[waveydavey]

Originally Posted by scratt I don't see how this is relevant...

I must admit that in my posts I have been a tad indecisive as to who I believe to be right and wrong, possibly appearing to vote in favour of the little guy.

But on this occasion I will have to agree with you that it now appears to me that the info may have been gained illegally and used for all the wrong reasons.

However...backing Apple and anyone's right to secrecy:

I also feel Apple should have weighed up the situation more sensibly, evaluating whether the leak caused or had the potential to cause, given the time frame, financial loss, a rival to fast-track a similar better specified product or damage to its often fragile (in the eyes of the PC user) consumer level reputation. Perhaps a good telling off would have sufficed? Apple needs to keep its current strong public image rolling, what with the ipod doing its thing over here in the UK. But now, even the dumb-assed PC assimilates I know in work, music and publishing all think that this will spell the end of Apples good hardworked reputaion for the foreseeable future - mostly due to the way the press has portrayed the issue, as old corporate fat cat beats down the poor lowly student.

On the freedom of speech thing (which I firmly believe - from experience - we don't have on either side of the Atlantic. Full-stop), what I was getting at was the general bigger picture regarding the mainstream media, where most of our inforamtion comes from, and who is defined a journalist - I also agree it is not entirely relevent here. From reading large amounts of press (mainstream media) and reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that this case and several others ongoing are becoming high-profile for a reason other than the merits of the case, i.e. set up to be made an example of to set definative new laws. This usually ends with the case at hand being sidelined regardless of right/wrong.

TEMPEST
thinks: both could have done better.

Excuse any spelling mistakes, I'm celebrating some good news with a single-malt or fwive.

[scratt]

Looks like we are basically on the same page...

I would be in the front line of people bucking the system if I thought corporations or governments had got out of conrol in their "support" of the "right kind" of free speech, and I don't think you are paranoid to be concerned about it at all.

Thanks for the clarification on your position on the Nick thing too..

I have maintained from the beginning that Apple has done this to make an example of a thorn in their side that has got a bit too big for it's boots (Love mixed metaphors!). They will slap him down and back off at the last minute when it comes to punishment. And good on them for that.

If they do try to meat out serious punitive measures I won't abandon my support of them but I will be suprised and also feel that at that point the media will turn on them. They are not stupid enough to let that happen.

The negative media impression right now is 'in the ranks' of PC and Mac fanatics. Your average every day Apple user and potential 'switcher' has little or no idea of what is going on. We are all interested in this kind of thing because... well we are!

If you ask any kid with an iPod, or normal person at home who uses an iMac for writing letters and surfing the web I am sure they would probably not have even heard of Nick, or know what the case is about. It certainly isn't front line news on CNN and I don't think it ever will be..

Wired may carry some stuff, but again that is specialised press.. So Apple has little to worry about right now (IMHO) and are well aware of the pitfalls ahead...

But time will tell if my analysis is correct or not..

[Kickaha]

I would be in the front line of people bucking the system if I thought corporations or governments had got out of conrol in their "support" of the "right kind" of free speech, and I don't think you are paranoid to be concerned about it at all.

Hear, hear. Far from us being a group of corporate fascists, I think most of us here are actually quite concerned with personal rights. There is, however, a free speech analogue to Judge Holmes wonderful quote (paraphrased): "My right to swing my fist stops where the other person nose starts." For private citizens, this is smack dab in the realm of common privacy issues. What we're seeing here is the corporate analogue being tested. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

[Banana]

Scratt (or others who has NDAs)

If you would be so kind, would you terribly sharing some of major, standard clauses in NDA?

Specifically, I'm wondering if NDA gives details on

1) who you can disclose and who you can't

2) what to do if you are solicited

3) consequences if you disclose too much

4) whether you are allowed to disclose anything at all

5) that clause I mentioned before; that neglience of past breaches does not necessarily breach the contract itself

and any relevent info that might help me understand what NDA looks like.

Furthermore, if I have violated any laws in asking you, and incited you to break your NDA, please PM me and I will furnish you with my solicitor's number who is standing by to assure you that his client has done no wrongdoings.

