Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Fails Due Diligence in Trade Secret Case

samzenpus posted about 9 years ago | from the do-your-homework dept.

Patents 236

Brett writes "Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage. This is quite a bit of a problem because Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself before threatening journalists. From the article, "It appears that Apple has adopted a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to dealing with rumors sites. The company took no depositions, required no oaths from its employees, and failed to subpoena anyone related to the company or the development of the device in question.""

cancel ×

236 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

ntufar (712060) | about 9 years ago | (#13565248)

first post

That's what makes Apple different from Microsoft (-1, Offtopic)

Shisha (145964) | about 9 years ago | (#13565258)

While Microsoft writes operating systems with the shoot first ask questions later, Apple does a good job when designing products. On the other hand Microsoft is very careful with any lawsuits it gets into, while Apple is occasionally a bit too trigger happy. Gues which company makes better software ;-)

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565272)

Ummm...Oracle?

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0)

Saven Marek (739395) | about 9 years ago | (#13565273)

I think what this means is that even though apple make better software, they aren't diligent enough to protect their assets

This means when it comes down to it, they may be damaging their own claims of copyright and trademark over OS X.

What could happen as I see it is Microsoft or some other company could now release "OS X Tiger" and apple wouldn't have as much recourse as they had before.

I wouldn't be surprised if it meant pirating apple software now doesn't carry as much legal risk either. After all, who are they going to sue? they need to check themselves out first, and that will take time.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565324)

What?

What the hell part of this was meant to make sense?

Apple suddenly can have their software pirated due to the result of a legal case in a completely different arena of the law?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Indeed what on earth was the grand parent talking about?

Granted the OS is pretty, but we're comparing ancient to modern, compare Vista to Leopard (or whatever it will be called) for a fair comparison.

Compare Apple's Office products to MS', who makes the better software?

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (1, Funny)

MaestroSartori (146297) | about 9 years ago | (#13565278)

Hahaha, only on Slashdot could a story with no relevance whatsoever to Microsoft result in a comment like this being marked Insightful.

What "insight" into the article does this comment convey? "shoot first ask questions later" operating system design? Please. It might well be true, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Apple's heavy-handedness in this situation.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565279)

Oh god, Here come the apple users. "It's ok if Apple infringes on peoples rights. It's Apple! Yay!"

Give me a break.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565292)

No need to guess. No doubt about it. Microsoft.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0, Troll)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about 9 years ago | (#13565293)

What fantasy world are you living in? How long did it take Apple to write a better os (if you can call it that)? And they had to steal from the free software people to do it. Don't get me wrong Apple makes a decent (re pretty looking) desktop, but they are not the better alternative to anything out there.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (5, Insightful)

jtwJGuevara (749094) | about 9 years ago | (#13565297)

But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? We trash MS a lot for tossing its weight around with trademarks and filing for silly patents, but here we have a direct competitor who blindly fires off an illegitimate lawsuit against free speech journalism. In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?

Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (-1, Flamebait)

cigarky (89075) | about 9 years ago | (#13565375)

I would have agreed completely until recently, when Linus decided to start demanding payments [slashdot.org] from Australian companies for trademark use. Now its hard to root for anyone.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (3, Interesting)

BoredByPolitics (159504) | about 9 years ago | (#13565473)

I think you'll find that if Linus doesn't enforce his trademark, he loses it.

And to be honest, the amounts of money being demanded for use of the trademark (in Australia) are small change to the companies involved.

Would you like to see Micro$oft release a software product called Linux, just because Linus didn't retain the trademark on his own product?

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (1)

aussie_a (778472) | about 9 years ago | (#13565588)

Actually, under Linus's agreement Microsoft can release a software product called Linux.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (1)

mrsev (664367) | about 9 years ago | (#13565612)

>Would you like to see Micro$oft release a software product called Linux?

YES YES YES! I would love to see that.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (4, Interesting)

jtwJGuevara (749094) | about 9 years ago | (#13565529)

Good point.

http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html/ [ilaw.com.au] explains it a bit.

It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft [cnn.com] or Lindows [internetnews.com] , Microsoft could and would sue me.

*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0)

node 3 (115640) | about 9 years ago | (#13565680)

But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? ...
In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?


MS habitually throws its weight around, not caring at all about the effects on others, or the industry as a whole. The effects of MS's weight-throwing have been noticeably detrimental to us all.

