In response to, "What can Apple Legal LEGITIMATELY do?" The Answer: NOTHING. They can threaten and posture because they're a huge company with lots of money, but they can't do a damned thing. They can crucify anyone with an NDA, but they can't actually touch the news outlet that carries the photos, regardless of how they were abtained. We know this because a while ago Ford Motor Co. tried to get an online magazine to quit publishing spy pics that it had obtained. The judge said no-dice. News-worthy item, if you don't want people to see it, don't let it get seen. Hence, heavily disguised test vehicles that are now the industry norm, even when deep in the confines of a company's own testing facility.
You see, if Motor-Trend runs some pre-production spy pics, nobody can touch them cause the law is on their side and they have the money to stand up to legal bullying. ANy Ziff-Davis outlet could run these shots and Apple wouldn't do sniff about it.
I'm sure most people here saved all the relevant pics. Anyone care to e-mail them to C|net with an explanation of the kind of traffic they'll recieve (though I'm sure they don't really need the explanation)
One thing we have to keep in mind is that we don't get these things until the channel clears.
So, i kind of hope that we are in the small majority of Mac users that know/care about this info.
We need the uninformed to buy the stuff on the shelves.
(Me in CompUSA this weekend chiming in on a sales person/customer conversation.) "Yeah, that G4 imac is a great deal, but look at the expandability of this tower!"
No, Apple is far too arrogant about it's offerings. It's like hey expect people to buy up the same old offerings just because they have to get rid of them.
I want PowerMac sales to grind to ZERO by the end of this week. They don't deserve another single solitary powermac sale untill either the specs or the prices (or both) are dramatically improved, period.
It's that simple. I'd rather see Apple eat a few 10 thousand units worth of QS macs, and learn their lesson good and proper.
However, this channel clearing wait game fiasco IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN INTERNET FORUM/CHAT phenomena created in the minds of people who don't understand a damned thing a about the market. If they're not here now, it's cause they're not ready yet. The odds of clearing-out a powermac are not good and they get worse every day. The MARGINS on ALL POWERMACS are EXTREMELY HIGH. IF the replacement were ready, the old machines would get a serious markdown and get dumped to a few major institutional buyers around the world (still at a nice profit)
<strong>In response to, "What can Apple Legal LEGITIMATELY do?" The Answer: NOTHING. They can threaten and posture because they're a huge company with lots of money, but they can't do a damned thing. They can crucify anyone with an NDA, but they can't actually touch the news outlet that carries the photos, regardless of how they were abtained. We know this because a while ago Ford Motor Co. tried to get an online magazine to quit publishing spy pics that it had obtained. The judge said no-dice. News-worthy item, if you don't want people to see it, don't let it get seen. Hence, heavily disguised test vehicles that are now the industry norm, even when deep in the confines of a company's own testing facility.
You see, if Motor-Trend runs some pre-production spy pics, nobody can touch them cause the law is on their side and they have the money to stand up to legal bullying. ANy Ziff-Davis outlet could run these shots and Apple wouldn't do sniff about it.
I'm sure most people here saved all the relevant pics. Anyone care to e-mail them to C|net with an explanation of the kind of traffic they'll recieve (though I'm sure they don't really need the explanation)</strong><hr></blockquote>I can think of a few pictures and documents that I could leak that would have judges lining up to overturn that pretty quickly. I can also think of more than a few cases of industrial espionage where had the details been leaked to press the press would have been shut down in a heartbeat.
Apple is the sort of company that would pursue such things against big press outlets, ISPs too. Add to that if they can prove they were acquired through illicit means it also becomes trading in stolen property.
The irony is if you are forced to fight such a case absolutely everybody gets their attention drawn t what you don't want to see. That's why it is usually best to settle such disputes outside of court.
Apple might make an argument about the circuit board, but they can't touch the case.
Judges would probably look to the nature of the information. You cannot reveal sercets about how things are done, but you can say this is what's coming and here's a pic to prove it. The NDA holder gets nailed, but the news outlet gets a walk.
As a company, you have the right to not reveal your plans, but as I journalist I have a right to try to discover them and publish what I find for the benefit of news readers everywhere.
