Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Apple Fires Five Employees for Downloading Leopard 325

BuzzardsBay writes "The good folks at VARBusiness are quoting a ThinkSecret report that claims five Apple employees got canned over the unauthorized downloading of the Leopard OS. According to the article: one of the employees says: "Because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated. If we all lied and denied it would we still be working at Apple today? Even more so, is that the kind of person that Apple wants working for them?""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Fires Five Employees for Downloading Leopard

Comments Filter:
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:33AM (#15967734) Homepage Journal
    congratulations, you faced em.
    • by Alfred, Lord Tennyso ( 975342 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:37AM (#15967750)
      The term "accepting responsibility" has taken something of a beating lately. The new definition is "admitting guilt but denying any repercussions". Please update your dictionaries.
      • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:59AM (#15967831) Homepage Journal
        More like if you use the same penalty for those who tell the truth as those who lie and get caught, you remove all the incentive to tell the truth in the first place.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by toQDuj ( 806112 )
          No. If you lie and get caught you also have to pay lawyer fees and a hefty fine.

          B.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Scudsucker ( 17617 )
            No. If you lie and get caught you also have to pay lawyer fees and a hefty fine.

            Apple would have a difficult time suing them for damages for merely downloading a copy. It's uploading that really gets you in trouble.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Sorry, this line of reasoning just doesn't work. "Oh, yeah officer, I murdered him. But I just came clean about it, so can I go home now?"

          (I know, I know, not the same thing. But still, they violated their employer's intellectual property, wether they came clean about it or not, they deserve to get fired.)
          • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @06:16AM (#15968583) Homepage Journal

            Oh c'mon! WTF is wrong with you all? Is the world so black and white in Slashdot that if someone protests about being punished too hard, they can only be advocating no punishment at all?

            The (ex)Apple employees are protesting that they came clean and yet endured the same punishment they'd have endured if they had not come forward but been caught anyway. The complaint is not that they were punished at all, it's that the punishment was excessive and gives nobody any incentive to be honest.

            And they have a point. And this not about murder, where arguably the action is so severe that the appropriate punishment should always be dealt, it's about a case of copyright infringement. Yes, there's room for Apple to take a more lenient line with truth tellers than with those who lie. Especially when given the case is ultimately about whether an employee can be trusted with the company's proprietary inside information, the issue of whether they lied or not in an investigation is actually relevent.

            Apple has arguably over-reacted. And whether it did or not, it has most certainly cut off its own nose to spite the face of others. Firing is an expensive act. Apple can expect to lose the productivity the fired employee would have given to the company during the time it recruits and trains the replacement, and recruiting is hardly cheap either. Further, it has made its own future investigations harder because it will not get the cooperation of employees who see themselves as ultimately loyal.

            Apple can hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever (legal) reason. But that doesn't make this anything other than, at face value, assuming there's not more to it than TFA, a dumb decision. And certainly, the logic Slashdotters promote of "IF THEY HATE THERE PUNISHMANT, TEHY MUST FINK BEENG PUNICHED IS RONG!!1" is utterly irrelevent and idiotic.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward
              I think Apple could have taken it further if they had chosen to. They ex-employees could have been fired and then sued. Maybe the leniency for telling the truth is the lack of litigation.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
              While there are certainly those that don't think any punishment would have been just for this case, I think there are many here that have the idea that the punishment is excessive.

              I do agree that copyright infringement* is wrong, and I do agree that violating a written or oral agreement is wrong too. I don't know if I would agree that a firing was the best option, nor do I believe that the punishment fit the crime.

              [*]a bone thrown to the pedants among us. In this case, I wish they would go away because th
            • by MaestroRC ( 190789 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @07:36AM (#15968829) Homepage
              We all know Apple is incredibly protective of their IP. Part of that IP is keeping everyone from just being able to get a copy of what they have in development, so as to keep some things closed and hidden until *they* want to talk about it.

