As I understand it, the whole 'trade secrets' issue boils down to Apple wanting the names of the sources. And the website owners say that they are 'confidential sources'. But because they broke the trade secrets laws to distribute the information, the receivers can be held liable. (The trade secrets laws vary from state to state on how to deal with the receiver). This issue has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with how the information was obtained.
But on the 'I should be able to publish anything' topic... To use a straw man to illustrate a point, what if I found out the address of one of those battered women's shelters? Or even the address of someone under witness protection for testifying against the mob? If I publish these addresses and someone uses them to find and kill the person/people, I would think that I would be held liable.
Think of it this way, do you think that a journalist that entices a person to break into Apple, and steal pictures of the latest PowerBook model has the right to publish those photos? Shouldn't that journalist be somewhat responsible for enticing the person to break into Apple? Or are we going to use the KKK argument of "I told my followers to kill blacks, but I didn't believe they would do it, so I'm not responsible?"
Personally, I don't think that knowledge of a product and/or crappy pictures of it are really 'trade secrets'. But the law is the law. I could probably find some good examples where my opinion on 'trade secrets' is wrong if I put in the time to think about it.
As I understand it, the whole 'trade secrets' issue boils down to Apple wanting the names of the sources. And the website owners say that they are 'confidential sources'. But because they broke the trade secrets laws to distribute the information, the receivers can be held liable. (The trade secrets laws vary from state to state on how to deal with the receiver). This issue has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with how the information was obtained.
But on the 'I should be able to publish anything' topic... To use a straw man to illustrate a point, what if I found out the address of one of those battered women's shelters? Or even the address of someone under witness protection for testifying against the mob? If I publish these addresses and someone uses them to find and kill the person/people, I would think that I would be held liable.
Think of it this way, do you think that a journalist that entices a person to break into Apple, and steal pictures of the latest PowerBook model has the right to publish those photos? Shouldn't that journalist be somewhat responsible for enticing the person to break into Apple? Or are we going to use the KKK argument of "I told my followers to kill blacks, but I didn't believe they would do it, so I'm not responsible?"
Personally, I don't think that knowledge of a product and/or crappy pictures of it are really 'trade secrets'. But the law is the law. I could probably find some good examples where my opinion on 'trade secrets' is wrong if I put in the time to think about it.
It is ILLEGAL for a journalist to "corrupt" someone to provide confidential information, if that information is not of illegal activities.
The "Whistle Blower Law" is *supposed* to protect someone who releases information about illegal activities.
But if the information released is proprietary, then it's release is NOT sanctioned by law.
Our opinion of what is or is not confidential is not relevant.
It is ILLEGAL for a journalist to "corrupt" someone to provide confidential information, if that information is not of illegal activities.
Yes. That's what I said.
Quote:
The "Whistle Blower Law" is *supposed* to protect someone who releases information about illegal activities.
I'm not sure how this applies to my post though... None of my examples are even close to talking about Whistle Blower Law... I mean, that is pretty clear cut. You would be hard-pressed to find any justification for this under Whistler Blower Law... And shouldn't 'illegal' be the word with emphasis? Or are you implying that the "Whistler Blower Law" doesn't do what it's supposed to? (b/c that's how I interpret that emphasis on 'supposed')
Quote:
But if the information released is proprietary, then it's release is NOT sanctioned by law.
Unless the proprietary information is part of the illegal actions being exposed. (i.e. plans for a death ray or something)
Quote:
Our opinion of what is or is not confidential is not relevant.
I tried to convey this with 'the law is the law'. I personally don't think that those types of things should be classified under trade secrets, but if I want to change stuff like that I should lobby Congress, not break the law. And even if the law changes, in this case, they are still held responsible because the law was different when the crimes were committed.
There's a difference between the two - there is fee speech but there isn't a right to break confidentiality contracts. Yes this may seem contradictory but all companies have secrets - so does the government and they (not necessarily in America) support free speech.
