Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Sues Employee Over Cube Leaks 168

Posted by Hemos from the going-after-their-own dept.
Carnage4Life writes:"Apple has found out the employee who leaked pictures of the PowerMac G4 Cube. So Apple has modified its original lawsuit against "unknown individual" for leaking trade secrets and changed the name to that of the employee in court filings. So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sues Employee Over Cube Leaks More

Apple Sues Employee Over Cube Leaks

Comments Filter:
  • "We're suing you for millions.... but we don't want to embarass you". Any doubt as to why Apple seems to be such a schizophrenic company and has had a hard time finding its way? Some vision.
  • Correct link is Here [yahoo.com]
    ---
  • That link didnt work for me.... the Yahoo article is located at

    http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20000828/tc/appl e_identifies_employee_as_alleged_source_of _leaks_1.html

    .mincus

  • Gee (Score:2)

    by Fervent ( 178271 )
    Gee, how caring of Apple not to "embarrass employees of the same name" by citing some unknown individual in a trade secret lawsuit.

    And how considerate to bring it out on a nationwide stage in the judicial system, instead of dealing with it internally. And to ground rumor-leaking as a penalty by death in the religious Apple cult.

    Please. ;)

    The above post was sarcastic. Macaddicts, please take your tongue and place it back in your cheek.

  • Reporter: So can you get me a line on what the new Mac is about?

    Mac Employee: Uh, it's supposed to be a secret. I've signed NDA's and stuff.

    Reporter: Okay, okay, I understand. What can you tell me about it? Anything? Color, size, shape?

    Mac Employee: Well, it's a cube.

    Reporter: No, duh. All computers are, except the sleek IMAC. Are saying the new G4 is going back to squaresville?

    Mac Employee: I've said too much. I gotta go.

    Reporter: Yeah, great, great story kid. Mac builds a Cube.

  • Hm (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:00AM (#819510)
    I think the employee's name is pronounced screwed.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • C/Net chose not the identify the individual in the article. It wasn't Apple's decision.
  • Talk about a sacrificial lamb...some poor schmoe violates a fluffy nondisclosure stipulation, puts - horror of horrors - photos up on the web, and in the process makes waves and waves of publicity for Apple. What happens? We have a martyr on our hands, of course.

    What i'd like to see is some sort of follow-up on this employee...if anyone spots this person on a 10-year island getaway, then that's a pretty good indication of a set-up stunt.

    You hear that, Mr. Leak? You'd better be living a miserable life now, or you'll be sorry... ;)

    -j

  • Wonder what they would have done if this employee leaked *those* pictures of the boss.....

    It's not like this employee was giving the machines away or anything....It's still the coolest-looking machine around...

  • The Onion saw this coming! (Score:3)

    by mwalker ( 66677 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:03AM (#819515) Homepage
    The Onion saw this coming!
    Apple Employee Fired for Thinking Different [theonion.com]!

    I've heard that's a great way to build confidence within the ranks, just sinlge out a few employees and rape them. Worked for Stalin!

  • Actually, that's not quite right. (Slashdot got it wrong.) If you read the story, you'll see that it was News.com's decision not to publish the name because Apple wouldn't confirm that there wasn't another employee with the same name. If you ask me, it's a strange editorial decision. Usually the only names kept out of stories are those of rape victims, minors accused of crimes, and the like. I've never heard of a name kept out of a story because someone else might have the same name. As far as I know there are no journalistic ethics guidelines about this situation.

    --

  • Apple's Cube leaks are nothing compared to the Slashdot Cruiser's oil leaks.

    Plus you won't look like a total dork driving an Apple Cube.
  • So they're changing it to....

    "Sue differently."
  • We can all see obviously that apple is pissed about their secrets being leaked out because they anounced them officially.
    The thing I wonder is, what the hell are they going to sue this guy for? It's not like he caused and damage to the company. He didn't stop people from being excited about the new products, in fact he probably made people even more interested. He certainly didn't cause apple to lose and revenue from spoiling the secret. So he really cause them no damage, so what on earth is apple expecting from him, money?

    Apple doesn't seem to be any better than Microsoft these days.

    Can't wait to go buy me M$ Linux
  • Instead of having a lawsuit against an unknown individual they are going to have one against an unnamed individual.

    Sounds very much to me like they haven't got the faintest idea who this person is and they are just hoping to spot someone looking a bit edgy round the office.

  • Hmm (Score:1)

    by Cloud K ( 125581 )
    Apple scowls at you, ready to attack -- looks like they would wipe the floor with you! Better not get on the wrong side of them. The cube may have been more or less finished (and getting people drooling probably _helped_ Apple more than anything else) but an NDA is an NDA and breaking one pleases no company :)
  • So instead Apple embarrasses every Apple employee with a common name. Err, something.

