Why does the public have a right to know Apple's secrets?
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
And you are skipping subjects - I was responding to your comment:
Quote:
MO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
which on general principle was, and still is, quite wrong.
Now, back to the Apple/Gizmodo example - it will be interesting to see if it is argued that some of those secrets (i.e. the internal pictures of the phone) were obtained illegally, esp. if the phone is deemed stolen. I wouldn't be surprised if that, or a similar tack isn't taken. I also won't be surprised if it's effective.
Now, back to the Apple/Gizmodo example - it will be interesting to see if it is argued that some of those secrets (i.e. the internal pictures of the phone) were obtained illegally, esp. if the phone is deemed stolen. I wouldn't be surprised if that, or a similar tack isn't taken. I also won't be surprised if it's effective.
I think that when Apple negligently left their secret sitting around in public they lost the protected status of "secret". How could it be otherwise?
Companies need to take reasonable steps to protect secrets, and leaving their secrets sitting around in public does not, IMHO, qualify.
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
First of all, as I mentioned earlier, there are two sides to every story. All we have so far is Gizmodo's side of the story. For all we know, Gray Powell never lost the iPhone. It could have been taken from him without his knowledge. Let's face it, the person that supposedly "found" the iPhone and gave the "story" to Gizmodo is definitely someone of low moral character. He shopped for a buyer to profit from a device he clearly did not own. So that person's reliability is immediately in question. He's the one that gave the "story" to Gizmodo, so Gizmodo's "story" may or may not be accurate.
But assuming the "story" is true, and the iPhone was left behind... We have ZERO evidence that Gray Powell was negligent. The iPhone could have slipped out of his pocket unnoticed. And since Gray still retains his employment at Apple, it is logical to deduce that he was SUPPOSED to be testing that prototype iPhone in every place he would normally go. In other words, he wasn't negligent for taking it into a bar. He was SUPPOSED to be testing it in a bar, and everywhere else he might go. The fact that the phone was cleverly disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS adds credence to the fact that the phone was SUPPOSED to be out in the wild, in "real world" conditions, being tested by an engineer charged with that responsibility.
Even if Gray accidentally left the prototype iPhone behind by forgetting that he placed it down and not picking it up when he left, that doesn't make it a negligent act. The law allows people to make mistakes. Negligence implies some sort of willful act to not properly exercise your duty.
There was no negligence. At worst, Gray simply made a mistake. A mistake that the law will not see as negligence.
I look forward to hearing the other side of the story. Sadly, since I firmly believe that all defendants will cave and plea bargain (criminal charges) and settle out of court (civil lawsuits), we will probably never get a chance to hear the other side of the story.
First of all, as I mentioned earlier, there are two sides to every story. All we have so far is Gizmodo's side of the story. For all we know, Gray Powell never lost the iPhone. It could have been taken from him without his knowledge. Let's face it, the person that supposedly "found" the iPhone and gave the "story" to Gizmodo is definitely someone of low moral character. He shopped for a buyer to profit from a device he clearly did not own. So that person's reliability is immediately in question. He's the one that gave the "story" to Gizmodo, so Gizmodo's "story" may or may not be accurate.
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. You are absolutely correct, we haven't heard both sides of this story, only what has been presented to us by Gizmodo. One thing for sure, the story presented to us by Gizmodo will, of course, paint them in a favorable light.
Apple has three years to do so. What makes more sense - do it now and continue the fuss they have little control over about an unreleased product?
Or wait until the product is released when the press over the issue doesn't matter, and then go for it?
I think the easy choice is the latter. Apple gains nothing by letting this go. I don't think this is over - not by a long shot.
That's one way of thinking about it. OTOH, Apple may take the "pull the Band-Aid off all at once and get the pain over with quickly" approach, as well.
If they deal with it quickly, it will be out of the news before the iPhone launch. If they wait, it will reappear in the news. AND, it gives the Apple haters more ammunition: "The whole thing was over and Apple's iPhone launch went without a glitch so they weren't really harmed, yet they vindictively went after Gizmodo". I could see that getting pretty bad, as well.
