Apple vs Bloggers 271
Moby Cock writes "Jason O'Grady has posted a story on his ZDNet blog detailing the state of the current legal trouble he is embroiled in with Apple. He views it as another salvo in Apple's efforts to stamp out rumour sites posting 'trade secrets' prior to the official announcements. The discussion becomes rather pointed and goes as far as to suggest that the case is really a case in support of freedom of the press." From the article: "At issue was a series of stories that I ran in October 2004 about an upcoming product that was in development. Was it the next great PowerBook? Maybe the a red hot iPod? Maybe a killer new version of the OS? Nah. The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.' Yawn."
Its still illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to assume that Apple doesn't so much want him, as the for him to give up the source so they can lay some real hurt...
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Or your lawyer his. Right?
Thought not.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Or my lawyer.
Not their wives.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
If said doctor told his wife something, who then told, for example, a prosecutor, to be used in a case against you, it'd still be inadmissable even though the wife has no relation to you, because the court recognises the 'privilege' of the information at any point, not just at the point of privilege. In this case, that wife knowingly funnelling privileged information could very easily find herself under
Re:Its still illegal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Information of products in developement or future product of companies prior to their announcement pretty much fall into the category trade secrets.
I dare you to post some photos of the next Mercedes prototype for their Perpetuum Mobile model which will come out late 2007... oops, just caught myself being a little talkative, sorry.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Mercedes or GM seems to be suing The Car Connection or Brenda Priddy, the woman who took the photos. Is this different from posting pictures of a Mac Mini before its announcement?
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Well I can't speak for Chevy, I don't think Mercedes is trying to put one of their fancy-ass cars in every home. And while that would definately be setting your hopes high, it's a lot more realistic for a $600 computer that's smaller than many hardcover books than a many-thousand dollar vehicle which would be redundant for most of the population (when was the last breakthrough with vehicles? automatic transmissions?) Of course
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if the news gets out that Apple is about to issue a new product, then sales of Apple's analogous products will fall. So Apple has to play a finely balanced game of only announcing new products when they can be sure of getting them to market on time.
All of these are major issues for Apple's business, and Apple h
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
To help me calibrate: Is yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre _obviously_ unconstitutional as well?
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is obviously not unconstitutional. The opinion which claimed such as an example of unprotected speech was a disgusting piece of law; it was a ruling that distributing pamphlets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional was not protected by the constitution.
Anyway, the reason the law is unconsitutional as applied to publication is pretty simple; it's a law directly restricting freedom of the press. Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Sure do.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It treats the press and speech pretty equally there. So, I'm not convinced that the "fire" restriction is appreciably more constitutional based just on the 1st Ammendment.
What is it th
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
See?
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
Re:Its still illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, it's ignorance that the material in question is a trade secret. You need to know and profit and/or cause damange and some other bits. There's already several links in this thread to the law [tscm.com] if you want to read it for your self.
Not if... (Score:2)
What he did is not a crime at this time, as that has yet to be proven. You are not a court, and you are not able to pronounce judgement.
Re:Not if... (Score:5, Informative)
Jason O'Grady has been publishing leaks about unreleased Apple products for over ten years. I'd say he knows exactly what he did, and that it was against the law.
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2)
"In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly--"[emphasis mine]
Re:Its still illegal (Score:2, Funny)
What about the other side of this? (Score:2)
Whenever something is brewing from Google, many rumours fly around, and lots of buzz is generated. Very often, one of the rumours is the real product, but lots of buzz is generated because no one really knows for sure what is coming. It seems Apple are naturally attaining the same position as Google - lots of buzz is being generated about Apple products. That is, until
Re:What about the other side of this? (Score:2)
Re:What about the other side of this? (Score:2, Interesting)
*flamesuit on*
The key difference between Google and Apple is that Apple is an exterior trend. Their products are generally physically inferior (as
Official Secrets Acts (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet because no real equivalent of an Offical Secrets Act exists in the United States, it is legal to disclose any secret dealings of the US Government. It is legal to publish leaks from the White House for example, or the Pentagon Papers.