[Banana]

Referring to the sociopolitical aspect of this discussion-

I do personally think that by legislating secrets, we are complicating things unnecessarily. Patents is more intuitive when you think about it; you disclose a unique product and in doing so, you have exclusive rights to it.

IMO, a stronger patent laws could very well replace trade secrets laws, then we don't have to deal with snafus like this.

[Mac+]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but here is a link to an article in an Australian paper (lifted from the NYT) ... with a photo of Nick.

It does not offer anything new - I'm just posting it to indicate how it is being presented down under and also to provide a photo of Nick for those interested.

[oingoboingo]

That was the same NY Times article I posted previously. Many newspapers license articles from other papers such as the NYT or Washington Post. It does not really reflect on Australia.

ps -- According to this article Ciarelli's lawyer said they have no intention of settling and have not yet begun to fight.

[oingoboingo]

The April 12 hearing has been postponed until May.

Apple asked for more time to respond to Think Secret's motion to dismiss. Looks like they'll be burning the midnight oil trying to rationalize their action.

[Kickaha]

Or simply making sure they have an airtight rationale for why the motion is spurious.

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to...

[scratt]

Here we go again!

"Motion denied". Nick de Plume is not a journalist. Period.

Doesn't matter how many tame hacks you get to say he is, or any other such waffle.

Apple are probably still laughing so hard that they haven't got round to actually replying.

[oingoboingo]

Rumors Roll On Despite Apple Suit

...the legal actions have so far failed to stem the tide of reports revealing details of Apple's future product plans, with both AppleInsider and Think Secret giving early reports of preparations for Tiger's release, as well as publishing details of forthcoming upgrades to the Power Mac and iMac range... Support for the so-called rumor sites has come from a wide range of sources, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation defending AppleInsider and PowerPage, while news organizations including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News have filed amicus briefs supporting the sites. The media companies have argued that, if the ruling to reveal sources is upheld, it will have a chilling effect on the ability of reporters to uncover stories in the public interest, and that Apple should "exhaust all alternative sources" before seeking information from the sites.

[Kickaha]

"in the public interest" != "an interested public"

The major media outlets are barking up the wrong tree IMO. Sad to see them getting sucked into it as well.

I'm sure the Apple employees sign something when they work for Apple that they will not divulge secrets. If they didn't want to keep thier word, they should never have signed a contract. A corporation has the right to limit its employees' discussion of corporate information, unless the corporation is doing something illegal.

[Kickaha]

That is probably the most concise, rational synopsis of the situation I've seen yet.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by macstudent I'm sure the Apple employees sign something when they work for Apple that they will not divulge secrets. If they didn't want to keep thier word, they should never have signed a contract. A corporation has the right to limit its employees' discussion of corporate information, unless the corporation is doing something illegal.

It only misses one thing... It needs to say something like "Nick smells ner ner ner ner ner ner" as well. Then I'd be totally in agreement!!

[oingoboingo]

EFF Wins Unsealing of Secret Documents in Apple Case

September 13, 2005 New Information Shows No Exhaustive Investigation Before Company Subpoenaed Journalists Santa Clara County, CA - Court documents in the Apple v. Does case were unsealed last week, and they reveal that the software giant sought to subpoena two reporters' anonymous sources without first conducting a thorough investigation inside the company. This is a crucial issue in the case, which will be heard by the California Court of Appeal, because the First Amendment and the California Constitution require that Apple exhaust all other alternatives before trying to subpoena journalists. The unsealed documents, filed late last week, allow the public to see that Apple failed to conduct an exhaustive investigation. It never took depositions, never issued subpoenas (other than to the journalists), and never asked for signed declarations or information under oath from its own employees.

[Kickaha]

That'd be relevant if TS were a journalism outlet. I'm still not convinced it is. If the judge isn't either, this won't mean squat.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Kickaha That'd be relevant if TS were a journalism outlet. I'm still not convinced it is. If the judge isn't either, this won't mean squat.

Exactly.