There's no right or wrong answer and I could see it going either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
I think that when Apple negligently left their secret sitting around in public they lost the protected status of "secret". How could it be otherwise?
Companies need to take reasonable steps to protect secrets, and leaving their secrets sitting around in public does not, IMHO, qualify.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
Apple does the following to protect its trade secrets:
1. All employees involved in design or testing of new products sign strong NDAs.
2. They have a rigorous program limiting the use of their prototypes outside of their labs (read, for example, the articles about what iPad developers had to go through if they were lucky enough to get an iPad before the launch).
3. They have penalties for violations - and enforce them. Look at the guy who got fired for showing Woz (and, indirectly, Gizmodo) an iPad 3G before launch.
4. They require NDAs from partners who are involved in the development.
In this case, one person who had passed all of those hurdles happened to misplace a phone (or have it stolen from him - that hasn't been determined yet). Sorry, but that isn't even close to negating Apple's trade secret rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. You are absolutely correct, we haven't heard both sides of this story, only what has been presented to us by Gizmodo. One thing for sure, the story presented to us by Gizmodo will, of course, paint them in a favorable light.
Actually, two things are certain:
1. Gizmodo's story will paint them in a positive light.
2. The Apple haters will use it as ammunition to claim that Apple is evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth
Even if Gray accidentally left the prototype iPhone behind by forgetting that he placed it down and not picking it up when he left, that doesn't make it a negligent act. The law allows people to make mistakes. Negligence implies some sort of willful act to not properly exercise your duty.
There was no negligence. At worst, Gray simply made a mistake. A mistake that the law will not see as negligence.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. Even if Gray was negligent, Gizmodo had no right to disseminate the information they published. Under NY trade secret law, that phone was absolutely 100% clearly a trade secret and Gizmodo broke the law by publishing it.
In addition, even if the story that the 'finder' gave Gizmodo was 100% true and Gizmodo believed it, they are guilty of purchasing stolen property. If someone negligently leaves their car keys in the ignition and you take the car, you're still stealing it - regardless of whether they were negligent or not.
My take: this case will go nowhere and just waste everyones time and money. I think there will be a lot of loud voices but ultimately no case, maybe a token settlement. Everyone will forget it and Apple wi clamp down tighter on prototypes (maybe more decoys).
That's one way of thinking about it. OTOH, Apple may take the "pull the Band-Aid off all at once and get the pain over with quickly" approach, as well.
If they deal with it quickly, it will be out of the news before the iPhone launch. If they wait, it will reappear in the news. AND, it gives the Apple haters more ammunition: "The whole thing was over and Apple's iPhone launch went without a glitch so they weren't really harmed, yet they vindictively went after Gizmodo". I could see that getting pretty bad, as well.
There's no right or wrong answer and I could see it going either way.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
Apple does the following to protect its trade secrets:
1. All employees involved in design or testing of new products sign strong NDAs.
2. They have a rigorous program limiting the use of their prototypes outside of their labs (read, for example, the articles about what iPad developers had to go through if they were lucky enough to get an iPad before the launch).
3. They have penalties for violations - and enforce them. Look at the guy who got fired for showing Woz (and, indirectly, Gizmodo) an iPad 3G before launch.
4. They require NDAs from partners who are involved in the development.
In this case, one person who had passed all of those hurdles happened to misplace a phone (or have it stolen from him - that hasn't been determined yet). Sorry, but that isn't even close to negating Apple's trade secret rights.
Actually, two things are certain:
1. Gizmodo's story will paint them in a positive light.
2. The Apple haters will use it as ammunition to claim that Apple is evil.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. Even if Gray was negligent, Gizmodo had no right to disseminate the information they published. Under NY trade secret law, that phone was absolutely 100% clearly a trade secret and Gizmodo broke the law by publishing it.
In addition, even if the story that the 'finder' gave Gizmodo was 100% true and Gizmodo believed it, they are guilty of purchasing stolen property. If someone negligently leaves their car keys in the ignition and you take the car, you're still stealing it - regardless of whether they were negligent or not.