Apple might argue that it hurts their future sales, but I have an as legitimate argument that information helps my readers plan purchases. Apple has no more right to make money by holding secrets as you have to save money by knowing them. It's all very frivolous, but so long as I'm not revealing information that lets another company usurp a technological break-through and beat Apple to market (and even then in some cases that I can think of), I safe and so are you.
<strong>Technically it is theft anyway. They own the box and all images pertaining to it until such time as it becomes publicly released.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure that this is correct, I do not see how they can own the picture. Look at the number of car magazines that print spy shots of prototype cars. No car manuacturer would stand a chance in court of prosecuting a magazine that way.
If they owned the box and all images pertaining to it, they wouldn't need to have everyone (and I mean everyone) who lays eyes on it sign an NDA. They own the pictures of it which they produce, but if you or a third party can manage to take a pic, they don't own that.
I think the consensus is that regardless of how 'real' their case is, more and more the pictures will be posted. I'm working on getting them up onto a couple other boards too...
Sorry Apple Legal, go to lunch, it's already out of your hands...
-Audio in hopefully, that was stupid getting rid of it.
-faster SuperDrive
-USB 2, though I can't see any use for it now.
-new keyboard/mouse would be icing on the cake. <hr></blockquote>
I'm with you, Aquatik. This system will be a mite bit faster than the current towers, and the possibility of the ATi 9700 will really make it glow. As to the heatsinks, anyone who follows the Sybaritic moniker knows that we sybarites can handle a little heat.
Apple might make an argument about the circuit board, but they can't touch the case.
Judges would probably look to the nature of the information. You cannot reveal sercets about how things are done, but you can say this is what's coming and here's a pic to prove it. The NDA holder gets nailed, but the news outlet gets a walk.
As a company, you have the right to not reveal your plans, but as I journalist I have a right to try to discover them and publish what I find for the benefit of news readers everywhere.
Apple might argue that it hurts their future sales, but I have an as legitimate argument that information helps my readers plan purchases. Apple has no more right to make money by holding secrets as you have to save money by knowing them. It's all very frivolous, but so long as I'm not revealing information that lets another company usurp a technological break-through and beat Apple to market (and even then in some cases that I can think of), I safe and so are you.</strong><hr></blockquote>If in the process of doing my job I came across some sensitive information, which by NDA I had been forbidden to disclose. To then take that information and break contract I'm stealing. That is the very basis of industrial espionage through implanting moles. Some people must see the product for it to be worked upon. If one of them takes designs, plans, or the product itself and hands it off to someone else that property is stolen.
To give it to a news outlet is borderline trading in stolen property. Once they are notified of its origins it becomes an issue of making a profit from dealing in stolen property (and worse).
The cases I'm thinking of are a little more senitive in nature and pursued very vigorously for that fact but the principles of each were the same. If Apple truly wanted to pursue it the case law is there to support them but it would also be largely a matter of them proving damages, which may not be worth enough to them. Try it on a large publication and it's a whole other matter.
As for the case of cars the body of most cars isn't overly advanced (sorry for all the technology they use in design they aren't advanced chassis at least externally).
Anybody familiar with Formula 1 will know many of the teams employ digital photographers to take shots of sensitive parts of other teams. In monaco this year the manufacturers didn't want to uncover their cars for show because they were fearful of intellectual property being stolen. The only reason nobody gets prosecuted in F1 is nobody gets caught.
Now if a magazine was stupid enough to publish shots handed to them outlining this is such and such's new design for this section of the car do you really want to believe they aren't going to be prosecuted?
The key there lies not in freedom of the press at all it lies in the ability to prove damages. A Formula 1 team can very easily say "This is critical to our operations" a road car company can't really do that. Tech simply isn't important enough and their sales don't slump so much at knowledge something is coming.
