Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Rumors, Odds and ends
EFF unseals documents showing Apple sues first, investigates never
Anyone remember Asteroid? No, not the game, the rumored Firewire-based GarageBand add-on. Well do you remember the handful of Mac rumor sites that got in big trouble for blabbing on said doodad? The Electronic Freedom Foundation has taken up the cause, and rightly so. According to recently unsealed documents (link to PDF), the EFF has learned Apple did only the most rudimentary checks before deciding to release the Where did this thing go anyway? Seems to me that, once again, it's a sticky situation. Apple has the right to protect trade secrets. Journalists and citizens have the right to free speech. In this particular case I'd like to know what damages have been incurred. Do you see Microsoft rushing to market with an "Asteroid killer?" Let it go guys, just let it go.
[via MacNN]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wysiwyg said 8:26AM on 9-15-2005
Hey, it could be a strategy too. Sue everyone who has a rumor and you´ll never know which ones are the real thing! Maybe.
Reply
djones said 8:32AM on 9-15-2005
I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is not Watergate, it is private industry. Company leaks are not protected sources. And if the complaint here is that they did not do a "thorough" investigation--with the ridiculous costs of legal fees, wouldn't you as a business owner attempt to only do what would minimally be required by law?
I'm ashamed that these employees and so-called "journalists" are able to hide and call themselves ethical and that Apple trying to stop private information from illegally escaping Infinite Loop are viewed as a breach of ethics.
Judith Miller is a journalist protecting a source. Making a big deal about this case, and assigning some honor to Powerpage and AppleInsider trivialize reporters like Judith Miller who struggle with source protection in a way the law intended.
Reply
KissTheRing said 8:53AM on 9-15-2005
Electronic Freedom Foundation? Is that anything like the Electronic Frontier Foundation?
Reply
Brian said 11:18AM on 9-15-2005
This case is not a big deal as you mentioned. Microsoft couldn't exactly make this. But this case is about setting a precedent.
Reply
tf said 2:00PM on 9-15-2005
The EFF has lost its mojo and you guys have lost your ability to read a pdf. When EFF was looking for a dismissal, they said the same thing, and the Judge said Apple had adequately investigated. What was investigated was where the file was located and if it could get out off the network. If it could get off the network, whether or not it was accessed by someone who was unauthorized. They also checked the email of all involved. They interviewed all involved. They all stated they had upheld their confidentiality agreement and ahdn't shared it. Or if they had shared it, that that person was authorized.
The EFF after having already been rejected wants to claim that Apple needs to depose all of its employees in front of lawyers (essentially requiring EVERY Apple employee to hire a lawyer as well). This is absurd and is not required.
These affadavits actually confirm, not refute, what Apple had previously stated was their investigation. And the judge agreed it was sufficient to move forward.
The EFF is acting absurd.
Reply