              Note: I AM an Apple employee, and I would expect that if I did the same, I would face the same punishment. Apple's new hire training actually goes over all of this, and states exactly the punishment for doing anything against their policy. Part of that policy is that if you use or divulge unreleased software or information without the proper authority, you *will* be fired, at the least. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could have taken this much further.

              Think here for a minute, these guys downloaded an illicit copy of Leopard, knowing that just that was grounds for being fired, *and then* proceded to talk about it at work, where they were overheard. Surprising to me would be if they *didn't* get canned.
              • by GeckoX ( 259575 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @08:01AM (#15968941)
                True, all very true.

                And yes, Apple has every right to handle these things however they like.

                I do have to argue though that Apple creates these circumstances themselves. Think about it:

                Apple's working on this new release of their OS. Everyone that works there knows it. No one has seen it. No one there can use it, even though they are building it. It's all very hush hush and secretive, very typical Apple style. A build gets leaked onto the internet...a couple employees find it...Hey! I'm working on that! I'd sure like to see it, sheesh, what's the harm if any script kiddie out there can play with it, why can't I play with the darned thing that the company I work for built?

                Apple is NOT the DOD. They can, but maybe shouldn't treat their employees like they are.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
                I'm guessing they have a company lawyer that insists they follow the exact letter of the Apple Employee Handbook, regardless of the circumstances. Making exceptions leads to expensive lawsuits, and it's not like they didn't know the rules when they downloaded it.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Firing is an expensive act. Apple can expect to lose the productivity the fired employee would have given to the company during the time it recruits and trains the replacement, and recruiting is hardly cheap either.

              You're talking about some schmucks working in their retails stores. This is hardly on the same level as an engineer who has deep internal knowledge of things and must be debriefed so his team won't lose ground...Not to mention, as others have said, when you illicitly take something from your e
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by GeckoX ( 259575 )
                Lets throw this idea out there:

                Do you think MS makes their employees pay for Windows?

                Do you think MS is hiding Vista from all of their employees?

                Do you think an MS employee would have to go a download a leaked copy if they wanted to try out the software the company they are working for is building?

                Note that I'm not suggesting Apple was outside of their bounds, they had every right to do this.
                That doesn't make it a good decision.

                Where before firing, they had a few employees that would have been talking up th
        • by yardbird ( 165009 ) * on Thursday August 24, 2006 @06:12AM (#15968574) Homepage
          The incentive to tell the truth in the first place is being able to look at yourself in the mirror.

          The point is that "accepting responsibility for one's actions" is being used to mean "looking for an optimal outcome given one's actions".

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nutshell42 ( 557890 )
            If being able to look at yourself in the mirror was a proper incentive, communism would have worked.

            Face it, if people have to choose between lying in a relatively minor case (honestly, what was the damage in this case? I wager all of them would have bought Leopard anyway and they'd have used their new-found knowledge just for hyping the product, the very foundation of Apple's success =) and losing their job they will lie. Many bankruptcies and large accidents are the result of people lying in cases of maj

      • by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
        Reminds me of a guy I worked for. He made some amazingly stupid business decisions. When he realised he couldn't blame someone else he said "I accept full responsibility". That the staff all had wages delayed while he continued to raid petty cash for his personal expenses didn't seem like an acceptance of responsibility to me. He was always ready to share the pain; when there was a profit that went straight into his own pocket.
      • not analogous (Score:3, Insightful)

        by m874t232 ( 973431 )
        If people admit to having done something, in particular something that would otherwise go undetected, they have expressed remorse and almost certainly realized that their action was wrong, which means they are likely not going to do it again. Therefore, a good part of the purpose of any consequences has already been achieved. So, in that case, "accepting responsibility" does indeed mean that the people involved should face significantly less severe consequences than people who lied and were found out.

        That
        • by QuantumG ( 50515 )
          I typically admit to things I've done that would otherwise go undetected to satisfy my need to not be under anyone's boot. "Yeah I took the day off and didn't call in sick, what are you gunna do about it, fire me?"
          • by Nutria ( 679911 )
            I typically admit to things I've done that would otherwise go undetected to satisfy my need to not be under anyone's boot. "Yeah I took the day off and didn't call in sick, what are you gunna do about it, fire me?"

