moved: What leak does this lawsuit relate to?

At first guess I'd say this is for two reasons:

- Being pissed at the Mirror Mac (aka wind tunnel) photo leaks.
- Sends a message to anyone/everyone not to screw with em.

Dave

Could be windtunnel. I don't think it was the red mobo because that (i think) was an ebay sale originally and I think that person could probably be tracked and named. I can't think of any other recent picture leaks.

Not to rain on your parade, but this doesn't seem like future hardware.

Fact remains, once pics get leaked there really isn't any case against people who "publish" them. Plenty of precedent comes up on the publisher's side, including internet cases, video, and print, with content ranging from sex tapes, to classified government documents, to NDA protected materials.

Apple has no case, but they have the ability to launch cases! Even if they can't win, they can cost you a ton of time and money, and scare you silly in the process. Only a very large press outlet can "publish" without blinking, but those guys are hardly interested in rumor and spy pics.

Now, for those that actually "leak" info/pics, they're up the creek so to speak, Apple can ream them with a splintered sanding block. Have contract, break contract, suffer dearly.

Dear Apple

As a stock holder, I must ask the question,"Why are you wasting money pursuing these alleged criminals and investing these funds in processor and bus speed improvements?"

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Insincerely

rickag

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>Dear Apple

As a stock holder, I must ask the question,"Why are you wasting money pursuing these alleged criminals and investing these funds in processor and bus speed improvements?"

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Insincerely

rickag</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am no stockholder, but Apple is really not doing its image any good.

I agree with rickag: Apple should concentrate on its core business of making computers and not earn money from lawsuits

Apple won't earn any money from these lawsuits. The suits themselves will cost Apple money. Firstly, because they will not win any suit against a publisher, they will only win suits against contract violators. Secondly, any publishers against whom they could concievably win a suit won't have any money and will never pay. Apple lawyers don't come cheap.

Besides the legalities, there is the issue of goodwill. Apple gets more free press and internet exposure than any tech company I can think of. Part of the reason why Apple could get by for so long, while spending as little as they do on advertising, is that the mac community literally contributes millions of dollars worth of free publicity via the internet. Villianizing loyal elements of the community serves no constructive purpose, especially when that community is often more passionate about promoting Apple than Apple itself has often been.

While this suit seems to be about 25 potential NDA violators, pressure could fall on web hosters/sites/posters to give up what they know. Fine, but Apple has also been quite agressive when it comes to harrassing web sites (publishers) with the spectre of legal action. Not good. Pointless too, since Apple would not win any such case. Web forums are a little funny, though, since it is not known who is doing the publishing. Apple could argue that certain posters may be people (as they have sometimes been) under NDA, and because those people are under NDA, they have no right to publish pics in a forum. However, a web page itself publishing leaked pics, is really safe from conviction (they were never under NDA). The standard legal reaction seems to be to threaten everyone and hope the spectre of expensive law-suits keeps everyone obedient even those without any legal obligations to Apple.

There was a good case a while back between Ford Motors and Motor Trend (IIRC). They published to the web some spy pics of Ford vehicles. Ford tried to sue to get the images taken down. The court told them to take a walk, it's newsworthy, and can be published and Ford has little right to quash it.

While I'm always dying to know about what Apple intend to release, a big enough leak can seriously damage a company's profitability and make it harder to compete with other companies.

You can see how every other manufacturer rips off Apple design after new products are released. Apple only have a limited amount of time to make money from the 'unique' designs they produce and they have to do all they can to protect this information.

How do you know that the information leaked was by some die hard Mac fan just trying to share his exciting knowledge with all the other Mac fans? It could just as easily be a dirty trick by a mole, to reduce the value of Apple stock or damage the company in some way.

I doubt that Apple is looking for any money out of this. More likely is they are trying to flush out employees or contractors/consultants who tend to leak information.

