Apple to settle another Tiger leak lawsuit
Going by court documents filed a few days ago in the Northern District of California (which you can download below, since they are public record once you shell out a bit for them) it would appear Apple Computer and Vivek 'Sunny' Sambhara have reached a settlement agreement:
If you're new-ish to the situation, Sunny was one of three named individuals being sued for distributing a developer pre-release of Mac OS 10.4 over the internets, along with a score or so of 'John Does'. The site ended up sitting down with Sunny to get this side of what was going on, and eventually a whole bunch of notables from the Mac side of the fence weighed in with their varied thoughts on the situation.
It wasn't very pretty, and awhile afterwards Sunny was able to procure the services of Summers Rubinstein PC, who in a short Q&A explained why they were defending Sunny from Apple while forgoing their legal fees. The terms of the settlement are in the PDFs linked above, at least so far as I can tell. Just the fact that he'll be putting it behind him and focusing all of his attention on organic chemistry means it's a good day.
I know my shoulders loosened up a bit after seeing these papers, and while I do understand where Apple was coming from I can definitely say it's colored my view of Apple and their products. There's a bad aftertaste here, and I don't look at 10.4 the same way I may have otherwise. When they were factoring their return on investment on this course of action, I truly wish they'd been a little more creative.
While it is a great day for Sunny, and I'm whole heartedly glad they were able to work something out and put it behind them, I'd have to imagine that bad aftertaste outweighs whatever short term gains Apple procured (like 'sending a message') by a very wide margin.
It's also worth noting that there's another named defendant out there, David Schwartzstein ('dmsmac'), and many who are still unnamed and the situation hasn't gone away for them.
One has to wonder how Sunny's case would have turned out without Summers Rubinstein PC donating their efforts and services, let alone all the other names that stepped in, and while I can't say much about the Steigerwalds I can say they put a lot on the line to get their son help.
I've talked to David, I actually interviewed him when I interviewed Sunny but pulled it at his request when he was able to obtain representation. The interview is sitting in an encrypted file in case it's ever needed for some reason.
While he was able to obtain legal representation, a sort of insurance service one could pay into in exchange for x amount of hours per year, as you can imagine those types of services generally aren't cut out for cases such as these and his situation has weighed on my mind.
These are the situations nightmares are made of, even if they're self-created nightmares, that gnaw away at your brain and color every day. My hope is all involved, including those that haven't been named, can soon put their nightmares aside.
Posted by drunkenbatmanApril 19, 2005, at 02:21 PM
Comments (61)
Posted by: Mark Feldman at April 19, 2005 03:16 PM
Tell me again why Apple is somehow wrong for protecting it's intellectual property?
They are not wrong in protecting their intellectual property but this was overkill. Your opinion that they should be drawn and quartered is a vocal but minority view.
Reading the papers, he got a very good settlement while admitting guilt. Didn't have to pay anything. Just hand over what he had of Apple's which is a good settlement. Didn't the first guy who settled have to pay Apple some cash?
Posted by: John at April 19, 2005 03:25 PM
I think Apple has done the just thing in suing to protect its property and defend its rights, and the compassionate thing in settling.
There is no bad taste for Apple in my mouth. The only bad taste is for all those who persist in breaking contracts, or in acquiring what is not theirs (in previous generations, this was known as stealing), and then trying to employ all sorts of excuses and euphemisms to make what they've done seem right, while villainizing those who seek proper justice. (I must say that I give Sunny credit for not doing the latter.)
Posted by: at April 19, 2005 03:28 PM
While it's unfortunate Sunny was put through such tribulations by Apple, and I'm sure he meant no harm by doing what he did, he had to respect the nature of the NDA and the legal ramifications behind it. Especially in this era of the RIAA going wild with legal action against its customers, a little common sense would have gone a long way.
I think you have to respect Apple's right to protect their product as well. To suddenly have a certain disdain toward Apple because of this seems excessive. Apple could have been a bit more lenient, perhaps, but they have to make an example at the same time.
Posted by: Wendy at April 19, 2005 03:31 PM
The only difference between what Apple did and what the RIAA does is that the RIAA is not Apple. I love Apple, and am glad they chose to be reasonable instead of dragging this out. They had so much more to lose in this I never understand why they did this in the first place.
Posted by: Peter da Silva at April 19, 2005 03:39 PM
"The only difference between what Apple did and what the RIAA does is that the RIAA is not Apple. "
And Apple doesn't engage in mass lawsuits, sue people who didn't do anything illegal (including grandmothers who don't even own computers), or otherwise engage in barratry...
Posted by: elaph at April 19, 2005 03:39 PM
He was a "20-ish" student with no money, short of Apple pressing criminal charges what could they do. First rule of corporate law: don't sue poor people!