Apple occasionally throws its weight around, and when it does, it's generally targeted with a limited scope, and doesn't adversely affect the industry, or me, all that much.

Not to defend Apple's abuse in this case--it's quite bad--but a transgression here and there is nothing compared to a company that makes every effort to utilize its ability to do such things as much as possible.

So, in short, it's not the same. Its a bad thing, but not an equivalent one.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13566076)

I'd disagree. While MS tends to harm the industry, as you've stated, Apple tends to harm what I consider to be free speach. I couldn't give a damn about the industry in comparison.

Actions of companies usually reflect (0)

Shivetya (243324) | about 9 years ago | (#13565308)

who is in charge.

Re:That's what makes Apple different from Microsof (1)

Okonomiyaki (662220) | about 9 years ago | (#13566044)

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, Apple's actions make perfect sense here. There was no need to find out who leaked the information since it was about a product that never existed in the first place. It was safe to assume that the information didn't come from within the company or, if it did, there was no way to determine who would have had access to the "information" as it was all fictional anyway.

The obvious question is then, "Why start a lawsuit over a story about a product that never existed?" I can think of two reasons, although I don't know if they make sense from a legal standpoint as I'm not a lawyer. One, a zero tolerance policy toward rumors. Probably not a good idea since the rumors sites are what kept the fanbase going through all the tough times in the past but maybe they've gotten arrogant with their recent success. The other reason, the idea that if potential customers find out about a future product (even a fictional one) too soon, it could hurt the sales of currently shipping products.

Oh, well... (2, Funny)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 9 years ago | (#13565275)

Win some, lose most of them...

Re:Oh, well... (-1, Offtopic)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 9 years ago | (#13565415)

Win some, lose most of them...

I wish somebody would come up with a consistent definition of "Offtopic"

Re:Oh, well... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565501)

Main Entry: off-top-ic
Pronunciation: awf-'tä-pik
Function: adjective
1) a: slashdot moderation rating b: PWNT

Re:Oh, well... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565917)

2) noun: a knee-jerk rating reaction by a pissy elitist moderator

Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (3, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | about 9 years ago | (#13565296)

I still don't get why people are so enamored with Apple. For every piece of FUD Microsoft spews, Apple tosses out a lawsuit.

People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing. The only up shot to this I can think of is we'd have been spared the silly KDE vs GNOME battles. OF course that's because if Apple had their way, neither would exist.

They're no better than Microsoft, SUN or even SCO, but because they're considered an underdog in the hardware and OS wars, shenanigans like this are given a free pass.

What gives?

We're talking about a company who took until version TEN to have a decent OS, and still ships their laptops with one frigging mouse button, even though they cram as much functionality into the alternate mouse buttons as any Windows developer.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (4, Informative)

damieng (230610) | about 9 years ago | (#13565351)

I think you are forgetting that Microsoft didn't have any GUI under development when Apple gave them Mac developer kits for them to write Office for the Mac.

Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.

Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0, Troll)

Quarters (18322) | about 9 years ago | (#13565622)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have appologist #1

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (4, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | about 9 years ago | (#13565659)

I think you are forgetting that Microsoft didn't have any GUI under development when Apple gave them Mac developer kits for them to write Office for the Mac.

So what? Do you really believe that Apple had the right to "copyright" items like overlapping windows?

Microsoft (filth tho they are) were IMO able to reimplement Apples GUI if they so chose.

Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)

Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.

Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple. [utexas.edu]

Choice quote from the article:
Xerox contends that such software should be licensed widely to encourage a single industry standard. But Apple has tried to prevent other companies from imitating its software, in an attempt to differentiate its products from those of competitors.

Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.

so what?
I don't believe they should have - they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?

Apple are a great company - they make nice hardware, a reasonable Unix like system to run on it and are innovative in many ways.

But it doesn't mean we have to defend them when they're clearly wrong.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (3, Informative)

eyegone (644831) | about 9 years ago | (#13566099)


Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)

I remember seeing them in OS/2 before Windows 95 came out.

Wait...are you serious? (1)

FatSean (18753) | about 9 years ago | (#13565726)

Are you telling me that Microsoft Office was DOS based (No GUI as you claim) until Apple contracted for a Mac version of Office? I find this hard to believe. Office was first available for the Mac in 1990. This was the same year Windos v3.0 was released...and there were prior versions of Windows.