  • Example (Score:1)

    by jjr ( 6873 )
    Apple wants to make an example of this guy so other employees would not make the same mistake

  • More leaked apple stuff... (Score:5)

    by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:11AM (#819524) Homepage Journal
    I can now exclusively disclose some exciting features about apples forthcoming laptop:

    It will not be beige in colour
    It will be smaller than a convential desktop
    It will have a colour screen
    It will run off exclusively designed lightweight batteries, and an optional powersupply
    It will not come with Windows preinstalled
    The device will have a non-typical texture
    It will be easy to use
    It will quite possibly be shiny
    It will quite possibly have rubbery bits

    sue me :)

  • The Name of the Employee revealed at MacSlash (Score:4)

    by MacSlash ( 200029 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:15AM (#819525) Homepage
    Check out the MacSlash story [macslash.com] today for the full report, including the name of the Apple employee, Juan Gutierrez. Our sources are trying to determine whether Gutierrez still works for Apple and what his position in the company was. Stop by [macslash.com]and post your comments.

    --

  • Yep. New saying: "As American as Apple Sueing!"

    Disclaimer: Apple Corp, is a registered/copyrighted/happily married/friendly/ trademark of Apple Corporation. All rights reserved to sue you.

    RATM...the machine is Apple

  • Apple really needs to deal with this internally. I cannot believe that at the very least they just fire the individual. What do they expect to gain?

    I know that it's imparitive in marketing/corporate image to make sure that you have control over materials and products. I know that its imparative that a leak *could've* done harm (heh... like MS/Unix from another article today)... but geez... just pictures?

    I believe that this is more a policy gone awry. I don't doubt to see some sort of mercy statement at a later date... probably from Jobs himself.

    ----

  • You forgot the part where he gave the reporter pictures...
    -----------------------

  • Consideration... (Score:4)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:17AM (#819529) Homepage
    They don't want to embarass any employees with the same name, so they're not releasing it? Fat lot of good that does John Doe! His name has been dragged through the mud enough already! He's been sued several thousand times, got amnesia more times than he cna remember, but nobody ever keeps John's name out of the press to protect his feelings!

    Kevin Fox

  • god (Score:4)

    by happystink ( 204158 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:17AM (#819530)
    i love this, even though the article plainly states that CNET are the ones not publishing the employee's name, the slashdot wrapup doesn't say that and everyone jumps on Apple.

    Read the article before trying to get your posts in guys, it won't slow you down too much on your quest to be the first one to bash whatever corporation is involved no matter what the story is.

    sig:

  • excuse.... how is apple gaining success here? it's not like they are sueing over any kind of tech issues like patents or copyrights, they're sueing somebody for violating a contract that told them to keep their mouths shut. Apple is still twice as innovative as very nearly every other manufacturer out there, in fact this is theire attempt to keep people from ripping them off as quickly as they are....
  • Some of you people actually feel sorry for this guy? Like he did no wrong? How many companies have you worked for where they actually -liked- it when you leaked confidential information? Seriously?! It doesn't matter if -you- personally don't think it was that big of a deal. The only thing that matters is that it was confidential information and the guy illegally leaked it to the public. Anybody in any company would get fired and/or sued for this. End of story.
    -----------------------
  • So Apple is withholding the leak's name in order to prevent embarassing other employees with the same name? I've got a friend who works at Apple. His name is Skye Clayton Bluggersmith.

    He's probably not the leak.
  • Gee... I guess Jobs got sick of all of us thinking that it was Gates on the screen in that commercial.

    Nice, brave new world ya got there Steve.

    Instead of embrace, expand, extinguish we just have innovate, investigate, incarcerate.

  • I know the mystery employee. (Score:4)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:18AM (#819535) Homepage
    He's my cube-mate, John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmitt. I tell ya, whenever he goes out there's confusion and shouting...

    Kevin Fox
  • Just a question.
    If it were just some kind of disguised advertising ?
    People spoke more about the Cube because of this stupid story than if they have had to wait until some announcement, no ?
    Ok, there's a suit but then ?
    Put a camera on a guy's desk, then ask a journalist to harass him and you'll have all the leaks you officially didn't want.
    --
  • >Instead of having a lawsuit against an unknown individual they are going to have one against an unnamed individual.

    Actually, the individual has been named. His name is Juan Gutierrez, and he's now in the court documents. News.com evidently doesn't have enough backbone to print the name, for whatever reason. But, you can find it at MacSlash [macslash.com].
    --

  • Usually the only names kept out of stories are those of rape victims,

    You forgot cult victims here. Scientology, Moon, etc. So CNET is just following its own rules. The so called "The Holy Fruit Cult".