Posted by: Kevin Ballard at April 19, 2005 04:01 PM
Wendy: in addition to what Peter da Silva said, there are differences even when the RIAA is suing people who are copyright infringers. And the difference is that these file-swappers aren't harming the RIAA (seriously, the RIAA is basically lying through their teeth when they talk about the losses they're having due to file-sharing) whereas Apple is actually harmed by their product information being leaked out to the general public before announcement.
Posted by: ershler at April 19, 2005 04:01 PM
Admittedly, going after a student is a bit Draconian, but where is Apple to draw the line? Is it any less injurious to Apple's intellectual property rights for a student to break an NDA than a major corporation? If he had no intention to honor the NDA he signed, he shouldn't have signed the legal document.
Posted by: at April 19, 2005 04:21 PM
Another reason to buy 10.4 now...
Posted by: Bob C at April 19, 2005 04:21 PM
Maybe Sonny should wait until his pre-frontal cortex grows up. Kids are like this all the time -- poor judgment (if any), a feeling of invulnerability, the thought that breaking the NDA was just a prank that would harm no one, the thought that these legal agreements don't really apply to me, or perhaps an arrogance that even if they do apply, I'm too good to get caught. Even if I get caught, nothing will happen.
This is the real world, kid, and occasionally you are responsible for your actions. Apple did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong. Once started they couldn't stop. And part of accountability involves lots of (mental) anguish and (one hopes) lots of introspection. Apple made this kid suffer, then let him go. That's exactly what most parents would do. His parents weren't hurt by what he did so they no doubt supported him totally. But, for example, if he took the family Lexus and wrecked it while drunk they would have behaved as Apple did.
Time to stop making excuses for kids (and adults) who act irresponsibly then say, Whoa, what I did wasn't that bad, and besides it might be some sort of violation of my rights (which it isn't). Then start a carefully planned campaign through lawyers and bloggers (drunk or sober) to make Apple into the criminal here.
BLAME THE VICTIM.
Sheesh. I'm disgusted. The only bad taste in my mouth is how these lawsuits have harmed Apple because Apple (which doesn't have stockholders or customers or employees, sure) is supposed to look the other way when threatened or shat upon.
Posted by: fstop at April 19, 2005 04:26 PM
If Apple didn't sue to protect its intellectual property, it would lose it. Being poor is no defense. Being stupid may be.
Posted by: Scott Ellsworth at April 19, 2005 04:44 PM
This leaves no bad taste in my mouth - Apple acted correctly from the start. Sunny broke a legal and binding contract, unlike the people sued by the RIAA who had no contractual agreement.
The rule about not suing poor people is oft quoted. I have heard it used by more than one poor student I know as a justification for any action they care to take. They figure that there are no consequences to their actions. This lawsuit is a consequence with a capital C. Frankly, if this convinces students that their actions might just have consequences, then it was worth the trouble.
Look, if you screw up, you have the chance of really, really suffering far out of proportion to the harm you intended. You may not - Sunny did not in this case - but you most certainly can. That is a valuable lesson, and it appears that it was learned.
Had Sunny driven drunk, he might have faced felony criminal prosecution, jail time, and a lot of problems in future life, even if he did not hurt anyone. One extra drink at a bar, and a misjudgment about your own impairment, and your life takes a sudden, dramatic, explosive downward turn. Sunny had a misjudgment that took about the same amount of time, and harmed about as many people as getting caught in a holiday sobriety test. He suffered worry, but his life was not ruined, he did not get jail time, and he did not have to give up his future. That was quite a win for him, and I suspect he, and a lot of other people, are going to be more careful in the future.
What separates this from the RIAA lawsuits, in my mind, is one simple crystal clear fact - he agreed to a legal binding contract. He agreed to not distribute the information, and then he broke the contract. This is serious stuff.
If nothing else, such leaks make Apple less likely to distribute proprietary information in the future. I need that information, and I want companies to trust in their NDAs, as otherwise, they will not tell me what I need to know to plan my future products. So, I do want people to take an NDA seriously, just like I want people to take all contracts they sign seriously. You may choose to break one, but for goodness sake, understand the potential consequences.
Scott
Posted by: machine head at April 19, 2005 04:55 PM
Had Sunny driven drunk, he might have faced felony criminal prosecution, jail time, and a lot of problems in future life, even if he did not hurt anyone
You lost any credibility you may have had when you equated a rabid fan sharing early software with friends to a drunk driver. Low.
Posted by: Rose at April 19, 2005 04:57 PM
"First rule of corporate law: don't sue poor people!"
Does this mean the law doesn't apply if you're poor? Huh?
As others have said, what else is Apple to do here? For those who have that "bad taste" over this situation -- where are your suggestions on what Apple should have done? Hint: "Ignore it" isn't the right answer.
