<strong>I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.
[quote]<strong>AND many, if not most people didn't even believe the leaks anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?
[quote]<strong>Please, Apple, concentrate on what is affecting profits. Hardware, Software(cater to developers). Chasing ghosts is fruitless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.
[quote]<strong>That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.
[quote]<strong>And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This might be a fair point. But then this comes back to the issue of Apple trying to innovate and continually being not only ripped off, but not even given credit for their innovations. For example, there is a whole generation of people growing believing that Microsoft invented the GUI as we see it today.
I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that if they don't sue now they can't do anything when something worse (from an Apple perspective) is leaked.
If it's a real leak, there is definitely someone behind it who violated a NDA. Not the owner of the website who published the images will be sued but the person who handed it over to them. So Apple will be successful in a lawsuit if they know who did it.
Apple has lawyers "in house" and on retainer. They get paid whether they are used or not. Protecting intellectual property is not a bad thing. In this day and age of consumers thinking 'i can steal music, photos and whatever" and as a stockholder I applaud their efforts.
First off, what I have been stating is opinion, maybe I should have clarified that.
[quote]How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.(referring to lost sales)<hr></blockquote>
Of course I don't have verifiable facts, but use your head. Inventory of the previous towers was slim and nonexistant in many outlets. In recent past, many many customers wait until after MWshows for announcements. Sales of Apple computers slow significantly before shows, wonder why Apple is getting away from announcing new computers at shows, Apple figured it out and so have customers.
[quote]Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?(refering to disbelief in rumors of windtunnel)<hr></blockquote>
I don't know for a fact, but if you care to, review the comments regarding the windtunnel leak in this and many rumor sites. The windtunnel leak and 7 lb. heat sink rumors were mocked unmercifully. Chrome face plate, hah.
[quote]Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.(refering to lack of hardware development)<hr></blockquote>
167MHz bus, G4 @ only 1.25GHz., etc. While not directly responsible, Apple is certaintly partially responsible. Money talks, why more of the 4 billion in reservers wasn't used to speed development of the G4 we'll probably never know.
[quote]Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.<hr></blockquote>
It is only common sense that IBM's presentation @ the Microprocessors Forum of the 970 would have a much greater affect on sales that some lame rumor off some obscure web site. This was big news, discussed in a technical forum. And now even reviewed in print by MacWorld magazine.
Again, I apologize in not clarifying that my statements were opinion, but I stand by my statement that Apple's biggest problem is not rumor sites and especially in pursuing this case, the windtunnel leak, is a waste of time and resources.
That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.
And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.
Pretend Apple ISN"T going to use the 970, it's possible. By not having a roadmap, specifically denying future use of the 970, many customers(how many, don't know) are/will be waiting for the nonexistent introduction of a 970 based Apple computer. I know this argument has plenty of holes, but when you get right down to it, rumors ain't the main problem right now, are they?
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---> the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---> the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fully agree. There's a big difference between a rumor and a well thought out conclusion of facts.
I only had a little bit of law in college, but I think the tough thing to prove against the defendants will be damages. I think it will be tough for Apple to come up with a dollar figure. Without damages there is no lawsuit.
<strong>I only had a little bit of law in college, but I think the tough thing to prove against the defendants will be damages. I think it will be tough for Apple to come up with a dollar figure. Without damages there is no lawsuit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK you don't have to come up with a precise figure for damages, and I guess it works similarly over there.
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which supports my point, the publishing of information on the 970 will have a much greater effect on future sales than any rumor generated on a web site. Do I have proof, umm, no, but I do have common sense.
Question, someone says this is UK lawsuit. Can they sue someone in the US with his action? Or only in the UK. (not that I'm sweating too much about my own allegid copies of picture which I may or may not have had )
<strong>Question, someone says this is UK lawsuit. Can they sue someone in the US with his action? Or only in the UK. (not that I'm sweating too much about my own allegid copies of picture which I may or may not have had )</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just an action to get information from a UK publisher, they can then start a separate lawsuit (or continue one they've already started) in the US or any other country they feel like really.
Comments
<strong>I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.
[quote]<strong>AND many, if not most people didn't even believe the leaks anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?
[quote]<strong>Please, Apple, concentrate on what is affecting profits. Hardware, Software(cater to developers). Chasing ghosts is fruitless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.
[quote]<strong>That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.
[quote]<strong>And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This might be a fair point. But then this comes back to the issue of Apple trying to innovate and continually being not only ripped off, but not even given credit for their innovations. For example, there is a whole generation of people growing believing that Microsoft invented the GUI as we see it today.