  • Re:I know the mystery employee. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey, wait a minute! His name is my name too!

    What are the chances?
  • Lately it seems that 1 out of every 3 articles on /. involves some sort of litigation. It's a shame that News for Nerds and Stuff that matters all seems to revolve around the courtroom.

    Lawyers no longer chase ambulances - it seems they now chase geeks.

    ---

  • I agree. Whats the point in changing the name so as to not embarrass other ppl with the same name. Now they may have embarrassed all employees who consider themselves to have a common name.

    You can't embarrass the innocent. Apple should have handled this internally anyways.

  • I can't find out who leaked important documents at a reputable, international company like Apple, but I can find out who was picked up in St. Paul for engaging in prostitution [stpaul.gov]. What's with that?

    Even the samurai
    have teddy bears,
    and even the teddy bears

  • If you sign a form saying you won't give away secrets, and then you do and get caught, why would the company feel bad for you? If you think it's so wrong to not be allowed to give away company secrets, you simply shouldn't have signed the form to begin with. This leak itself may not have caused Apple tons of harm, but if all their surprises got leaked, it WOULD harm them financially. Less surprises = less press. Less press = less sales.

    Besides, this guy did not just mention the cube to his brother in law or something. He posted pictures of it to a website and then alerted the rumor sites to it! He went way out of his way to be sneaky about this, and if he gets sued it is 100% his own fault.

    sig:

  • In the US we call people like you....Drunk.

  • Why always Yahoo? (Score:3)

    by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:24AM (#819545)

    This must be hundreth time that somebody who posted leeks "anonymously" got caught because Yahoo turned over their personal identification. One would have had to live with one's head under a rock not to know that Yahoo can't be trusted for shit. So why do these idiots keep doing it so that they can get caught??

    There are ways of staying more or less anonymous on the web, or at least making things dificult for would be censors. This ranges from submitting to a site that at least has a good track record (such as Slashdot) to going through a rewebber like Anonymizer, to using a true Anonymity service like ZKS Freedom or posting to the Usenet via a Mixmaster remailer.

    It's hard to feel sorry for somebody so stupid that they thought not having their name on the post was enough to stay anonymous...
  • "Apple wants to make an example of this guy so other employees would not make the same mistake" ...of working for them? Seriously speaking, I don't think something like this will help employee morale or make people want to join the company with a witch hunt like this. They could have done it more discritely?
  • I have it on the best authority that the name of the previous "Unknown Individual" is **%%***}@#***%****}}****)***%*********ause Ellison thought the Apple | Microsoft connetion was too***%*%%***}}}}}****&**}}****}***@*ccording to KGB files, which were foun***}}}***%%#$$}}}@@*****!****.}***exican Mafia was paid off by someone in Arthur C. Cla****%%***ASA/FBI underco*}}}}}}***}}}******001 Space Odessy really! If you don't believe me, look at those picture of Europa ag*******}}}*****$****ven Jobs really is an ali*****%%}}}}******* Cubes will hatch****}}}}***%%%%****%*}}}******laving the entire human race.

    There you have it. Now I gotta go get another modem this one's fu*%%}}

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • "Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."
  • Talking about embarrasing... what the heck is Apple doing introducing the "Cube" anyway? The company was doing fine when it had four VERY DEFINED seperate products to match different markets.

    What are they going for with the Cube? The 'less-than-dual-G4-but-more-than-G3" market? You'd think they'd focus their efforts elsewhere... but no. Jobs and his damn cubes [black-cube.net]...
  • Door 1: Apple kills morale by installing the thought among their employees that they could get sued. Door 2: Apple scares the hell out of employees by installing the thought that they could get sued. Door 3: Both things happen. Uh, is there ANYTHING good at all that could come out of this?

    ================

  • Perhaps the name is John Smith or something similarly common.

    -

  • Re:Gee (Score:5)

    by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:29AM (#819552) Homepage Journal
    It is simply spin control, because the person's name is....

    STEVE JOBS!
  • I can agree with the majority of posts here, in that I don't see what Apple can possibly gain from this action. That aside, though, this employee DID sign a non-disclosure, and that IS a legally binding contract. It's not up to Joe Cubicle to decide what information is strategically important to the company, and even such a bizarre entity as Apple has to bring out the stick instead of the carrot if people are going to follow their rules.

    But.. I know this is repetitive, but what can they possibly gain? Bad PR, and they can't sue for any significant amount of money (or they can sue, but if this is just a Joe Cubicle, they won't get it)...
  • According to go2mac, the guy is Juan Gutierrez. Somehow I doubt there's more than one at Apple. More likely they don't want anyone rallying support around a martyr, and that's harder to do if you don't know your martyr's name.