How strange that the trite dealings of private companies are afforded more clandestine protections that the secret wranglings of the government, or indeed the private
Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2, Interesting)
The main difference between a reporter and a blogger is that a reporter has the company lawyers to back him/her up.
If it was really as simple as "tell a reporter the trade secrets", then wouldn't it make sense for every big corporation to put out a newspaper/magazine and have a few reporters on the payroll to collect trade secrets? Corporate espionage happens & it'd be a lot simpler if disgr
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, according to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act [nsi.org], it doesn't:
(2) "Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
Given that rumor sites operate on the principle of soliciting inside information, it's hard to make the case that they didn't know they had gotten some unless they admit that most of what they print isn't inside information (i.e., that they make it up).
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2, Insightful)
So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign? At the very least it's plausible denability.
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit
The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, sure, once it becomes public knowledge it's not really an issue, but you don't have the right to make it public just because you know it.
The portion of the law I quoted says this is not so in cases such as this one. If someone that works for Company A reveals trade secrets to you, Website B, and you have reason to believe it is a trade secret,
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Interesting)
It's flat out good citizenship, and it IS a first amendment issue.
The trade secret laws are unconstitutional.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Insightful)
That should be a clue that investigative journalism is not what Apple rumor sites do.
And before you say "whistleblower", please familiarize yourself with some of the relevant laws, as so few people choose to do. If these sites had published evidence that, say, Apple was dumping toxic waste or committing fraud, they would probably be protected. They didn't, though. The information they published had only commercial value, and it's disclosure was not in the public interest, no matter how interested the public may have been.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2)
It does. There is no part of this law that says otherwise. You still have the usual First Amendment rights. They just aren't absolute, and never were.
Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets" (Score:3, Insightful)
And putting a law around "Trade Secrets" doesn't make them constitutionally protected.
If the government gives a corporation the 'right' to take away my constitutional rights, that's a government action -- even if by proxy.
Re:Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets" (Score:2)
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2)
Uh-huh.
If you can't do better than that, I can see why you posted as an AC.
Sad. But then, Bush won, eh?
RE: Apple vs Bloggers (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14282 [osnews.com]
Re: Apple vs Bloggers (Score:2)
In that editorial he compares people killed for expressing their opinions to Apple suing "non-professional" journalists over exposing trade secrets. This is an absurd comparison. Apple has sued both professional and "non-professional" journalists for exposing trade secrets, they don't discriminate.
What these journalists are doing is illegal, individuals and corporations have the right to protect their own internal products
Red Hot Ipods!?? (Score:3, Funny)
And people thought black didn't really match the iMacs.
Symphathy for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Jason (and Nick) needs to memorize this phrase: (Score:2)
and banish this one from his vocabulary:
"Gosh, it looks legit. I think I'll tell the world."
Really. I can't believe that people who make it their business to report inside news can't understand or be sensitive to the notion that much heck, most - of what's not on the Apple press page is probably under NDA.
If it never occurred to you that any Apple employee that has detailed knowledge of unreleased products JUST MIGHT be breaking the contract and possibly law - then you need to revie
That's why Apple is trying to find the source! (Score:2)
Obviously the person who leaked the information in the first place, because they were in the position of trust.
Which is exactly why ALL Apple is suing over is to get the documents originally sent to the blogger, so they can find out who the leaker is and sue HIM (sorry, could be HER I guess) for damages.
If journalists do not get special protecti
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the lawsuit involves a more subtle issue: who is responsible, the insider violated an NDA and leaked the info, or the person who reports on the leaked info?
In most places, the law says they are both guilty.
That's why they are framing it as a journalistic freedom issue. Definitely a gray area...