I'm not sure how this applies to my post though... None of my examples are even close to talking about Whistle Blower Law... I mean, that is pretty clear cut. You would be hard-pressed to find any justification for this under Whistler Blower Law... And shouldn't 'illegal' be the word with emphasis? Or are you implying that the "Whistler Blower Law" doesn't do what it's supposed to? (b/c that's how I interpret that emphasis on 'supposed')
Unless the proprietary information is part of the illegal actions being exposed. (i.e. plans for a death ray or something)
I tried to convey this with 'the law is the law'. I personally don't think that those types of things should be classified under trade secrets, but if I want to change stuff like that I should lobby Congress, not break the law. And even if the law changes, in this case, they are still held responsible because the law was different when the crimes were committed.
Just because I used your post to respond to doesn't mean that I was disagreeing with everything you said.
I was emphasizing some of your points.
Mentioning the "Whistle Blowers Law" was meant to distinguish between legal and illegal activities regarding the releasing of confidential information, simply to show that there IS a time when it is considered to be legal. Not for your benefit, but for those others who have been bringing up the point that is is legal.
And yes, I was implying that it doesn't always work. There is a case just brought, from someone who states that they were fired for just that reason.
I thought that I had made it clear that by mentioning the WBL above, I had made it clear that there were times when proprietary info could be released.
Relevance was something that you didn't seem to be too certain about. I was strengthening the concept of it's lack of importance.
What people forget about the system of law is that it isn't going to satisfy everyone at all times. Sometimes justice takes a turn that some are not happy about.
My mother-in-law, who is an attorney, told me a story many years ago.
A client came to her and said:
"Madam, I only want justice."
She forbore to tell him that justice meant that he should lose the case.
When I was 25 years old,I was a young, untrained reporter at MacWeek, a new Macintosh trade publication. I cultivated as many sources inside the industry as I could, trying to get scoops about what Apple might be doing next. My readers were volume buyers at corporations who were eager to know what was next, so they could plan their purchasing.
Through a source, I got my hands on an early prototype of a new machine, called the Mac IIci, which was Apple's major play in corporate America. I took it apart, had some engineers stare at it for a while, and wrote up a cover story, including a photograph of the motherboard. I was told later that corporate sales at Apple tanked for a while, as folks waited for the hot new machine.
So, why didn't they sue me? One reason: Jobs wasn't running the company then. Jobs would claim that I was working at a "real publication" - it was owned by Ziff Davis at the time - but I have to say, most bloggers today are far more qualified to run a story like the Mac IIci scoop than I was back then.
Companies don't HAVE to sue. As you say, different management, different rules. Very likely, permission to show that was already given at higher levels.
I know that when Scully was there, my friends in engineering were able to talk to me about new unreleased projects without a problem. I recieved numerous builds of the parts of Copeland that were working.
But a business reserves the right to keep whatever it believes should be confidential, in house only.
It isn't up to us to decide what should, or shouldn't be released. It's theirs.
Companies don't HAVE to sue. As you say, different management, different rules. Very likely, permission to show that was already given at higher levels.
I know that when Scully was there, my friends in engineering were able to talk to me about new unreleased projects without a problem. I recieved numerous builds of the parts of Copeland that were working.
But a business reserves the right to keep whatever it believes should be confidential, in house only.
It isn't up to us to decide what should, or shouldn't be released. It's theirs.
Exactly and Jobs is similar to the British government - it is secret unless they decide it's open. (The other way around in most places). I don't think Jobs is doing anything wrong - he's protecting the share holders.
Exactly and Jobs is similar to the British government - it is secret unless they decide it's open. (The other way around in most places). I don't think Jobs is doing anything wrong - he's protecting the share holders.
I don't know about 'protecting the shareholders' (as in keeping all projects secret all the time). I think it's that Steve just likes to make big announcements and bring products to market that no one saw coming. Instead of people seeing the product as it is being created, it's just *wham*! "We created this" instead of, "We will start building this, wait 6-9 months for a demo." Blind-siding people with new products seems to be Steve's MO.
I don't know about 'protecting the shareholders' (as in keeping all projects secret all the time). I think it's that Steve just likes to make big announcements and bring products to market that no one saw coming. Instead of people seeing the product as it is being created, it's just *wham*! "We created this" instead of, "We will start building this, wait 6-9 months for a demo." Blind-siding people with new products seems to be Steve's MO.