The press isn't immune in the least and it doesn't have complete freedom.
macrumors has posted more info regarding the pics and pdf:
[quote]Some final details are filled in by AppleP58, author of the PDF:
- it is a slim power supply, originally identical to the XServe's with two fans 'attatched' to the end of it (as you may see in older photographs). The final product is 2 inches longer with the 2 fans built in (3 fans in power supply total)
- has a slide-on back cover which pulls off to access the IDE and power cables
- The Hard Drives: The two vertically mounted drives under the powersupply have a pop-off holder with a plastic hook; there is 1 screw which is there for the sole purpose of keeping it from falling out during shipping, as the instructions will attest to in the final product. The 2 horizontally mounted drives, under the optical drives, have a slide out
design with 3 mushrooms to catch on like a rail on top, it slides in and has a plastic latch. - The "mystery port" that was on early designs of the motherboard was a mini-VGA video port (like on the P80 iMac, iBook & PowerBook), and is not in the final product because it was only needed for testing the units sans-video card.
- Thermal grease will be used on the MPUs instead of black thermal pads.
- There will be single and dual processor MPUs used. It will use DDR.
- The new model P58 was not announced at MacWorld because of troubles with the XServe (P69) in production, the initial order of 4000 has been dificult to fulfill, and has taken up a lot of time of several departments traveling... I'll leave it at that.
Case:
- The metal area on the front panel is glossed aluminum, and as you can see in the photos has mylar covering it causing the haze, it is NOT brushed aluminum nor has it ever been.
- The case IS silver like the P57, has a white & silver speaker, and a hole handle with a larger ring in the side door.
This is the his/her last submission. <hr></blockquote>
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
Why would Apple's new PowerMac enjoy any more protection than the DOD's plans to invade Iraq?
They don't. It's the company's job to keep secrets secret. It's media's job to report newsworthy items.</strong><hr></blockquote>Umm...the DoD's plans to invade Iraq were and are in no way sensitive. You would find they were leaked quite deliberately in fact.
Ever actually seen the US DoD go after anybody for stealing secrets? They don't pertain to the belief "it's their job to keep it secret". It is very much a case of "you just stole from us and we're going to hang you for it".
I would strongly suggest you get some knowledge of just how the DoD really works before you try and bring them up.
I would strongly suggest you get some knowledge of just how the DoD really works before you try and bring them up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I actually work for them! You should have seen the crap I had to go through just to work here. Man they wanted to know what I ate for breakfast 7 years ago
Comments
You see, if Motor-Trend runs some pre-production spy pics, nobody can touch them cause the law is on their side and they have the money to stand up to legal bullying. ANy Ziff-Davis outlet could run these shots and Apple wouldn't do sniff about it.
I'm sure most people here saved all the relevant pics. Anyone care to e-mail them to C|net with an explanation of the kind of traffic they'll recieve (though I'm sure they don't really need the explanation)
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
So, i kind of hope that we are in the small majority of Mac users that know/care about this info.
We need the uninformed to buy the stuff on the shelves.
(Me in CompUSA this weekend chiming in on a sales person/customer conversation.) "Yeah, that G4 imac is a great deal, but look at the expandability of this tower!"
MSKR
I want PowerMac sales to grind to ZERO by the end of this week. They don't deserve another single solitary powermac sale untill either the specs or the prices (or both) are dramatically improved, period.
It's that simple. I'd rather see Apple eat a few 10 thousand units worth of QS macs, and learn their lesson good and proper.
However, this channel clearing wait game fiasco IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN INTERNET FORUM/CHAT phenomena created in the minds of people who don't understand a damned thing a about the market. If they're not here now, it's cause they're not ready yet. The odds of clearing-out a powermac are not good and they get worse every day. The MARGINS on ALL POWERMACS are EXTREMELY HIGH. IF the replacement were ready, the old machines would get a serious markdown and get dumped to a few major institutional buyers around the world (still at a nice profit)
So get over it, there is no waiting game, geez!
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>In response to, "What can Apple Legal LEGITIMATELY do?" The Answer: NOTHING. They can threaten and posture because they're a huge company with lots of money, but they can't do a damned thing. They can crucify anyone with an NDA, but they can't actually touch the news outlet that carries the photos, regardless of how they were abtained. We know this because a while ago Ford Motor Co. tried to get an online magazine to quit publishing spy pics that it had obtained. The judge said no-dice. News-worthy item, if you don't want people to see it, don't let it get seen. Hence, heavily disguised test vehicles that are now the industry norm, even when deep in the confines of a company's own testing facility.
