidential, even when it’s not necessary. That creates a very large potential for abuse.
I believe that the only thing that should be kept secret are battle plans when you’re at war, the identity of secret agents and private personal information.
The fact that Apple might lose some of its thunder before releasing a product won’t make me lose any sleep whatsoever. If it wants to have momentum, it just has to protect its secrets better: once they are out, it’s too late.
The bloggers didn’t “win”, they just didn’t lose. Win would imply that there was a singular shared goal being fought for. In this case, Apple may not have been able to prevent the bloggers from speaking, but the bloggers didn’t exactly get an injunction against Apple either.
“Online Journalists” need to learn more journalism.
Considering that the bloggers had to spend money on legal expenses — and that that might serve as a reason to curb their pens in the future — it might not really have been a “win”, per se. Apple shows no signs of restraining its legal department. Even if Apple ultimately loses a lot of these cases, the war of attrition is definitely on Apple’s side, if it serves as a muzzle to rumor pundits.
Personally, I think that Apple should lighten up. If it’s serious about becoming a corporate player, it’s going to need to become less secretive and announce its products in advance so that the suits can plan.
Personally, I think that Apple should lighten up. If it’s serious about becoming a corporate player, it’s going to need to become less secretive and announce its products in advance so that the suits can plan.
Excuse me, but how can you plan given the number of times that Microsoft has changed its road map in the last 5 years – future planning is a load of horse shit, and the only people who use this justificaion for not choosing Apple are those in managerial positions doing them utmost to ensure that they have heaps of work to justify their job.
“those in managerial positions doing them utmost to ensure that they have heaps of work to justify their jo”
Great MacMyths #156.
The only reason corporations do not buy Macs is that they are too easy to maintain and run and use and so would put the IT department out of work.
Corollary: If only Apple would make its OS less secure and harder to use and maintain, thus guaranteeing more IT department employment, its share of corporate sales would rise.
Its obvious that you’ve never worked in a large business; believe me, there are plenty of people in this world who do their utmost to ensure that their position in a company is justified, even if that means, making things 100x more difficult that they need to be.
Microsoft prooves that it isn’t a myth.
How do you think that Microsoft gains shares against Unix ?
I tell you: because it is easier to install, configure and set services.
Even if it is less reliable than Unix they gain market share because it is EASY.
The reasons corporations do not buy Macs is because of:
– knowledge: they don’t have a clue about it. The majority of managers doesn’t even know that Mac OS X and/or that it is a unix system and/or that there is a Server version.
– skills: most of IT’s administrators doesn’t know how to manage Mac OS X Server.
– lack of motivation: IT’s administrators don’t want to learn it because they already know an other Unix and/or Windows. I just see it at work every days. AIX administrators that don’t want to learn Solaris, Solaris admins that don’t want to learn HP-UX, Linux admins that …
This principle doesn’t apply solely to Apple. Microsoft hasn’t helped itself in the corporate world by changing its road map. IT managers want predictability. They want to know what future products will look like, when they will ship, and how they will affect deployment. Apple doesn’t like to talk about its future plans; consequently, it’s running against the grain and has practically no presence in the corporate world.
This principle doesn’t apply solely to Apple. Microsoft hasn’t helped itself in the corporate world by changing its road map. IT managers want predictability. They want to know what future products will look like, when they will ship, and how they will affect deployment. Apple doesn’t like to talk about its future plans; consequently, it’s running against the grain and has practically no presence in the corporate world.
Then give me an example of a company that publicly discloses a roadmap for future products – a disclosure that doesn’t require 1/2 dozen NDA’s to be signed, as with the case of Sun and SGI, if one wishes to be invited into their inner sanctum to find out the future direction.
I’ll give you a future road map of Apple then; new products with upgraded specs, new versions of MacOS X; basically, more of the same, maybe some extra features.
All of this is hardly going to dictate as to the direction of company planning; if the new computer goes from being square to triangle, does it actually affect the operation of the computer or the ability for the employee to use it? of course not! same goes for MacOS X; its stayed consistantly the same for the last 5 years, so unless you *really* wish to use those new features, then simply carry on as usual, using the same things as you always have done.
Then give me an example of a company that publicly discloses a roadmap for future products – a disclosure that doesn’t require 1/2 dozen NDA’s to be signed, as with the case of Sun and SGI, if one wishes to be invited into their inner sanctum to find out the future direction.
Microsoft announces a LOT of its future products way in advance.
Well, someone inside Apple or one of its suppliers violated NDAs. Apple has the right to enforce such, and will certainly continue to do so. What the courts have told Apple, in no uncertain terms, is that Apple doesn’t get to uses the courts as an “HR department” fo find its internal leaks.
I don’t think anyone ‘won’ or ‘lost’. I think the system just did its job.