You can do this in the consumer space with certain products. I think he is too paranoid myself. But it's his decision to make.
In the enterprise space however, it's a disaster. These people want to see a "roadmap" They want to know what's coming up three years down that road.
That's why MS and others discuss their plans openly, and give out alpha's and betas to their customers well in advance of the appearance of the finished product.
Look at what happened to 10.4. No time for a final beta run. Major update barely two weeks out. A vast number of incompatibilities etc.
All due to the fear that some jerk will release it on the net. So what? Even that would have helped to find problems.
But, it's still Apple's choice, even though I think it's a bad one.
You can do this in the consumer space with certain products. I think he is too paranoid myself. But it's his decision to make.
In the enterprise space however, it's a disaster. These people want to see a "roadmap" They want to know what's coming up three years down that road.
That's why MS and others discuss their plans openly, and give out alpha's and betas to their customers well in advance of the appearance of the finished product.
Look at what happened to 10.4. No time for a final beta run. Major update barely two weeks out. A vast number of incompatibilities etc.
All due to the fear that some jerk will release it on the net. So what? Even that would have helped to find problems.
But, it's still Apple's choice, even though I think it's a bad one.
I agree that it's their decision to make. I just don't think that it is actually 'protecting their shareholders' by any measurable amount though. Especially for the reasons that you just stated. One thing that would be cool that could help Apple in the Enterprise market is to start some sort of 'open source forum' with OS X. Where companies could hire people to work with Apple Engineers to add features to the OS that the companies want to see. Like improving SMB/CIFS support or something. They might not even have to work directly with Apple engineers, but maybe it could be some sort of CVS/Subversion type deal like with many open-source projects where a company can hire someone to work on some OS X bugs or something and submit patches to Apple. The patches wouldn't necessarily have to be 'out in the open'. They could be protected but contracts and agreements. But this way companies would have some say in what they could see in OS X.
I agree that it's their decision to make. I just don't think that it is actually 'protecting their shareholders' by any measurable amount though. Especially for the reasons that you just stated. One thing that would be cool that could help Apple in the Enterprise market is to start some sort of 'open source forum' with OS X. Where companies could hire people to work with Apple Engineers to add features to the OS that the companies want to see. Like improving SMB/CIFS support or something. They might not even have to work directly with Apple engineers, but maybe it could be some sort of CVS/Subversion type deal like with many open-source projects where a company can hire someone to work on some OS X bugs or something and submit patches to Apple. The patches wouldn't necessarily have to be 'out in the open'. They could be protected but contracts and agreements. But this way companies would have some say in what they could see in OS X.
It's an interesting idea, but it would be tough. How would something like that be regulated? All copies of the OS have to be 100% code compatable. One reason that open source takes so long to get anything done is because lots of snippits of code come in from all different areas and have to be validated. Any company would look at that as losing control of their code base. I don't know of any large software house that does this.
Apple has to talk to their customers more and find out what they want to see, as well as what problems they are having. Then Apple can go back and work on it.
FCP is a good example of that. The FCP development group does a good job of listening. So does Adobe.
ok, i think a lot of folks are missing the point in this thread, not to mention steve jobs missing the point with these idiotic suits. Apple exists today because of a dedicated community of folks, many of whom are posters in this forum, who hype their stuff. Without this dedicated community, we wouldn't be at the point we are right now where they have an incredibly successful line of products (ipod) and look as though they may get more than the 2-3% of the PC marketshare they traditionally enjoy. without the dedicated core, apple would almost certainly have gone out of business in the late 90s.
with this lawsuit, they are targetting the people who hype their products and who buy their products. that's just evil, not to mention stupid. Although these folks are die hard apple fans, there's only so much they'll take before linux os's will look all the more appealing (especially since osx has got unix underneath it). maybe apple should consider what the net effect of these websites is to their bottom line before they get all huffy about "trade secrets". The net effect of the lawsuits could be a boycott if jobs really does take it to the supreme court.
Comments
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"no one has the right to publish confidential information just because they can,"
"People can publish whatever they want to publish."
Yeah, that does seem dubious.
