In the last few years they've done their own dirt by stealing Eminems song to sell iPods, taking Tibco's "Rendezvous" trademark and Systemax's "Tiger" trademark.
My gosh, that's pretty weak, please tell me your joking. haha?!?
I could give a sh*t one way or the other. IBM spills more on their own site than TS can "beg for anonymously". And as far as the balance between Apple/Rumor seekers, yeah right. When has that ever been balanced. Honestly, I do not spend one dime let alone much time digging up information, while Apple seems to be spending a great deal to cover up their wares. I wish they were as open hardware-wise and they seem to be doing software-wise. But what would a WWDC or MWSF be without Steve the Great, with his black mock-turtle waving his majik pointer at the HD screen unveiling the latest pixie-dust sprinkled goodness we all crave?
My gosh, that's pretty weak, please tell me your joking. haha?!?
How is it weak? You can share the same name with no conflict unless you are in the same general field. TigerDirect sells computer hardware and software. It is in fact a conflict of branding and Apple is wrong here. Don't be surprised if they lose. They lost the Tibco case...bonjour.
hmurchison, I'm not going to get into this, but I just want you to know I disagree with everything you just said.
Many people will disagree Onlooker but I'm not sure people fully understand who small but significant free speech really is. It doesn't always come out smelling like roses but that's the price Americans pay. It cuts both ways and Apple simply doesn't like the bleeding their sustaining.
I could give a sh*t one way or the other. IBM spills more on their own site than TS can "beg for anonymously". And as far as the balance between Apple/Rumor seekers, yeah right.
++
You can't say TS is the "best" when it is only because they are the only ones who are stealing their information. They simply have no journalistic integrity.
If Apple truely did steal the eminem song and the tiger name, then I guess the courts will make them pay. Don't hold your breath.
I do believe Journalists(yes I consider TS a journalistic site) have the right to expose any information they get provided they offer their sources no compensation of any value.
I totally agree, except that I don't believe journalists should have immunity to prosecution for criminal activities. It's like with the Novak case (well not really, since high treason is a different ball-game from spilling corporate secrets, but this is America), why should a journalist be able to witness and take part in a crime and still remain untouchable? If breaking an NDA is a crime, I don't see why it would be any less of a crime if a journalist is involved.
This all assumes that breaking an NDA is a crime and that any accomplices to the criminal act are subject prosecution.
I fully agree that Journalists should be limited in the ways they can collect information. If TS broke these rules then I believe they should be punished directly but I don't think they should have to reveal their sources.
Breaking NDA is breaking a contractual agreement. If Apple wants to sue TS under that fine however the problem with this case is that there should be no federal intervention here unless it's proven that TS has broken federal law in gathering information. I'm not keen on forcing anyone to divulge their sources. That's treading dangerously into "un American" ways and ethics.
I fully agree that Journalists should be limited in the ways they can collect information. If TS broke these rules then I believe they should be punished directly but I don't think they should have to reveal their sources.
Breaking NDA is breaking a contractual agreement. If Apple wants to sue TS under that fine however the problem with this case is that there should be no federal intervention here unless it's proven that TS has broken federal law in gathering information. I'm not keen on forcing anyone to divulge their sources. That's treading dangerously into "un American" ways and ethics.
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that. In which they could be accountable for something along similar lines of harboring, and possible an equivalent of trafficking such information. They (TS) were irresponsible, and they are trying to hide behind amendments that do not apply to these situations. If they are still arguing on amendments for journalistic reasons they are going to loose because they are fighting the wrong case.
They need to step up, and find a better lawyer. If Apple actually decided to go after them they are digging their own sh*t hole in the way they are handling this matter. They are giving themselves all the more rope to swing from.
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that. In which they could be accountable for something along similar lines of harboring, and possible an equivalent of trafficking such information. They (TS) were irresponsible, and they are trying to hide behind amendments that do not apply to these situations. If they are still arguing on amendments for journalistic reasons they are going to loose because they are fighting the wrong case.
