Apple vs Bloggers 271
Moby Cock writes "Jason O'Grady has posted a story on his ZDNet blog detailing the state of the current legal trouble he is embroiled in with Apple. He views it as another salvo in Apple's efforts to stamp out rumour sites posting 'trade secrets' prior to the official announcements. The discussion becomes rather pointed and goes as far as to suggest that the case is really a case in support of freedom of the press." From the article: "At issue was a series of stories that I ran in October 2004 about an upcoming product that was in development. Was it the next great PowerBook? Maybe the a red hot iPod? Maybe a killer new version of the OS? Nah. The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.' Yawn."
Its still illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.
Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Insightful)
Symphathy for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
How to fix trade secrets (Score:2, Insightful)
2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets.
3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.
The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you want to control secrets, don't let them out, or don't have them in the first place.
Also, the Firewire interface for GarageBand would be awesome if it supported multiple channels (8, or more with multiple units), if it worked with the typical firewire delay, and if it was cheap. Apple could do it. I don't think it's "yawn" news since I personally know thousands of profitable small bands that use GarageBand over ProTools to record their basic EPs and do a fine job of it. I'm producing a band right now that made their demo on GarageBand and it sounds fantastic -- better than many of the ProTools recordings of the past 5 years that I've heard. Giving small bands more hardware is wise.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's benevolence (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
My, of course, you should have to get a license to sell products! Those evil add-on companies are even daring to ship their accessories in white, without a license!!!
As for "cloning", Apple constantly clones other companies. It's the way business works. It's a good thing. If it weren't for the stuff Apple can copy freely, Apple products wouldn't be as good, since, although Apple engineers are pretty good, they can't invent everything by themselves.
Oh whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2, Insightful)
No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also litigation bombs potential pertaining to libel and slander. You can choose to engage in libel and slander - but don't expect a free ride. Same thing here - you can spill the beans all you want. Just don't expect not to get a friendly reminder if the target decides to take action. And trust me - no one in this country needs to justify calling a lawyer - that's sorted out later.
I particularly love it when people cite newspapers as somehow being above the legal-fray that the little boy blogger gets.
I used to work for Pulitzer Publishing - and we used to get PILES of notifications from readers, companies, sponsers, sources - you name it. Just because there was a legal office - doesn't mean that they were playing foosball in there. We got whacked upside the head all the time. Next time you look at the local paper - check around the masthead for "corrections". Those usually are the result of an editor getting a friendly rejoinder from the legal department.
In otherwords bloggers - welcome to the club - there's plenty of legal bullshit to go around not to share. Enjoy!
Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets" (Score:3, Insightful)
And putting a law around "Trade Secrets" doesn't make them constitutionally protected.
If the government gives a corporation the 'right' to take away my constitutional rights, that's a government action -- even if by proxy.
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:1, Insightful)
While I agree with the sentiment, this as it stands is nuts. If you'll be sent to Guantanamo for saying something reasonable, you're not "free to say it", and any society where that's the case is on its way to despotism.
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a strong tradition of corporate secrecy, but what *exactly* can they do if some employee lets something slip after a few too many drinks, or for money, or for the "thrill" of revealing an exclusive ? I mean, it's not as though they're going to send 'steve@apple.com' an email the next morning confessing all, is it ?
From what I read earlier on digg, although he makes a big deal about the money Apple make/have in the bank, he's not being sued for cash or penalities, he's being sued to reveal his source, because it's the only way Apple can find and fire the guilty employee.
As for 'first amendment rights' being abused, I thought they were only rights that the government couldn't abuse, not that any limits on civil suits by corporations were imposed, but hell, I'm a bloody foreigner, so I'm probably wrong.
Simon
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:1, Insightful)
Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.
Yes it is. If you say or write something offensive to me, I do not have a right to take you to court, and neither does the government.