Perhaps Apple shouldn't have settled, but instead gone to court and tried to cause maximum damage to these people. For some people, it seems it wouldn't make any difference. May as well go for blood instead of tears. Or, wait, perhaps Apple was being reasonable and trying to work things out without using every weapon in their arsenal?
Posted by: subtlety at April 19, 2005 05:08 PM
Scott's attempt to make obvious the principle of taking responsibility for your actions and the potential life-ruining consequences of your actions by using a concrete example of driving drunk is right on despite machine head's inability to derive and apply such principles across domains. The law allows Apple to sue and ruin lives, just like the law allows the government to prosecute and ruin lives.
by the way, does it matter that you're poor if you drive drunk? or are poor people simply not allowed to drive cars? or do the police just not prosecute out of compassion? i digress...
Posted by: JotBot at April 19, 2005 05:12 PM
Awesome. This makes my day too. :)
Apple had the right to do what they did, but it was becoming a black eye. For such a creative company to go so far beyond what Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia or others have gone litigiously was painting them in a bad light so they benefit by putting this behind them. Everyone can agree on that, and putting this behind them is in everyone interest.
Posted by: Chris at April 19, 2005 06:08 PM
Tell me again why Apple is somehow wrong for protecting it's intellectual property? This guy signed a legal contract stating he wouldn't divulge or disseminate the materials he was allowed access to, and he did just that. What part of the legal contract did he not understand, or rather, did he think it was OK to spread it around the net. Either way, He was wrong, legally, morally, ethically. I applaud Apple in it's vigilance to protect it's assets.
The reason this leaves a bad taste is not the fact that Apple is defending it's own turf, it's the means in which they did it.
Read the original interview, it states that Sunny was contacted previous to the papers being filed, and that the person on the phone implied that Sunny would not be sued. If Apple had been up front with Sunny, I think that he would have chosen a different route here.
The point isn't about what Sunny did, or the lawsuit, but as a whole. Apple could have played this out a lot differently, and it would have been a non-issue.
It infuriates me that Apple, the company we all have decided is great and grand, could have potentially ruined some kid just because he made one mess up. One they could not only have afforded, but which is the norm with most software, and not something which can be stopped. This sent no message to anyone other than that Apple has a legal team which knows how to do what they are paid to do, and that they have changed focuses from being just a customer oriented company to one that cares about the bottom line.
Posted by: iPod or Die at April 19, 2005 06:18 PM
Last I looked almost 3,000 people were downloading Tiger from a japanese torrent site. There was no long-term gain from this if the intent was to stop that, just some scared people for only a bit and and now more are downloading than before. P2P is a hydra, you cut off one head and it sprouts up larger than before and you have to be 'creative' if you want to alleviate things, ESPECIALLY if they are rabid fans and not pirates. Someone at Apple just got mad and put their foot down without thinking of the repercussions. I'm sure that person at Apple HATES drunken blog too. :-)
Posted by: terkhost at April 19, 2005 06:27 PM
The second PDF is pretty funny, basically says "don't do it again or else". Must have a damn fine lawyer to pull that off when he has admitted to everything publically. :-) Fuckin A I wish we knew that story.
Apple does have a heart and I think this was lawyers getting overzealous but christ D.B. it is great you learned how to go online and download court documents for thirty dollars but don't you think breaking this story early is risky and potentially harmful to Sunny? I am sure Apple wanted time to prepare their statement and release it when they wanted, not have a blogger beat them to the punch, that may have been part of their "unofficial" deal.
Posted by: Henry Maddocks at April 19, 2005 06:51 PM
I make my living developing Mac software. I rely on being able to get access to good information. This guy jeopardised that to massage his own ego. Screw him. Just because he's a nice guy and you like him doesn't make him the victim.
Posted by: eggsnatcher at April 19, 2005 07:01 PM
Well DB, you wanted mercy and Apple gave mercy. Good for them, good for them I knew Apple would come through. Now I hope the are listening about the Mac Mini. (grin)
Posted by: Eugene at April 19, 2005 07:11 PM
I make my living developing Mac software. I rely on being able to get access to good information. This guy jeopardised that to massage his own ego. Screw him.
Oh come on, this is a red herring. Apple is not going to take their betas and go home because of some leaks. Windows betas are everywhere (and much more wide spread!) and you don't see Microsoft shutting down their developer program.
It is hard enough to be an Apple developer (Could they make it harder except for charging for developer tools?) that this was never a real argument or concern. This was a stupid student (not a smart move) who did wrong and should get his penance but lets not make his action bigger than it is.
As an Apple developer, my concern is not with the student but the person who allegedly "gave" him his copy as he says. Has Apple gone after that person, and why are they not named in the suit?
It does appear he was being made an example of, which is wrong and why I am glad this has been resolved.