            Remind me not to hire you.

            • by QuantumG ( 50515 )
              If I ever work for someone who thinks they can fire me on a whim, I'll more than likely quit before they get the opportunity to.. and it'll be to their detriment, not mine.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Nutria ( 679911 )
                If I ever work for someone who thinks they can fire me on a whim,

                Most businesses (in the USA) can fire you on a whim. It's called AT WILL employment.

                If you are in a "protected class" (crippled, black, female, gay, etc) they must be able to prove that that's not why they fired you. So, most companies will keep a record of your misconduct (minor, major and in-between), making it all sound as bad as possible, so that they have legal cover when firing you.

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by jcr ( 53032 )
                  If you are in a "protected class" (crippled, black, female, gay, etc) they must be able to prove that that's not why they fired you.

                  Actually, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

                  -jcr
              • by jcr ( 53032 )
                Firing you for copping a "what you going to do about it?" attitude is hardly whimsical.

                -jcr
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dubiousmike ( 558126 )
      ya but they did not leak it
      they went home and downloaded it.

      they didn't re-share it
      they wanted to see it early
      it sounds like they are sales people
      find the developer who leaked and shared it and sue them

      geesh
      • If software companies are attemtping to make the conection from pirating is equal to theft, then you have to look in the employee handbook under the rule for theft of company property.

        My impresion is that apple see no difference because they didn't see a profit from the sale that never happened.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by EnglishTim ( 9662 )
        Yes, but if they downloaded it via a torrent, then they did re-share it. That's the way torrents work.
      • Imagine having to buy lots of apple products for yourself when on a shop-assistant's wages. That would drive a lot of people to copyright infringment... they could have bought what... 4 different ipod upgrades in the last 2 years? Must be expensive to have apple marketing in your face all day, every day, especially if you believe their hype too.
      • by smash ( 1351 )
        Whether or not they shared it is moot.

        They violated the NDA. End of story.

      • by jcr ( 53032 )
        they didn't re-share it

        Yes, they did. Look up how BitTorrent works.

        -jcr

    • What did they expect they were going to get...a cookie?
      • Personally, I think they should have gotten a cookie on the way out the door they were being kicked out of. That way they could feel good for their honesty by being rewarded but also get what was undoubtedly their contractually obligatory comeuppance. Yes, it is a good policy to reward honesty. No, you'd have to be brain-dead to believe that copying unreleased software isn't an offense for which any software corp. on the planet wouldn't fire you and proabaly shoot your dog/cat/ferret/first-born child. As a

        • I agree that they did something wrong, but I could also argue that they needed to do so in order to do their jobs properly. They were all working in Apple Retail stores, and I have no doubt that they were flooded by questions from customers about Leopard. Without some experience with it, there is no way they could give honest answers. I am surprised that Apple doesn't distribute a copy of the betas to retail outlets to give them an idea of what they are going to be selling.
          • by jcr ( 53032 )
            I agree that they did something wrong, but I could also argue that they needed to do so in order to do their jobs properly.

            Apple management disagrees with you. Retail employees get trained on new releases when they're close to shipping.

            -jcr
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Elemenope ( 905108 )

            There is absolutely no doubt that Apple shot themselves in the foot multiple times on this one. As you say, it probably would be smart to show the product to the salespeople. However, that they didn't do the smart thing doesn't mean that those salespeople then should take it upon themselves to peek.

            If they were getting questions about Leopard, what they should have done was one of three things:

            1. Been honest to the customer and said 'I dunno.'

            2. Sold the customer up on the 'super-secretness' of the

  • by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:38AM (#15967752)
    Is that the type who steals or the type who thinks being honest about their crimes absolves them of punishment?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Scudsucker ( 17617 )
      Is that the type who steals or the type who thinks being honest about their crimes absolves them of punishment?