You see, if Motor-Trend runs some pre-production spy pics, nobody can touch them cause the law is on their side and they have the money to stand up to legal bullying. ANy Ziff-Davis outlet could run these shots and Apple wouldn't do sniff about it.
I'm sure most people here saved all the relevant pics. Anyone care to e-mail them to C|net with an explanation of the kind of traffic they'll recieve (though I'm sure they don't really need the explanation)</strong><hr></blockquote>I can think of a few pictures and documents that I could leak that would have judges lining up to overturn that pretty quickly. I can also think of more than a few cases of industrial espionage where had the details been leaked to press the press would have been shut down in a heartbeat.
Apple is the sort of company that would pursue such things against big press outlets, ISPs too. Add to that if they can prove they were acquired through illicit means it also becomes trading in stolen property.
The irony is if you are forced to fight such a case absolutely everybody gets their attention drawn t what you don't want to see. That's why it is usually best to settle such disputes outside of court.
Can't wait for MY letter from Apple Legal.
Link is HERE!
<a href="http://www.webforever.com/AI/"; target="_blank">Link for all the pictures etc.</a>
Apple might make an argument about the circuit board, but they can't touch the case.
Judges would probably look to the nature of the information. You cannot reveal sercets about how things are done, but you can say this is what's coming and here's a pic to prove it. The NDA holder gets nailed, but the news outlet gets a walk.
As a company, you have the right to not reveal your plans, but as I journalist I have a right to try to discover them and publish what I find for the benefit of news readers everywhere.
Apple might argue that it hurts their future sales, but I have an as legitimate argument that information helps my readers plan purchases. Apple has no more right to make money by holding secrets as you have to save money by knowing them. It's all very frivolous, but so long as I'm not revealing information that lets another company usurp a technological break-through and beat Apple to market (and even then in some cases that I can think of), I safe and so are you.
<strong>Technically it is theft anyway. They own the box and all images pertaining to it until such time as it becomes publicly released.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure that this is correct, I do not see how they can own the picture. Look at the number of car magazines that print spy shots of prototype cars. No car manuacturer would stand a chance in court of prosecuting a magazine that way.
I believe we have a free press.
<a href="http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~as221300"; target="_blank">http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~as221300</a>;
also, note that my new page design uses no tables. heh.
<strong>I believe we have a free press.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hihi!
Sorry Apple Legal, go to lunch, it's already out of your hands...
Why would Apple's new PowerMac enjoy any more protection than the DOD's plans to invade Iraq?
They don't. It's the company's job to keep secrets secret. It's media's job to report newsworthy items.
[quote] Geez, I'd buy a DDR 1.2 system. BUT, with
-FireWire 2
-AGP 8x ((ATi 9700=)
-Audio in hopefully, that was stupid getting rid of it.
-faster SuperDrive
-USB 2, though I can't see any use for it now.
-new keyboard/mouse would be icing on the cake. <hr></blockquote>
I'm with you, Aquatik. This system will be a mite bit faster than the current towers, and the possibility of the ATi 9700 will really make it glow. As to the heatsinks, anyone who follows the Sybaritic moniker knows that we sybarites can handle a little heat.
Bring it on, Apple.
----------------------------------
Waiting for the Heat in Nashvegas
<strong>So can I.
Apple might make an argument about the circuit board, but they can't touch the case.
Judges would probably look to the nature of the information. You cannot reveal sercets about how things are done, but you can say this is what's coming and here's a pic to prove it. The NDA holder gets nailed, but the news outlet gets a walk.
As a company, you have the right to not reveal your plans, but as I journalist I have a right to try to discover them and publish what I find for the benefit of news readers everywhere.
Apple might argue that it hurts their future sales, but I have an as legitimate argument that information helps my readers plan purchases. Apple has no more right to make money by holding secrets as you have to save money by knowing them. It's all very frivolous, but so long as I'm not revealing information that lets another company usurp a technological break-through and beat Apple to market (and even then in some cases that I can think of), I safe and so are you.</strong><hr></blockquote>If in the process of doing my job I came across some sensitive information, which by NDA I had been forbidden to disclose. To then take that information and break contract I'm stealing. That is the very basis of industrial espionage through implanting moles. Some people must see the product for it to be worked upon. If one of them takes designs, plans, or the product itself and hands it off to someone else that property is stolen.