I find your claim hard to believe.

MacWord released in 1985 (4, Informative)

balamw (552275) | about 9 years ago | (#13565881)

You are right Office only showed up in 1990, however Word and Excel for the Mac were originally released in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel [wikipedia.org]

I should know as I extensively used them in my first love affair with the Mac platform in undergraduate school 1984-1989.

B

Re:Wait...are you serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565903)

You know how the first version of Word for Windows was version 6? Guess which platform the previous five versions were written for...That's right, the Mac. And they were first written for the Mac in the mid-80s, not 1990 as you claim. It might be that Office as a bundle was first offered for the Mac in 1990, but Excel and Word had a long history on the platform before that.

Re:Wait...are you serious? (2, Informative)

Been on TV (886187) | about 9 years ago | (#13565914)

Apple gave Microsoft the development kit for development of Microsoft Excel [wikipedia.org] , which was first launched on the Mac in 1985 and Word the same year. At that time, Microsoft was DOS only.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565353)

I'm not one to feed the trolls, but you're a moron. I suppose it's best we just leave it at that.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0, Offtopic)

wvitXpert (769356) | about 9 years ago | (#13565367)

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really have any love for Apple, I just love thier computers. I think that OSX is the slickest, most well designed OS you can get, and no one can deny the build quality and attention to detail that goes into Apple hardware. But yeah, other than that they are just like any other company, just out to make a profit.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (5, Insightful)

Budenny (888916) | about 9 years ago | (#13565407)

"no one can deny the build quality and attention to detail that goes into Apple hardware"

Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.

And if you think failure rates and quality problems are any different, read Ars Technica. They just are not.

It would be lovely if it were different, especially for us users, but the facts are alas not so.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (4, Insightful)

delire (809063) | about 9 years ago | (#13565597)


Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.
You're correct, there is very little difference in this so called 'Apple hardware' especially given the manufacturers are not in fact Apple, but Asustek and Quanta [macworld.co.uk] - the former outselling their own so called 'PC' laptops to Apple branded computers 10 to 1.

It is largely a well propogated myth that 'Apple hardware' is in any way better than that of other brands and there can certainly be no real claim of innovation in the industrial design department outside of superficial stylistic impositions on case and chassis design. Where cooling is concerned it can safely be said that the powerbooks are perhaps the most poorly designed of any portable's I've come across; many colleagues in fact prop their's up on a book just to allow for air to circulate underneath the thing.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 years ago | (#13565738)

We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it.

Compare and contrast.

http://www.hitmancomputers.com/IMAG0056.JPG [hitmancomputers.com]
http://www.billnoll.com/g5/030/ [billnoll.com]

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

Molochi (555357) | about 9 years ago | (#13566062)

Yes I see now. Hitmancomputers web page is ugly and has an amatuer photographer. Where as the billnoll sight is very nice and uses professionaly prepared images. So THAT's what build quality means, pretty pictures.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

Budenny (888916) | about 9 years ago | (#13566120)

Well, I did look, and I still do not see it. The inside of a reasonable quality PC case, which is increasingly all of them, have cables running here and there, but I don't see anything wrong with it. They are perfectly functional, they don't get in the way of the cooling. The bays are nicely laid out with easy snap in access. If you are looking at the interiors as aesthetic objects, you may likely prefer the cables and parts to be screened off with perforated stainless steel. But they are not aesthetic objects. The purpose is, for them to make everything connectable, point one, and point two, to allow you to put stuff in and take stuff out as easily as possible. The average x86 case of the same generation as a similar Apple case is about as functional and of about as good quality.

And, if the only point of discussion on quality is whether the cabling is visible, think about that for a moment. There used to be a day when we said Apple was better quality hardware. We meant, nubus cards and scsi drives. In their day, they were way better. Now its down to covering up your cable runs! I don't think they are any worse than average, in terms of hardware quality, but they are certainly no better.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (3, Insightful)

sveskemus (833838) | about 9 years ago | (#13565384)

The main difference between Microsoft and Apple as I see it: Apple makes great software and hardware. Microsoft makes crappy software and decent hardware.

