[Alex Duffield]

------------------
Alex Duffield
------------------

*Compliments mr_SonicBlue

[gorgonzola]

Bing! Another one down.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[Scott_H]

I wish one of these would goto court. I think they (Apple) would lose.

[clebin]

So they didn't "go directly to jail" like that one arsehole said they would. And there's me thinking he was a member of Apple's legal team!

If it did go to court, they'd lose on the strength of the intro movie. Streaming someone else's Quicktime file over the web is like making Photoshop available for download and expecting to win the courtcase.

On the whole, I think Apple's response was very fair.

Chris

[gorgonzola]

I agree. Apple's been pretty good about screenshots, actually. They shut a few people down but there are tons of screenshots all over the place still operating.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[naepstn]

I'm sick of people complaining about Apple's strong-arm tactics when it comes to these kinds of sites. While I enjoy reading them as much as the next guy, I think that Apple is doing the right thing by going after them like they do.

Honestly, what do you expect Apple to do?

Look at the history of M$ and other companies ripping off Apple's ideas and implementations. Usually, Apple is lucky if they have a feature/product out for 6 months before another big player (usually Microsoft, or another hardware manufacturer), comes along and copies it. Now, imagine if all of these things got posted up on websites months before they were released... they'd barely beat the competition to market with them (and in some cases might get beaten to market). If these sites aren;t dissuaded from posting this kind of stuff, one of two things will happen... Apple loses all the surprise aspects to product/feature/OS releases that they are so well known for, or they put new products through very restricted and mostly internal testing cycles, which isn't nearly as good for product reliability and bug-fixing as a limited public/developer release cycle like we currently have.

If people want to see products before they are released, then they sign an NDA, and should bloody-well abide by it. Those that don't should be persued legally for breaching that contract. I, personally, don't think that Apple would lose (even if someone could afford to challenge it in court), seeing as it is a legally-binding contract that was signed when it was released from Apple, and even talking about it is breaching that contract - so putting up screenshots on a public website most certainly is also.

Cheers!

[Mac_Nacho]

Totally agree with you naepstn, this is sensitive information and could be very harmfull for Apple in hands of competitors.
However, I think that we should bear in mind that if competitors copy, reproduce or miss use part of Apple code & ideas, they would be crushed in courts.
Sometimes I believe that there's an implied agreement between M$ and Apple..I don't understand Apple's reaction...being M$ such a ripper & copycat..maybe because there are not enough facts..I don;t know...
However I totally agree that Apple should take (and it's seems they are doing it pretty well) of their innovations.
cheers!

[Scott_H]

Well it's unfortunate for Apple but we have this nasty little thing called "The First Amendment" and it give us the right to a free press. News is news.

[dogzilla]

Originally posted by naepstn:
Look at the history of M$ and other companies ripping off Apple's ideas and implementations. Usually, Apple is lucky if they have a feature/product out for 6 months before another big player (usually Microsoft, or another hardware manufacturer), comes along and copies it. Now, imagine if all of these things got posted up on websites months before they were released... they'd barely beat the competition to market with them (and in some cases might get beaten to market).

Well, I think Apple can do what they feel is right concerning the prerelease information - it's their product and if they want to keep a lid on it, that's their prerogative.

However, I seriously doubt that shutting down websites like this does much to keep the competition from finding out about the features. I'd wager that Microsoft has a *much* better idea of what the absolute latest version of OSX looks like than any Mac rumors website. Remember - they're the most important 3rd party MacOS software developer. I'm fairly certain that the OS engineers spent some quality time the the Mac application development engineers. And even if that weren't the case, MS has the resources to get at nightly builds of OSX if they want - legitimately or not.

My suspicion is that Apple simply wants to keep the lid on these features because they're not done yet, and could change or be dropped. And probably to increase the impact when it actually does ship.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
Well it's unfortunate for Apple but we have this nasty little thing called "The First Amendment" and it give us the right to a free press. News is news.

So if you worked on an invention for 10 years, the design of which is worth millions, and I busted into your house, stole the blueprints, and had them printed on the front page, you'd had no problem with that? I mean, news is news.

------------------

Microsoft did that. Apple went after them. Apple lost.

That was in 1989.

Now it seems Apple just picks on little guys who can be of no conceivable threat to them.

Who cares if Apple doesn't want this stuff being spread around? It's their own property. I personally think they are a bit tight with future plans, but Naepstn made a good point about the potential for this info falling in the wrong hands. Apple's has many scars from each time they got burned by some other a$$hole copying their ideas <cough>M$<ahhemmm>, so I'm not bothered that they hold their cards close to their chest.

If someone want's to go to court over this....man get a life. There are so many threatened civil liberties to fight for, that going to court over something like OS X screen shots would be a petty waste of time. Who do these screen shots really benefit? Who's hurt by Apple's desire to keep them secret until OS X ships? It's not like some great social injustice is being committed by Apple...

