or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo - Page 7

post #241 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Well, let's at least include the rest of that paragraph you 'quoted'.



(Good thing I didn't claim to know for sure).

Now, before it was stolen, when it was simply lost in a public place, would that qualify as being diligent? From your link:
"If the owner has not diligently tried to keep the information secret, courts will usually refuse to extend any help to the trade secret owner if others learn of the information."

Taking the phone into a public place does not preclude trade secret protection. If it did, no one could ever take a briefcase with trade secret documents anywhere.

Apple merely has to have procedures in place to protect the information. They do not, for example, sell the phone (yet). They do not let just anyone have it. Presumably, they have a trade secret policy in place. They even disguised the phone. All of those things are more than sufficient to protect their rights.

There's a lot more than I can put into a short message, but since you've shown yourself to be so uneducable, there's no point.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #242 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Taking the phone into a public place does not preclude trade secret protection. If it did, no one could ever take a briefcase with trade secret documents anywhere.

Apple merely has to have procedures in place to protect the information. They do not, for example, sell the phone (yet). They do not let just anyone have it. Presumably, they have a trade secret policy in place. They even disguised the phone. All of those things are more than sufficient to protect their rights.

There's a lot more than I can put into a short message, but since you've shown yourself to be so uneducable, there's no point.

Huh. It's almost like you actually read what I wrote, but not quite. Asking a lot, I suppose. I didn't think it was confusing, obviously is was.

I didn't ask what Apple did to protect it. You have done a fine job repeating that often. I asked, when Apple lost it in public, in a bar, was that being diligent?

Maybe an analogy will help you this time. If you wife came home from a night out with the girls and lost her wedding ring, even though she knows never to take it off and you have imposed rules on her to protect that ring, would you say she was being diligent in protecting the symbol of your love and fidelity?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #243 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Huh. It's almost like you actually read what I wrote, but not quite. Asking a lot, I suppose. I didn't think it was confusing, obviously is was.

I didn't ask what Apple did to protect it. You have done a fine job repeating that often. I asked, when Apple lost it in public, in a bar, was that being diligent?

No, the problem is that YOU are incapable of reading. Or at least comprehending what you've read.

I specifically addressed that. If you used your interpretation, it would be impossible to ever carry a trade secret document in a briefcase without losing protection. There is nothing in trade secret laws which precludes your taking them out in public. As long as you take appropriate protections, you can take them out in public without endangering your protection. Apple specifically took a number of actions to protect their trade secret, so the fact that it was out in public doesn't eliminate their protections.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #244 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, the problem is that YOU are incapable of reading. Or at least comprehending what you've read.

Wow. Again, you have either avoided answering the actual question or didn't understand the question. Not sure.

I'll make this simple for you, as seems to be necessary. Yes, Apple took a number of steps to protect their trade secret. And NO, simply taking it outside doesn't automatically eliminate their protections. They took many measures to protect their secret.

There that is out of the way, hopefully your don't revert to your strange habit of repetition.

Now, the question, for the third time, did losing the secret item show they were diligent in protecting their secret?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I specifically addressed that. If you used your interpretation, it would be impossible to ever carry a trade secret document in a briefcase without losing protection. There is nothing in trade secret laws which precludes your taking them out in public.

Again, you get in with the strawmen. That is just lazy. I never said they could never bring it in public nor did I so doing so would automatically nullify their protection. They have every right to do so, as long as they are diligent in keeping it secret while it is out. If you are going to argue against what I have said, do so. Stop making things up. It is dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As long as you take appropriate protections, you can take them out in public without endangering your protection. Apple specifically took a number of actions to protect their trade secret, so the fact that it was out in public doesn't eliminate their protections.

Finally! THIS is what I am trying to get you to answer. You keep trying to weasel out of answer by instead answering a different question (for your edification, I did not ask you if Apple took steps to protect their secret. We get it, they took steps).

Again: does losing it in a bar demonstrate that appropriate protections were taken? (HINT: not asking if they took steps to protect it, please avoid answering that unasked questions for a third time).

If your child smashed the Lexus, would you say they were being diligent and taking appropriate steps in protecting your car?