    "Free Juan!"

    Kevin Fox

  • I was going to invest in Apple, but since they say "The protection of Apple trade secrets is incredibly important to our success"... and they obviously aren't very good at doing that, I guess they're not gonna be successful.

    I'll go invest in a new company that can't be sunk by one big-mouthed employee... ;-)

  • I dont see why this counts for a full story. There is no info of any impact to anyone but the unnamed employee and I'm sure he didnt have to find it on Slashdot to hear about it. We really should save the updates for information tha has some kind of use.
  • If employees start leaking information before official announcements, the following can happen:

    The competition can get a jump start on developing a spin strategy to say the competitino's new product is crap

    The competition can get a few days advance notice and come up with a similar product announcement (possibly before the official product announcement of the competition)

    Stock prices can quickly rise and fall based on the secrets of insiders being let out. The SEC doesn't like this kind of thing.

    So letting out secrets early can drastically impact a company.

  • They definitely should have gone the "internal reprimand" route...

    ================

  • Ok, ANONYMOUS COWARD you seem to have missed the point. Leaking company sectrets like "Apple is coming out with a new kind of Laptop" is not going to cause apple and sort of problems. Maye if he was leaking out top secret memoes that had some sort of bearing on anything.

    I'm not saying that he should be punished, or that what he did was right, but I am saying that I can't see Apple actually getting anything out of this lawsuit against him because he reall didn't hurt them at all.
    Get the point ANONYMOUS COWARD. Dummy
  • Talking about embarrassments; Why is Apple introducing the cube anyway?? The company had a much better strategy when they focussed on four separate marketing targets, and had one product for each of them!

    What market are they trying to reach with the cube? The "less-power-(but-same-cost)-then-dual-G4-but-(more -costly-and)-more-powerful-than-G3" market or the tiny-desk market... because I don't see a future in that (read: I no longer own Apple stock).

    It's all Jobs and his damn boxes [black-cube.net].

    don pedro

  • Apple Is In The Right (Score:4)

    by tealover ( 187148 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:37AM (#819561)
    The employee violated a NDA. The employee was a sneaky bastard while violating the NDA. He did it under an assumed username and made posts to several forums. The employee obviously knew that what he was doing was in violation of the NDA.

    I suspect this employee has learned a valuable lesson.
  • I submitted this to /. earlier this morning but it appears they didn't use it or look at it for links. Here is the original scoop [maccentral.com] on the deal by the guys at MacCentral [maccentral.com].

    Like I said when I submitted it, if Steve had been more pissed about this major leak than they were about ATI fsckup, my new dual-500 G4 that I'm typing this on might have a nice Radeon instead of last year's crummy video card. Grrrrrrr.....

  • Re:Ironic--not (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "You can't embarass the innocent"? I hope you never have the chance to run a big corporation, or worse, a government agency. More to the point, I hope you never wind up on the receiving end of a false assumption of guilt in a serious matter. I've been there, and it isn't fun.

    Apple suing one of their own employees like this is about as stupid as things get, but not mentioning the name for the reason cited (whether it was Apple, c|net, or whomever that did it) is just being responsible, IMO.

  • i'm laughing really loudly right now. that's the funniest thing i think i've ever read on slashdot. no, really!

  • Hmmm... (Score:5)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:39AM (#819565)
    For all of you who are siding with the employee concerned - don't bother. If you're ever called upon to sign an NDA, you can make that decision for yourself, just as he did. He decided to sign it; he decided to breach it. His fault.

    What we should really be concerned about is the willingness of Yahoo to roll over for a corporation. If you went to them and said, "I want to know all the info you have on this person", they'd tell you to buzz off. Why is a corporation treated differently? In fact, this isn't even a criminal case; it's a civil suit, so it's not obstruction of justice to not release the necessary info.

  • Well, the secrecy of Apple's upcoming projects is becoming incredibly important to them. So they made an example of this guy for breaking his contract with them. Yes, chance are, his contract included a Non Disclosure Agreement (whose contracts lately haven't?) and he broke it. I say fry him.
  • Browser Hick-up / IExplore error (yeah. I know. Serves me right.) Can this message be deleted, please?
  • Spellchecking is for Humanities majors, not CS ;-)