Posted by: at April 19, 2005 07:28 PM
subtlety: "The law allows Apple to sue and ruin lives . . ."
Sunny admitted ruining his own life by the actions he took. No one forced him to release the seed on BitTorrent. He did it of his own accord. He ruined his own life. He did it to himself. Stop blaming Apple for Sunny's actions.
I'm a little tired of his supporters (drunk or not) of treating Sunny like a child. He's an adult. He deserves to be treated like one.
Eugene: "Apple is not going to take their betas and go home. . . ."
Apple has clamped down on seeding third parties with builds. A consequence of these leaks, whether you like it or not, is that not as much testing gets done as should be done. Reporters (drunken or not) could easily verify this fact -- if they weren't busy reporting on their own self-interest in these stories.
Posted by: at April 19, 2005 07:43 PM
This just in:
"[A new] bill [passed by Congress] is written so broadly it would make a federal felon of anyone who has even one copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released. Stiff fines of up to $250,000 can also be levied. Penalties would apply regardless of whether any downloading took place."
-- http://news.com.com/Prison+terms+on+tap+for+prerelease+pirates/2100-1028_3-5677232.html?part=rss&tag=5677232&subj=news
Any word on whether the feds are pursuing a criminal case against Sunny?
Posted by: Jon H at April 19, 2005 07:53 PM
machine head: "You lost any credibility you may have had when you equated a rabid fan sharing early software with friends"
Friends? Friends aren't people you only know through anonymous online communications. And I doubt he'd ever interacted with a tenth of the people who downloaded the stuff he posted.
Posted by: Jon H at April 19, 2005 08:00 PM
Sunny may have been subjected to a good deal of stress over this, but come on, it's not nearly as much stress as if, say, he'd knocked a girl up.
Then he'd be on the hook for 18 years of support, and all the whining about him being a poor student would be exposed as the empty rhetoric it is.
Posted by: Lucas Eckels at April 19, 2005 08:11 PM
They may not pull their developer's program, or their seeds, but this case sure as hell has changed their student program. Anyone with a student membership is now barred from getting a seed key transfered to them. The WWDC scholarship program is now limited to paid, student members (I know it wasn't last year). Plus, this only worses the level of trust that Apple has with student developers. There were rumors that they had considered not giving students Tiger seeds at WWDC. Due to Panther leaks, students were not given access to seeds more recent than the one given at the conference.
I know I wish that I hadn't had those priveledges pulled.
Posted by: Jason Friedman at April 19, 2005 08:20 PM
They may not pull their developer's program, or their seeds, but this case sure as hell has changed their student program. Anyone with a student membership is now barred from getting a seed key transfered to them.
I've heard this too, Apple is not being very nice to students, but Sunny didn't get Tiger that way. Reading the interview and the follow ups, Sunny was a student yes but only had a free developer account. It was another developer with seed keys (You have to pay for these to have extra) who decided to give him one. Then he put it on a Mac bittorrent and it was taken from that closed bittorrent site and put on others. Maybe Apple's new policies will have an affect on the 25 "John Does", there may have been some students in there.
Every build of OS X, going back to the public beta, has been available on the internet and their sales have only grown. 10.4 leaking was not new, and that Apple picked NOW to clamp down like it was the end of the world always seemed so strange.
Posted by: Chris at April 19, 2005 08:22 PM
Oh, please, JotBot. Apple is the most scrutinized company on this planet (maybe an exaggeration)- mostly by its rabid fans (I am one), but also by the media (for good and bad). If this was Micromedia or Adobe, no one would have batted an eyelash. Hell, no one would have even known it happened. Nor with Microsoft. But Apple's every move, from this case to the "blogger does or does not = journalist" case, Apple is heavily scrutinized.
Apple is expected by its less-rational fans to not be a corporation but a clique, a gang, an elite. Its a cool club to belong. Kinda like being an early fan of a music group. "I was a fan when they were playin bars, man!" Thus when it acts as a good corporation (I am also a shareholder) and protects itself, the less-rational ones scream and bitch about how "uncool" this all is. To not protect itself is the legal equivalent of losing control.
Let's put it this way, folks, if Apple does not protect itself, it will go under, and all of us fans can start aiming our mouses to the "START" button tomorrow. Or learn linux.
So those of you who look at this and say "uncool, Apple", grow up and start taking responsibility. And go join some other cult!
Posted by: Cap'n Hector at April 19, 2005 08:48 PM
It's an interesting case…I'd like to say that Apple was too hard on Sunny and the others, but I don't think I can. The NDA's they signed are binding, and I'd love to see more leakers (both inside and outside of Apple) not leak Apple's software and/or be caught and prevented from doing it.
And Apple's lawsuits did have the desired effect…did anyone else notice how much harder it was to find a Tiger torrent after Apple filed 'em? I went looking out of curiosity, I don't want/need a pirated copy of Tiger.