Lots of people love Apple. This has nothing to do with the company's treatment of rumour sites or any other legal matters. It has to do with the great hardware and software Apple makes.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

VATechTigger (884976) | about 9 years ago | (#13565674)

Besides dinky peripherals, what hardware do Microsoft and Apple manufacture........?

I have yet to buy a microsoft motherboard, GPU, CPU, Memory, Hard Drive, etc....... I do have an Intelimouse though.

I admit to knowing little of Apple, but I dont think they manufacture any of their components either. They are both Software and Brands.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565405)

Listen Shit-cock. Stop trying to get first post. First post belongs to Trip Masterbater Monkey
You are going to make him cry if you don't let him post the full article text as first post so he can get a +5 insightful.
Slap my ass and call me Susan!
Trip Masterbater Monkey Rules Slashdot
Uh-huh- you know it!
and oh yeah....
Fuck you!

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (5, Interesting)

AnonymousYellowBelly (913452) | about 9 years ago | (#13565426)

Well, sometimes Apple is no better than some of the assholes that run/runed the company. For the sake of the people that live in the RDF: I'm not talking of Steve Jobs -many mistakes but good overall-.

Yes, some of this guys are control freaks, DRM-lovers, RIAA-bitches, that are no different than MS/SCO/SUN troops.

What IS different is the organizational culture of Apple and other companies. I believe it is better than Microsoft's, Sun's and, definitely, SCO's. That I like, and because of it Apple is capable of making great products not only because they want big profits but for the sake of doing things right.

Sometimes it seems that they are forced to do "Good Things", or that their intentions are not 'pure', like some interactions with the OS community.
But look at their DRM strategy compared to M$. They looked at things from the user's perspective and tried to change the views of the RIAA to match the 'reality' of us. I don't think this was only motivated by profit but because Apple 'thinks different' than M$.

As for the case at hand: I don't think Apple should be suing those websites. They should plug their leaks.
 

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565697)

What IS different is the organizational culture of Apple and other companies. I believe it is better than Microsoft's, Sun's and, definitely, SCO's. That I like, and because of it Apple is capable of making great products not only because they want big profits but for the sake of doing things right.

A friend of mine interviewed for some iPod special projects group at Apple. When asking for specifics about the position, he was told that he shouldn't care what he was working on as long as it was for Apple.

Another person was excused from his interview when he answered the question "Give an example of when you changed your values for an employer" with "I wouldn't do that."

If true, Apple sounds like a great company to work for.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565708)

ATTENTION APPLE FANBOISE

But look at their DRM strategy compared to M$.

You sound like George Bush with his "Still more civil liberties then North Korea" attitude.

Frankly, Apple should be trembling like a freshly raped dog in the face of the fury of their customers after behaviour like this.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0)

lucason (795664) | about 9 years ago | (#13565469)

I agree, Apple is worse than MS in many ways. The only reason why it isn't so apparent is their complete lack of market share.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0)

lucason (795664) | about 9 years ago | (#13565498)

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I meant "Apple is as bad or even worse than MS in many ways"

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565477)


That should be CUE, not queue.

Sheesh, what do they teach you kids these days?

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (2, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | about 9 years ago | (#13565593)

queue a record - DBM

cue a record - disk jockey

QA record - terrible

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

hcob$ (766699) | about 9 years ago | (#13565515)

If we skipp minor versions:

MSDOS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Windows 1.0, 3.0, 95, 98
Windows NT1, NT2, NT3, NT4
Windows 2000(NT5)

by my count... that's 15 to 10... I think Apple is still ahead by 5 versions...

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (2, Informative)

justforaday (560408) | about 9 years ago | (#13565598)

Except NT1 and NT2 never existed. They started counting at 3.1. (And to think that people trust them to create spreadsheet software to handle their finances!)

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | about 9 years ago | (#13565628)

>>> by my count... that's 15 to 10... I think Apple is still ahead by 5 versions...

Bullocks.

System 1-9, OSX, OSX.1, OSX.2, OSX.3, OSX.4

That's 14 by my count...

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (0, Offtopic)

SpacePunk (17960) | about 9 years ago | (#13565525)

Of course people love Apple! D00D1 They made the iPOD, and got Bono to sing for it! /sarcasm and satire

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

ceeam (39911) | about 9 years ago | (#13565590)

Hmm, care to name then _one_ (successful) company worth rooting for?