I don't expect you to answer the actual question. I expect another dodge or for you to repeat the same non-answer/answer "Apple takes steps, Apple takes steps", or perhaps another ad hom. We will see.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #245 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Finally! THIS is what I am trying to get you to answer. You keep trying to weasel out of answer by instead answering a different question (for your edification, I did not ask you if Apple took steps to protect their secret. We get it, they took steps).

Again: does losing it in a bar demonstrate that appropriate protections were taken? (HINT: not asking if they took steps to protect it, please avoid answering that unasked questions for a third time).

If your child smashed the Lexus, would you say they were being diligent and taking appropriate steps in protecting your car?

I don't expect you to answer the actual question. I expect another dodge or for you to repeat the same non-answer/answer "Apple takes steps, Apple takes steps", or perhaps another ad hom. We will see.

I answered the question. Repeatedly.

Apple has trade secret rules in place. All employees sign trade secret rules. Trade secret rules are followed - to the point of firing people when they don't follow them. Apple is very careful not to disclose things to outsiders without an NDA. They even went to the trouble to disguise the iPhone 4G.

That is ABSOLUTELY proof of reasonable precautions. In one of the links I gave you, it specifically allows for a circumstance where a trade secret item can be lost. As long as reasonable precautions like the above are taken, it is still a trade secret.

It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that you can't take something out in public without losing trade secret protection. That would eviscerate trade secret laws. It is also ridiculous to pretend that a simple accident removes trade secret protection.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #246 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I answered the question. Repeatedly.

You answered something, just not my question to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple has trade secret rules in place. All employees sign trade secret rules. Trade secret rules are followed - to the point of firing people when they don't follow them. Apple is very careful not to disclose things to outsiders without an NDA. They even went to the trouble to disguise the iPhone 4G.

Yes. Thanks for stating that again. Too bad it wasn't asked of you. Stay focused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is ABSOLUTELY proof of reasonable precautions. [...] As long as reasonable precautions like the above are taken, it is still a trade secret.

They can take lots of reasonable precautions. If they lost the secret in public, then perhaps they did not take enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that you can't take something out in public without losing trade secret protection. That would eviscerate trade secret laws.

Strawman. Why bother? Pathology?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It is also ridiculous to pretend that a simple accident removes trade secret protection.

Almost there. Damn holding your hand through this is tiring. Ok, are you honestly arguing that accidental disclosure or disclosure due to negligence couldn't nullify protection? If so, then at least you sort of answered the question this time. Was that so hard? Instead of repeatedly stating they took precautions, was it so hard to get to this point?

So, losing it in a public place (note: not simply taking it in a public place) fits your definition of taking diligent care to secure its secrecy?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #247 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

[snip] (maybe you can get your third grade teacher to read it to you) [snip]

I'm definitely not the first to point this out, but your postings could use a lot less insults. Discussion of your opinion is one thing, but going out of your way to insult someone you don't even know (he could be your boss for all you know) just because he has a different opinion than you do in your need to be "100% correct" is just sad.

Even more so is this whole "better than thou" attitude all your posts are wrapped up in.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #248 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

I'm definitely not the first to point this out, but your postings could use a lot less insults. Discussion of your opinion is one thing, but going out of your way to insult someone you don't even know (he could be your boss for all you know) just because he has a different opinion than you do in your need to be "100% correct" is just sad.

Even more so is this whole "better than thou" attitude all your posts are wrapped up in.

I find he often resorts to ad homs to try to shut down discussions. Usually when his point is not defendable or his strawmen have been exhausted. Sometimes he simply slips in 'exaggerations' to help bolster his point, but he gets caught on those too. Too bad. He has some good points but refuses to engage in reasonable conversation. Every question of him is seen as an attack. Everyone with a different opinion is an enemy. Too bad.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #249 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Huh. It's almost like you actually read what I wrote, but not quite. Asking a lot, I suppose. I didn't think it was confusing, obviously is was.

I didn't ask what Apple did to protect it. You have done a fine job repeating that often. I asked, when Apple lost it in public, in a bar, was that being diligent?