The issue here is that some types of speech are excepted from the ususal free speech rules. Trade secrets, libel/slander, and hate speech (in some cases) are examples. This guy's speech happened to fall into one of the above categories, and therefore he is open to legal action.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is this "old Apple" crap you're talking about? Apple has always been litigious, and this claim that they will "further alienate" the fan base, as if they're alienating them now, has no basis in fact. Actually, they're doing quite well as the quarterly results call is expected to show in May.
Basically, I'm out of quotation marks here to throw around your goofy phrases.
Re:What if..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple. A few people got into trouble, including one lady who inadvertently had the upcoming "Think Different" ad budget published in an industry newsletter.
The saddest part of this story is (from a consumer point of view) how a loyalist is kicked in the nuts by the company he/she has loved.
Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Or your lawyer his. Right?
Thought not.
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lovely world you live in - here's the real one.
You can be sued for anything - at anytime - for any reason - and here's the kicker - unlike the UK? If you win - the other guy doesn't have to pay your legal expenses. Which means you could be a winner - but bankrupt. Way to go winner!
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's more like "since Steve Jobs came back Apple's had some fucking pride, discipline and follow-up"
Apple employees have been wanting O'Grady's ass in a sling for over ten years now. Since Steve returned, the level of cynicism at the company has fallen to all time lows (though by no means extinguished) and employees understand they have a stake in every last competitive advantage possible - including secrecy about unannounced products.
Every time O'Grady publishes a leak from an Apple contractor, third party, or employee, he materially damages all the hard work and expense of keeping those products secret.
Apple spends a shit load (metric) of money to keep developing products under wraps - security patrols, disguises, etc. - very similar to how large car companies develop and test new designs.
And though you can find snapshots of heavily-disguised prototype cars in the auto magazines, those photographers hunt down the testers and photograph from great distances - they're not passing along privileged information from an employee who signed a contract to keep that information secret.
In other words, if some doofus Apple employee took the new ÜberBook iPro to the Donut Wheel and someone snapped a picture and published it, neither the photographer or publisher would be liable. If the same employee sent O'Grady an e-mail about the machine, both parties would be liable for dissemination of the information.
See the difference?
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is pretty compartmentalized - while I'm sure everyone knows *something* is coming, I'd be willing to bet that very few people have all the details.
One example: I'd be surprised if anyone besides ID, testing and the ad agency knew what a new product was actually going to look like until several days before release. Which explains why we've never seen even a picture of new Apple product more than a couple of days before an announcement over the past few years.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2, Insightful)
So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign? At the very least it's plausible denability.
Re:What if..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuckin' A. Maybe Jason should have to pay Apple back for the development costs of the product - or maybe just the costs of keeping the product secret, including security patrols, badge readers and the maintenance of, printing of employee handbooks that explicitly detail the company's NDA policy, heck - even down to the software they're probably now using to monitor their network for e-mail going to...Jason O'Grady.
JD, you got in trouble because you did something wrong and you knew it. Buck up, and don't use ZDNet's blog to get sympathy - it only makes you look pathetic.
This is conduct, not speech. (Score:4, Insightful)
Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.
Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.
Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit
The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.
two scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
2. If the blogger didn't sign an NDA, how can he be any way responsible for any damage?
If somebody else signed an NDA and passed the information to a media outlet, the signer did the infringement, not the media.
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
They can project images all they want, but the legal reality is they have no authority to demand takedowns or threaten anyone. Patents are how they protect interfaces and devices from people that may clone them ( and then they have to be sufficiently unique and ingenious before the device in question is eligable for patent ), not Trade Secrets.
The bottom line is, Apple are the ones behaving in a criminal fashion by going through with these threats, not the people reporting news. Apple have no right to make money. They also have no right to be the sole creator of headphones or any other accessories, with the exception of when patents must be licensed from them to do this.
