Instead of building interest in new products, Apple needs secrecy to snow the Mac faithful with the hoopla of a Steve Jobs snake oil sales pitch (RDF), like bogus benchmark claims about world's fastest PC and high quality video from iSight. The last thing Apple wants is the truth to come out about its new products before all the iLemmings have a chance to place their orders.

So I guess all the online media outlets--from Mac-centric websites to News.com.com.com.com.com.com...--that claimed or implied that this law suit adds credibility to rumors of a flash-based iPod are mistaken yet again.

We, the iLemmings, do it for them, and we have a pretty good time guessing what Apple will come out with next. Hell, even YOU read TMO!

Now name us a web site (not dozens - just one) that is dedicated to Dull. Don't count company sites . . . actually that's about all you can identify.

It's possible that a product may have a problem in production ramp ups, or be pulled from being released at the last minute. Look up some history and you'll see that IBM pulled some mystery computer the day before it was to be announced and shortly released the System 34, followed by the System 38, then 36. It ain't out until the fat lady sings.

There is also a need to keep some products under wraps before introduction as it can give the competition time to work on catching up. This is especially important to Apple, with their emphasis on innovation.

That's why companies have NDAs and other confidentiality agreements, but surely you understand that . . .

This also means that the so-called "picture" - an illustration actually, of the supposed flashpod was totally inaccurate, you know the one without a screen. Apple never asked the illustration to be removed. This is good news as what was published was terrible. Onward and upward. In a few weeks we'll probably know what's up.

Reality Check: you are one sad individual.

What about confidential sources?

It's not possible that the media web sites can keep their sources secret?

Quote

Guest wrote:
What about confidential sources?

It's not possible that the media web sites can keep their sources secret?

If I were the web site owners, I'd tell Apple to go pound sand in its corporate butt. This side of Apple Computer has always been its dark side, IMHO. I understand their need to keep mum about their product plans, but they do go overboard on occasion. This is one of those occasions.

As for the courts, I suspect they'll side with Apple. Free speech, it seems, doesn't extend to the commercial world.

Maybe if Apple worked on their products instead of playing lawyer they would get them out on time and not have the first batch of them be screwed up as seems to be normal for Apple.

Some of these things are so obvious that even Apple ought to quit worrying about "secrecy" and take it as a compliment that anyone actually cares whether they have a product.

As far as damages are concerned, Apple should be quite careful about their claims as a counter claim by the defendents for value added by all of the free publicity might be recognized. The defendant is entitled to show the true measure of any alleged damages after all.

Apple has the advantage in these sorts of suits simply because virtually all Apple related web sites are small affairs which can be bullied with threats of suits, whether having merit or not, that they simply can not afford to defend.

On the other hand, it will be intersting to see if various organizations which continually support "First Amendment"/Free Press issues become involved as this is clearly such an issue. If Apple does not want this sort of information to see the light of day it is their responsibility to improve their security. As a recent article about the very poor security of the Apple retail stores pointed out, Apple lacks many basic skills in these areas.

Quote

Steve W wrote:
Free speech, it seems, doesn't extend to the commercial world.

On the other hand, all Apple employees willingly sign a contract laying out the terms of their employment. Nobody holds a gun to their head - they are free to take it or leave it. If they take it, a contract is a contract. No one should be surprised that legal action is taken on matters important to Apple when the terms of the contract are violated by an employee.

That being said, Apple CAN come across as the big bad bully in the way they've gone about the handling of some of these cases.

Leaking confidential informatation does not fall under any free-speech protection, as far as I'm concerned. People who leak this info are just attention seekers. As for confidential sources, if they are Apple employees, as now seems likely, then they are violating the agreement that they themselves signed.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
On the other hand, it will be intersting to see if various organizations which continually support "First Amendment"/Free Press issues become involved as this is clearly such an issue. If Apple does not want this sort of information to see the light of day it is their responsibility to improve their security.

That's preposterous. See my previous post. It is the responsibility of the employee (or a non-employee under an NDA) to stick to the legally binding terms of the contract agreed upon as the conditions required for employment (or access to information).