They need to step up, and find a better lawyer. If Apple actually decided to go after them they are digging their own sh*t hole in the way they are handling this matter. They are giving themselves all the more rope to swing from.
This case should be a slam dunk for ThinkSecret. Journalists are allowed to dig up and publish information on anything they please, as long as they don't release false info. It must be so. There are companies out there that do some very shitty things. If you start making it illegal for journalists to print corporate "secrets" then you're headed down a slippery slope. The greater public good is at interest here. It's part of the reason why the 1st Ammendment exists. So governments and companies can't keep vital things secret.
Now you may say, "Well then let's limit disclosure to only things vital to the public interest." But where do you draw the line. It's too difficult.
This is why NDAs exist. It's the proper mechanism for dealing with these situations. If Apple's NDAs aren't working, then perhaps they need to toughen them up a bit...scare people a bit more.
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that
Horrible analogy. Trade Secrets aren't a tangible products. However I don't think Journalists should be able to break the law to obtain their information. So I'm halfway agreeing with the Judge. From what the Judge is saying anything overheard by someone is tantamount to stealing if the loudmouth person divulges sensitive info.
NDA's are contractual obligations that are and should be relatively meaningless to our Gov. For instance many companies try to make you sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of hire. These can easily be broken because the right to obtain gainful employment usurps the right for a company to feel safe about their IP.
I'll have to read up about the case and see where Apple's beef is. Was there impropriety in TS' methods for gathering the information.
I'm not trying to be a prick but Americas freedoms vastly more important than the needs of Apple or any other company. We take them for granted but it's what gives us a diverse amount of discussion and opionion.
. . . If Apple truely did steal the eminem song and the tiger name, then I guess the courts will make them pay. . .
It bugs me that a company is claiming rights to the name tiger, which is a common word and the name of an animal. Maybe the word could be copyrighted if it is applied to one specific item, like an operating system for a computer. This should not prevent Tiger from being the name of an automobile, for example, just as a Jaguar car did not prevent having a Jaguar OS.
This case should be a slam dunk for ThinkSecret. Journalists are allowed to dig up and publish information on anything they please, as long as they don't release false info. It must be so. There are companies out there that do some very shitty things. If you start making it illegal for journalists to print corporate "secrets" then you're headed down a slippery slope. The greater public good is at interest here. It's part of the reason why the 1st Ammendment exists. So governments and companies can't keep vital things secret.
Now you may say, "Well then let's limit disclosure to only things vital to the public interest." But where do you draw the line. It's too difficult.
This is why NDAs exist. It's the proper mechanism for dealing with these situations. If Apple's NDAs aren't working, then perhaps they need to toughen them up a bit...scare people a bit more.
Buuuulll shit!
The First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
No where in there does this give reporters the right to traffic in stolen information publicly no matter how you look at it. This has been ruled on many times in the past, and will remain illegal. If you can't figure out why on your own then you need to re-learn to think.
No where in there does this give reporters the right to traffic in stolen information publicly
and nowhere does it "prohibit" that right. In fact they specifically mention "Press" as being protected.
Next I want to know if it's clear about how Nick gets his information. If he didn't break any laws in the gathering of his information then he's clear and free. The Government doesn't protect you, I or Apple's privacy in all matters.
I think the real reason journalists (and in this case website authors) get into trouble is because of the damage they bring upon tax-paying companies. Imagine you were Apple (or a stockholder, or Steve Jobs for that matter). What good can come of leaking insider information submitted by an anonymous contribution form? Really all Apple wants to do is discover the source and stop the leak. Sure, it is not in TS best interests to lose a source, but let's face it, the source is breaking the NDA and Apple has every right to discover who is breaking it. TS should be able to continue "business" as usual, but should they actually break a law, they should be brought down.
It really doesn't seem that difficult to judge on this matter. Give Apple the info you have, because that info is now subject in legal prosecution, and be done with it. Nick isn't breaking any laws, but is not in fear of losing anything but a source who divulged insider info.