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (4, Insightful)

HairyCanary (688865) | about 9 years ago | (#13565653)

I would not call myself enamored with Apple, but I do see a distinction between them and Microsoft.

Apple is a small company, they have no monopoly in any market, and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer. They simply out-compete everyone else by producing a superior product (superior at least, in the definition of most consumers).

Microsoft on the other hand, has a monopoly in several markets, and exploits their position to maintain the monopoly at the expense of innovation, and ultimately the customer. Microsoft does not maintain their dominance in the market by producing a superior product (even the die-hard Microsoft apologists would conceed that point), they do it by force. Shady business practices, bastardization of standards, etc.

So yes, Apple pulls some stunts, like this one, which it should be criticized for. But to use this kind of misstep as an excuse for the absolutely unholy way Microsoft operates is to make a huge mathmatical mistake ;-). Microsoft has several orders of magnitude more impact on societ than does Apple, and therefore Microsoft -has- to be held to even higher standards.

It's a good damn thing for MS (2, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | about 9 years ago | (#13565658)

That there weren't software patents back then. Windows wouldn't exist, or if it did a hefty fee would be paid to Apple for every license.

Oh wait patents foster innovation. Right....

Nail on the head (1)

doublem (118724) | about 9 years ago | (#13566094)

You got it there.

Apple would OWN the GUI, and real graphics work would be next to impossible without it, because everything necessary would be patented.

Apple wanted to be what Microsoft is, they just have some good marketing pushing a neuvo Hippie image.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

suezz (804747) | about 9 years ago | (#13565791)

I have to agree with you - I don't see what the Apple attraction is besides their hardware. I have a Imac 266 256 meg of ram for my daughter - I got Ubuntu/Apple os9 on it and it runs quite nicely.

I do like their hardware but I don't get what the software attraction is. Yes they did things right with os x in making it unix like - but I can install ubuntu on it and have the same thing and it runs a lot quicker.

I like having the ability to turn shadows off and on along with transparencies.

sometimes I want those things sometimes I do.

No company can achieve what Linux has - it can run on anything from a watch to a mainframe. How powerful is that?

It is ashame that apple is ditching power - I happen to like the power and if this drm and tcpa gets out of hand (like intel puts it on the board and I can't install linux on a pc if it originally had windows on it) I will seriously consider buying a power pc.

I do think apple puts out better software than windows but I think Linux and open source puts out the best.

What is the difference between following apple's upgrade cycle madness versus windows upgrade madness. None I can see they will both leave you with less money in your pocket.

I put jaguar on my daughter's computer but since they dropped support and patching for it I got rid of it and now I just run apple os 9 since most of her games run on os 9 (without networking) and linux - I am currently working on getting os 9 to run inside of linux to get rid of the dual boot - but it's not high on my priority list right now and I will get around to it eventually.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 9 years ago | (#13565809)

> I still don't get why people are so enamored with Apple. For every piece of FUD Microsoft spews, Apple
> tosses out a lawsuit.

Because Apple makes great stuff, as opposed to the M$ monopoly offal that we are forced to use at work.

jfs

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

singularity (2031) | about 9 years ago | (#13565875)

Your post does read a lot like a troll.

In my house I happen to have two documents - one is the instruction manual that came with an Apple //gs. The other is the instruction manual that came with Windows 1.0.

Anyone with half a brain can flip through both books, look at screenshots, and realize that they are almost identical. This is not a "KDE copies the Windows UI", this is "Wow, if I had not looked at the cover of the book, I would not be able to identify some of these screenshots correctly."

Based on that evidence alone, I feel that Apple had a right to sue.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 9 years ago | (#13566097)

Except that Apple did *not* sue for Windows 1.0, because this version had non-overlapping windows, precisely as the Apple-Microsoft GUI agreement said.

Apple sued for Windows 2.0, which did have overlapping windows, and had broadly similar look-and-feel as the Macintosh GUI.

BTW Apple threw away lots of creds for this stupid move and haven't quite recovered. It should be a lesson for all, no matter what your behaviour later on, one really stupid & evil move does stick, and for a long time, as this thread proves.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 9 years ago | (#13565892)

If they had their way, everything would be text mode

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:Queue Apple Apologists in 3... 2... (1)

callipygian-showsyst (631222) | about 9 years ago | (#13566029)

Apple Good! Apple Bad! These /. people are having trouble making up their mind.