This is only a "gray area" to those who haven't done any research. Different types of speech have different levels of protection. Political expression has the highest level of protection. Commercial has the lowest. These people are making money doing this and hurting another company. But that is not why this is illegal. It is illegal because of the following hypothetical:
Bob works for big company A. Tom is an investor. Tom pays Bob (the poor working grunt) $1000 to give him insider information. Tom publishes said information causing company A's stock to plummet. Bob is convicted and goes to jail. Fifty people are laid off. Investors in company A lose their shirts. Tom makes a bajillion dollars by having invested in Company B and shorting company A's stock. Tom is guilty of no crime and starts looking for another desperate person, we'll call her Jane.
Do you understand why they decided to make it against the law to knowingly publish trade secrets, especially when you are profiting from it?
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
My, of course, you should have to get a license to sell products! Those evil add-on companies are even daring to ship their accessories in white, without a license!!!
As for "cloning", Apple constantly clones other companies. It's the way business works. It's a good thing. If it weren't for the stuff Apple can copy freely, Apple products wouldn't be as good, since, although Apple engineers are pretty good, they can't invent everything by themselves.
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2)
Well, then Apple should make sure their employees aren't talking; they shouldn't go after random people once the cat is out of the bag.
If Apple wanted to, they could patent everything and its brother and start a stringent enforcement campaign of its patents.
That's exactly what Apple has been doing. It's just that most of the things from Apple people like you oooh and aaah about aren't patentable--either they are obvious, or t
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but to be fair, it does take MicroSoft abour 24 to 36 months to re-innovate Apple's design features into their products. That's plenty of time for Apple to make money and then release new innovations.
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
They can project images all they want, but the legal reality is they have no authority to demand takedowns or threaten anyone. Patents are how they protect interfaces and devices from people that may clone them ( and then they have to be sufficiently unique and ingenious before the device in question is eligable for patent ), not Trade Secrets.
The bottom line is, Apple are the ones behaving in a criminal
How to fix trade secrets (Score:2, Insightful)
2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets.
3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.
The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you wa
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:2)
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a strong tradition of corporate secrecy, but what *exactly* can they do if some employee lets something slip after a few too many drinks, or for money, or for the "thrill" of revealing an exclusive ? I mean, it's not as though they're going to send 'steve@apple.com' an email the next morning confessing all, is it ?
From what I read earlier on digg, although he makes a big deal about the money Apple make/have in the bank, he's not being sued for cash or penalities, he's being sued to reveal his source, because it's the only way Apple can find and fire the guilty employee.
As for 'first amendment rights' being abused, I thought they were only rights that the government couldn't abuse, not that any limits on civil suits by corporations were imposed, but hell, I'm a bloody foreigner, so I'm probably wrong.
Simon
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is pretty compartmentalized - while I'm sure everyone knows *something* is coming, I'd be willing to bet that very few people have all the details.
One example: I'd be surprised if anyone besides ID, testing and the ad agency knew what a new product was actually going to look like until several days before release. Which explains
Oh agreed! (Score:2)
Witness this boot-camp thing: apparently it's the 10.4.6 update that gives the ability to repartition the drive non-destructively. So the developers working on that were key to Boot Camp being possible.
And by valuab
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:2)
You are probably correct, but allowing courts to rule, even in civil cases, on speech issues is effectively a government endorsement of the restriction of freedom of speech, as it is a government entity (the courts) enforcing a decision upon the individual, etcetera.
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How to fix trade secrets (Score:2)
Yawn yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yawn yourself... (Score:2)
Re:Yawn yourself... (Score:2)
Oh whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2)
There's been no amendment to the Constitution that alters any part of the first amendment. As it is the source of all law, any federal law (trade secrets) that contradicts it is void. It's just that nobody notices.
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2)
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2)
Re:Oh whatever... (Score:2)
No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also litigation bombs potential pertaining to libel and slander. You can choose to engage in libel and slander - but don't expect a free ride. Same thing here - you can spill the beans all you want. Just don't expect not to get a friendly reminder if the target decides to take action. And trust me - no one in this country needs to justify calling a lawyer - that's sorted out later.