    You can have good looking code which crashes or ugly looking code which runs good.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • It's this sort of crap that makes me sad that I'm an occasional Mac user. This is just another in a series of marketing / PR blunders that apple has done over the past decade or so. No good can come out of this. At this point Apple is selling machines of that nature (the cube and the non-imac models) to the converted. Knowing about the machine a day or so early doesn't do anything to the sales of those machines to people who are already going to buy another macintosh. Personally, I find the Keynote speaches to be longwinded and "pipedreamish". I give two shits about a new style sherlock find application with candy looking buttons, I want a stable OS that has modern memory management and real multitasking, and I want it 8 years ago. There is a phrase that decribes Apple to a tee:

    The are very deft at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


    Sheldon
  • Once again /. misreported. Here's the News.com report that /. used for it's source:
    Although Apple named the worker in a court filing, News.com chose not to publish the name because Apple would not confirm whether he is the only employee with that name. An Apple spokesperson also would not say whether the defendant still works at the company.
    and here's /.'s article:
    Apple Sues Employee Over Cube Leaks Posted by Hemos on Tuesday August 29, @09:54AM from the going-after-their-own dept. Carnage4Life writes:"Apple has found out the employee who leaked pictures of the PowerMac G4 Cube. So Apple has modified its original lawsuit against "unknown individual" for leaking trade secrets and changed the name to that of the employee in court filings. So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."
    As it makes clear the person was named but due to the possibility of slandering other Apple employees with the same name News.com declined to reprint it - Apple in no way tried to supress it.

    Boo to /. for once again getting the news wrong and double-boo to all of those who once agin posted without bothering to look up the material for themselves.

  • Martyr, one who sacrifices his life, his station, or what is of great value to him, for the sake of principle, or to sustain a cause.

    What principals did this guy further by sacrifising his job? The only thing he did was release a few photo's of a product that was to be released in less than 24 hours. What good did he do for the sake any principal or what cause did he sustain? He knowingly broke his companies rules and now you want to make him a martyr?

    Personally, I think it's drastic to sue him. However, that's Apples call to make. The fact is, this guy released confidential information that he had signed and agreed not to release. When he did that, he did so after signing a NDA saying that Apple could sue him, fire him, etc. He did it anyways.

    If this guy is a sacrificial lamb, it's because he volunteered for it when he leaked the photos that he knew he shouldn't leak.

    Come on everyone. Most of the Slashdot readers aren't stupid. Let's nominate this guy for a Darwin Award, not Martyrdom.

    kwsNI

  • Apple gets lots of press time with surprise announcements of new, fancy computers. They don't want that impact dulled by leaked documents/pictures/specs.

    I doubt that Apple will really hammer this poor schmoe -- what can they get out of him? Millions of dollars? I don't think so. It's more likely an internal corporate move to put the scare in employees about leaking stuff to rumor sites.

    I think it's a loser proposition for Apple, though. If Apple would just work with the rumor sites (or better yet, the "real news" sites), and take their public image more seriously, they could acheive the same goals with less embarrasment.

    Or, if they want to influence and/or destroy their credibility, they could buy advertising from them. We all know that advertisers get preferential treatment from Slashdot :) <GD&R>

  • I don't think this was a stunt, because the only star of *any* stunts at Apple has to be the Big Kahuna himself, Steve Jobs. Doesn't it sound like little Stevie is just pissed off? An employee took away his big suprise and now he is going to throw a little temper tantrum. You shouldn't violate NDA's, but Steve Jobs is has the emotional development of an eleven year old...

    dmp
  • Apple published the name in the court filing. The story says that news.com didn't publish the name to avoid embarassing people with the same name.

    My take on the story is that Apple is justified in prosecuting (although perhaps not persecuting) people who leak their secrets. After all, they are very secretive, and they make their people sign NDA's precisely to avoid situations like this one. Totally ignoring whether leaks hurt or help them, they are justified both legally and morally in acting against employees who leak data.

  • Subpoenas in every iMac box!you!

    Apple Sues Everybody [ridiculopathy.com]

    Apple: America's Cutest Company [ridiculopathy.com]

    --------
    www.ridiculopathy.com [ridiculopathy.com]

  • I put at least some of the blame on Hemos:
    From /. : "So as not to embarass any employees with the same name Apple has not revealed the employee's name as at now."

    And the actual article:
    "Although Apple named the worker in a court filing, News.com chose not to publish the name because Apple would not confirm whether he is the only employee with that name. An Apple spokesperson also would not say whether the defendant still works at the company."

    It makes you really wonder if /. or people who comment bother to read the article in the first place.

    -------------
  • Attorneys at Laww (not to be confused with Law) allow us to represent you ;-)

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

  • Tomorrow's leading /. story prediction (Score:3)

    by jabber01 ( 225154 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @06:54AM (#819581)
    An Anonymous Coward writes:
    "Until recently I worked for Apple, and was not permitted to tell the world the truth about Apples internal technologies. But, now that I am no longer employed (though not at all disgruntled, honest) I can speak the truth.