From Apple's point of view, this has gone pretty well. One settlement for a modest sum (or so I understand) and one wrist-slapping. That should help minimize the negative press, once it starts getting around that Apple isn't being draconian in what they demand.
Posted by: Sam Torrelli at April 19, 2005 10:08 PM
I think Apple has every legal right to sue anyone who breeches agreements, etc. I do, however, also think they've been particularly whiney and sue-happy this year over information being leaked, software being leaked, etc. I mean honestly, what harm has actually come to Apple from these things?
The Mac rumor sites leak information that gets the psychotic fans all peeing in their drawers -- then the fans run out and buy everything when it's finally announced. I hardly see that as bad advertising.
The leaked copies of Tiger didn't give away anything about Tiger that we didn't know prior to their leak. It's hardly a revolutionary OS upgrade -- cool search features, basic advances and some gimmicky dashboard crap that was (ironically) stolen from an Apple developer.
I can see if they were actually harmed by any of it -- and of course the potential for harm is there if piracy were to happen on a grander scale -- but realistically this stuff has done nothing more than make people want Apple products. Apple should protect it's properties -- but it should also tell Steve Jobs to get over his SECRECY AT ANY COST nonsense. He must be a scary, unfriendly person to work for.
Corporations are so tiring. I wish a couple of geeks could start a new computer company in their parent's garage and
re-revolutionize the computer world. Orange Computer Inc.? anyone? anyone at all?
Posted by: Blixa at April 19, 2005 10:58 PM
If Patent and Intellectual Property Law is anything like Trademark Law, it may be a requirement of the statute that you sue in order to maintain your position as owner of the property, patent or trademark. (In other words) If you know that someone has violated an agreement, you must pursue suite immediately. Otherwise you are barred from further pursuit or recourse down the road. Meaning, you can not pick and chose who you sue. You must sue all violators. Even small ones. Otherwise, when a large company rips you off, they can use past non-pursuit as precedence.
Posted by: Look in the mirror at April 19, 2005 11:32 PM
"Corporations are so tiring. I wish a couple of geeks could start a new computer company in their parent's garage and
re-revolutionize the computer world. Orange Computer Inc.? anyone? anyone at all?"
Clueless pinheads are so tiring. So this imaginary new company gets sucessful and becomes a corporation. Where do you think that'll end up? Perhaps Orange Cat being released on BitTorrent and another idiot rallying support for the criminals.
There are no valid rationalizations for criminal activity! Unless you are a criminal too, this should be obvious. Funny nobody seems to mind the mountain of suits filed by Microsoft for the exact same thing. But I guess it's ok in that case because you don't like their product.
Man evolved from the apes....well some did.
Posted by: Marcus at April 19, 2005 11:37 PM
'Drunkenbatman' your spineless defending of these guys while taking Apple to task makes me sick. They broke the law and deserved everything they had coming to them. They stole from Apple and Apple had every right to go after them as they did and as a shareholder I am glad they did.
Posted by: Carl at April 19, 2005 11:41 PM
Off topic, but Apple has released a security patch for the iSync hole you've been upset about, so that's good news.
Posted by: Brian Schack at April 19, 2005 11:46 PM
Clueless pinheads are so tiring. So this imaginary new company gets sucessful and becomes a corporation. Where do you think that'll end up? Perhaps Orange Cat being released on BitTorrent and another idiot rallying support for the criminals.
Or what if they decided to call their operating system Fedora?
Posted by: Brian Schack at April 20, 2005 12:10 AM
Blixa, It's not: http://www.temple*tons.com/brad/copymyths.html (see myth #5).
Sorry about the asterix; I was getting this error when I tried to submit: "Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: temple*tons.com" (without the asterix)
Posted by: IL in PA at April 20, 2005 12:20 AM
Some of you people just want to see someone else fry... FUCK! you are scary.
Glad to hear it was peacefully resolved with Sunny. My teenage daughter shares songs sometimes on Kaaza (which I've stopped) and I don't know what could have happened if something had flagged her (and my) account. Guilty, yes but there is a night and day difference between her and a man on 5th avenue selling bootlegs.
Posted by: fergus at April 20, 2005 02:12 AM
Has Apple given any more of a statement? Did money change hands?
Posted by: Edwin at April 20, 2005 02:44 AM
Apple is definitely over reacting and the fact that they are ruining a student's life because he made a stupid mistake leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Why are they over reacting?
1) It is OK to protect your IP but in this case, we are not talking about rocket science technology. So this is more about marketing crap and Apple wanting to protect their "image" of a innovative company than anything else. For all I know they stole the dashboard concept from another company and the spotlight thingy is a simple desktop search technology. bahhhhh.