Look at the history of M$ and other companies ripping off Apple's ideas and implementations. Usually, Apple is lucky if they have a feature/product out for 6 months before another big player (usually Microsoft, or another hardware manufacturer), comes along and copies it.

Seeing as how Microsoft receives all the internal OSX developer builds directly from Apple, I don't see how this (with regard to MS) is really a consideration.

Ken

[Scott_H]

So if you worked on an invention for 10 years, the design of which is worth millions, and I busted into your house, stole the blueprints, and had them printed on the front page, you'd had no problem with that? I mean, news is news.

But you see that's not what happening here. No one stole the source code and published it. It's not possible to steel and OS by posting pictures of it or the intor movie. If you design the coolest car in the world and I snap a picture of it can I publish it? Yes I can. Did I steel the design of your car? No. Same thing here.

[davecom]

Scott, if you think about it your way out of line. Only Apple has to know the reasons for why they don't want anyone to see their upcoming OS. But developers signed agreements, and they should keep to those agreements. Had they kept to them there would be no issue. These people that get them second hand are almost as bad as the people that originally broke the agreements becasue they're still not helping Apple by going against its will.

Its like me saying I'm going to help you by not doing by doing the opposite of what you say needs to be done for you to be helped.

------------------
Think Different.

[Alex Duffield]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
... If you design the coolest car in the world and I snap a picture of it can I publish it? Yes I can. Did I steel the design of your car? No. Same thing here.

Its a thin line we are on here...

What if you snap a picture of a painting or a photo I made, and publish that... I think if I was the artist I would be a tad bit put out...

Clearly you cant go re selling Photos of famous paintings without being in violation of copyright, nor could you give them away. So I think that if Apple has a copyright on the look of the MacOSX GUI, than posting screen shots would be in violation of that copyright.

But now could Apple sue a developer for including screenshots in their documentation.....

I'll leave this ones to the legal folks....



------------------
Alex Duffield
------------------

*Compliments mr_SonicBlue

[jamesa]

Whatever may be the merits of Apple Legal's arguments (I can sympathise with both sides) I highly object to them telling you not to hyperlink to other sites with the images.

You can't be responsible for what other sites publish. It would be like Apple Legal getting into MacNN simply because they linked to www.wincent.org (I'm still laughing about what they did to those screenshots on the latest review or even www.macosx.org

It's censorship by stealth!

[jamesa]

On another note, somebody should get a server going in Russia or somewhere where the copyright laws are really weak, and just publish these shots to their hearts content. I mean, some guy in Russia registered Windows as a beer over there... hehe... I doubt they'd care much over a few screenshots

First off, the free press issue. A court would have to weigh the first amendment's protection of political information dissemination in the press (which is the true root of the first amendment) verus the intellectual property rights codified in US law. While the press has the right to publish whatever they want, they should take due consideration about what they are posting and the results of their actions. You can post an article about what a bastard so and so is, but he can sue you for defamation of character.

Secondly, Apple makes developers sign agreements not to disclose pics or copies of the OS. For the sites to republish this information is contributing to the breeching of those NDAs, and they are responsible for that.

But lastly, while we're all eager to see the next screen grab, we have to remember that these are usually nightly builds which don't reflect in any way what the final build will look like. Lets relax until the 24th.

[spicyjeff]

Scott_H you are an idiot. There is only one way they got those shots, illegally, of which there are two possibilities:

A. They are a registered Apple developer and they have access to the builds. Thus they are breaking their NDA, which is a legal and enforcable document.

B. They obtained those builds from someone else, an employee or developer, who broke their NDA and or contracts. Which again is illegal.

Now as a few have said before me, I enjoy these sneak peeks as much as the next guy. But it is completely within Apple's legal right to enforce the rules with which they distrubted their software in the first place.

[naepstn]

Scott_H,

While I won't go so far as to say that you're an idiot Spiffyjeff brings up an interesting point. Do the OS and resulting screenshots, after the breach of an NDA, qualify as stolen goods? If they do, then reposting them (even if the posting site themselves weren't subject to an NDA) would certainly be illegal, as they would possess stolen goods.

The points about Microsoft having both legitimate and otherwise access to all the latest builds of OSX, make me realize that I should have chosen a better example, and this point really applies far better to the hardware side of things (eg. Komodo server cubes, anyone?).

The main point is that Apple relies heavily on being able to WOW everyone with things they haven't seen before. It's part of what gives them finesse in the computer industry. How much fun would it be if at future MacWorlds, "Stevie Wonder" says "Oh, there's one more thing..." and everyone in the audience answers by yelling out what it is he's about to announce, because they read it on the net, and it was even published in the New York Times?