      These aren't those type of people, as they didn't steal anything.
      • OK, for you nit-picky bastards with your "copyright infringement is not theft" and your " it's not stealing if you are only copying it because there is no loss" apologists, I restate:

        Is the employee refering to the type of person who willfully violates company policy, which in the view of the company is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions or is the employee refering the type of person who thinks being honest
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Scudsucker ( 17617 )
          OK, for you nit-picky bastards

          Wanting to call a duck a duck and a cat a cat is not being nitpicky. And copyright infringment and theft are as different as ducks and cats.

          Is the employee refering to the type of person who willfully violates company policy, which in the view of the company is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions or is the employee refering the type of person who thinks being honest about will
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by heinousjay ( 683506 )
            copyright infringment and theft are as different as ducks and cats

            Yeah, one involves taking something that isn't yours, and the other involves taking something you have no right to take.

            The difference is astounding.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rahrens ( 939941 )
            Yes, and keeping their mouths shut is what they should have done.

            They weren't fired for stealing; they weren't fired for copyright infringement. They were fired because they were found to possess copies of an unreleased software package that they had no authorized access to have. Didn't matter where they got it, the point is, they had it. They were fired for violating their NDA agreements, which most likely spelled out the consequences of that violation. Period. End of story.

            The kind of employee Apple wa
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tweekster ( 949766 )
      let me know when you find that one employee on the entire planet that doesnt "steal"

      i would like to hire that person...

      I absolutely gaurantee i could find about a hundred reasons to can your ass...

      no employee is perfect, no employee follows every rule, dont pretend they do.
      • by smash ( 1351 )
        However, stealing a few pens and paper for home use is a whole different kettle of fish to violating an NDA.
        • by Splab ( 574204 )
          Why?

          Stealing is stealing.
        • by Nutria ( 679911 )
          violating an NDA.

          Did I miss something? Honestly.

          I RTFA, but all I saw was that these employees wanted to look at it themselves, and not pass it around to their friends.

          If that's all that this was (gain better knowledge of the product, because they are Mac-addicts and want to be knowledgable(sp?) for the customers), I don't see this as a firing offence.

          • by jcr ( 53032 )
            Did I miss something? Honestly.

            Yes, you did.

            I RTFA, but all I saw was that these employees wanted to look at it themselves, and not pass it around to their friends.

            Bittorrent. Look it up.

            -jcr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
      I don't understand why apple employees should even have to be downloading it in the first place. You'd think that Apple would love to have employees testing out new products, and give it to them for free. I'm aware that apple likes to have a shroud of secrecy over everything it's doing, but it obviously isn't working if people can download it. So they might as well let the employees have it to test out, so they can tell everyone how good it is, and get people to buy it. Especially with software, which c
    • Exactly. These are people who were raised to believe that simply saying "I'm sorry" frees them from any repercussions for their actions.
  • by spacerodent ( 790183 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:42AM (#15967769)
    Honestly who is suprised by this? Dur they would have fired you. Back when you interveiwed for min wage jobs and they asked you, "is it ever 'ok' to steal from a company you work for?" ... heres a hint.. DON'T SAY YES!
  • Because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated.
    The consequence of their action (illegally downloading software) was to be terminated. Nobody was fired for having the upstanding character to admit doing something wrong. The employees are whining like a criminal who pleads guilty but doesn't want any punishment. (And does anyone else think that it almost seems like embezzlement?)
  • Would Apple have continued investigating? How would they have investigated? According to the ThinkSecret article this is based on http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608retailleak.htm l? [thinksecret.com] there may be dozens more people getting fired fairly soon. Good on Apple. The product isn't done yet, so it doesn't deserve to be seen.
  • since they are only retail store employees, it doesn't make much sense to fire them just for that. I mean they did minimal to spread it out there (other than being leechers along with a few thousand others).

    It seems like they are enthusiastic about the product which is a good thing on a sales team, unless, of course, they start recommending people hold off until Leopard comes.

    Could someone explain the exact reasoning behind this? I could imagine its simply the same mentality as the RIAA would show if an R
  • A bit more context (Score:5, Interesting)

    by exley ( 221867 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:56AM (#15967826) Homepage
    From TFA:

    "All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy. Therefore, because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated," said one of the fired employees, who spoke with Think Secret on condition of anonymity.