OK?
It's not like Apple is asking for TS to shut down, they just want the source, which they have every right to, seeing as they broke the NDA. I realize journalistic integrity but that is why Nick will be liable if he doesn't divulge. It is a clear cut matter. Why all the big to do?
The big to do is the fact that Nick releasing his sources
1. Abridges his right to free speech which trumps Apple's desire to stop their leaks.
2. Sets a precedent that companies can sue anyone if any information they deem "sensitive" gets out without their control.
I feel for Apple I really do but there's a reason why "Free Speech" is the 1st amendment. The Founding Forefathers quickly realized that open discourse is vital even if not all parties are keen on what's being spoken or written.
Personally I abhor all the litigation that goes on but evermore we see an increasingly liberal interpretation of the constitution that fuels these arguements.
My simple thought is "Apple plug your own leak and this ceases to be a problem"
If you can't figure out why on your own then you need to re-learn to think.
I've "thought" about all sides of this issue. Obviously, others have too.
Lots of reporters get so called "proprietary" information from corporations. If they didn't, they we wouldn't know that tobacco companies purposefully raised the nicotine content of their products in order to increase the addiction of their customers, or that chemical companies knowingly and willfully dumped chemicals into the ground and/or our water supplies, or that Boeing hired a former Lockheed employee with the understanding that he would bring bid documents over from his old company, and the list goes on. If it weren't for the press's ability to get their hands on these documents, lots of things would never be discovered.
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Once again, an NDA is a contractual agreement between a company and its employees or suppliers. Naturally, the press does not fall under NDAs since it never is a party to the contracts. Thus, the press has no legal requirement to withhold this information.
I've "thought" about all sides of this issue. Obviously, others have too.
Lots of reporters get so called "proprietary" information from corporations. If they didn't, they we wouldn't know that tobacco companies purposefully raised the nicotine content of their products in order to increase the addiction of their customers, or that chemical companies knowingly and willfully dumped chemicals into the ground and/or our water supplies, or that Boeing hired a former Lockheed employee with the understanding that he would bring bid documents over from his old company, and the list goes on. If it weren't for the press's ability to get their hands on these documents, lots of things would never be discovered.
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Once again, an NDA is a contractual agreement between a company and its employees or suppliers. Naturally, the press does not fall under NDAs since it never is a party to the contracts. Thus, the press has no legal requirement to withhold this information.
Yet when DOW pumps chemical waste into the ground, knowingly contaminating groundwater and creating "flipper babies" in a 100 mile radius, a law has been broken, and (hopefully) a journalist reports this news. That's the key difference here - reporting on lawbreaking or at the very least unethical behavior, versus reporting on trade secrets. Sometimes a trade secret is also unethical, as you're example of tobacco companies illustrates, but the Think Secret case isn't grey at all. Plume reported on Apple trade secrets, but he willfully refuses to report on the illegal activities that took place. As a witness to people breaking NDA's, shouldn't Plume have an obligation to report or at least share his knowledge of this illegal activity with authorities? Or should we grant immunity to journalists for criminal activities as long as they get a "story" out of it? Is it permissible for a journalist to consort with mobsters and witness extortion, larceny, even murder, and yet have no obligation to testify to these brutalities? Should we let a journalist participate in the treasonous outing of CIA operatives for political gain, and let such a journalist roam free while protecting the identity of traitors?
I see no reason why a journalist shouldn't be legally compelled to testify to any criminal activity he witnesses, as any other citizen would be required to do. If we grant this privilege to journalists, what is to prevent me from publishing a web site of local news and opinion on Friday, going carjacking with my buddies on Saturday, and then refusing to testify against my friends on Monday by calling myself a journalist and fingering them as my "sources"? Or to make a more relevant example, what is to prevent anyone with an NDA from having a friend publish a website consisting of detailed trade secrets covered by the NDA, and then remaining anonymous as his friend tells lawyers and officers that he "must protect the sanctity of his source" so that further NDA-pertaining information can be disseminated?