I don't know, maybe you do this for a living. We can call you our 'internet lawyer'. Splunking around a bit, I did find an interesting quote from Eric Goldman:
Quote:
If the prototype truly was left on the barroom floor as an accident, then the law gets murkier. The person who found the prototype is in a legally ambiguous situation. For example, courts are split on whether trade secrets accidentally left in public are still protectable. Many courts basically chastise the putative trade secret owner for being so sloppy with their allegedly valuable assets; but some courts will have sympathy for an honest mistake, especially when the finder knows (or really ought to know) that the found items are probably someone’s valuable trade secrets.
However, Gizmodo is probably not in any real danger itself. It can claim that it was a bona fide purchaser of the chattel (although I wonder if this is really plausible), and its status as a publisher should help insulate it from any trade secret claims. More importantly, at this point, what’s done is done; the information is out, and Apple can’t put the information back behind a secrecy veil.
Goldman's bio is here. Seems credible. UCLA law school grad and now an associate professor (SCU) who teaches "Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility."
He doesn't seem to think it is a slam dunk, 100%, sure thing, open and shut case against Giz. Just his opinion. He is a CA lawyer and law professor and deals with IP law, but I suppose some believe they know better.
I don't know, maybe you do this for a living. We can call you our 'internet lawyer'. Splunking around a bit, I did find an interesting quote from Eric Goldman:
Goldman's bio is here. Seems credible. UCLA law school grad and now an associate professor (SCU) who teaches "Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility."
He doesn't seem to think it is a slam dunk, 100%, sure thing, open and shut case against Giz. Just his opinion. He is a CA lawyer and law professor and deals with IP law, but I suppose some believe they know better.
That's nice. Too bad that I was talking about trade secret law in NY - where it IS a slam dunk. Go back and read the link that I gave you.
Last Friday night, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered editor Jason Chen's home without him present, seizing four computers and two servers. They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
On that we agree. What we disagree on, it seems, is what happens when a company leaves a trade secret laying around in public.
That's nice. Too bad that I was talking about trade secret law in NY - where it IS a slam dunk. Go back and read the link that I gave you.
Nice attempt to move the goal posts, though.
That's nice too. Actually, to refresh you memory, it was you that provided the link for the CA law reference (well, USTA), in the same post you provided the NY info. Perhaps it was simply you posting irrelevant information. You would be the best to explain that.
Apple is incorporated in CA. The finder likely resides there. The 'crime' occurred there. Gawker is in New York (?). Would the trial, if held, be in NY or CA? (honest question).
No attempt to move goal posts. You brought in CA info and NY info. Mine was just an attempt to bring in a educated, experienced opinion (not mine-no education and no experience in this type of thing)
Apple is incorporated in CA. The finder likely resides there. The 'crime' occurred there. Gawker is in New York (?). Would the trial, if held, be in NY or CA? (honest question).
Given the facts of this case, Apple could choose to file in either state, so they will clearly choose the state which gives them the greater chance of conviction.
They .... tried to make the devleoper who lost that phone look like an idiot.
Ummm. I think Mr. Gray Powell is perfectly capable of making himself look like an idiot, and in fact has just exactly that. Why are you blaming 'the media' for this?
Ummm. I think Mr. Gray Powell is perfectly capable of making himself look like an idiot, and in fact has just exactly that. Why are you blaming 'the media' for this?
True, Gary Powell is capable of looking like an idiot, but it did not absolved Gizmodo of buying a prototype iPhone for 5000 dollars and bragging about it over the web.
Remember, we haven't heard Gray Powell's account of what transpired that March 18 evening. I have this strong suspicion that Gray didn't lose his iPhone, rather, he was relieved of it without his knowledge.
But that won't stop some folks from blaming Gray Powell for the raid on Jason Chen's home.
Comments
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
Why does the public have a right to know Apple's secrets?
By your logic Coke should have to publish their formula and companies wouldn't have any right to secrets at all.
In a year we'll have to ask them if it was really worth it...
So far, so good.
Their brand has gone from very obscure to being International News.
If it costs less than tens of millions, it will have been well worth it.
Why does the public have a right to know Apple's secrets?
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
And you are skipping subjects - I was responding to your comment:
MO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
which on general principle was, and still is, quite wrong.