Maybe an analogy will help you this time. If you wife came home from a night out with the girls and lost her wedding ring, even though she knows never to take it off and you have imposed rules on her to protect that ring, would you say she was being diligent in protecting the symbol of your love and fidelity?

A. You're taking for granted that Gizmodo's and Hogan's account that they "found" the phone is true. That has to be established by the investigation. But...

B. It doesn't matter one bit. If you FIND something that doesn't belong to you, when you can find out who it belongs to -- an actual Apple employee Hogan found on Facebook by the next morning -- if he didn't take every measure to return it, it's now defined as theft. Doesn't matter how he found it, his criminal responsibility began very soon the next day, if the roommate's testimony is correct, when he knew what it was worth, and phoned his more experienced friend to find a buyer. That is NOT taking every effort to return something he knew was valuable. This is the crime of theft in California.

Apple engineers have every reason to take the phones out to test them in the field. This phone was in a fake 3GS case, so it looked exactly like a production phone. That's taking lots of precautions.

Questioning how careful Apple was might, in a civil suit, reduce the damages Gizmodo had to pay. In a criminal proceeding, it doesn't matter at all; it's like a rapist defending himself by saying, "But she was wearing a short skirt!" Irrelevant.
post #250 of 250
Your comments are more about the theft/trafficking in stolen property than the case if trade secrets violations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

A. You're taking for granted that Gizmodo's and Hogan's account that they "found" the phone is true. That has to be established by the investigation. But...

Actually, it is in the police report. Powell's statement to the police doesn't rule out theft but implies it was most likely misplaced, probably by falling out of his bag.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

B. It doesn't matter one bit. If you FIND something that doesn't belong to you, when you can find out who it belongs to -- an actual Apple employee Hogan found on Facebook by the next morning -- if he didn't take every measure to return it, it's now defined as theft. Doesn't matter how he found it, his criminal responsibility began very soon the next day, if the roommate's testimony is correct, when he knew what it was worth, and phoned his more experienced friend to find a buyer. That is NOT taking every effort to return something he knew was valuable. This is the crime of theft in California.

Not disagreeing with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Apple engineers have every reason to take the phones out to test them in the field. This phone was in a fake 3GS case, so it looked exactly like a production phone. That's taking lots of precautions.

No question, yes, they did take a lot of precautions to protect it. The fact that they appear to have allowed it to be tested in a bar resulting in losing it in a public place might indicate that they did not take enough. Trade Secret protection applies if they took all reasonable steps and were diligent in protecting it. Can you definitively state that they did enough? Can you state that there was no negligence that resulted in it being lost? Disclosure due to negligence or accident has to be considered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Questioning how careful Apple was might, in a civil suit, reduce the damages Gizmodo had to pay. In a criminal proceeding, it doesn't matter at all; it's like a rapist defending himself by saying, "But she was wearing a short skirt!" Irrelevant.

Not at all similar. Perhaps more similar to her saying yes. But they both had a bit to drink. She wasn't flat out drunk and said yes. She intended not to have sex that night. Did his actions amount to rape? Depends on what actually happened.

More similar to an Apple employee that had lots of early stills, diagrams, schematics, etc of the phone on his Mac. He uploads a bunch of vacation pics to flicker but unknowingly includes all the pics of the phone. Apple still has lots of precautions in place, but they were still accidently put in public. Does the fact that it was an accidental disclosure, even with their precautions in place, have any bearing at all on the status of the trade secret protections?

I am not categorically claiming that accidently misplacing it in a bar and leaving automatically nullifies any trade secret protections. That would be very foolish and arrogant. What I am saying is that anyone that claims to know with absolute certainty, one way or the other, is blowing smoke out of their ass. The best they can say, when asked if accidental disclosure has any impact or chance of being evaluated when determining its protection, is to say "Apple took precautions", which of course doesn't answer the question at all. Apple took many reasonable precautions to ensure its secrecy. True. Given that it was lost, did they take enough? Accidents are often the result of negligence or carelessness. If that is found to be the case here, would it have any bearing on the status of the item in terms of still being protected?

I don't know. But then, it is obvious, neither does SJR. The best he can do is to avoid the question asked and answer a different question in hopes it will stick.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo