The think secret lawsuit alone is why I've boycotted Apple until 2006.
They want to know who feeds the rumor sites with confidential info. If that constitutes a boycott, you obviously have little interaction with corporate America
Google's latest experiment had disappeared by mid-afternoon, Wednesday. Neither Apple nor Google offered any comment why the page had been pulled. Ohazama had described it as "a fun late-night coding jaunt to help me learn Javascript and DHTML."
You quoting out of context, and ommiting things that are more relevant. I think your the only one I'm aware of who doesn't think Apple has anything to do with this.
Wait a minute... how come the reverse is true for you? How come it's OK for Apple to sue some guy and not OK for Google to fire one of its employees?
Because, Apple's position all along has been clear, and they have sent warnings for years. Google should have had a policy about keeping blogs. Your comments surprise me though, looks like you don't believe in free speech after all.
They want to know who feeds the rumor sites with confidential info. If that constitutes a boycott, you obviously have little interaction with corporate America
I'm saying I can't support a company that does this. I don't care if they don't care. I can't morally do that.
I haven't set up some stupid page or picketted or anything, I'll just.. not buy from them.
I don't give any money to google either, for the record.
Google should have had a policy about keeping blogs. Your comments surprise me though, looks like you don't believe in free speech after all.
Hah, I do, as far as the government's concerned.
This is what people, like you apparently, don't get: Free speech is saying anything you want without LEGAL reprecussions or reaction from the government. But if you use that to piss someone off, they have the right to not deal with you anymore.
To put it in your terms, since you LOVE Apple, this is like [HYPOTHETICALLY] Hitachi announcing their 1.8" 60gig HD early, and Apple saying "OK you just gave away our new product, we're not going to do business with you for a while."
Would Apple be quashing free speech in that case? No, hitachi has the right to say anything they want. However, Apple has the right to stop doing business with them if they do something Apple doesn't like.
Apple, in this case, was in a position to react because they were paying for goods or services from hitachi. This is JUST like Google paying an employee for services. The employee did something his employer didn't like, and the employer ceased to do business with him.
Done deal. You can't go around saying you're in NAMBLA and then complain about "free speech" when people stop inviting you to their kids' birthday parties. You exercise your rights, and they'll exercise theirs.
In the think secret case, however, Apple isn't just "firing" someone, they're literally suing think secret for saying something that they didn't want said. That, to me, is a deal breaker between me and Apple.
Or would you have me forced to keep buying from Apple, as you apparently want to force google to keep paying that guy to work for them?
In the think secret case, however, Apple isn't just "firing" someone, they're literally suing think secret for saying something that they didn't want said. That, to me, is a deal breaker between me and Apple.
I think that Apple's contention is that Think Secret induced persons who had signed NDAs with Apple to break those NDAs, thereby interfering with the contract between the two parties. There is obviously a wide range of possible culpability there. Just asking people to anonymously mail him info is one thing. Offering money for confidential information, as some have speculated De Plume/Ciarelli did, is quite another.
I think that Apple's contention is that Think Secret induced persons who had signed NDAs with Apple to break those NDAs
That was just one of the counts. Usually, when people/corporations sue other people/corporations, the lawyers pile on 3 or 4 bogus charges so the judge or jury can pick one. It's actually quite messed up: you have to defend on 4 or 5 fronts just to get away with your ass.
Comments
Originally posted by slughead
The think secret lawsuit alone is why I've boycotted Apple until 2006.
They want to know who feeds the rumor sites with confidential info. If that constitutes a boycott, you obviously have little interaction with corporate America
Personal attacks including name-calling will, as always, be deleted.
From YOUR link:
Google's latest experiment had disappeared by mid-afternoon, Wednesday. Neither Apple nor Google offered any comment why the page had been pulled. Ohazama had described it as "a fun late-night coding jaunt to help me learn Javascript and DHTML."
You quoting out of context, and ommiting things that are more relevant. I think your the only one I'm aware of who doesn't think Apple has anything to do with this.
Wait a minute... how come the reverse is true for you? How come it's OK for Apple to sue some guy and not OK for Google to fire one of its employees?
Because, Apple's position all along has been clear, and they have sent warnings for years. Google should have had a policy about keeping blogs. Your comments surprise me though, looks like you don't believe in free speech after all.
Originally posted by Sopphode
They want to know who feeds the rumor sites with confidential info. If that constitutes a boycott, you obviously have little interaction with corporate America
I'm saying I can't support a company that does this. I don't care if they don't care. I can't morally do that.
I haven't set up some stupid page or picketted or anything, I'll just.. not buy from them.
I don't give any money to google either, for the record.
Google should have had a policy about keeping blogs. Your comments surprise me though, looks like you don't believe in free speech after all.
Hah, I do, as far as the government's concerned.
This is what people, like you apparently, don't get: Free speech is saying anything you want without LEGAL reprecussions or reaction from the government. But if you use that to piss someone off, they have the right to not deal with you anymore.
To put it in your terms, since you LOVE Apple, this is like [HYPOTHETICALLY] Hitachi announcing their 1.8" 60gig HD early, and Apple saying "OK you just gave away our new product, we're not going to do business with you for a while."
Would Apple be quashing free speech in that case? No, hitachi has the right to say anything they want. However, Apple has the right to stop doing business with them if they do something Apple doesn't like.
Apple, in this case, was in a position to react because they were paying for goods or services from hitachi. This is JUST like Google paying an employee for services. The employee did something his employer didn't like, and the employer ceased to do business with him.
Done deal. You can't go around saying you're in NAMBLA and then complain about "free speech" when people stop inviting you to their kids' birthday parties. You exercise your rights, and they'll exercise theirs.
In the think secret case, however, Apple isn't just "firing" someone, they're literally suing think secret for saying something that they didn't want said. That, to me, is a deal breaker between me and Apple.
Or would you have me forced to keep buying from Apple, as you apparently want to force google to keep paying that guy to work for them?
Originally posted by slughead
In the think secret case, however, Apple isn't just "firing" someone, they're literally suing think secret for saying something that they didn't want said. That, to me, is a deal breaker between me and Apple.
I think that Apple's contention is that Think Secret induced persons who had signed NDAs with Apple to break those NDAs, thereby interfering with the contract between the two parties. There is obviously a wide range of possible culpability there. Just asking people to anonymously mail him info is one thing. Offering money for confidential information, as some have speculated De Plume/Ciarelli did, is quite another.
Originally posted by dylanw23
I think that Apple's contention is that Think Secret induced persons who had signed NDAs with Apple to break those NDAs
That was just one of the counts. Usually, when people/corporations sue other people/corporations, the lawyers pile on 3 or 4 bogus charges so the judge or jury can pick one. It's actually quite messed up: you have to defend on 4 or 5 fronts just to get away with your ass.