    If you are full well aware that you violated the Non-Disclosure agreement -- in addition to the ethics policy -- you signed when you came on board, then, well, you should be full well aware of the fact that all you can expect is to be fired over it. NDAs are sort of a big deal for companies. Ethics, on the other hand, are a big deal unless if you have enough power.

  • by aarku ( 151823 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @01:01AM (#15967838) Journal
    The summary left out a big piece of information, in my opinion. They were just retail employees, not developers. I was puzzled why some developers at Apple *didn't* have Leopard at first.
    • Some developers don't have it yet. Only WWDCers got the first build, and I think only paying ADC members can download it and later builds.
  • by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @01:14AM (#15967877)
    "All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy. Therefore, because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated,"

    How about the lack of character you showed by violating the NDA in the first place. If you had any character (or ethics) you would have obeyed the obligations of the contract you signed.

    On your next job application where it asks "Why did you leave your most recent job?", now you can write "I was fired because I was fucking stupid."
    • by Descalzo ( 898339 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @02:21AM (#15968051) Journal
      Well, I think they gained some of their character back by coming clean. Then they immediately lost it again by whining about getting canned.

      Character is a precious thing. I hear at school all the time, when someone comes clean and they still get the consequences, "So this is what I get for telling the truth?" No, that's what you get for (insert broken rule here). What you get for telling the truth is trust and respect.

  • by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @01:25AM (#15967897)
    Would Dreamworks have fired office staff if they had been talking about downloading a hot new Dreamworks movie via BitTorrent like "Over the Hedge"? What if the movie was still unreleased like "Dream Girls", or "Flushed Away" or "Transformers: The Movie". Even though it'd be bad publicity for DreamWorks to fire employees who are enthusiastic believers about their own products, it'd be worse to give them a wink and say "That's okay" if they really want secrecy.

    Whether I agree or disagree with Apple's PR department about the wisdom of offering Leopard preview releases to developers only, that's the choice they made. It's not up to me, even if I were an employee of Apple, to try and change that policy or think that I'm somehow exempt from it. Apple's discouraging developers from talking about releases they have on Apple developer mailing lists even. It's doubtful that they'd make exemptions from their closed lips policy for staff in the Apple retail stores.
  • Oh puhleez... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mellon ( 7048 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @02:22AM (#15968057) Homepage
    From an ethical perspective, you have two things:

    1. Employee does something that runs counter to the company's stated policy in an important way. Bad employee - no biscuit.

    2. Employee tells the truth when lying might have saved their job. Good person - refused to lie even when lying seemed to be of benefit.

    There's no reason to mix these two - they're separate actions. One's a mistake, one's a sign of character. So of the mistake, you say "oh shit, that was really stupid, I wish I hadn't done that." And of the truth-telling, you say "yay, I'm glad I did that."

    When you try to mix the two, it wrecks the good taste of telling the truth. Don't regret doing the right thing. Just take this lesson forward and try to avoid doing the wrong thing in the future.

    --Speaking as one who was burned by exactly this kind of thinking in high school, and wasted a lot of emotional energy on it.
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @05:29AM (#15968487)
    The actual ThinkSecret [thinksecret.com] web page includes a more complete quote from the fired employee:
    All of us know that we violated our NDA and ethics policy. Therefore, because we had the character to tell the truth and to face the consequences of our actions, we were terminated," said one of the fired employees, who spoke with Think Secret on condition of anonymity. "My only question is, if we all lied and denied it would we still be working at Apple today? Even more so, is that the kind of person that Apple wants working for them?
    That first part is of interest. They have apparently been fired for violating Apple's NDA and the corporate ethics policy. Last things first: Anyone who has been required to go to "Corporate Ethics Training" at a big US corp like Apple knows that the term Ethics has been redefined by corporate america. It is not about morality, or taking the ethically correct action. It is all about making sure your actions don't get the company sued, and if they do get sued, making sure they have lots of CYA to keep from losing in court and having to pay out mucho moola.