2) If you are in the software industry and you release a preview (even a private preview), you should expect that it will leak. Most companies take advantage of the private preview thingy to create buzz and generate demand (similar to the gmail on invitation thingy). So this is another evidence that this is about marketing, not real IP. If they were doing rocket science type development, they would keep it inside the company.
To Apple: you know how to develop great products. People believe that you deliver highly usable and innovative product because they touch and use your products NOT because of the marketing crap. Stop ruining the lives of students and developers. Look at what happened to Novel versus Microsoft NT.
Edwin
Posted by: Dave B at April 20, 2005 02:53 AM
It's left a bad taste in my mouth too and, coupled with the legion minor inconveniences of using a Mac when the rest of the world runs some flavour of MS Windows, I think my next machine will be coming from Dell.
Posted by: Carl at April 20, 2005 04:12 AM
I don't use a Mac because of the "flavor in my mouth." If I wanted a good flavor, I'd being running Linux. I use a Mac because it Just Works™ and it just works better than anyone else. It's the best looking and most logical OS currently available. I pray for the day that OSS will release a better system and we'll be free from corporate control over our computers once and for all, but I don't see that happening for another 10 or more years. In the long term, software wants to be free. In the short term, I'm paying for the quality and innovation that will inspire the next generation of free software.
Posted by: Randy B. at April 20, 2005 07:29 AM
"It's left a bad taste in my mouth too and, coupled with the legion minor inconveniences of using a Mac when the rest of the world runs some flavour of MS Windows, I think my next machine will be coming from Dell."
You think Dell would not sue to protect their IP? How naive. There will be a Dell flyer in this Sunday's paper (In the US, at least). Have a go at it, and happy virus hunting! I think I'll stick with my virus-free, trouble-free Mac.
Posted by: Dave B at April 20, 2005 07:29 AM
"... I'm paying for the quality and innovation that will inspire the next generation of free software."
See, that's another thing. Quality is not word I associate with Apple.
Posted by: Sam Torrelli at April 20, 2005 10:28 AM
Dear Look in the mirror,
Calm down man. The Orange Computer comment was a JOKE. Don't be such an Apple zombie freak. It's OK to criticize a company, even if you like it -- that's how companies grow and change for the better.
If you read my post you'll see that I wasn't saying Apple shouldn't protect their interests, I was simply suggesting that they pick their battles more wisely. I'm not a criminal - I buy all of my Apple products and other software, I'm just a person with an opinion that can go against the grain of people/things/corporations that I normally enjoy.
You act like I insulted your mother. Caring that much about a corporation is psychotic. Truly, I'm not saying that to be offensive -- there is really something wrong with being emotionally attached to a company.
Sam
Regarding the Comment:
"Clueless pinheads are so tiring. So this imaginary new company gets sucessful and becomes a corporation. Where do you think that'll end up? Perhaps Orange Cat being released on BitTorrent and another idiot rallying support for the criminals.
There are no valid rationalizations for criminal activity! Unless you are a criminal too, this should be obvious. Funny nobody seems to mind the mountain of suits filed by Microsoft for the exact same thing. But I guess it's ok in that case because you don't like their product.
Man evolved from the apes....well some did."
Posted by: Black Guy at April 20, 2005 01:24 PM
I don't think Apple went far enough. I believe every unathorized file sharer/distributer - especially those who have entered into and promised to adhere to legal agreement such as the individual in this case - should be slammed! Jail time and fines all the way. Dry up their assets and ruin their lives with a criminal record.
What possible justification could be provided for such a irresponsible actions undertaken by the defendant? OS X (Tiger)is only $70 with a student discount, $94 for non-student preorders, and $129 at its release. Its pretty pathetic if one is not willing to pay such reasonable prices for an exeptional product and must resort to theft to acquire such product. Where does it end? Why do these criminals believe that they have an inherent right to IP w/o paying for it?
Those who are defending the "victim" and have gotten their feelings hurt by the lawsuit are so naive and ignorant, maybe even a little stupid. What are they suggesting Apple do? Kick back and let their IP be distributed for free? Thats tantamount to someone getting beat down by somebody and others getting upset at the loser for trying fight back. "Whah! Why were you fighting back, man? That wasn't right. U were suppose to let him get away with kicking u'r teeth down u'r throat."
Those "supporters" need to recognize that it cost millions of dollors - I'm sure they're familiar with the concept of development cost - to produce these products. As cool as Apple may be, they r a corporation first and its primary objective is the bottom line. They're not in for charity. I could be wrong, but I don't think Apple is a nonprofit organization.
Some commented that they are going to the happy- wonder-virus-land of Microsoft because Apple's lawsuits left a bad taste in their mouth. Good, go for it. Thats all you. I guess they haven't been paying attention to the news over the pass few years, but Microsoft does the exact same thing. Had this guy crossed Gates & family, u best bet he would have been broken off. The victim got off easy with a mere finger lashing considering his offense.