Microsoft, by concentrating on software, helped build an industry of interchangable hardware and software. They are to thank for low cost, reliable (mostly) PC components. Even Apple has benefited from the technology, leveraging low-cost chipsets for disk drives, USB, keyboard and mouse controllers, etc.

Apple, on the other hand, wants to control everything--hardware and software. If it were feasable, everything would be proprietary--even the CPU. (Ask old-time Apple insiders. There was once a project to develop their own CPU during the early Taligent years.)

They're no better than Microsoft, SUN or even SCO, but because they're considered an underdog in the hardware and OS wars, shenanigans like this are given a free pass.

Exactly right! /.'ers are inconsistent. If you like "free software", you can't like "free software and Apple" because that's just silly. There's nothing about Apple that's free or altruistic. They're simply a maker of generally high-quality computer hardware that's often well integrated with their custom software.

Summary misleading? (5, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | about 9 years ago | (#13565301)

The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:

"The First Amendment requires that compelled disclosure from journalists be a last resort," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Apple must first investigate its own house before seeking to disturb the freedom of the press."

Is the only source of this information in the summary this quote from an attorney working against Apple? If so, something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact.

Re:Summary misleading? (2, Insightful)

heavy snowfall (847023) | about 9 years ago | (#13565424)

Especially the part about him being a journalist! That's contested by Apple and others. And the most interesting part of this case: Is any random guy with a webpage a journalist with the right to protect his sources (he can allways keep quiet, but if he's not a journalist he'll get in trouble).

So this is more like an attempt by his attorney to establish as a fact that he's a journalist.

Re:Summary misleading? (5, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | about 9 years ago | (#13565502)

Articles from the register [theregister.co.uk] and many others [google.com] make it sound more like EFF had court documents unsealed that show Apple's lack of dilligence.

From the reg article:

Apple's legal eagles failed to take depositions or subpoena its own employees, and didn't examine telephone records or individuals' computers. It made only a cursory examination of a single email server. The testimony was provided by Robin Zonic and Al Ortiz, senior manager of investigations, and senior investigator in the corporate security department at Apple....

Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.

Re:Summary misleading? (1, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | about 9 years ago | (#13565783)

Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.

I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one. The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.

*Everyone* is upset that Apple sued the websites to cover up for their own internal problems. The difference is that some people are able to put this bad action into proper perspective, while others see it as proof that Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft.

Personally, I'm mad that Apple acted so badly, but since it's not their normal way of doing business, and because I find the company "does the right thing" more often than I've come to expect from most corporations, I'm not going to hang them for it.

Re:Summary misleading? (2, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | about 9 years ago | (#13566003)

I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one.
Here you go [slashdot.org]
The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.

No. The OP tried to make the entire summary sound incorrect.
Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage

Court documents appear to back this up.

That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyers (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 9 years ago | (#13565302)

The article is not based on any decision made by a judge, it is based on what the opposing lawyers say. It is not even based on the _opinion_ of the opposing lawyers (which they might be very wise to keep to themselves), but on their interpretation that is most helpful to their clients.

It would be interesting to see what Apple's lawyers think about it. Maybe, just maybe, they have a slightly different point of few. Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.

Re:That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565404)

So the EFF is bad now?

Re:That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyer (4, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | about 9 years ago | (#13565670)

Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.

This is not a criminal lawsuit. This is a civil case.

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.

If this wasn't the case, you would have companies making sweeping allegations and suing with no evidence. But no company [wikipedia.org] would ever do that, would they?

Re:That is just the opinion of the opposing lawyer (2, Informative)

Harbinjer (260165) | about 9 years ago | (#13565734)

I don't care what Apple's lawyers think. As far as I'm concerned they should be up against the wall by now.

The story is that the judge unsealed the documents, and those documents show that Apple didn't fulfil its obligations to investigate internally FIRST. Besides, this is the EFF, they usually pick their causes well. I trust their legal actions much more than any corporations, because they're not out just to make money, they're here to protect people's rights.

I wonder if that's grounds for a malicious prosecutions lawsuit. It would serve them right. Those laws exist to protect the rights of the people, and Apple just ignored them.

Apple does make some very good products, but that's no excuse to trample people's rights. All corporations have the ability to be evil, by their nature. They really need to be held in check when that comes out. Even Google with its "do no evil" slogan has the potential.