What exception to the First Amendment exists that gives any company the right to silence reporters of news? None involving Trade Secrets. If the reporters have not signed NDAs and the like, Apple should be told to go piss up a rope. If they dont cease their illegal harassment of the reporters in question, its entirely appropriate to begin criminal proceedings against them.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if the news gets out that Apple is about to issue a new product, then sales of Apple's analogous products will fall. So Apple has to play a finely balanced game of only announcing new products when they can be sure of getting them to market on time.
All of these are major issues for Apple's business, and Apple has a right to decide what information release strategy is in its best interests. Obviously, there's a public right to know about corporate or individual malfeasance at Apple, but that is protected by whistle-blowing laws, and by the first amendment.
In a way, Apple is asserting its right to privacy here, in the same way that a celebrity would.
Official Secrets Acts (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet because no real equivalent of an Offical Secrets Act exists in the United States, it is legal to disclose any secret dealings of the US Government. It is legal to publish leaks from the White House for example, or the Pentagon Papers.
How strange that the trite dealings of private companies are afforded more clandestine protections that the secret wranglings of the government, or indeed the private affairs of individuals. Celebrities for example, cannot argue prior restraint, or restraint of any kind when glossy magazines publish intimate details of their private lives. Neither can you.
However, a corperation can claim prior restraint on just about anything it likes, as long as it claims copyright, or "trade secret" laws apply. I wonder why I can't register myself as a private company and avail of this seemingly extralegal protection?
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, it's ignorance that the material in question is a trade secret. You need to know and profit and/or cause damange and some other bits. There's already several links in this thread to the law [tscm.com] if you want to read it for your self.
It was a trade secret, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, is it the thing Apple should have done? It certainly didn't help create the normal Apple love-fest that usually follows these tradeshows, and it didn't improve Apple's relationship with Geekdom. In the end, the leak didn't hurt Apple financially, and if I was part of Apple's legal team, I would recommend to drop the whole thing very quietly. They got our point across,
Heck, I've been reading these blogs for years. Right before every Macworld, These blogs list a plethora of the products that never come to be (Apple will announce a personal jetpack called the iPack! We've got photoshopped pictures to prove it!). No one ever takes these speculations seriously. I originally thought Apple's legal wrangles was a publicity gimmick. They got the world's attention, and suddenly everyone wanted a gander at the next hot Apple product. Once the Macworld was over, Apple would simply drop everything.
I mean you'd have to be some sort of control-freak egomaniac to keep on pushing something like this, and that certainly doesn't describe anyone I know of at Apple.
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the lawsuit involves a more subtle issue: who is responsible, the insider violated an NDA and leaked the info, or the person who reports on the leaked info?
In most places, the law says they are both guilty.
That's why they are framing it as a journalistic freedom issue. Definitely a gray area...
This is only a "gray area" to those who haven't done any research. Different types of speech have different levels of protection. Political expression has the highest level of protection. Commercial has the lowest. These people are making money doing this and hurting another company. But that is not why this is illegal. It is illegal because of the following hypothetical:
Bob works for big company A. Tom is an investor. Tom pays Bob (the poor working grunt) $1000 to give him insider information. Tom publishes said information causing company A's stock to plummet. Bob is convicted and goes to jail. Fifty people are laid off. Investors in company A lose their shirts. Tom makes a bajillion dollars by having invested in Company B and shorting company A's stock. Tom is guilty of no crime and starts looking for another desperate person, we'll call her Jane.
Do you understand why they decided to make it against the law to knowingly publish trade secrets, especially when you are profiting from it?
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is conduct, not speech. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the First Amendment only applies to restricting Congress and government. It doesn't do anything to restrict your liability in regards to speech about corporations.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Insightful)
That should be a clue that investigative journalism is not what Apple rumor sites do.
And before you say "whistleblower", please familiarize yourself with some of the relevant laws, as so few people choose to do. If these sites had published evidence that, say, Apple was dumping toxic waste or committing fraud, they would probably be protected. They didn't, though. The information they published had only commercial value, and it's disclosure was not in the public interest, no matter how interested the public may have been.