NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreement) are a part of most industries - basically people are promising not to talk or give away trade secrets and any information that could have an impact on a companies ability to do business

Apple employees sign an NDA as part of their employement package

Apple developers sign NDAs as part of their developer agreement

Press people sign NDAs when they are invited to see new technology

this isnt about free speech and first amendment rights

this is about people keeping and honoring their word and doing the right thing versus sleezing around

this industry has more news sites, more companies, more people that should be held totally accountable for their actions, but they arent, and the world goes on

The part you are missing, however, is that none of these sites signed NDAs with Apple, certainly not where these products are concerned, which honestly negates your entire argument as it applies to the named sites.

Bryan
Editor
TMO

Quote

Guest wrote:
NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreement) are a part of most industries - basically people are promising not to talk or give away trade secrets and any information that could have an impact on a companies ability to do business

Apple employees sign an NDA as part of their employement package

Apple developers sign NDAs as part of their developer agreement

Press people sign NDAs when they are invited to see new technology

this isnt about free speech and first amendment rights

this is about people keeping and honoring their word and doing the right thing versus sleezing around

this industry has more news sites, more companies, more people that should be held totally accountable for their actions, but they arent, and the world goes on

check out the post on blackvortex about Apple's lawsuit against ThinkSecret and learn the true identity of Nick dePlume.

http://blackvortex.net/newsread.php?newsid=15

Is Steve losing it?

The iPod is an incredible success and should be giving Apple a massive 'halo effect'...

Yet here in the UK VERY few people have even HEARD of a MAC, let alone do they know it doesn't crash and burn all the time like their current Windows machine. They don't know it is almost immune from all the (in)security crap that plagues Windows.

They don't know they look cool (because they've never seen one).

They don't know they run loads of software, including MS Office!

They don't know this because Apple have never told them. If Apple has a marketing department in Europe I wonder where they are all hiding.

And when the Mac faithful stand up and sound of about some GREAT new products, he sues them...

It's actually REALLY easy to sell Macs to people suffering under Windows terror - I know, because I fix PCs for consumer users and take along my Powerbook when doing so. LOADS of my customers are SO impressed by the Mac that they buy one, yes, they really do. It is EASY and would be even easier if that wasn't the first they had seen or heard of the Mac experience.

Putting a few well placed ads in mags, papers and maybe even TV shows isn't rocket science and hardly takes a degree in marketing to figure out that - right now - with millions of happy iPod owners pacing the streets - it would help sell LOADS of Macs.

Maybe they like being niche so much they don't want to grow their market share?

Jobs is in control of Apple, his personality leads it, so HE must be to blame for not marketing his products properly.

These sites are meant to acting in the Apple communities interest but personnaly I think they have been taking things too far and are damaging Apple's bottom line.

Yes I can see that the timing of these lawsuits is probably too late to stop the damage this time, however if Apple don't act the set a precident.

Can they act ? Yes:

From http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/90781CA8-0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D38-90A2A9A60C6FD618

What rights does the owner of a trade secret have?

A trade secret owner can prevent the following groups of people from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission:

* people who are automatically bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose or use trade secret information, including any employee who routinely comes into contact with the employer's trade secrets as part of the employee's job
* people who acquire a trade secret through improper means such as theft, industrial espionage or bribery
* people who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them
* people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret, and
* people who sign nondisclosure agreements (also known as "confidentiality agreements") promising not to disclose trade secrets without authorization from the owner. This may be the best way for a trade secret owner to establish a duty of confidentiality. Even though employees are bound under an implied duty not to disclose sensitive information, all employees who come into contact with a company's trade secrets -- including high-level employees and company presidents -- should sign nondisclosure agreements, because such agreements make it clear to the employee that the company's trade secrets must be kept confidential. In addition, a company's lenders, investors and potential investors may require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.

This case is not about freedom of information or protecting a free press. It is about people being denied permission to publish material that they have no right to publish.

Quote

Guest wrote:
These sites are meant to acting in the Apple communities interest but personnaly I think they have been taking things too far and are damaging Apple's bottom line.

Yes I can see that the timing of these lawsuits is probably too late to stop the damage this time, however if Apple don't act the set a precident.

Can they act ? Yes:

From http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/90781CA8-0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D38-90A2A9A60C6FD618

What rights does the owner of a trade secret have?

A trade secret owner can prevent the following groups of people from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission:

* people who are automatically bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose or use trade secret information, including any employee who routinely comes into contact with the employer's trade secrets as part of the employee's job
* people who acquire a trade secret through improper means such as theft, industrial espionage or bribery
* people who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them
* people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret, and
* people who sign nondisclosure agreements (also known as "confidentiality agreements") promising not to disclose trade secrets without authorization from the owner. This may be the best way for a trade secret owner to establish a duty of confidentiality. Even though employees are bound under an implied duty not to disclose sensitive information, all employees who come into contact with a company's trade secrets -- including high-level employees and company presidents -- should sign nondisclosure agreements, because such agreements make it clear to the employee that the company's trade secrets must be kept confidential. In addition, a company's lenders, investors and potential investors may require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.

This case is not about freedom of information or protecting a free press. It is about people being denied permission to publish material that they have no right to publish.

"Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah told The Mac Observer. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."

Nope, this is crap. Blogs are aggrandized of public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.

In Ireland, (second home of Apple) the Mac has also had a fairly weak retail presence, to such an extent that shops actually refuse to carry Mac software,
games etc.

Now, however, a growing number of retailers (including the Virgin MegaStore)
have started to carry the iPod.

Some mobile/cellphone outlets have also started to carry iPods, but, more interestingly, the iMac G5.

These new developments would suggest a divergence from the Apple Mini Store strategy, at least in this case.

That was supposed to be: Blogs are aggrandized public diaries.

Anyway, to followup. Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
"Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah told The Mac Observer. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."

Nope, this is crap. Blogs are aggrandized of public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Blogs are aggrandized public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.
...
Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.

Quote

Guest wrote:
That was supposed to be: Blogs are aggrandized public diaries.

Anyway, to followup. Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.

Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it.

This round of lawsuits gives Apple the right to subpoena the information, if in the end they actually drop the suit. It's part of due process that they are entitled to, just like the web site companies are entitled to representation and to have their day in court. And face it, calling bloggers journalists at this point is a stretch, and as a journalist myself, I am fully aware that there is no absolute protection for your sources. It comes down to choices.

So, come on people, use common sense and logic when making arguments. Don't just throw out aspersions that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it.

This round of lawsuits gives Apple the right to subpoena the information, if in the end they actually drop the suit. It's part of due process that they are entitled to, just like the web site companies are entitled to representation and to have their day in court. And face it, calling bloggers journalists at this point is a stretch, and as a journalist myself, I am fully aware that there is no absolute protection for your sources. It comes down to choices.

So, come on people, use common sense and logic when making arguments. Don't just throw out aspersions that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it. .

Guest 8:49, what does my ego have to do with this?

Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?

The second: the suit is to force TS to divulge the names of those who have breached their NDA with Apple. The merits of the case are tenuous, but Apple is still within its rights to try. And this doesn't in any way constitute bullying. Apple has their livelihood to protect. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. And their rights don't end because someone bound by an NDA failed to comply. That's more crap logic.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Guest 8:49, what does my ego have to do with this?

Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?

The second: the suit is to force TS to divulge the names of those who have breached their NDA with Apple. The merits of the case are tenuous, but Apple is still within its rights to try. And this doesn't in any way constitute bullying. Apple has their livelihood to protect. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. And their rights don't end because someone bound by an NDA failed to comply. That's more crap logic.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?