Originally posted by JonE
Yeah, that does seem dubious.
Which one seems dubious?
Originally posted by JonE
The second one when compared against the first.
Yes, I agree. The second is wishful thinking.
But on the 'I should be able to publish anything' topic... To use a straw man to illustrate a point, what if I found out the address of one of those battered women's shelters? Or even the address of someone under witness protection for testifying against the mob? If I publish these addresses and someone uses them to find and kill the person/people, I would think that I would be held liable.
Think of it this way, do you think that a journalist that entices a person to break into Apple, and steal pictures of the latest PowerBook model has the right to publish those photos? Shouldn't that journalist be somewhat responsible for enticing the person to break into Apple? Or are we going to use the KKK argument of "I told my followers to kill blacks, but I didn't believe they would do it, so I'm not responsible?"
Personally, I don't think that knowledge of a product and/or crappy pictures of it are really 'trade secrets'. But the law is the law. I could probably find some good examples where my opinion on 'trade secrets' is wrong if I put in the time to think about it.
Originally posted by pyr3
As I understand it, the whole 'trade secrets' issue boils down to Apple wanting the names of the sources. And the website owners say that they are 'confidential sources'. But because they broke the trade secrets laws to distribute the information, the receivers can be held liable. (The trade secrets laws vary from state to state on how to deal with the receiver). This issue has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with how the information was obtained.
But on the 'I should be able to publish anything' topic... To use a straw man to illustrate a point, what if I found out the address of one of those battered women's shelters? Or even the address of someone under witness protection for testifying against the mob? If I publish these addresses and someone uses them to find and kill the person/people, I would think that I would be held liable.
Think of it this way, do you think that a journalist that entices a person to break into Apple, and steal pictures of the latest PowerBook model has the right to publish those photos? Shouldn't that journalist be somewhat responsible for enticing the person to break into Apple? Or are we going to use the KKK argument of "I told my followers to kill blacks, but I didn't believe they would do it, so I'm not responsible?"
Personally, I don't think that knowledge of a product and/or crappy pictures of it are really 'trade secrets'. But the law is the law. I could probably find some good examples where my opinion on 'trade secrets' is wrong if I put in the time to think about it.
It is ILLEGAL for a journalist to "corrupt" someone to provide confidential information, if that information is not of illegal activities.
The "Whistle Blower Law" is *supposed* to protect someone who releases information about illegal activities.
But if the information released is proprietary, then it's release is NOT sanctioned by law.
Our opinion of what is or is not confidential is not relevant.
Originally posted by melgross
It is ILLEGAL for a journalist to "corrupt" someone to provide confidential information, if that information is not of illegal activities.
Yes. That's what I said.
The "Whistle Blower Law" is *supposed* to protect someone who releases information about illegal activities.
I'm not sure how this applies to my post though... None of my examples are even close to talking about Whistle Blower Law... I mean, that is pretty clear cut. You would be hard-pressed to find any justification for this under Whistler Blower Law... And shouldn't 'illegal' be the word with emphasis? Or are you implying that the "Whistler Blower Law" doesn't do what it's supposed to? (b/c that's how I interpret that emphasis on 'supposed')
But if the information released is proprietary, then it's release is NOT sanctioned by law.
Unless the proprietary information is part of the illegal actions being exposed. (i.e. plans for a death ray or something)
Our opinion of what is or is not confidential is not relevant.
I tried to convey this with 'the law is the law'. I personally don't think that those types of things should be classified under trade secrets, but if I want to change stuff like that I should lobby Congress, not break the law. And even if the law changes, in this case, they are still held responsible because the law was different when the crimes were committed.
Originally posted by JonE
The second one when compared against the first.
There's a difference between the two - there is fee speech but there isn't a right to break confidentiality contracts. Yes this may seem contradictory but all companies have secrets - so does the government and they (not necessarily in America) support free speech.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How do you *know* they *corrupted* that someone? Maybe that someone just told them what he/she told them with no corruption whatsoever?
In law, corruption is an inducement. An inducement can consist of cash or equivalent.
I can also be:
"Send us your dirt, see it published here, and know that you were the one responsible." That would be an inducement.