I particularly love it when people cite newspapers as somehow being above the legal-fray that the little boy blogger gets.
I used to work for Pulitzer Publishing - and we used to get PILES of notifications from readers, companies, sponsers, sources - you name it. Just because there was a legal office - doesn't mean that they were playing foosball in there. We got whacked upside the head all the time. Next time you look at the local paper - check around the masthead for "corrections". Those usually are the result of an editor getting a friendly rejoinder from the legal department.
In otherwords bloggers - welcome to the club - there's plenty of legal bullshit to go around not to share. Enjoy!
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:2)
If someone brings you to trial, and the court rules that you did something wrong, then you are subject to their will. That is the exact opposite of freedom. This is not a difficult concept.
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lovely world you live in - here's the real one.
You can be sued for anything - at anytime - for any reason - and here's the kicker - unlike the UK? If you win - the other guy doesn't have to pay your legal expenses. Which means you could be a winner - but bankrupt. Way to go winner!
Re:No lawsuits for the big guys? (Score:2)
IANAL but last I heard trade secrets are only illegal to spread if you are under a non-disclosure agreement, otherwise it's just information I heard on the street. So if this guy wasn't under an NDA, he's in the clear for the most part. It won't stop the retarded corps from hassling him but it wouldn't be a big deal to get them off his bac
Attacking the weak link (Score:4, Interesting)
The other problem is that the blogger mentions that the information he received was not identified as "confidential" or a "trade secret". When asked to remove the information, he compiled (again, according to his account). To me it appears that this guy did was he was asked and only did what any gossip columnist would have done in a print publication. This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights. Whether or not that entitles Apple to seek the identity of the informant is a job for the courts. I personally feel that the informer should be punished.
Re:Attacking the weak link (Score:5, Informative)
You are upset for the wrong reasons then.
I'm the ISP / person who was subpoenaed. I have no problem telling a company the size of Apple to pound sand, I've done it twice before and been successful. When I received the initial request I refused it because it wasn't a subpoena signed by a judge.
I don't feel threatened at all by Apple. At no point has Apple or their lawyers ever "intimated" me. On the other hand the EFF has attempted to coerce and intimidate me in this matter. Their legal filings imply that my conversations in response to the subpoena from Apple were violations of federal law. The EFF cherry picks what parts of the case they want to display on their web page. Meanwhile I have a foot tall stack of filings from the case.
Jason has left out that the reason that I got into the loop at all is because he used my phone and address instead of his for his domain registration. He has since changed it to a PO Box.
His article twists words ("...can sue any journalist..." to make it seem like he is being sued. He isn't. What has been requested is that he return the material that they have asserted is their trade secret, namely the documents that the leaker sent to him.
The assumption is that Apple would be able from the documents to tell who leaked the material. Jason asserts that they don't say "Confidential" or "Trade Secret" anywhere on them. Given the Apple attitude towards secrecy, I somehow find that unlikely.
Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone knows that Apple protects information about forthcoming products - that's why the rumour sites exist. So it's disingenuous for Jason to say that he didn't know that the information was a trade secret or confidential. If anyone should know that Apple doesn't want to publish this information, it should be someone who attracts readers to his site with the promise of access to that information.
This is conduct, not speech. (Score:4, Insightful)
Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.
This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.
Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.
Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.
Re:This is conduct, not speech. (Score:2)
The problem is, as someone outside Apple I'm not neccesarily obliged not to disclose their trade secrets no matter how much damage my disclosure might do to Apple. In fact, as an outsider the only times I am obliged to keep their secrets are if a) I've signed a binding NDA with them or b) I'm aware when the information's given to me that it's being given in violation of an NDA or other obligation not to disclose it. The burden of maintaining secrecy falls almost entirely on Apple, and if they fail to mainta
two scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
2. If the blogger didn't sign an NDA, how can he be any way responsible for any damage?
If somebody else signed an NDA and passed the information to a media outlet, the signer did the infringement, not the media.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Warning - Geeky Grammar Objection (Score:2, Informative)
The story is = The story's != The stories
'stories' means plural story, not 'story is'.