Plume reported on Apple trade secrets, but he willfully refuses to report on the illegal activities that took place. As a witness to people breaking NDA's, shouldn't Plume have an obligation to report or at least share his knowledge of this illegal activity with authorities?
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
In the last few years they've done their own dirt by stealing Eminems song to sell iPods, taking Tibco's "Rendezvous" trademark and Systemax's "Tiger" trademark.
My gosh, that's pretty weak, please tell me your joking. haha?!?
Originally posted by the cool gut
My gosh, that's pretty weak, please tell me your joking. haha?!?
How is it weak? You can share the same name with no conflict unless you are in the same general field. TigerDirect sells computer hardware and software. It is in fact a conflict of branding and Apple is wrong here. Don't be surprised if they lose. They lost the Tibco case...bonjour.
Originally posted by onlooker
hmurchison, I'm not going to get into this, but I just want you to know I disagree with everything you just said.
Many people will disagree Onlooker but I'm not sure people fully understand who small but significant free speech really is. It doesn't always come out smelling like roses but that's the price Americans pay. It cuts both ways and Apple simply doesn't like the bleeding their sustaining.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I could give a sh*t one way or the other. IBM spills more on their own site than TS can "beg for anonymously". And as far as the balance between Apple/Rumor seekers, yeah right.
++
You can't say TS is the "best" when it is only because they are the only ones who are stealing their information. They simply have no journalistic integrity.
If Apple truely did steal the eminem song and the tiger name, then I guess the courts will make them pay. Don't hold your breath.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I do believe Journalists(yes I consider TS a journalistic site) have the right to expose any information they get provided they offer their sources no compensation of any value.
I totally agree, except that I don't believe journalists should have immunity to prosecution for criminal activities. It's like with the Novak case (well not really, since high treason is a different ball-game from spilling corporate secrets, but this is America), why should a journalist be able to witness and take part in a crime and still remain untouchable? If breaking an NDA is a crime, I don't see why it would be any less of a crime if a journalist is involved.
This all assumes that breaking an NDA is a crime and that any accomplices to the criminal act are subject prosecution.
Breaking NDA is breaking a contractual agreement. If Apple wants to sue TS under that fine however the problem with this case is that there should be no federal intervention here unless it's proven that TS has broken federal law in gathering information. I'm not keen on forcing anyone to divulge their sources. That's treading dangerously into "un American" ways and ethics.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I fully agree that Journalists should be limited in the ways they can collect information. If TS broke these rules then I believe they should be punished directly but I don't think they should have to reveal their sources.
Breaking NDA is breaking a contractual agreement. If Apple wants to sue TS under that fine however the problem with this case is that there should be no federal intervention here unless it's proven that TS has broken federal law in gathering information. I'm not keen on forcing anyone to divulge their sources. That's treading dangerously into "un American" ways and ethics.
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that. In which they could be accountable for something along similar lines of harboring, and possible an equivalent of trafficking such information. They (TS) were irresponsible, and they are trying to hide behind amendments that do not apply to these situations. If they are still arguing on amendments for journalistic reasons they are going to loose because they are fighting the wrong case.
They need to step up, and find a better lawyer. If Apple actually decided to go after them they are digging their own sh*t hole in the way they are handling this matter. They are giving themselves all the more rope to swing from.
Originally posted by onlooker
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that. In which they could be accountable for something along similar lines of harboring, and possible an equivalent of trafficking such information. They (TS) were irresponsible, and they are trying to hide behind amendments that do not apply to these situations. If they are still arguing on amendments for journalistic reasons they are going to loose because they are fighting the wrong case.
They need to step up, and find a better lawyer. If Apple actually decided to go after them they are digging their own sh*t hole in the way they are handling this matter. They are giving themselves all the more rope to swing from.