Now, back to the Apple/Gizmodo example - it will be interesting to see if it is argued that some of those secrets (i.e. the internal pictures of the phone) were obtained illegally, esp. if the phone is deemed stolen. I wouldn't be surprised if that, or a similar tack isn't taken. I also won't be surprised if it's effective.
So far, so good.
Their brand has gone from very obscure to being International News.
If it costs less than tens of millions, it will have been well worth it.
Assuming the brand continues to exist.
Now, back to the Apple/Gizmodo example - it will be interesting to see if it is argued that some of those secrets (i.e. the internal pictures of the phone) were obtained illegally, esp. if the phone is deemed stolen. I wouldn't be surprised if that, or a similar tack isn't taken. I also won't be surprised if it's effective.
I think that when Apple negligently left their secret sitting around in public they lost the protected status of "secret". How could it be otherwise?
Companies need to take reasonable steps to protect secrets, and leaving their secrets sitting around in public does not, IMHO, qualify.
Because once Apple revealed the secret by leaving the secret laying around in public, it is no longer a secret. Apple negligently allowed the secret to become revealed.
You are asking the wrong question based upon the facts of the matter. The secret is gone forever. There is no secret. Apple divulged the secret, and it lost the status as a secret.
First of all, as I mentioned earlier, there are two sides to every story. All we have so far is Gizmodo's side of the story. For all we know, Gray Powell never lost the iPhone. It could have been taken from him without his knowledge. Let's face it, the person that supposedly "found" the iPhone and gave the "story" to Gizmodo is definitely someone of low moral character. He shopped for a buyer to profit from a device he clearly did not own. So that person's reliability is immediately in question. He's the one that gave the "story" to Gizmodo, so Gizmodo's "story" may or may not be accurate.
But assuming the "story" is true, and the iPhone was left behind... We have ZERO evidence that Gray Powell was negligent. The iPhone could have slipped out of his pocket unnoticed. And since Gray still retains his employment at Apple, it is logical to deduce that he was SUPPOSED to be testing that prototype iPhone in every place he would normally go. In other words, he wasn't negligent for taking it into a bar. He was SUPPOSED to be testing it in a bar, and everywhere else he might go. The fact that the phone was cleverly disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS adds credence to the fact that the phone was SUPPOSED to be out in the wild, in "real world" conditions, being tested by an engineer charged with that responsibility.
Even if Gray accidentally left the prototype iPhone behind by forgetting that he placed it down and not picking it up when he left, that doesn't make it a negligent act. The law allows people to make mistakes. Negligence implies some sort of willful act to not properly exercise your duty.
There was no negligence. At worst, Gray simply made a mistake. A mistake that the law will not see as negligence.
I look forward to hearing the other side of the story. Sadly, since I firmly believe that all defendants will cave and plea bargain (criminal charges) and settle out of court (civil lawsuits), we will probably never get a chance to hear the other side of the story.
Mark
First of all, as I mentioned earlier, there are two sides to every story. All we have so far is Gizmodo's side of the story. For all we know, Gray Powell never lost the iPhone. It could have been taken from him without his knowledge. Let's face it, the person that supposedly "found" the iPhone and gave the "story" to Gizmodo is definitely someone of low moral character. He shopped for a buyer to profit from a device he clearly did not own. So that person's reliability is immediately in question. He's the one that gave the "story" to Gizmodo, so Gizmodo's "story" may or may not be accurate.
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. You are absolutely correct, we haven't heard both sides of this story, only what has been presented to us by Gizmodo. One thing for sure, the story presented to us by Gizmodo will, of course, paint them in a favorable light.
Apple has three years to do so. What makes more sense - do it now and continue the fuss they have little control over about an unreleased product?
Or wait until the product is released when the press over the issue doesn't matter, and then go for it?
I think the easy choice is the latter. Apple gains nothing by letting this go. I don't think this is over - not by a long shot.
That's one way of thinking about it. OTOH, Apple may take the "pull the Band-Aid off all at once and get the pain over with quickly" approach, as well.