There is a difference between 1st amendment rights (read the 1st amendment to see what it is there to protect, which is primarily from persecution in the event of speaking out against the government in spoken word or print), the press's ability to protect a source for information in the public interest and the release and publication of information regarding a commercial product not yet released. The latter can be considered industrial espionage and a violation of a legally binding non-disclosure agreement by the employee that allegedly released the information.

Protecting the development and release of a product and keeping it secret from competitors is the life-blood of commercial industry. So no, where trade secrets and future products are concerned, free speech most certainly does NOT extend to the commercial world. And you sign papers attesting to that fact.

Free Speech does not apply, as no one is forced to work at Apple. Any one that doesn't agree with the NDA, is free to leave the company under the terms of their last signed NDA, or not go to work there in the first place. The NDA is a condition of employment, just like coming to work is a condition of employment.

Freedom of the media? Perhaps, but in this case, the web sites are not established media...they are rumor mills. They can always refuse to conform to a court order and risk being found in contempt of court, in which case, they would be subject any action the court might take to enforce it's order...many a journalist has gone to jail to protect their sources. Some have won, others have lost.

Also, as for fighting Apple...pick your fights carefully. Billion dollar companies don't just walk away. You'll be in the poor house LONG before Apple even starts to note any expenses on the ledger that are higher than the gardener's salary.

If the site owners were smart they figured out a way, when setting up the site, to keep any "records" from being saved that would permit such backtracking as Apple wants to do and so can surrender all records and still provide nothing of value to Apple.

For that matter, if the leak is smart, their tracks are well covered with free email accounts with false info and stolen WiFi connections from unsecured, personal networks. The MAC address could still be gotten with some serious detective work and the right resources, but if the leak is smart, even this will be of no use.

That said, Apple, like any other company must keep it's planned actions secret. Business has much in common with poker. To play, you have to anti up. To stay in the game, you have to meet challenges from all others in the game. To have a winning hand, you need some luck and some skill. Luck at being in the right place at the right time (sitting in that chair when that card is dealt) and skill enough to predict, with some accuracy, what cards are held by others in the game as well as how to improve your hand so that it is better than their hand because, the world's best bluffer can never win against a Royal Flush.

I know of no poker player that willingly shows their cards to other players. (Gee, I wonder why....)

To the leak(s), if you want to work for the competition, please leave Apple and go to work for the competition. If you're going to work for Apple, stop stealing from them. They have invested, heavily, to develop and produce products on the "bet" that the products will return more to the company than they cost to get to market. If the competition is given a "leg-up", Apple's ability to make a profit is reduced, if for no other reason than the available market for a product must now be divided by more players.

You are PAID from Apple's profits, so you are not only stealing from Apple, you are stealing from your own future.

Now THAT'S STUPID!!!!

Why do you think it's called treason if you give away a government secret?...why do you think treason is punishable by death?

Secrets are required for success of many projects in both public service and in private enterprise. If you don't agree with the need for secrecy, go to work in a field that does not require it....like maybe garbage collection.

Steve, I believe Apple has every employee sign a NDA as part of their employement. People are free to say what they want and Apple is free to terminate their employement and sue thier pants off when they expose Apple's trade secrets. The bigger picture is that Steve Jobs deflects most of the minutia of the "computer industry" away from his employees and allows them to create incredible products and do a superlative job of selling those products. Exposing trade secrets hurts the company more than anything. But the idiot letting this stuff out is also stealing Jobs' thunder. Not very bright to piss off the big boss, is it? RC, long time, no write? Been reinstalling Windows?

The websites are not defendants. This is not a free speech issue.

Free speech of the leaker? Not if it's trade secrets.

Apple's not a bully here, they're just defending themselves. I'm surprised they've let so many leaks go (G5 iMac).

Quote

Billy K wrote:
The websites are not defendants. This is not a free speech issue.

Free speech of the leaker? Not if it's trade secrets.

Apple's not a bully here, they're just defending themselves. I'm surprised they've let so many leaks go (G5 iMac).

You are technically right Billy, Apple has not directly sued the web sites. But they did Subpeana the sites and will ask/compell them to give up the sources. Assuming the web sites did not themselves break into apple, or pay for employees to give up secrets, they are within their rights to give apple the bird and protect their sources. It's not their fault apple cant keep their employees from blabbing. Realisitically, once an an apple employee blabs and the rumor starts, that's news and the outlets can cover it.