<strong>
I don't dispute Apple's legal right to sue. But, in most cases, such as the windtunnel rumors/leaks, they came so close to their actual introduction they had no(zip, nadda, none) effect on profits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that if they don't sue now they can't do anything when something worse (from an Apple perspective) is leaked.
<strong>
95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!</strong><hr></blockquote>
If only Apple controlled the anchor and owned the rescue boat!
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
<strong>
And it's pure coincidence that 25 people are sued in both cases?
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No... it's not a coincidence... Apple doesn't know how many people are leaks... so they list 25 (arbitrarily) on their lawsuit.
Apple settled with Worker Bee in 2001. <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-271221.html?tag=rn"; target="_blank">link</a>
This is new.
arn
[quote]How do you know this? You don't and I don't either.(referring to lost sales)<hr></blockquote>
Of course I don't have verifiable facts, but use your head. Inventory of the previous towers was slim and nonexistant in many outlets. In recent past, many many customers wait until after MWshows for announcements. Sales of Apple computers slow significantly before shows, wonder why Apple is getting away from announcing new computers at shows, Apple figured it out and so have customers.
[quote]Again, how do you KNOW? Can you prove what effects leaks have on Apple's sales and profits?(refering to disbelief in rumors of windtunnel)<hr></blockquote>
I don't know for a fact, but if you care to, review the comments regarding the windtunnel leak in this and many rumor sites. The windtunnel leak and 7 lb. heat sink rumors were mocked unmercifully. Chrome face plate, hah.
[quote]Maybe they ARE. I don't know how many times I've seen a thread on a board like this one with people advocating waiting on a purchase until a rumored product pans out.(refering to lack of hardware development)<hr></blockquote>
167MHz bus, G4 @ only 1.25GHz., etc. While not directly responsible, Apple is certaintly partially responsible. Money talks, why more of the 4 billion in reservers wasn't used to speed development of the G4 we'll probably never know.
[quote]Well, you seem to know whether or not leaks have been detrimental to Apple's sales and profits. But now you equivocate.<hr></blockquote>
It is only common sense that IBM's presentation @ the Microprocessors Forum of the 970 would have a much greater affect on sales that some lame rumor off some obscure web site. This was big news, discussed in a technical forum. And now even reviewed in print by MacWorld magazine.
Again, I apologize in not clarifying that my statements were opinion, but I stand by my statement that Apple's biggest problem is not rumor sites and especially in pursuing this case, the windtunnel leak, is a waste of time and resources.
<strong>
That said, if a leak is detrimental to Apple, be obliged to sue. But, the current biggest leak, the 970, may be having the greatest current effect on sales. And you have no recourse, so exactly how much harm are rumor sites.
And another thing, by not presenting a roadmap of any kind, speculation runs high.
Pretend Apple ISN"T going to use the 970, it's possible. By not having a roadmap, specifically denying future use of the 970, many customers(how many, don't know) are/will be waiting for the nonexistent introduction of a 970 based Apple computer. I know this argument has plenty of holes, but when you get right down to it, rumors ain't the main problem right now, are they?
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---> the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.
<strong>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
Is IBM interested in Altivec unit for his power chip serie : no, and the power5 is not scheduled to have one.
Is Apple interested in a Altivec unit : yes for sure.
---> the Altivec unit in the ppc 970 is the proof that this chip is for Apple in priority. IBM will use this chip too, but was not that interested in a altivec unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fully agree. There's a big difference between a rumor and a well thought out conclusion of facts.
<strong>I only had a little bit of law in college, but I think the tough thing to prove against the defendants will be damages. I think it will be tough for Apple to come up with a dollar figure. Without damages there is no lawsuit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK you don't have to come up with a precise figure for damages, and I guess it works similarly over there.
JP.
<strong>
This is a very old case which (as it seems) isn't over yet: Workerbee!!
<a href="http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101"; target="_blank">http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=101</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Actaully, no it's a new one
<a href="http://macnn.com/rd.php?id=2057"; target="_blank">http://macnn.com/rd.php?id=2057</a>;
<strong>
Nobody from Apple will prevent me to think that they will use the 970 in their future macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which supports my point, the publishing of information on the 970 will have a much greater effect on future sales than any rumor generated on a web site. Do I have proof, umm, no, but I do have common sense.
<strong>Question, someone says this is UK lawsuit. Can they sue someone in the US with his action? Or only in the UK. (not that I'm sweating too much about my own allegid copies of picture which I may or may not have had
This is just an action to get information from a UK publisher, they can then start a separate lawsuit (or continue one they've already started) in the US or any other country they feel like really.
JP.