If they deal with it quickly, it will be out of the news before the iPhone launch. If they wait, it will reappear in the news. AND, it gives the Apple haters more ammunition: "The whole thing was over and Apple's iPhone launch went without a glitch so they weren't really harmed, yet they vindictively went after Gizmodo". I could see that getting pretty bad, as well.
There's no right or wrong answer and I could see it going either way.
I think that when Apple negligently left their secret sitting around in public they lost the protected status of "secret". How could it be otherwise?
Companies need to take reasonable steps to protect secrets, and leaving their secrets sitting around in public does not, IMHO, qualify.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
Apple does the following to protect its trade secrets:
1. All employees involved in design or testing of new products sign strong NDAs.
2. They have a rigorous program limiting the use of their prototypes outside of their labs (read, for example, the articles about what iPad developers had to go through if they were lucky enough to get an iPad before the launch).
3. They have penalties for violations - and enforce them. Look at the guy who got fired for showing Woz (and, indirectly, Gizmodo) an iPad 3G before launch.
4. They require NDAs from partners who are involved in the development.
In this case, one person who had passed all of those hurdles happened to misplace a phone (or have it stolen from him - that hasn't been determined yet). Sorry, but that isn't even close to negating Apple's trade secret rights.
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. You are absolutely correct, we haven't heard both sides of this story, only what has been presented to us by Gizmodo. One thing for sure, the story presented to us by Gizmodo will, of course, paint them in a favorable light.
Actually, two things are certain:
1. Gizmodo's story will paint them in a positive light.
2. The Apple haters will use it as ammunition to claim that Apple is evil.
Even if Gray accidentally left the prototype iPhone behind by forgetting that he placed it down and not picking it up when he left, that doesn't make it a negligent act. The law allows people to make mistakes. Negligence implies some sort of willful act to not properly exercise your duty.
There was no negligence. At worst, Gray simply made a mistake. A mistake that the law will not see as negligence.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. Even if Gray was negligent, Gizmodo had no right to disseminate the information they published. Under NY trade secret law, that phone was absolutely 100% clearly a trade secret and Gizmodo broke the law by publishing it.
In addition, even if the story that the 'finder' gave Gizmodo was 100% true and Gizmodo believed it, they are guilty of purchasing stolen property. If someone negligently leaves their car keys in the ignition and you take the car, you're still stealing it - regardless of whether they were negligent or not.
Apple may be redesigning it as we speak.
That's one way of thinking about it. OTOH, Apple may take the "pull the Band-Aid off all at once and get the pain over with quickly" approach, as well.
If they deal with it quickly, it will be out of the news before the iPhone launch. If they wait, it will reappear in the news. AND, it gives the Apple haters more ammunition: "The whole thing was over and Apple's iPhone launch went without a glitch so they weren't really harmed, yet they vindictively went after Gizmodo". I could see that getting pretty bad, as well.
There's no right or wrong answer and I could see it going either way.
That is, of course, nonsense.
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
Apple does the following to protect its trade secrets:
1. All employees involved in design or testing of new products sign strong NDAs.
2. They have a rigorous program limiting the use of their prototypes outside of their labs (read, for example, the articles about what iPad developers had to go through if they were lucky enough to get an iPad before the launch).
3. They have penalties for violations - and enforce them. Look at the guy who got fired for showing Woz (and, indirectly, Gizmodo) an iPad 3G before launch.
4. They require NDAs from partners who are involved in the development.
In this case, one person who had passed all of those hurdles happened to misplace a phone (or have it stolen from him - that hasn't been determined yet). Sorry, but that isn't even close to negating Apple's trade secret rights.
Actually, two things are certain:
1. Gizmodo's story will paint them in a positive light.
2. The Apple haters will use it as ammunition to claim that Apple is evil.
Actually, it doesn't really matter. Even if Gray was negligent, Gizmodo had no right to disseminate the information they published. Under NY trade secret law, that phone was absolutely 100% clearly a trade secret and Gizmodo broke the law by publishing it.
In addition, even if the story that the 'finder' gave Gizmodo was 100% true and Gizmodo believed it, they are guilty of purchasing stolen property. If someone negligently leaves their car keys in the ignition and you take the car, you're still stealing it - regardless of whether they were negligent or not.