Case Summary from EFF (5, Informative)

brajesh (847246) | about 9 years ago | (#13565315)


Here [eff.org] is a comprehensive summary of the case at EFF's site. The coverage has obvious bias, but informative nonetheless.

Apple hiring SCO people ? (0, Flamebait)

Futurix (892321) | about 9 years ago | (#13565316)

Sounds to me like Apple started hiring people from SCO.
Never ever ask, just shoot.

Moles aren't stupid enough to self incriminate (4, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 9 years ago | (#13565317)

They don't wanna lose their jobs,
"Of fucking course I didn't tell Apple Insider anything".

The mole may not even have known about a deliberate leak, similar to earlier this morning reading about Yahoo mail updates - this was 1st posted:
I saw the new interface when my cousin, who works for yahoo was visiting [slashdot.org]

That is re-dick-u-les (5, Interesting)

narzy (166978) | about 9 years ago | (#13565321)

Way to go Apple, you ass hats.

When the story first broke that apple was sueing rumor sites I withheld judgement, you see I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist, I also understand the letters NDA, and what they mean to a company, and what they mean to me when I sign one. I do feel that as a journalist I have protections given to me by the US constitution protecting me and everyone for that matter from persecution and prosocution as a result of what I write.

That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company. We need to recognize that we do have great freedoms and powers in the press but that we need to make sure we use those powers and freedoms responsibly, for example not outing a CIA agent that isn't doing anything more then her job, that isn't say stealing from the Repbulican National Convention headquarters, but is making our country a safer place. You know that thing we refer to as common sense.

We as a society also need to infer and compel in to people that when they make a resonable agreement with someone be it a company or other individual or institution, they need to be held to that agreement, meaning if employee's of apple did disclose information about an upcomming product and had signed an NDA, and the upcomming product was not part of a large and publicly damaging scandal they had no right to reveal that information to a third party, and thusly the third party doesn't have the right (even under freedom of the press / speech) to reveal that information to the public.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (2, Interesting)

RradRegor (913123) | about 9 years ago | (#13565521)

That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company.
Yes, balances are lacking in a lot of ways. The other side of the coin is that in this industry, everything is under NDA. When I accept employment, I have to sign a paper that says basically my employer owns everything that crosses my mind, and I can't talk to anyone about anything that the company owns. Ergo I violate the NDA whenever I communicate with anyone.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565578)

I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist

You certainly do. It's spelt "suing", not "sueing"; "prosecution", not "prosocution"; "acknowledged", not "aknowlaged"; "Republican", not "Repbulican"; "reasonable", not "resonable"; and "upcoming", not "upcomming". Also, proper nouns tend to start with a capital letter, and apostrophes aren't used for plurals. You need more commas too.

I don't usually play spelling/grammar nazi, but your spelling and grammar was so ridiculously bad that I seriously wondered whether you were drunk when you wrote it.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (-1, Troll)

narzy (166978) | about 9 years ago | (#13565619)

Sorry, I don't generally proof comments I make on other sites, and I will openly admit my spelling aer teh suxorz. I do try, and I do have my work edited before I publish on my site.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (1, Funny)

Intron (870560) | about 9 years ago | (#13565644)

"need to infer and compel in to people"

You missed this wonderful construction. Sounds like a self-proclaimed "jurnallist" to me.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (1)

narzy (166978) | about 9 years ago | (#13565695)

"need to infer and compel in to people"

You missed this wonderful construction. Sounds like a self-proclaimed "jurnallist" to me.

I do have to say, one of my finer moments, whoops. I promise I passed English 101 and took a community college course in journalism ROFL.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565751)

I seriously doubt that.

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (2, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | about 9 years ago | (#13565617)


Or to put it more succintly: "With great power comes great responsibility" ;-)

Re:That is re-dick-u-les (0)

MustardMan (52102) | about 9 years ago | (#13565763)

only on slashdot would you get modded insightful for quoting comic books.

Actually it isn't that surprising (2, Interesting)

amodm (876842) | about 9 years ago | (#13565325)

Not that apple shouldn't have done checks at home, but given the fact that most employees are aware that they can be easily monitored under company premises (especially when working on a secretive stuff), most of such sources would typically NOT use company resources, so it doesn't make much sense to search them.

