Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Mar 12, 2005, 07:06 AM

Link.

We maybe shouldn't gossip here at MacNN anymore about forthcoming systems...if it turns out we've "guessed" correctly we might be sued.

Apple Pro Underwear · Mar 12, 2005, 07:40 AM

if i was running a business, i would not want a website to solicit my employees or other businesses I work with to publish secret information for the world to see... including my competitors.

TETENAL · Mar 12, 2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
if it turns out we've "guessed" correctly we might be sued.

If you didn't sign an NDA you can guess right as much as you want.

lkrupp · Mar 12, 2005, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Link.

We maybe shouldn't gossip here at MacNN anymore about forthcoming systems...if it turns out we've "guessed" correctly we might be sued.

Man have you got it all wrong. If I didn't sign a NDA I can guess all I want to. If I did sign a NDA and then leak information to some wiener's rumor blog I have broken California and possibly federal law.

This is not a first amendment issue. This is not a journalism issue. This is not Leslie Stahl from 60 Minutes exposing wrong-doing by Apple. Apple's trade secrets are not "in the public interest". I'm just as curious about Apple's plans as the next Mac zealot but I (the public) don't have the right to know. Self-righteous bloggers who fancy themselves journalists are trying to fan this into a defense of free speech. David against Goliath, the poor little rumor site weenie against evil Apple Computer, Inc., just doesn't apply here. IF the subject matter were about, say, Apple allegedly using questionable accounting practices, which WOULD be "in the public interest", it would be a different story altogether.

wdlove · Mar 12, 2005, 09:52 AM

I think that its important to protect intellectual property. Just as we protect physical property.

sugar_coated · Mar 12, 2005, 10:09 AM

Good things happen to those who care.

Cody Dawg · Mar 12, 2005, 10:14 AM

sugar_coated: When you post all I see is

Like white noise, you know?

OldManMac · Mar 12, 2005, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by lkrupp:
Man have you got it all wrong. If I didn't sign a NDA I can guess all I want to. If I did sign a NDA and then leak information to some wiener's rumor blog I have broken California and possibly federal law.

This is not a first amendment issue. This is not a journalism issue. This is not Leslie Stahl from 60 Minutes exposing wrong-doing by Apple. Apple's trade secrets are not "in the public interest". I'm just as curious about Apple's plans as the next Mac zealot but I (the public) don't have the right to know. Self-righteous bloggers who fancy themselves journalists are trying to fan this into a defense of free speech. David against Goliath, the poor little rumor site weenie against evil Apple Computer, Inc., just doesn't apply here. IF the subject matter were about, say, Apple allegedly using questionable accounting practices, which WOULD be "in the public interest", it would be a different story altogether.

Exactly. So many people don't seem to understand the difference between pure speculation and using stolen information. There is no freedom of speech issue here.

The Godfather · Mar 12, 2005, 10:41 AM

What penalties are we looking at? (for the Apple ex-employees and the online reporters)

Busemann · Mar 12, 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by The Godfather:
What penalties are we looking at? (for the Apple ex-employees and the online reporters)

The reporters aren't looking at any penalties at all. Apple just want to fire (and possibly sue) the employees that feed 'em

Eriamjh · Mar 12, 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Busemann:
The reporters aren't looking at any penalties at all. Apple just want to fire (and possibly sue) the employees that feed 'em

He's right. There are no penalties for the websites. The penalties are for their sources: the leaks.

Although not over, this is a blow to free speech for "unofficial" news web sites. If they can't protect their sources, then no one will ever report to them.

What does it take to be a "real" journalist anyway? A license?

OldManMac · Mar 12, 2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
He's right. There are no penalties for the websites. The penalties are for their sources: the leaks.

Although not over, this is a blow to free speech for "unofficial" news web sites. If they can't protect their sources, then no one will ever report to them.

What does it take to be a "real" journalist anyway? A license?

When I went to the Defense Department School of Journalism, I was taught that journalism was the reportage of news, not idle speculation. Unfortunately, some seem to have confused speculation with news, in addition to being unable to comprehend that trade secrets laws actually serve a purpose, and that's why they should be enforced. Think Secret is not a "news" site; it's a site of speculation, that had no business reporting stolen information.

sugar_coated · Mar 12, 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
sugar_coated: When you post all I see is

Like white noise, you know?

You may be missing the point.

The Wolf · Mar 12, 2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Busemann:
The reporters aren't looking at any penalties at all. Apple just want to fire (and possibly sue) the employees that feed 'em

Well, Apple can prolly terminate whoever is responsible for disclosing this info if they violated a NDA. I don't there is any remedy other than that. If Apple decides they actually want to sue the leak, it seems like they can just as easily sue the people who brought the info to the public (on some theory like they knew or should have know that they were reporting priviledged info).

The problem is that Apple would ultimately have to show that they sustained some type of injury from this - which seems pretty difficult to do. If they go around and sue these people, and fail to succeed (and by succeed I mean actually win some cash and not just saddle the defendants with legal bills) then they will just end up looking bad.

Eriamjh · Mar 13, 2005, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by KarlG:
When I went to the Defense Department School of Journalism, I was taught that journalism was the reportage of news, not idle speculation. Unfortunately, some seem to have confused speculation with news, in addition to being unable to comprehend that trade secrets laws actually serve a purpose, and that's why they should be enforced. Think Secret is not a "news" site; it's a site of speculation, that had no business reporting stolen information.

Ahh, but the word "news" means different things to different people. In this case, for the Apple community, it is "news" about upcoming Apple products.

From Dictionary.com:

1a.) Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
1b.) A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
2.) New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
3.) Newsworthy material: �a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news� (James Atlas).

The one in bold is the definition I think applies. The courts abviously disagree. (I think they need better lawyers.)

Again, Apple wasn't suing the sites for reporting the "news". They were suing to determine their sources. The sites realize that if they cannot protect their sources, then the "news" will dry up.

The information wasn't stolen. It was LEAKED! There is a difference.