[quote]Originally posted by chromos:
<strong>I doubt that Apple is looking for any money out of this. More likely is they are trying to flush out employees or contractors/consultants who tend to leak information.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed, therefore, pretty much a waste of time an effort. Also, most leaks that in any way could damage Apple are within weeks of release, negating any real damage anyway.

[quote]Originally posted by JP:
<strong>Apple are bringing a court action in the UK in order to get evidence that they need in order to sue some people who have leaked photos of unreleased products. This case was heard on September 18th, this year. Here's the start of the report of the case:

"1. The claimant appellant, Apple Computers Incorporated, has commenced proceedings in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California, against 25 unknown persons, described as Doe. This proceeding is permissible in California, pending discovery of the identity of the alleged wrong doers. Once identity has been established, the claim will be amended.



Now they're trying to find out the information from a UK website, so my question is, what insider photos have recently appeared on a UK site? Is this just the photos of the MDD G4s, or is it something new that I've missed?

JP.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a very old case which (as it seems) isn't over yet: Workerbee!!

<a href="http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101" target="_blank">http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101</a>

Seems like leaked pictures could be good publicity in most cases. People have a tendancy to enjoy being in the "secret loop" about certain things that no one else is supposed to know about.

I think apple shoud put its money in building faster hardware and he!! if anything its like putting more money into Marketing which certainly couldn't hurt them.

I guess this is about setting an example for any disgruntled employees who might ponder the thought of doing something like this. We cannot forget that Apple is truly innovative. Their 'guiding light' in industrial design has been followed by many companies. The line between innovating and copying is small, however. Someone blabs just the right amount in the right place and Apple could become a copycat of their own innovativeness. Of course, this probably isn't going to happen soon. This case is trying to procure that.

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

This is a very old case which (as it seems) isn't over yet: Workerbee!!

<a href="http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101" target="_blank">http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101</a></strong><hr></blockquote>


No... the WorkerBee lawsuit was settled.

This is a new lawsuit based on the leaked MDD Pictures.

arn

[quote]Originally posted by arn:
<strong>


No... the WorkerBee lawsuit was settled.

This is a new lawsuit based on the leaked MDD Pictures.

arn</strong><hr></blockquote>

And it's pure coincidence that 25 people are sued in both cases?

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by JP:
<strong>

I think it must be a coincidence, the case in the UK is about gaining evidence for a future case to be brought by Apple, and as I'm pretty sure they already got worker bee, it must be something to do with the MDD leaks, or possibly something else.

JP.</strong><hr></blockquote>

§1 could also just be referring to the Workerbee case since it's about the same subject: pictures of future motherboards.

[quote]Originally posted by stunned:
<strong>

I am no stockholder, but Apple is really not doing its image any good.

I agree with rickag: Apple should concentrate on its core business of making computers and not earn money from lawsuits
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not a stockholder either. But Apple have a right to take legal action, and I think they should to scare off other people from leaking images etc. These images should not be leaked. If you owned a Company and future products you were designing were leaked, I bet you would get annoyed after a while and think it necesery to take legal action!

[Thats from a Law students point of view and instinctivly (not that humans have instinct) I think "Litigate! Litigate" in this instance anyhow]

[quote]Originally posted by trevorM:
<strong>

...But Apple have a right to take legal action, and I think they should to scare off other people from leaking images etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.

AND many, if not most people didn't even believe the leaks anyway.

Please, Apple, concentrate on what is affecting profits. Hardware, Software(cater to developers). Chasing ghosts is fruitless.

That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.


And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.

Pretend Apple ISN"T going to use the 970, it's possible. By not having a roadmap, specifically denying future use of the 970, many customers(how many, don't know) are/will be waiting for the nonexistent introduction of a 970 based Apple computer. I know this argument has plenty of holes, but when you get right down to it, rumors ain't the main problem right now, are they?

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.


[quote]<strong>AND many, if not most people didn't even believe the leaks anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?

[quote]<strong>Please, Apple, concentrate on what is affecting profits. Hardware, Software(cater to developers). Chasing ghosts is fruitless.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.