Also, I disagree that "no one put a gun to your head to sign the NDA". Perhaps the rest of you actually read your click wrap licenses or have so many job offers that you are in a position to negotiate with the employer or software provider to modify the terms of employment, but back here in the real world that is not an option. People need work to get food/shelter/etc. These contracts are adhesive. People are in poor or non-existent bargaining positions and stuck with raw-deal terms because they need the money. Most of the terms are fair. And in fact, working for apple and honoring an NDA is doggone fair. But many of the terms in contracts are total bs. So much so that mos companies put in terms that "if any of my outrageous contract terms are so cheezy that they are illegal, please ignore those and dont consider this contract void and use the next most outrageous standard that is not illegal in its place." The average employee doesn't have a chance and takes that bs just like you do when you load microsoft word on or accept some patch or software update.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
So I guess all the online media outlets--from Mac-centric websites to News.com.com.com.com.com.com...--that claimed or implied that this law suit adds credibility to rumors of a flash-based iPod are mistaken yet again.

Well it could also simply mean the "leak" about the flash iPod would have be intentional. Man you sure seem pissed off about a flash iPod. Whats your deal?

As for the Garageband interface product, I sure hope its alot better than the piece o' crap they showed in the AI article. Who needs something with just 2 XLR inputs on it and nothing else? If the real product doesn't at LEAST have one 1/4" input for guitars then its useless.

Apple is in Alpha dog mode to keep the REAL information from being leaked out. These subpoenas are red herrings to throw the hounds off their tracks from the real issue. Something big, VERY big is soon coming our way and Apple can ill afford to have their plans for this extraordinary announcement from being accidentally or inadvertently or even purposely disclosed, (or even hinted). The subpoenas are only meant to scare the bejeezes out of rumormoungers, from disclosing "something" revolutionary is coming from Apple Inc. The information points to a paradigm shift event that'll change the face of Apple. Apple and others are in full scale alert to stop anything from being disclosed even disinformation will be used thwart potential leakers.

Reginald Slivers

HINT: Coherence

"Asteroid" is hardly a big deal. Products like this have been around for years...decades even. This is a warning shot.

iPhone? PDA (Newton II+)? Apple Media Center (Ouch! That hurts to say.) Maybe it's the mythical "Headless iMac."

free speech, does not, indeed, extend to the corporate world. Apple has an absolute right and obligation to keep its products secret until his Steveness deigns to announce them.
emploees sign non-disclosure agreements for just this purpose. there is little difference between disclosing trade secrets to a company's competitors, and disclosing state secrets to an enemy nation; the results are similar. i hope the mighty wrath of his Steveness drops down on this person; speculation is one thing, stealing is another.

While I agree, to a point, that folks need jobs...the fact remains that if one is not up to the job, one should not take the job.

Regardless of one's "needs", if you are unwilling to sell out your standards to fulfill the requirements of the job, you should not take the job. If you are willing to accept the conditions of employment, the matter is settled...abide by the conditions.

If you do not, you are nothing more, nor less, than a common thief. Do not profess one thing, but do another.

"Liar...Liar... Pant's on fire."

There is no such thing as "business ethics", one either has ethics or one does not. If one has ethics, their ethics are present in their business transactions. If one does not have ethics, it quickly becomes obvious in their business transactions.

Quote

Guest wrote:
On the other hand, it will be intersting to see if various organizations which continually support "First Amendment"/Free Press issues become involved as this is clearly such an issue. If Apple does not want this sort of information to see the light of day it is their responsibility to improve their security.

So, I suppose if a reporter gets an exclusive interview with the person who robbed your house, you'd be OK with what you understand to be 1st Ammendment/Free Press issues? And I suppose if you didn't want your house robbed, it's your responsibility to improve your security?

jsh

Protecting product secret means protecting your company's profitability and utimately lead to protecting your own job and prosperity.

Poor souls. Don't they understand this?

There is Apple's claim against a possible employee who broke a contract.

There is Apple's request, via a subpeona, for information about that possible employee.

Apple has every right to ask for, and even receive, a subpeona. The publishers of the mentioned web sites have the First Amendment to guard their rights as journalists. They are free to release their information, but I'm sure they understand the issue facing any journalist who offers up information about a source - future sources will be less than willing to come forward and the business of the publisher's will dry up.

Apple has other, legal but strong arm, methods of either getting their information or punishing these publishers as well though. Indirect threats to advertisers, pressure on their ISPs, and near-harrasment of the writers/publishers can all make this decission harder on these three web sites.

This is a tough position to be in, but when the editors at these sites decided to publish this information they made the decision to accept the consequences - legal, fiscal and ethical.

-DaMacGuy

Quote

DaMacGuy wrote:
There is Apple's claim against a possible employee who broke a contract.

There is Apple's request, via a subpeona, for information about that possible employee.

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if I'd read the same article as everyone else.

At this point, Apple doesn't know from whom or where the information came. It may be someone who works directly for Apple, it may be someone who works for a subcontractor, it might be someone who's noticed certain activities and made an educated guess. Apple doesn't know. Since they don't know, they want a court to make the website editors and owners do that work for them. The website editors and owners didn't sign NdAs and Apple has no legal control over them, hence my comment "If I were the web site owners, I'd tell Apple to go pound sand in its corporate butt." That's the free speech to which I was referring.

Quote

Biff wrote:
As for the Garageband interface product, I sure hope its alot better than the piece o' crap they showed in the AI article. Who needs something with just 2 XLR inputs on it and nothing else? If the real product doesn't at LEAST have one 1/4" input for guitars then its useless.

Asteroid, as described by AI, has "two XLR/ TRS audio input connectors." So you're covered.

No, what the people who pass on these secrets are doing is not free speech. This is corporate espionage, which is illegal and costs corporations billions each year.

I enjoy the rumor sites, but publishing these kinds of things could be taken as aiding and abetting.

Has anybody ever thought to attack companies that on purpose holds back information about new product - how many customers felt like fools when they bought a product that turned out to be obsolete next day.

About the only time an NDA can be violated is if public intrest or health is at stake. Like an unsafe airframe on a passenger jet or some company dumping cyanide into a river, issues like that are viable grounds to bypass an NDA, but thats about all I can think of.

This is not the dark side of Apple. This is the dark side of the posters. The person/people involved in this are not dropping subtle hints to a possible product or hardware directions. These posts come complete with diagrams and full descriptions. I dig all of the mentioned web sites and have posted little tidbits here and there myself (emphases on hints and tidbits (which are not under NDA!)). However, while I'm hungry for any and all information about what's in the Apple pipe, I will not blame Apple for one second for using everything in their power to prevent this kind of potentially damaging theft.

This kind of info leak is damaging in many ways. One way this is damaging is when art work gets out in the public domain it can jeopardize the owner from obtaining a patent for their original idea or design. If there is prior art work out on the internet for a specific amount of time (even if it is your own art work), you can not apply for a patent and anyone can copy/ripoff your design or idea and sell it as there own. Protecting intellectual property for a company like Apple, which relies on innovation and new ideas for their survival, is extremely serious.

If someone can't abide by the agreement they made with their employer that is not the employers fault.

-tink

The other issue at stake here is patent protection. If someone in Apple created an "invention" and someone else leaked that invention before the patent process was complete, it is possible that it could invalidate the patent. By prosecuting, Apple demonstrates that it is taking steps to protect the information and that the information was not "released".

Whatever your feelings on patents (my own are ambivalent), Apple is playing the patent game and needs to be seen to protect their patents.

That said, Apple has a history of being rather paranoid about releasing information before they are ready to. It's hardly surprising that they are trying to track down whoever leaked this stuff.

Quote

Guest wrote:
On the other hand, it will be intersting to see if various organizations which continually support "First Amendment"/Free Press issues become involved as this is clearly such an issue.

Bull puckey. Conflating industrial espionage with "free speech" is preposterous. BTW, if you note, Apple is trying to go after the source(s), not the website owners. It's the same principle as protecting classified information. The SCOTUS decisions about the Pentagon Papers confirmed the principle that journalists and the media cannot be prosecuted for revealing classified information -- but the government employees or former employees who leaked the information can.