Instead ask the "journalist" himself.

Again, Apple SHOULD have done checks at home, just to be on the safe side of law at least.

Re:Actually it isn't that surprising (1)

bluGill (862) | about 9 years ago | (#13565916)

If you don't use resources you have, why have them?

If I was working at Apple (I don't) intending to leak secrets (which I wouldn't), and knew that they monitored everything, but never looked at those monitors to see what happened, you bet I'd use company resources to leak things. When I send something from an anonymous source, I'm not trustworthy. Anyone can say anything, if I can make my leaks come from apple, I'm not just anyone, I'm clearly an Apple insider, and thus more trustworthy.

If Apple isn't going to do the checks at home, then they should quit wasting shareholder's money having the ability to do those checks.

So... (1)

sl8r (104278) | about 9 years ago | (#13565326)

does this mean AsSeenOnTV will start posting glowing reports of OS X's Spotlight "technology" on Slashdot again?

He seemed to go off on a very long vacation, last I heard from him...

Re:So... (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 9 years ago | (#13565624)

Awww... Where did he run off to? I miss him...

Fails in due diligence? (1)

mnoel2 (711420) | about 9 years ago | (#13565332)

I hope no one counter-sues; it'd be a shame if Apple were to end up in prison, married to the the guy with the most cigarettes.

Innovation doesnt mean you can walk over people (2, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | about 9 years ago | (#13565345)

Apple did introduce a great product in Ipod, proving that usability and industrial design can help corner a market. And the tie in to itunes was an excellent idea from the perspective of locking in a market. Furthermore the inability of ipod to understand any DRM other than Fairplay means taht any musician who wants to sell music and have it be portable while having DRM must sell via itunes. These are all great ways to sell a product, and "bring portable music to the masses."

History is full of great but evil inventors. For example, the inventor of the process that enables nitrgen rich fertilizers which saves countless lives also designed and took pleasure in designing German poison gas weapons.

I am not comparing Apple to that in any remote sense, but I am making the point that just because someone brings forth innovation to the world doesnt mean they get a free pass trampling rights.

Re:Innovation doesnt mean you can walk over people (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565434)

Interesting? He violated Godwin's law. It's the law dogbammit! And then you sorta excuse yourself for bringing up the reference in the first place, shameful.

It was all about Intel-switch! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565352)

Apple just wanted rumor sites to be afraid, so that they don't spoil Apples announcement to Intel-procsessors.

Think about what it would have done with PPC-Mac sales, if rumors about Intel had been wild long before WWDC... No-one would have bought PPC-machine, if there were rumors that Intel-switch was coming this summer.

Oh, and that Apple employee called "As Seen On TV" here at /. was one part of that ploy also -> Apple wanted to give rumor mill an extra spin of their own just to get focus off the upcomig and very major Intel-switch.

And don't get me started to point out that Apple prolly leaked the Intel-info to WSJ and Cnet, so that Steve could show that "It's True"-slide in his presentation...

Think about that. Think different, indeed.
 

Apple Bad (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565412)

Micro$oft bad-er

kekekeke (-1, Offtopic)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | about 9 years ago | (#13565431)

Apple are Korea.

Apple did something wrong? (5, Funny)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 9 years ago | (#13565432)

We don't even want to know about the details. We forgive them anyway. But deep down inside we know that they are not really at fault or it was just an honest mistake. And I'm almost sure MS has something to do with this.

E/gP! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565460)

RYAM) f:or about 20

the usual (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13565474)

But of course, the /.-crowd (read: fanboys of all things Apple or Jobs) will ignore this and forgive them. But whoa, had it been Microsoft it would have been evil.

Just Curious... (1)

stam66 (633108) | about 9 years ago | (#13565613)

IANAL, but I would've thought that the court/judge should have verified that Apple "thoroughly" investigated it's staff in-house, before violating the journalist's freedoms. After all, if any one could just show up in court and say: "Looky here judge, it's like i say it is, y'hear?" then there wouldn't be much of a judicial process, would there... But please correct me if i'm wrong...

Apple still got what it wanted. (2, Insightful)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | about 9 years ago | (#13566005)

No one will dare publish interesting rumors, even if they're not legally protected trade secrets, unless they're either judgment-proof or have their own pack of snarling lawyers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?