OK,OK, maybe grammar geek needs to get laid, but still!
Re:No surprise. (Score:4, Informative)
I just get told to get bent when I'm reporting a fault with my equipment [crc.id.au]. I'd be happy to get Apple to fix my SuperDrives.
Telling people with faulty equipment to get bent? Evil? Check on both accounts.
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is this "old Apple" crap you're talking about? Apple has always been litigious, and this claim that they will "further alienate" the fan base, as if they're alienating them now, has no basis in fact. Actually, they're doing quite well as the quarterly results call is expected to show in May.
Basically, I'm out of quotation marks here to throw around your goofy phrases.
Re:No surprise. (Score:2)
Since when did fundamentalists own exclusive rights to the concept of evil (and/or good for that matter)? The term "evil" as it is commonly accepted throughout the society in which most of us live means unnecessary acts that are extraordinarly against the well-being of an individual and/or group with little or
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's more like "since Steve Jobs came back Apple's had some fucking pride, discipline and follow-up"
Apple employees have been wanting O'Grady's ass in a sling for over ten years now. Since Steve returned, the level of cynicism at the company has fallen to all time lows (though by no means extinguished) and employees understand they have a stake in every last competitive advantage possible - including secrecy about unannounced products.
Every time O'Grady publishes a leak from an Apple contractor, third party, or employee, he materially damages all the hard work and expense of keeping those products secret.
Apple spends a shit load (metric) of money to keep developing products under wraps - security patrols, disguises, etc. - very similar to how large car companies develop and test new designs.
And though you can find snapshots of heavily-disguised prototype cars in the auto magazines, those photographers hunt down the testers and photograph from great distances - they're not passing along privileged information from an employee who signed a contract to keep that information secret.
In other words, if some doofus Apple employee took the new ÜberBook iPro to the Donut Wheel and someone snapped a picture and published it, neither the photographer or publisher would be liable. If the same employee sent O'Grady an e-mail about the machine, both parties would be liable for dissemination of the information.
See the difference?
Re:No surprise. (Score:2)
This is how you know they're from Cupertino!
Besides, why would you want to sit down in Donut Wheel anyways, its mostly De Anza and Monta Vista students using it as a late night refuge for studying, and not terribly clean.
I'd think Panera or that Bagel place accross from Apple would be a better place to try and snag pictures of Apple Employees using pre-release gear. Although most employees are very good about not showing such th
Re:No surprise. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What if..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple. A few people got into trouble, including one lady who inadvertently had the upcoming "Think Different" ad budget published in an industry newsletter.
The saddest part of this story is (from a consumer point of view) how a loyalist is kicked in the nuts by the company he/she has loved.
Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.
Re:What if..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuckin' A. Maybe Jason should have to pay Apple back for the development costs of the product - or maybe just the costs of keeping the product secret, including security patrols, badge readers and the maintenance of, printing of employee handbooks that explicitly detail the company's NDA policy, heck - even down to the software they're probably now using to monitor their network for e-mail going to...Jason O'Grady.
JD, you got in trouble because you did something wrong and you knew it. Buck up, and don't use ZDNet's blog to get sympathy - it only makes you look pathetic.
Re:What if..? (Score:2)
Re:Apple's benevolence (Score:2)
Apple isn't a convicted monopolist? They observe standards, or at worst get their formats accepted as parts of standards, rather than simply using broken or incompatible implementations of standards? Your guess is as good as mine.
Apple controls the hardware...
A non-issue. If you don't like Apple's hardware, you've got plenty of alternatives. Tough luck if you want OSX to run on something else, though, but that is a condit