This case should be a slam dunk for ThinkSecret. Journalists are allowed to dig up and publish information on anything they please, as long as they don't release false info. It must be so. There are companies out there that do some very shitty things. If you start making it illegal for journalists to print corporate "secrets" then you're headed down a slippery slope. The greater public good is at interest here. It's part of the reason why the 1st Ammendment exists. So governments and companies can't keep vital things secret.
Now you may say, "Well then let's limit disclosure to only things vital to the public interest." But where do you draw the line. It's too difficult.
This is why NDAs exist. It's the proper mechanism for dealing with these situations. If Apple's NDAs aren't working, then perhaps they need to toughen them up a bit...scare people a bit more.
Your fighting the wrong points. The judge said something like it was the equivalent of receiving stolen goods, and I agree with that
Horrible analogy. Trade Secrets aren't a tangible products. However I don't think Journalists should be able to break the law to obtain their information. So I'm halfway agreeing with the Judge. From what the Judge is saying anything overheard by someone is tantamount to stealing if the loudmouth person divulges sensitive info.
NDA's are contractual obligations that are and should be relatively meaningless to our Gov. For instance many companies try to make you sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of hire. These can easily be broken because the right to obtain gainful employment usurps the right for a company to feel safe about their IP.
I'll have to read up about the case and see where Apple's beef is. Was there impropriety in TS' methods for gathering the information.
I'm not trying to be a prick but Americas freedoms vastly more important than the needs of Apple or any other company. We take them for granted but it's what gives us a diverse amount of discussion and opionion.
Originally posted by the cool gut
. . . If Apple truely did steal the eminem song and the tiger name, then I guess the courts will make them pay. . .
It bugs me that a company is claiming rights to the name tiger, which is a common word and the name of an animal. Maybe the word could be copyrighted if it is applied to one specific item, like an operating system for a computer. This should not prevent Tiger from being the name of an automobile, for example, just as a Jaguar car did not prevent having a Jaguar OS.
Originally posted by Arty50
This case should be a slam dunk for ThinkSecret. Journalists are allowed to dig up and publish information on anything they please, as long as they don't release false info. It must be so. There are companies out there that do some very shitty things. If you start making it illegal for journalists to print corporate "secrets" then you're headed down a slippery slope. The greater public good is at interest here. It's part of the reason why the 1st Ammendment exists. So governments and companies can't keep vital things secret.
Now you may say, "Well then let's limit disclosure to only things vital to the public interest." But where do you draw the line. It's too difficult.
This is why NDAs exist. It's the proper mechanism for dealing with these situations. If Apple's NDAs aren't working, then perhaps they need to toughen them up a bit...scare people a bit more.
Buuuulll shit!
The First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
No where in there does this give reporters the right to traffic in stolen information publicly no matter how you look at it. This has been ruled on many times in the past, and will remain illegal. If you can't figure out why on your own then you need to re-learn to think.
No where in there does this give reporters the right to traffic in stolen information publicly
and nowhere does it "prohibit" that right. In fact they specifically mention "Press" as being protected.
Next I want to know if it's clear about how Nick gets his information. If he didn't break any laws in the gathering of his information then he's clear and free. The Government doesn't protect you, I or Apple's privacy in all matters.
It really doesn't seem that difficult to judge on this matter. Give Apple the info you have, because that info is now subject in legal prosecution, and be done with it. Nick isn't breaking any laws, but is not in fear of losing anything but a source who divulged insider info.
OK?
It's not like Apple is asking for TS to shut down, they just want the source, which they have every right to, seeing as they broke the NDA. I realize journalistic integrity but that is why Nick will be liable if he doesn't divulge. It is a clear cut matter. Why all the big to do?
1. Abridges his right to free speech which trumps Apple's desire to stop their leaks.
2. Sets a precedent that companies can sue anyone if any information they deem "sensitive" gets out without their control.