That's all it takes.
Originally posted by
Yes. That's what I said.
I'm not sure how this applies to my post though... None of my examples are even close to talking about Whistle Blower Law... I mean, that is pretty clear cut. You would be hard-pressed to find any justification for this under Whistler Blower Law... And shouldn't 'illegal' be the word with emphasis? Or are you implying that the "Whistler Blower Law" doesn't do what it's supposed to? (b/c that's how I interpret that emphasis on 'supposed')
Unless the proprietary information is part of the illegal actions being exposed. (i.e. plans for a death ray or something)
I tried to convey this with 'the law is the law'. I personally don't think that those types of things should be classified under trade secrets, but if I want to change stuff like that I should lobby Congress, not break the law. And even if the law changes, in this case, they are still held responsible because the law was different when the crimes were committed.
Just because I used your post to respond to doesn't mean that I was disagreeing with everything you said.
I was emphasizing some of your points.
Mentioning the "Whistle Blowers Law" was meant to distinguish between legal and illegal activities regarding the releasing of confidential information, simply to show that there IS a time when it is considered to be legal. Not for your benefit, but for those others who have been bringing up the point that is is legal.
And yes, I was implying that it doesn't always work. There is a case just brought, from someone who states that they were fired for just that reason.
I thought that I had made it clear that by mentioning the WBL above, I had made it clear that there were times when proprietary info could be released.
Relevance was something that you didn't seem to be too certain about. I was strengthening the concept of it's lack of importance.
What people forget about the system of law is that it isn't going to satisfy everyone at all times. Sometimes justice takes a turn that some are not happy about.
My mother-in-law, who is an attorney, told me a story many years ago.
A client came to her and said:
"Madam, I only want justice."
She forbore to tell him that justice meant that he should lose the case.
Originally posted by JonE
Yeah, that does seem dubious.
You know what Jobs meant, so don't twist it like the two have anything to do with each other.
When I was 25 years old,I was a young, untrained reporter at MacWeek, a new Macintosh trade publication. I cultivated as many sources inside the industry as I could, trying to get scoops about what Apple might be doing next. My readers were volume buyers at corporations who were eager to know what was next, so they could plan their purchasing.
Through a source, I got my hands on an early prototype of a new machine, called the Mac IIci, which was Apple's major play in corporate America. I took it apart, had some engineers stare at it for a while, and wrote up a cover story, including a photograph of the motherboard. I was told later that corporate sales at Apple tanked for a while, as folks waited for the hot new machine.
So, why didn't they sue me? One reason: Jobs wasn't running the company then. Jobs would claim that I was working at a "real publication" - it was owned by Ziff Davis at the time - but I have to say, most bloggers today are far more qualified to run a story like the Mac IIci scoop than I was back then.
Originally posted by giant
Battle has some interesting commentary:
Companies don't HAVE to sue. As you say, different management, different rules. Very likely, permission to show that was already given at higher levels.
I know that when Scully was there, my friends in engineering were able to talk to me about new unreleased projects without a problem. I recieved numerous builds of the parts of Copeland that were working.
But a business reserves the right to keep whatever it believes should be confidential, in house only.
It isn't up to us to decide what should, or shouldn't be released. It's theirs.
Originally posted by melgross
Companies don't HAVE to sue. As you say, different management, different rules. Very likely, permission to show that was already given at higher levels.
I know that when Scully was there, my friends in engineering were able to talk to me about new unreleased projects without a problem. I recieved numerous builds of the parts of Copeland that were working.
But a business reserves the right to keep whatever it believes should be confidential, in house only.
It isn't up to us to decide what should, or shouldn't be released. It's theirs.
Exactly and Jobs is similar to the British government - it is secret unless they decide it's open. (The other way around in most places). I don't think Jobs is doing anything wrong - he's protecting the share holders.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Exactly and Jobs is similar to the British government - it is secret unless they decide it's open. (The other way around in most places). I don't think Jobs is doing anything wrong - he's protecting the share holders.