    Apple runs Linux on all it's internal servers! There! The truth is finally out.
    Apple runs Linux everywhere. In fact, they preload it on all machines to test them properly, and then load MacOS for shipment to customers. Apple will not use MacOS in-house because it's not stable enough, the GUI looks too unprofessional, and (especially with the candy colored Aqua UI) the interns keep licking the screen. Steve Jobs often says "GUIs are for panty-waists and tree-huggers! Real people use C shell!"

    Further more, Apple does not use any colorful or rounded cases in-house. Yes, Apple employees prefer beige, blocky cases, since it makes them feel like real professionals.

    Oh, and Orcale has something to do with it as well.

    Resumes provided upon request."

    There you have it folks, the truth behind Apple's colorful peal. And you heard it here first.

    The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

  • I'm sure these guys are real happy to be Slashdotted.

    I would have thought that a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity would be a babe magnet. Go figure.

    -

  • I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, so I thought I would just hide the info in a reply (in case I'm given a low score for being redundent), but if you go to http://www.maccentral.com/news/0008/29.lawsuit.sht ml, maccentral has identified the person's name which is Juan Gutierrez.

  • Employee NDAs (Score:3)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @07:02AM (#819591)
    I've been pondering the NDA issue for a while actually. Usually I am a firm believer in the absolute freedom of man and his inviolable ability to make contracts.

    However, I've begun to notice that it simply is not possible for a programmer to gain full time or contract employment without signing an NDA. In essence, there is an intellectual property cartel, whose near-complete grasp on the job market allows it to slowly ratchet up the restrictiveness of employee NDAs.

    The prospective employee could, of course, choose to enter another professions, or start his own company. Or his services might be so valuable that he could have the NDA requirement waived. Nevertheless, it seems like the little guy who is coming right out of college and into an entry level position with a software firm in the United States is getting the shaft. Those other options are not attractive, or even possible.

    Does anyone think that one could make a legal argument that the NDA was signed under protest, or duress, due to the complete industry lockout of anyone who won't sign an NDA?

  • Employee Sues Apple over Cube Leaks ... (Score:3)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @07:19AM (#819602) Homepage Journal
    "Your Honor - I kept telling Mr Jobs - the roof - it leaks over my cube ... right onto the computer - but he didn't do anything other than screaming at me to stop complaining and work harder ..... then one day there was this blinding flash ...."

  • Apple-bashing in defense of bad acts is no virtue (Score:3)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @07:25AM (#819605) Journal
    Trade secrets are trade secrets. Use or disclosure of trade secrets is not only actionable, but its also quite wrong -- wrong in the way we all understand the word.

    Information is leveraged by companies for commercial advantage in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. At times the timing of the release of that information can be critical. Whether a particular act was or was not problematic for Apple at the end of the day, uncontrolled leaks of confidential and trade secret information rob the company of something -- if only the discretion to make their own decisions when the informaiton is to be released. The degree of actual harm to Apple goes only to the measure of the damages, and not to the degree with which the conduct was wrong.

    This employee broke the rules, probably broke his or her employment agreement, and did something he or she knew or should have known was wrong.

    If Apple "just let it go," as some here have suggested, other employees may well be encouraged to trade information for favors. Whether it needs to press the point or not is, IMHO, Apple's call and Apple's perogative.

    We do ourselves and our causes no service by defending the indefensible. This employee, who was trusted with confidential information about new unannounced products, should not have shared it with anyone else.

  • Well, (Score:5)

    by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @07:28AM (#819606)
    >What we should really be concerned about is the
    >willingness of Yahoo to roll over for a
    >corporation. If you went to them and said, "I
    >want to know all the info you have on this
    >person", they'd tell you to buzz off. Why is a
    >corporation treated differently?

    It's simple really. Steve Jobs didn't just call up Jerry Yang and say "Hey, could you tell us who this guy is?"

    Apple filed suit against "John Doe" first, and was therfore able to issue a subpeona to Yahoo for the info in question. Yahoo's privacy policy has an exception in it saying that they WILL turn over your information if required, by law, to do so. Well guess what... discovery procedings before a civil trial give the plaintiff the right to subpoena pretty much anything they feel related to the case. And a subpoena, issued in California, IS legally binding against Yahoo... were they to refuse, I don't think any PERSON would go to jail for contempt, but the company would be facing some hefty fines.

    It's not a matter of one corperation kissing another's ass... it's a matter of complying with the law. If YOU *DID* file a lawsuit against a Yahoo user, YOU would ALSO have the right to subpoena yahoo's records on that person.