Posted by: Harry Baraka at April 20, 2005 01:30 PM
What possible justification could be provided for such a irresponsible actions undertaken by the defendant? OS X (Tiger)is only $70 with a student discount, $94 for non-student preorders, and $129 at its release. Its pretty pathetic if one is not willing to pay such reasonable prices for an exeptional product and must resort to theft to acquire such product. Where does it end? Why do these criminals believe that they have an inherent right to IP w/o paying for it?
Those who are defending the "victim" and have gotten their feelings hurt by the lawsuit are so naive and ignorant, maybe even a little stupid.
Almost as someone not realizing the discussion is over a pre-release developer version (which costs $500) that no one wants to run full time. But are great fun if you are an Apple geek and want to see the new features and see how hard it will be to create a dashboard widget.
I hate Mac users. Anything with Apple brings out the worst in them
Posted by: WTF at April 20, 2005 04:13 PM
People keep going on about "criminals".
Guess what copyright violation is a civil matter not a crimainal one. As far as I know no one has ever been inditcted for copyright violation.
God some of you froth at the mouth like a ribid racoon.
I suppose you like snitch lines too?
Posted by: drunkenbatman at April 20, 2005 04:23 PM
Hey guys,
Try to remember that this isn't a black and white deal, and if one tries to make it cut and dried, evil versus good. I know where I fall: that Apple isn't evil, but was perhaps a bit overzealous here to the point where I am disappointed in how things were handle.
However, there are good points to be made on all sides in this one that should be listened to and incorporated into one's view. Basically, this isn't politics, and it's OK to disagree with where someone falls on this issue without wanting their head on a platter.
Posted by: Undertaker at April 20, 2005 05:30 PM
Ohh boo hooo. Oh boo hoo. My life was ruined by Apple killing my ass over a lawsuit. I know I signed an NDA, but since I am me I will get away with it. Dude, the guy is taking Medical school. If he can't understand laws and NDA contracts he won't make it in the medical world. If anything against apple brings out the the worst of the fans, things positive for apple brings the worst of the Windows people trying to defend their OS preference. I have no problem with that. It is just the tatics they use to do so. Getting a Dell dude, I doubt you have a Mac. You just said you will switch to PC just to make our feeling say, " Crap, lost another one." Nope, not gonna happen. You wouldn't let apple decisions ruin your life using a Mac. You would still buy Macs, but just won't see them as great products, you will see them just the necessary to get work done.
Posted by: Scott Ellsworth at April 20, 2005 08:39 PM
Machine Head: I will try to make this even clearer.
The overall principle is simple. Sunny made a error, and the potential consequences of that error were quite large. My point was that mistakes exist that take about as much effort, and that could have had far worse consequences.
Broken down:
- Sunny misjudged the consequences of breaking a binding agreement.
- He then did something based on that misjudgment - shared the files. The actual act looks like it took him about an hour.
- Consequences were not forthcoming for about an evening, causing the claimed harm, and nothing he does can undo it.
- Other actions based on a misjudgment of similar magnitude, and taking similar amounts of time exist. The example I used was driving after drinking one too many cocktails. Again, about an hour of effort could do it, and you could easily justify it to yourself. Even if you hurt NOBODY, you might still get caught.
Feel free to pick another example if drunk driving is not your favorite example. There are lots of things that take only an hour, do not require much planning, and that can be justified in the name of excitement.
- Some of these other misjudgments have even bigger consequences. In my example, he could have been jailed, lost his license for a long time, and otherwise suffered a lot more.
So, again, Sunny really and truly broke a binding contract. That Apple sued him, then let the case go, seems reasonable to me. Still, even though I would have let the case go in their shoes, I still would want it known that the potential consequences were grave. It did not have to go this way, and it is worth remembering that Apple, as well as filesharers _will_ react to the results.
Put another way: if this left a bad taste in your mouth, then Apple got nothing for releasing Sunny from the just consequences of his actions, at least from you. Your feelings are yours, of course, but I just cannot see the logic behind blaming Apple for Sunny stealing their IP, and then suffering only a fraction of the consequences.
Were I to release one of my client's IP, I would be unemployed the next day. One of my employers lost a great client who kept a tenth of the company employed by blabbing once. The sad thing was that what we said was taken out of context, but we still suffered the consequences.
As DB said, it is not black and white. Before throwing too many brickbats at Apple, try to remember that Sunny did do what he was accused of, and skated on the consequences.
While this is probably for the best, note that mercy was shown. This is not like the RIAA suits, where it is not clear whether the people accused really did what they were accused of, and where it is not clear how much harm was suffered. Heck, fair use is still being worked out for the RIAA suits.