The guy needs a job so he signs any document thrown under his nose, happy to be hired. This is duress and means that the agreement could be actionable, leding to adjudication that could make the agreement invalid.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
BTW, if you note, Apple is trying to go after the source(s), not the website owners. It's the same principle as protecting classified information. The SCOTUS decisions about the Pentagon Papers confirmed the principle that journalists and the media cannot be prosecuted for revealing classified information -- but the government employees or former employees who leaked the information can.

The problem is that Apple is attempting to coerce the website owners, via subpoena, to hand over the identity of their sources. The website owners could be ruled in contempt of court and wind up in jail if they decline to do so. Granted that it's not prosecution, per se, but it is harassment and that's what is objectionable about this affair.

Spread around a lot of plausible misinformation (Like flash based iPods for instance). That way, your copycat competitors spend a lot of money and time going in the wrong direction Suing, unless you are very near to the product release, is stupid because you confirm the rumor. I don't believe that Apple is stupid, so I suspect we'll see this product at MWSF. Keeping a secret may be impossible, but if they bury developers like this, they'll lengthen the amount of time they have before the inevitable leaks.

as a shareholder of the company, as user, a fan, and proponent if apple products, I h2

Quote

Billy K wrote:
The websites are not defendants. This is not a free speech issue.

Free speech of the leaker? Not if it's trade secrets.

Apple's not a bully here, they're just defending themselves. I'm surprised they've let so many leaks go (G5 iMac).

A g5 iMac is not very easy to defend against... the closest thing the other side could come up with is an Athlon64 desktop.

meatmanek

Quote

Guest wrote:
Spread around a lot of plausible misinformation (Like flash based iPods for instance). That way, your copycat competitors spend a lot of money and time going in the wrong direction Suing, unless you are very near to the product release, is stupid because you confirm the rumor. I don't believe that Apple is stupid, so I suspect we'll see this product at MWSF. Keeping a secret may be impossible, but if they bury developers like this, they'll lengthen the amount of time they have before the inevitable leaks.

Seems like a good idea at first, but if you start spreading false rumors, the competition will simply weed out the ones that do not seem like possible threats to their business. If they do find an idea that would threaten their market if Apple released it, they'd create a competing product. If Apple then doesn't release the product because it was only a rumor, the competition gains because they're the only ones with that type of product.

Guest, you're forgetting that it takes many months, sometimes years, to develop a product and bring it to market, and even if something has a corner on a market, it doesn't mean it's going to sell. See: early HDD MP3 players.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The guy needs a job so he signs any document thrown under his nose, happy to be hired. This is duress and means that the agreement could be actionable, leding to adjudication that could make the agreement invalid.

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that needing a job could hardly be defined as conditions for duress. Furthermore, if Apple requires all employees to sign NDAs, then clearly Apple could claim that it's their standard operating procedure, and not an attempt to manipulate developers desperate for work.

I think that Apple is doing the right thing by requiring the websites to divulge the identity of people leaking Apple's secrets.

Then again, these websites could do a good job of CYA by more speculative wording, and a judicious selection process of which photos to post and which not to post. (99% of the time Apple issues cease and desist demands to these websites when things get juicy, especially when photos are involved. Who can blame Apple from just taking things a step further?)

I was totally stoked about the "Asteroid" concept as being a cheaper option to the M-Audio product.

It's really the consumers who got screwed on this. I was all set to buy one as soon as it was released, now because of the law suit the Asteroid isn't available.

Knowing about it before it was released certainly wouldn't stop me from getting one. Why couldn't Apple wait until it was out there before they filed suit? At least they could be selling them.

I certainly understand Apple's desire to keep their product info under wraps... And I also see how Apple's actions in this issue come across extremely petty... But my real frustration any more is this whole idea that the press is somehow free from all responsibility when it comes to the words they print.

Somewhat off topic: As an American it sickens me to see the way our press so openly prints words that put our soldiers in direct danger and are never held accountable...

So although I have little pity for Apple in this situation... I have to say I am happy to see some news organization SOMEWHERE having to deal with the damages of their printed words... Maybe it could become a trend.