    This was actually covered on /. a couple months back. Someone was sabotaging his emploiyer's stock price by posting inside info on Yahoo message boards, the company sued, and subpoenaed Yahoo to get the guy's real name. The guy then sued Yahoo FOR COMPLYING WITH THE COURT ORDER and turning over his info... stupid really. The ACLU got involved, and it turned into a bib mess, I don't know how it eventually turned out, but the story is in the /. archives.

    Here's a clue to the Yahoo bashers:

    Corperations are *NOT* your friend. They may supply a service you like at a good price, and the staff may be friendly. But the corperation is *NOT* your friend. They will NOT fight YOUR legal battle FOR you!!! (unless you pay them a lot of money to do so, and that's only if we're talking about a law firm)

    john
    Resistance is NOT futile!!!

    Haiku:
    I am not a drone.
    Remove the collective if

  • Slashdot readers should stick to their Linux stuff, they get a little confused when it comes to Apple matters.

    The reason Apple did not handle it "internally" is because they needed the lawsuit to force Yahoo, on account of its GeoCities subsidiary, to release ISP information for the pictures "worker bee" linked to on the AppleInsider.com message boards. Then they also needed the legal action to force the ISP to release a name to match with an IP, etc etc. Someone above said something to the effect of: "why'd Yahoo take it up the ass for a corporation, but I couldn't ask them for the same thing!!!" Well sonny, that's because Apple has lawyers, and you don't. You don't think Apple would've liked to have handled it internally?

    Of course they would, but this both allows them the legal ability to nab the dude who broke his NDA, and then to serve as a warning to all other employees.

  • worker bee hung out at the Apple Insider Forums [appleinsider.com] and was considered to be a unreliable source at first. This all changed after he was proven right about the new products at MacWorld NY.

    He published the iBook specs, and then Apple pulled the plug on Mr.Bee.

    Regardless of whether you think Apple was right or wrong, it is clear that after worker bee's leaks the information didn't really spread that far. Only after Apple started issuing dozens of subpoenas and publishing the information themselves via their PR people did their terribly confidential trade screts leak to a more widespread audience and the mainstream news outlets.

    So when Apple takes Mr.Bee to court, are they going to fess up to the damages they themselves caused? Or blame it all on him? Probably the latter. I highly doubt the courts will pay attention to the large Apple Rumor community and the fact Apple themselves legitimized the claims and in the process, spread the information far and wide, causing the damage they were so hurt by.
  • It's more a case of arguing to what degree the individual is liable - I would have thought this is more a matter of immediate dismissal rather than taking the guy to court.

    Did Apple sustain a financial loss because of this disclosure? Could the have?

    Bottom line is that Apple CAN argue that they lost revenue because of the preannouncement. Potential sales that might have been generated from Apple's dog & pony show may been lost because of the "been there...done that attitude" taken by people who received the unoffical information in advance (even if inaccurate (even worse)).

    Additionally, since Apple had not yet released the product, the early disclosure could cost them by the release of similar products by competitors. Remember the influx of iMac look-alikes by eMachines?

    If employees are opening their mouths about their company's efforts in public while under NDA, they should be held liable for damages (even if by accidental disclosure). Hell, how many computer company execs in San Jose visit bars?

    Loose lips sink ships...and companies. Apple is fully justified in their taking this guy to task. Termination of employment is a given as is the lawsuit.

    RD

  • Apple didn't know who the person was. Given the fact they were determined to find out who it was, they needed to file a lawsuit in order to subpoena Yahoo. There was no other way they could accomplish their goal. They couldn't deal with it internally since they didn't know who to deal with.

  • It is highly unethical to compromise a not-for-attribution source. Good journalists go to jail when faced with such an order. IANAL (and IANAJ) but my understanding is that such orders are rarely granted because of the need to preserve this system.

    Yahoo is a different beast. When you post to Yahoo, they get lots of info that they can use to track you. Some work-arounds exist, but the clueless user will probably make the fatal error of providing his/her own email address to receive the password for the new account. Also, unlike /. they make no claims that they will attempt to preserve anonymity.

    sulli

  • Note that a judge ordered Yahoo! to release information on the person. They did not do it entirely "just because Apple asked"
  • It's on MacNN [macnn.com].
  • Fair point, except wasn't it Yahoo! that refused to stop the sale of subversive texts on its auction site because some country (France?) asked them to?

  • "Does anyone think that one could make a legal argument that the NDA was signed under protest, or duress, due to the complete industry lockout of anyone who won't sign an NDA?"

    I think your point would be fair enough if you were talking about a contractual stipulation that actually affected the employee's life. I fail to see how being bound by a restrictive NDA could affect any employee adversely, unless they had some uncontrollable compulsion to reveal trade secrets.