In this case, Sunny did what he is accused of, a settlement has been reached, and Sunny gets to go back to the life he wants, without lasting harm.
Scott
Posted by: Juanxer at April 21, 2005 03:28 AM
I'd say the crux of the issue is that current legislation is so harsh and unreasonable that the upfront costs of defending yourself are incredibly high in spite of final varying grades of culpability or even being innocent. One wonders if a corporation like Apple had room to manoeuvre in order to both defend its IP and be ethically proportionate to the humane aspects of the offense. Even if going through the legal motions, I think there had to be space for some compassionate communication. As it stands, it's pulled the brand veil and revealed itself as another "evilish corporation", willingly or not.
It'd be great to get a sincere view of their side in this case.
Posted by: powell at April 21, 2005 03:59 AM
A few things.
1. He shared a unfinished copy. Not a steal the real deal type thing. Some of us wanted a peek and plan on buying the real thing. It was probably a pre-alpha version if the lawyering is over already and the disc just went to press a few weeks ago. Torrent the GM and I have a problem with that person.
2. And Adobe and Microsoft are not grabbing copies of Tiger from Bittorrent. Apple sends them via FedEX. Before we get them too. Microsoft is getting ideas from the copy Apple sent them.
Posted by: Juanxer at April 21, 2005 07:37 AM
I must add to my comment that, in the end, Apple has done the least harm possible to Sunny, which is commendable, but it is evident that without the pro bono help Sunny received he would be utterly doomed whatever the ultimate intentions of Apple regarding him. As I don't know a thing about American Law, I'd like to know if the way things started was inevitable or not.
Posted by: Undertaker at April 21, 2005 03:13 PM
Powell,
It may be a unfinished product. So that makes it justified to leak it and break NDA? Also, since it was unfinished, he also leaked Apple Trade Secrets. So, Sunny here made 2 very big violations. Just to get away with a slap on a wrist, he is a VERY VERY lucky person.
Posted by: Scott Ellsworth at April 21, 2005 05:18 PM
juanxer:
IANAL, but I have taken classes in contract law.
In general, the system is set up such that the little guy _should_ be able to defend him or herself. In practice, though, that is very hard to do. If it is your only option, you do what you must, but it sure makes it easier if you have a professional on your side.
The biggest problem is one of practice: things that take a professional just a few hours will often take an untrained person days or weeks. See the following story for an example of a success against Microsoft, and the amount of effort it took .
Could Sunny have done the same? Perhaps - I note that there were a lot of back and forth motions in the Zamos case, which seem absent in the Apple-Sunny case. Still, not something to be eager for.
(NB - I think the cost and effort is a real problem. A person should be able to sue or defend themselves from a suit without excessive cost, and with an answer in a reasonable time. Years and many thousands of dollars just seems out of line.)
Posted by: Scott Ellsworth at April 25, 2005 06:18 PM
Hmmm - did not know that the blog software would eat URLS.
Google on Zamos and Microsoft. You are looking for the clevescene URL from 3/30.
Scott
Posted by: David Russell at April 27, 2005 09:13 AM
I am no friend of the copywrong cartel, but if the guys aren't willing to stick to a contract then they shouldn't have signed it. I have every sympathy for filesharers who are sued, but not for people who go back on their word (even if the victim is a big company)
Posted by: agregos at May 1, 2005 02:36 PM
I just purchased Tiger (through your link DB, least I could do for all the enjoyment I've gotten from your site) and think the situation turned out well, but better for desicanuk than Apple.
Sunny was sharing something he should not have done and should not get away with it, but these lawsuits are insane. IP law is fucked up. There was no way for Sunny to walk out of this with a proportional punishment in this type of suit. I"m glad Apple ended it.
Is there any news on the third?
Posted by: Bob at December 15, 2005 11:00 AM
I find very interesting the distinction people make between what is law, and how the law is commonly upheld. The dissappointment that a few people have with Apple seems to be "I know these individuals broke a contract, but you're not actually supposed to do anything about it. Other companies don't do anything about it." And that's why these individuals broke the contract in the first place. They thought "how are they going to know it's me? And if they find out it's me, why would they bother going after me? It's not like I'm a big corporation that they can sue. It's too much bother for them. I have no money. Therefore, I can break this contract with no worries." Well now they've got worries. I believe in accountability, and the disregard for law that comes through annonymity on the web shouldn't exist.
That said, I do think that the costs of defending one's self legally are high, but my sympathy goes to those who are innocent.
Tell me again why Apple is somehow wrong for protecting it's intellectual property? This guy signed a legal contract stating he wouldn't divulge or disseminate the materials he was allowed access to, and he did just that. What part of the legal contract did he not understand, or rather, did he think it was OK to spread it around the net. Either way, He was wrong, legally, morally, ethically. I applaud Apple in it's vigilance to protect it's assets.