I feel for Apple I really do but there's a reason why "Free Speech" is the 1st amendment. The Founding Forefathers quickly realized that open discourse is vital even if not all parties are keen on what's being spoken or written.
Personally I abhor all the litigation that goes on but evermore we see an increasingly liberal interpretation of the constitution that fuels these arguements.
My simple thought is "Apple plug your own leak and this ceases to be a problem"
Originally posted by onlooker
If you can't figure out why on your own then you need to re-learn to think.
I've "thought" about all sides of this issue. Obviously, others have too.
Lots of reporters get so called "proprietary" information from corporations. If they didn't, they we wouldn't know that tobacco companies purposefully raised the nicotine content of their products in order to increase the addiction of their customers, or that chemical companies knowingly and willfully dumped chemicals into the ground and/or our water supplies, or that Boeing hired a former Lockheed employee with the understanding that he would bring bid documents over from his old company, and the list goes on. If it weren't for the press's ability to get their hands on these documents, lots of things would never be discovered.
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Once again, an NDA is a contractual agreement between a company and its employees or suppliers. Naturally, the press does not fall under NDAs since it never is a party to the contracts. Thus, the press has no legal requirement to withhold this information.
Originally posted by Arty50
I've "thought" about all sides of this issue. Obviously, others have too.
Lots of reporters get so called "proprietary" information from corporations. If they didn't, they we wouldn't know that tobacco companies purposefully raised the nicotine content of their products in order to increase the addiction of their customers, or that chemical companies knowingly and willfully dumped chemicals into the ground and/or our water supplies, or that Boeing hired a former Lockheed employee with the understanding that he would bring bid documents over from his old company, and the list goes on. If it weren't for the press's ability to get their hands on these documents, lots of things would never be discovered.
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Once again, an NDA is a contractual agreement between a company and its employees or suppliers. Naturally, the press does not fall under NDAs since it never is a party to the contracts. Thus, the press has no legal requirement to withhold this information.
Yet when DOW pumps chemical waste into the ground, knowingly contaminating groundwater and creating "flipper babies" in a 100 mile radius, a law has been broken, and (hopefully) a journalist reports this news. That's the key difference here - reporting on lawbreaking or at the very least unethical behavior, versus reporting on trade secrets. Sometimes a trade secret is also unethical, as you're example of tobacco companies illustrates, but the Think Secret case isn't grey at all. Plume reported on Apple trade secrets, but he willfully refuses to report on the illegal activities that took place. As a witness to people breaking NDA's, shouldn't Plume have an obligation to report or at least share his knowledge of this illegal activity with authorities? Or should we grant immunity to journalists for criminal activities as long as they get a "story" out of it? Is it permissible for a journalist to consort with mobsters and witness extortion, larceny, even murder, and yet have no obligation to testify to these brutalities? Should we let a journalist participate in the treasonous outing of CIA operatives for political gain, and let such a journalist roam free while protecting the identity of traitors?
I see no reason why a journalist shouldn't be legally compelled to testify to any criminal activity he witnesses, as any other citizen would be required to do. If we grant this privilege to journalists, what is to prevent me from publishing a web site of local news and opinion on Friday, going carjacking with my buddies on Saturday, and then refusing to testify against my friends on Monday by calling myself a journalist and fingering them as my "sources"? Or to make a more relevant example, what is to prevent anyone with an NDA from having a friend publish a website consisting of detailed trade secrets covered by the NDA, and then remaining anonymous as his friend tells lawyers and officers that he "must protect the sanctity of his source" so that further NDA-pertaining information can be disseminated?
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Plume reported on Apple trade secrets, but he willfully refuses to report on the illegal activities that took place. As a witness to people breaking NDA's, shouldn't Plume have an obligation to report or at least share his knowledge of this illegal activity with authorities?
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Originally posted by hmurchison
My simple thought is "Apple plug your own leak and this ceases to be a problem"
That's what Apple is doing.
Who do you really have a problem with? Apple or the Court?