[quote]<strong>That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.


[quote]<strong>And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This might be a fair point. But then this comes back to the issue of Apple trying to innovate and continually being not only ripped off, but not even given credit for their innovations. For example, there is a whole generation of people growing believing that Microsoft invented the GUI as we see it today.

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The problem is that if they don't sue now they can't do anything when something worse (from an Apple perspective) is leaked.

If it's a real leak, there is definitely someone behind it who violated a NDA. Not the owner of the website who published the images will be sued but the person who handed it over to them. So Apple will be successful in a lawsuit if they know who did it.

Apple has lawyers "in house" and on retainer. They get paid whether they are used or not. Protecting intellectual property is not a bad thing. In this day and age of consumers thinking 'i can steal music, photos and whatever" and as a stockholder I applaud their efforts.

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>
95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!</strong><hr></blockquote>
If only Apple controlled the anchor and owned the rescue boat!

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

And it's pure coincidence that 25 people are sued in both cases?

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

No... it's not a coincidence... Apple doesn't know how many people are leaks... so they list 25 (arbitrarily) on their lawsuit.

Apple settled with Worker Bee in 2001. <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-271221.html?tag=rn" target="_blank">link</a>

This is new.

arn

First off, what I have been stating is opinion, maybe I should have clarified that.

[quote]How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.(referring to lost sales)<hr></blockquote>

Of course I don't have verifiable facts, but use your head. Inventory of the previous towers was slim and nonexistant in many outlets. In recent past, many many customers wait until after MWshows for announcements. Sales of Apple computers slow significantly before shows, wonder why Apple is getting away from announcing new computers at shows, Apple figured it out and so have customers.

[quote]Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?(refering to disbelief in rumors of windtunnel)<hr></blockquote>

I don't know for a fact, but if you care to, review the comments regarding the windtunnel leak in this and many rumor sites. The windtunnel leak and 7 lb. heat sink rumors were mocked unmercifully. Chrome face plate, hah.

[quote]Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.(refering to lack of hardware development)<hr></blockquote>

167MHz bus, G4 @ only 1.25GHz., etc. While not directly responsible, Apple is certaintly partially responsible. Money talks, why more of the 4 billion in reservers wasn't used to speed development of the G4 we'll probably never know.

[quote]Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.<hr></blockquote>

It is only common sense that IBM's presentation @ the Microprocessors Forum of the 970 would have a much greater affect on sales that some lame rumor off some obscure web site. This was big news, discussed in a technical forum. And now even reviewed in print by MacWorld magazine.


Again, I apologize in not clarifying that my statements were opinion, but I stand by my statement that Apple's biggest problem is not rumor sites and especially in pursuing this case, the windtunnel leak, is a waste of time and resources.

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.


And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.

Pretend Apple ISN"T going to use the 970, it's possible. By not having a roadmap, specifically denying future use of the 970, many customers(how many, don't know) are/will be waiting for the nonexistent introduction of a 970 based Apple computer. I know this argument has plenty of holes, but when you get right down to it, rumors ain't the main problem right now, are they?

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.

Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---&gt; the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.

Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---&gt; the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I fully agree. There's a big difference between a rumor and a well thought out conclusion of facts.

I only had a little bit of law in college, but I think the tough thing to prove against the defendants will be damages. I think it will be tough for Apple to come up with a dollar figure. Without damages there is no lawsuit.

[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

This is a very old case which (as it seems) isn't over yet: Workerbee!!

<a href="http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101" target="_blank">http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Actaully, no it's a new one

<a href="http://macnn.com/rd.php?id=2057" target="_blank">http://macnn.com/rd.php?id=2057</a>

[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which supports my point, the publishing of information on the 970 will have a much greater effect on future sales than any rumor generated on a web site. Do I have proof, umm, no, but I do have common sense.

Question, someone says this is UK lawsuit. Can they sue someone in the US with his action? Or only in the UK. (not that I'm sweating too much about my own allegid copies of picture which I may or may not have had )