    I really doubt that there are workers out there bemoaning the fact that they can't get a job that doesn't require an NDA: this would be the same as a worker claiming he was being discriminated against because no employer will accept the fact that he/she is lazy and abusive.

    "The prospective employee could, of course, choose to enter another professions, or start his own company. Or his services might be so valuable that he could have the NDA requirement waived."

    To me, an NDA is just something that formalises the ethics that should operate in any case. Every profession has its ethics: the fact that they are contractualised in the technology industry is just an indication of how important these issues are to employers. If I thought you were likely to reveal my trade secrets, I wouldn't hire you no matter how good I thought you were.

    Further, if the employee's services are so valuable, it is more likely, not less, that an NDA will be required. If you're the brainiest of the bunch, and I'm paying through the nose for your services, you're probably going to be working on my most important, and therefore most sensitive projects. If you're free to reveal trade secrets, I would have been better off never to have hired you. What's more, if you're so good that I couldn't do the project without you, then I'll give you a stake in the enterprise, and suddenly NDAs are your concern as well.

  • My employer is likely to sue me next. My cube has leaked a few times. Mostly when I've spilled a coke or some ice water on my desk. It's not my fault that they didn't make the cubicles waterproof!
    What? Apple cube? No thanks. I'm not hungry.
    Huh? A computer? Made from apples? Like I'm going to believe that after the Potato Server hoax!
  • This sounds like a classic Steve move. Having seen the kind of damage a leak can do I think it's great that one of the slime balls who betrays a trust gets to feel the sharp end of an action like this. They might have enjoyed their 15 minutes of infamy, now they are paying the price and good riddance. If this is the only way to take away the stock benefits someone has accrued from employment at the company he betrayed then so be it.

    I have no sympathy for them.
  • I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    The criminal/civil distinction you are trying to draw simply doesn't apply here.

    Yahoo did not simply hand over information to a corporation. They complied with a court order to do so. They would have done the same had an individual obtained the order. This is the same thing (and mistaken perception) of a few months ago when it was misreported that companies were allowed to search employeess' home computers--that to was in the course of litigation, and under court order.

    hawk, esq.

  • Cartel??? not hardly (Score:3)

    by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Tuesday August 29, 2000 @09:37AM (#819647) Journal

    A cartel is a group restricting output, working as a group instead of competing with one another. Among other conditions, you must have a way to keep newcomers out.

    The folks that want NDA's, however, are *fiercely* competitive, both in the product market and for employees. A more reasonable conclusion is that NDA's are necessary to the the firm in order for it to compete successfully; otherwise, the firms would drop the NDA's, saving time and money while regaining a recruiting edge.

    hawk
  • It's possible that you haven't been looking for jobs lately, or that my experience has been particularly unlucky. When i was looking for work about one month ago, I was presented with multiple egregious Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreements, which were required as a precondition of employment. Among the incredibly overreaching clauses in these agreements were:
    • Compulsory work for the company after termintaion of employment at a rate fixed in the contract for all time. Very bizarre.
    • Exclusion of all work outside the company (including book writing, teaching, etc.)
    • Rights to inventions even if invented entirely on personal time, with personal resources, and in fields not related to the business of the company (which is counter to CA state law)

    This is not a simple codification of standard workplace ethics. These restrictions are attempts by the companies to make employees waive fundamental rights. Needless to say, I took my talent to an employer with a reasonable Inventions Agreement.

    BTW, I didn't start this thread to defend the Apple guy. Obviously you shouldn't be giving away insider information to the press.

  • And you expect Apple just to sit back and let rogue employees blab on?

    The guy didn't have to post that stuff to rumor sites. He did, and knew full well what would happen if he didn't. He should take responsibility for his actions.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • How exactly do you handle tracking down someone with a subpeona 'internally'? If you can't track the person down, how exactly are you going to reprimand them?

    Apple had to go to the courts just to find out who the guy was.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • No we (if by 'macweenies' you mean Mac users) wouldn't. If a person signs an NDA and violates it, they deserve whatever comes down on them. They didn't have to sign it, did they?

    As for Microsoft, given that most of their ideas comes from other companies, an NDA there would seem a bit redundant. I guess they could protect implementations, but you usually get a strong whiff of their vapor long before any actual product ships.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • 150 million dollars of non-voting Apple stock it be no means "significant". It's a drop in the bucket.

    And the real kicker is, Apple had Microsoft by the balls on that deal, not the other way around. Read up on it if you want to know the reason.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Aw heck, it's obvious he just got fired for being a beardy git :)

    Rich

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close