To give it to a news outlet is borderline trading in stolen property. Once they are notified of its origins it becomes an issue of making a profit from dealing in stolen property (and worse).
The cases I'm thinking of are a little more senitive in nature and pursued very vigorously for that fact but the principles of each were the same. If Apple truly wanted to pursue it the case law is there to support them but it would also be largely a matter of them proving damages, which may not be worth enough to them. Try it on a large publication and it's a whole other matter.
As for the case of cars the body of most cars isn't overly advanced (sorry for all the technology they use in design they aren't advanced chassis at least externally).
Anybody familiar with Formula 1 will know many of the teams employ digital photographers to take shots of sensitive parts of other teams. In monaco this year the manufacturers didn't want to uncover their cars for show because they were fearful of intellectual property being stolen. The only reason nobody gets prosecuted in F1 is nobody gets caught.
Now if a magazine was stupid enough to publish shots handed to them outlining this is such and such's new design for this section of the car do you really want to believe they aren't going to be prosecuted?
The key there lies not in freedom of the press at all it lies in the ability to prove damages. A Formula 1 team can very easily say "This is critical to our operations" a road car company can't really do that. Tech simply isn't important enough and their sales don't slump so much at knowledge something is coming.
The press isn't immune in the least and it doesn't have complete freedom.
[quote]Some final details are filled in by AppleP58, author of the PDF:
- it is a slim power supply, originally identical to the XServe's with two fans 'attatched' to the end of it (as you may see in older photographs). The final product is 2 inches longer with the 2 fans built in (3 fans in power supply total)
- has a slide-on back cover which pulls off to access the IDE and power cables
- The Hard Drives: The two vertically mounted drives under the powersupply have a pop-off holder with a plastic hook; there is 1 screw which is there for the sole purpose of keeping it from falling out during shipping, as the instructions will attest to in the final product. The 2 horizontally mounted drives, under the optical drives, have a slide out
design with 3 mushrooms to catch on like a rail on top, it slides in and has a plastic latch. - The "mystery port" that was on early designs of the motherboard was a mini-VGA video port (like on the P80 iMac, iBook & PowerBook), and is not in the final product because it was only needed for testing the units sans-video card.
- Thermal grease will be used on the MPUs instead of black thermal pads.
- There will be single and dual processor MPUs used. It will use DDR.
- The new model P58 was not announced at MacWorld because of troubles with the XServe (P69) in production, the initial order of 4000 has been dificult to fulfill, and has taken up a lot of time of several departments traveling... I'll leave it at that.
Case:
- The metal area on the front panel is glossed aluminum, and as you can see in the photos has mylar covering it causing the haze, it is NOT brushed aluminum nor has it ever been.
- The case IS silver like the P57, has a white & silver speaker, and a hole handle with a larger ring in the side door.
This is the his/her last submission. <hr></blockquote>
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
<strong>Matsu is correct.
Why would Apple's new PowerMac enjoy any more protection than the DOD's plans to invade Iraq?
They don't. It's the company's job to keep secrets secret. It's media's job to report newsworthy items.</strong><hr></blockquote>Umm...the DoD's plans to invade Iraq were and are in no way sensitive. You would find they were leaked quite deliberately in fact.
Ever actually seen the US DoD go after anybody for stealing secrets? They don't pertain to the belief "it's their job to keep it secret". It is very much a case of "you just stole from us and we're going to hang you for it".
I would strongly suggest you get some knowledge of just how the DoD really works before you try and bring them up.
<strong>
I would strongly suggest you get some knowledge of just how the DoD really works before you try and bring them up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
are you referring to the part where they support usama, saddam, or ho chi minh ?
<strong>
I would strongly suggest you get some knowledge of just how the DoD really works before you try and bring them up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I actually work for them! You should have seen the crap I had to go through just to work here. Man they wanted to know what I ate for breakfast 7 years ago
<strong>The photos aren't fake, then. If Apple get them removed...that speaks for itself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
My guess is that these rumour sites have never been contacted by Apple, but have removed the pics on purpose.
This will make it seem as if the pics were actually real and a concern to Apple.