I don't know, maybe you do this for a living. We can call you our 'internet lawyer'. Splunking around a bit, I did find an interesting quote from Eric Goldman:
If the prototype truly was left on the barroom floor as an accident, then the law gets murkier. The person who found the prototype is in a legally ambiguous situation. For example, courts are split on whether trade secrets accidentally left in public are still protectable. Many courts basically chastise the putative trade secret owner for being so sloppy with their allegedly valuable assets; but some courts will have sympathy for an honest mistake, especially when the finder knows (or really ought to know) that the found items are probably someone’s valuable trade secrets.
However, Gizmodo is probably not in any real danger itself. It can claim that it was a bona fide purchaser of the chattel (although I wonder if this is really plausible), and its status as a publisher should help insulate it from any trade secret claims. More importantly, at this point, what’s done is done; the information is out, and Apple can’t put the information back behind a secrecy veil.
Goldman's bio is here. Seems credible. UCLA law school grad and now an associate professor (SCU) who teaches "Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility."
He doesn't seem to think it is a slam dunk, 100%, sure thing, open and shut case against Giz. Just his opinion. He is a CA lawyer and law professor and deals with IP law, but I suppose some believe they know better.
I don't know, maybe you do this for a living. We can call you our 'internet lawyer'. Splunking around a bit, I did find an interesting quote from Eric Goldman:
Goldman's bio is here. Seems credible. UCLA law school grad and now an associate professor (SCU) who teaches "Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property and previously has taught courses in Copyrights, Contracts, Software Licensing and Professional Responsibility."
He doesn't seem to think it is a slam dunk, 100%, sure thing, open and shut case against Giz. Just his opinion. He is a CA lawyer and law professor and deals with IP law, but I suppose some believe they know better.
That's nice. Too bad that I was talking about trade secret law in NY - where it IS a slam dunk. Go back and read the link that I gave you.
Nice attempt to move the goal posts, though.
Negligence implies some sort of willful act to not properly exercise your duty.
You are thinking of "malfeasance".
An act need not be willful to be negligent.
And Apple's duty was to keep the damn trade secrets safe!
Apple needs to make a reasonable effort to protect their trade secrets, true. That does NOT mean that they can never take them out of the lab or that one can't be uncovered by accident. In fact, trade secret law specifically allows for that.
On that we agree. What we disagree on, it seems, is what happens when a company leaves a trade secret laying around in public.
That's nice. Too bad that I was talking about trade secret law in NY - where it IS a slam dunk. Go back and read the link that I gave you.
Nice attempt to move the goal posts, though.
That's nice too. Actually, to refresh you memory, it was you that provided the link for the CA law reference (well, USTA), in the same post you provided the NY info. Perhaps it was simply you posting irrelevant information. You would be the best to explain that.
Apple is incorporated in CA. The finder likely resides there. The 'crime' occurred there. Gawker is in New York (?). Would the trial, if held, be in NY or CA? (honest question).
No attempt to move goal posts. You brought in CA info and NY info. Mine was just an attempt to bring in a educated, experienced opinion (not mine-no education and no experience in this type of thing)
Apple is incorporated in CA. The finder likely resides there. The 'crime' occurred there. Gawker is in New York (?). Would the trial, if held, be in NY or CA? (honest question).
Given the facts of this case, Apple could choose to file in either state, so they will clearly choose the state which gives them the greater chance of conviction.
They .... tried to make the devleoper who lost that phone look like an idiot.
Ummm. I think Mr. Gray Powell is perfectly capable of making himself look like an idiot, and in fact has just exactly that. Why are you blaming 'the media' for this?
Ummm. I think Mr. Gray Powell is perfectly capable of making himself look like an idiot, and in fact has just exactly that. Why are you blaming 'the media' for this?
True, Gary Powell is capable of looking like an idiot, but it did not absolved Gizmodo of buying a prototype iPhone for 5000 dollars and bragging about it over the web.
But that won't stop some folks from blaming Gray Powell for the raid on Jason Chen's home.
Mark