"Removed at Request of Apple"
Your thoughts on whether or not Apple has any real power to stop rumor sites?
Honestly, I don't think they do. They've done a good job running around scaring the shit out of all the small sites. But really! When Apple leaks the specs themselves, I don't see how they can demand those specs be removed. It becomes public domain, I would think.
As far as other rumors and images being posted, what grounds is Apple using in asking them to remove the material? It's not as if these sites conduct their own industrial espionage. They are sent things and post them. Apple would have a hard time getting injunctions against this stuff, don't you think? Apple's heavy-handed tactics are getting to me. Rumor sites have NOTHING nowadays. I attribute this to them choosing not to spend money fighting Apple.
Honestly, I don't think they do. They've done a good job running around scaring the shit out of all the small sites. But really! When Apple leaks the specs themselves, I don't see how they can demand those specs be removed. It becomes public domain, I would think.
As far as other rumors and images being posted, what grounds is Apple using in asking them to remove the material? It's not as if these sites conduct their own industrial espionage. They are sent things and post them. Apple would have a hard time getting injunctions against this stuff, don't you think? Apple's heavy-handed tactics are getting to me. Rumor sites have NOTHING nowadays. I attribute this to them choosing not to spend money fighting Apple.
Comments
You could probably fight them, but it isn't really worth it. These are corporate secrets being published, and legally speaking, I think the fact that Worker Bee[ was prosecuted shows that it is wrong and can and will be punished to the full extent of the law.
This is an age old debate though
When a site publishes a photograph that is an actual unreleased product, then Apple has a right to send out a cease and desist notice. Photos of Panther screen shots are also not authorized until Apple unveils them publicly. In such instances the info or image was stolen or a violation of an NDA.
How often has Apple REALLY asked for items to be removed, and how often do rumor sites just want to pad their hits by SAYING that?
Originally posted by AirSluf
As for picture leaks of unreleased products, once it is leaked it is no longer a secret in the eyes of the courts and has been affirmed this way several times. If the leak source illegally created the leak the source can be held liable and even criminally so, but reports on that leak are generally just that--reports--not new leaks. There are ways to get in trouble if money changes hands, because then the reporter may have had a hand in creating the leak. Merely re-reporting what has been publicly available--for even a split second--is just that a report on publicly available information. Because it was publicly available it isn't a secret anymore and has almost always lost trade secret status in previous cases.
Which is exactly why Apple guards their stuff so jealously.
money
how much money do you, as an individual or a rumor site based on advertising, have to devote to hiring lawyers and court time, regardless of how "in the right" you are?
my bet is, it's probably pretty low compared to apple. so apple can say "we'll have you tied up in court costs until you're back in diapers," and what are you gonna do? hire johnny cochrane? good luck.
Originally posted by rok
here's the thing (and it's really the same thing that keeps microsoft in power, even against the u.s.a.):
money
how much money do you, as an individual or a rumor site based on advertising, have to devote to hiring lawyers and court time, regardless of how "in the right" you are?
my bet is, it's probably pretty low compared to apple. so apple can say "we'll have you tied up in court costs until you're back in diapers," and what are you gonna do? hire johnny cochrane? good luck.
That's exactly my point. Those who posted above on copyright and trade secrets are missing the point. If Apple leaks the specs, they can't force anyone not to report the specs. It becomes public domain. If another party is sent info from someone else, I don't see how there is much Apple can do to the site itself. They, of course, can go after the orginal leak. That's different.
Rumor sites can publish pretty much what they like. This really is a case of freedom of speech. I can post a rumor right now about General Motors coming out with "XYZ" next week, and there is nothing they can do about it. If someone sends me a pic of said product and I post that...there is STILL nothing GM can do about it. The only thng they can do is go after the person who sent and/or took the picture.
In any case, it's become chic to slap a trustworthy "Removed per request of Apple Legal" disclaimer on the site, shortly after posting something. It almost gives it legitimacy nowadays.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Rumor sites can publish pretty much what they like. This really is a case of freedom of speech.
I think things get a little trickier when it comes to something that was obtained in any way illegally or in violation of an NDA.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think things get a little trickier when it comes to something that was obtained in any way illegally or in violation of an NDA.
That depends. The rumor sites don't sign NDA's. They are not employees or affiliates. I don't see how thye can be held responsible if they weren't the ones actually "obtaining" the info.
maybe they wouldn't be--we'll never know how it would all go down until someone refuses to pull something and goes a couple rounds with Apple. They are certainly within their grounds to *request* anything they like.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That depends. The rumor sites don't sign NDA's. They are not employees or affiliates. I don't see how thye can be held responsible if they weren't the ones actually "obtaining" the info.
Not a lawyer myself. Don't know. However, I can safely assume that if they (somehow) KNEW the information obtain was obtained illegally or in violation of an NDA, they are potentially liable as well. Not sure though. I'm sure there is case law that goes both ways on this issue. As usual, it will be dependent on the specific facts of each case. So probably impossible to make too many generalizations.