I don't know about 'protecting the shareholders' (as in keeping all projects secret all the time). I think it's that Steve just likes to make big announcements and bring products to market that no one saw coming. Instead of people seeing the product as it is being created, it's just *wham*! "We created this" instead of, "We will start building this, wait 6-9 months for a demo." Blind-siding people with new products seems to be Steve's MO.
Originally posted by pyr3
I don't know about 'protecting the shareholders' (as in keeping all projects secret all the time). I think it's that Steve just likes to make big announcements and bring products to market that no one saw coming. Instead of people seeing the product as it is being created, it's just *wham*! "We created this" instead of, "We will start building this, wait 6-9 months for a demo." Blind-siding people with new products seems to be Steve's MO.
You can do this in the consumer space with certain products. I think he is too paranoid myself. But it's his decision to make.
In the enterprise space however, it's a disaster. These people want to see a "roadmap" They want to know what's coming up three years down that road.
That's why MS and others discuss their plans openly, and give out alpha's and betas to their customers well in advance of the appearance of the finished product.
Look at what happened to 10.4. No time for a final beta run. Major update barely two weeks out. A vast number of incompatibilities etc.
All due to the fear that some jerk will release it on the net. So what? Even that would have helped to find problems.
But, it's still Apple's choice, even though I think it's a bad one.
Originally posted by melgross
You can do this in the consumer space with certain products. I think he is too paranoid myself. But it's his decision to make.
In the enterprise space however, it's a disaster. These people want to see a "roadmap" They want to know what's coming up three years down that road.
That's why MS and others discuss their plans openly, and give out alpha's and betas to their customers well in advance of the appearance of the finished product.
Look at what happened to 10.4. No time for a final beta run. Major update barely two weeks out. A vast number of incompatibilities etc.
All due to the fear that some jerk will release it on the net. So what? Even that would have helped to find problems.
But, it's still Apple's choice, even though I think it's a bad one.
I agree that it's their decision to make. I just don't think that it is actually 'protecting their shareholders' by any measurable amount though. Especially for the reasons that you just stated. One thing that would be cool that could help Apple in the Enterprise market is to start some sort of 'open source forum' with OS X. Where companies could hire people to work with Apple Engineers to add features to the OS that the companies want to see. Like improving SMB/CIFS support or something. They might not even have to work directly with Apple engineers, but maybe it could be some sort of CVS/Subversion type deal like with many open-source projects where a company can hire someone to work on some OS X bugs or something and submit patches to Apple. The patches wouldn't necessarily have to be 'out in the open'. They could be protected but contracts and agreements. But this way companies would have some say in what they could see in OS X.
Originally posted by pyr3
I agree that it's their decision to make. I just don't think that it is actually 'protecting their shareholders' by any measurable amount though. Especially for the reasons that you just stated. One thing that would be cool that could help Apple in the Enterprise market is to start some sort of 'open source forum' with OS X. Where companies could hire people to work with Apple Engineers to add features to the OS that the companies want to see. Like improving SMB/CIFS support or something. They might not even have to work directly with Apple engineers, but maybe it could be some sort of CVS/Subversion type deal like with many open-source projects where a company can hire someone to work on some OS X bugs or something and submit patches to Apple. The patches wouldn't necessarily have to be 'out in the open'. They could be protected but contracts and agreements. But this way companies would have some say in what they could see in OS X.
It's an interesting idea, but it would be tough. How would something like that be regulated? All copies of the OS have to be 100% code compatable. One reason that open source takes so long to get anything done is because lots of snippits of code come in from all different areas and have to be validated. Any company would look at that as losing control of their code base. I don't know of any large software house that does this.
Apple has to talk to their customers more and find out what they want to see, as well as what problems they are having. Then Apple can go back and work on it.
FCP is a good example of that. The FCP development group does a good job of listening. So does Adobe.
with this lawsuit, they are targetting the people who hype their products and who buy their products. that's just evil, not to mention stupid. Although these folks are die hard apple fans, there's only so much they'll take before linux os's will look all the more appealing (especially since osx has got unix underneath it). maybe apple should consider what the net effect of these websites is to their bottom line before they get all huffy about "trade secrets". The net effect of the lawsuits could be a boycott if jobs really does take it to the supreme court.