    That's all there is to corporate ethics policies, nothing more and certainly nothing on which anyone should being using to judge a person's character.

    As for violating Apple's NDA - sounds like they used bittorrent to get a copy of the software from someone else who had originally made it public. That means they did not themselves take an internal copy from Apple and redistribute that. They only did what any other person on the net was capable of - go to a public website like isohunt and use the public information to get into the public torrent for the files.

    Because bittorrent makes you a redistributor as well as a simple downloader, I am sure they are technically in violation of Apple's NDA - but realistically their employment at Apple had nothing to do with their downloading of a copy.

    Thirdly - Apple, or rather whatever uptight member of lower middle management who actually made the call to fire these guys, is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Any retailer should be ecstatic to have store employees as interested in their own products as these guys (kids?) are. How many times have you all gone to best buy, or compusa or circuit city, etc, etc and been told absolute bullshit by some ignorant "sales associate?" When you've got employees that are so into your own products that they hunt down pre-release versions on the internet just check out for themselves, you need to keep them around, not fire them for trivialities.

    Last and probably least, but it made me chuckle, did anyone else notice the plagarism at VAR Business? Their link to the story at ThinkSecret includes an unnecessary "?www.reghardware.co.uk" in the URL, which is another computer news website. Looks like a violation of corporate ethics policy to me.
    • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @06:00AM (#15968549) Journal
      Reminds me of a joke that went somewhat like this:

      A businessman was teaching his son about ethics and the ethical dillemas in busines, "Let me give you a practical example, son. See, there's this old friend and business associate of mine, whom I loaned some money to last year. So yesterday he came around and gave me my money back. When I counted the money, I noticed that two banknotes were stuck together, and he had given me a hundred dollars more than he owed me. Which, of course, raised the ethical problem: should I tell your mom too about the extra money, or not?"
    • by rahrens ( 939941 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @08:16AM (#15969016)
      First - ethics,

      Exactly, they got fired because they talked. As a retail employee, you are supposed to keep your mouth shut. If they had been exercising that particularly (to Apple) valuable skill, they'd still have a job.

      Second - the NDA.

      WHERE they got it doesn't matter. Leopard is a product that is restricted. Not just unreleased. Apple has what is known as a stovepipe organization. Some would term it as a firewalled org., too. What that means is that, depending on WHERE you work will determine what products you have access to. The NDAs the employees sign most likely have a clause that prevents them from getting access to information in other parts of the org., to prevent leaks. So where they got Leopard isn't at issue, simply the fact that they had it is enough. They work in the retail stores, so thay would have NO access to it at all.

      Third - cutting off of the nose

      Not an issue. Public reaction is not something they worry about here. The NDA these people violated spells out the consequences of the violation. If Apple doesn't fire these people, the next time Apple tried to do that, THOSE employees could go to court and use these cases as examples of how Apple had 'constructively changed' the terms of the NDA by this action. In the business world, the firings are normal and expected.
  • There was a couple in the apple store next to me looking at a mac book talking about playing back some of the movies they had ripped for traveling. They were new to the apple world so wern't sure if they could play them back. I told them about some of the multimedia apps other than quicktime (handbrake, vlc). The employee quipped "I'm not supposed to talk about those" half joking and wandered away..

    hmmmmmmm
  • by trudyscousin ( 258684 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @10:52AM (#15970270)
    In violating the NDA to which you agreed, you're an idiot.

    In admitting your wrongdoing, you're honest.

    You're an honest idiot. You're idiotically honest.

    Either way, you're an idiot, and the consequences of your idiocy is termination.

    (I'd say 'QED' at this point, but I'm sure someone here will rip this up...)
  • by Oz0ne ( 13272 ) on Thursday August 24, 2006 @12:01PM (#15971045) Homepage
    Congratulations on being honest enough to admit your were cheating your employer. Now you have the opportunity to pay for your actions with your jobs.

    No of course apple (or any company) wouldn't want employees lying to them. They also wouldn't want employees leaking their software you freaking dumbasses.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...