Like naepstn says, I think there's a conflict of our own interests here. We're all chomping at the bit to know as much about OS X as possible - I mean just look at the number of posts to the 'OS X discussion' board - and yet we want to be wowed and surprised. Why watch Steve's keynote if you know everything beforehand? We want the thrill of the Titanium or some jaw dropping OS X surprise, but (some) are doing their best to remove any possibility of any surprises at all.

I love surprises

[Richard Pinneau]

Apple's gotta protect itself from the like of MS...

I'm no lawyer (praize the loard!) but it would surprise me if the Apple corp legal team view it as necessary to take such minimal legal action - as a part of (in this crazy legal system we have) be prepared if they ever have to launch a protective suit against some MS espionage theft (let's just call it XP).

I know this sounds insane to normal human beings, but in courts of law, MS might find a sympathetic ear for something like "...but we were just using info that Apple didn't *really* expect to be kept secret -- witness their lack of action when the info was pub on the web."

________________
"It's a free country" (for those with the $ to defend against law suits)

[10sfan]

I agree with the person who said that regulating hyperlinks is totally inappropriate.

[spicyjeff]

I agree. Linking is not the same as hosting the information.

Think of it as someone robbing a bank, and another person across the street who see it and point and shouts "look over there at the bank robbery" to his/her friends. Obviously the robber is breaking the law, but the by-stander is not by simply point it out.

You guys who think that Apple does this in a vacuum have not been around the block. Pay some attention to the car industry, and you'll see gorilla tactics on both sides. Companies do this as a maater of procedure. It's one of those things. Don't take it personally. It's not. Don't ruin the surprise either.

[Misha]

As a result of the Ford vs. Blue Oval News ruling, which sided with Blue Oval News, posting such information has been ruled legal (pursuant to various factors, all of which are pretty obvious).

These /are/ strong-arm tactics by the big guys to scare the little guys with legal notices. Apple would have a very weak case if it took MacOSX.org to court.

Look at Adobe, they tried suing us (MacNN) and look how far it got them. I'm sure they never expected that we'd be willing to go to court over it.

You can argue the morality of these little sites, but when it comes to legality, check the facts...

[tz3gm]

what would the mac community be like w/o rumors

NOTHING!

[Gee-Man]

There's one thing everyone has overlooked - pending patents is probably one reason why Apple is so sensitive to leaks. If some of the technology in Aqua is in the process of being patented (and yes, although they lost the "look and feel" lawsuit to MS, many things about UI can still be patented), then public exhibition of those features interferes with the process. I'm no lawyer, but I have worked for companies and went through the patent application process, and there's some requirement where if an invention is shown publicly, you have a certain time limit before it becomes open season for everybody else to copy and your patent application is no longer valid. At least that's how I remember it (it's been a few years).

Free press is not really the issue here - Apple does have a responsibility to its shareholders, like all companies, to protect potential patent-derived revenues, and that means vigorously enforcing NDAs.

[Scott_H]

I have thought about this A LOT.


1) Shots are obtained "illegally" so they can't be published.

That's false. For one thing you can publish stolen information. Case in point Pam and Tommy had a little video published. It was it was stolen but is legal to publish it and there was nothing they could do about. Also NDA is a private agreement. There is no NDA law. If someone brakes the NDA and gives me screen shots I have not broken law. If someone steels a memo from the whitehouse that proves that Clinton sold pardons can they publish it. ABSOLUTELY! You can publish stolen information.

2) Copyright.

I am totally unconvinced that Apple can copyright all screen shots. For one thing they did not make the screen shots. Also these are pictures of an OS not and implementation of one. Big difference. Also for the press there is the issue of fair use. They can republish some copyright works. Also no one is selling any "aqua" software or merchandise.

3) Trademark

This the most dubious of arguments. You have a picture of Apple's trademark on Apple's software. Where the misrepresentation? There is none.

4) Trade secrets.

It is legal to steel trade secrets in this country. Sorry but it's true. You may feel it's wrong but it's not illegal.


5) Intellectual Property.

Posting screen shot is not steeling intellectual property. It's posting a picture of intellectual property. Big difference You cannot steel aqua by posting a picture of aqua. Besides what the hell is IP anyway? It's what ever major corporations want it to be.


Let me ask you all this. How do you know it is "illegal"????? BECAUSE APPLE LEGAL TOLD YOU SO You're going to take their word for it? WHY? Do they write the laws? No they don't. But when they flex their legal muscle and threaten people who cannot afford to fight back they win by default. But what's really surprising me is that you simply take Apple's word for it that it's illegal I am VERY MUCH opposed to corporations extending their rights via the costly lawsuit. It�s 100% wrong. If they want new laws them then pass them in Congress. Let them argue to the Judge. BUT DON�T LET THEM MAKE UP NEW RIGHTS BY SIMPLY THREATENING A LAWSUIT

You all can bend over and hand your rights a way anytime a corporate lawyer shows up with something written on letterhead. Thank god MacNN and Slashdot had the balls to stand up to these tactics.