After an exclusive story here at Neowin.net regarding future Windows Mobile Technologies, Microsoft Bloggers across the world syndicated the news and each received legal threats to take down the material.
Bloggers who follow Microsoft technologies are calling on Robert Scoble as a way of contacting Microsoft and are questioning Microsoft's legal threats.
The posting in question was syndicated by Engadget news shortly after Neowin was forced to pull the post. Smartphone site Modaco also received a similar threat after syndicating the news.
Bloggers are taking a similar approach to that of Nick dePlume, calling on the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) for clarification. Nick is currently fighting against Apple in a lawsuit the company filed against his site Think Secret. Think Secret posted what Apple termed "trade secrets" on the site. The outcome of this case will effect blogging in a huge way.
View: Original Neowin Story (Removed)
View: Microsoft Bloggers
View: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Bloggers who follow Microsoft technologies are calling on Robert Scoble as a way of contacting Microsoft and are questioning Microsoft's legal threats.
The posting in question was syndicated by Engadget news shortly after Neowin was forced to pull the post. Smartphone site Modaco also received a similar threat after syndicating the news.
Bloggers are taking a similar approach to that of Nick dePlume, calling on the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) for clarification. Nick is currently fighting against Apple in a lawsuit the company filed against his site Think Secret. Think Secret posted what Apple termed "trade secrets" on the site. The outcome of this case will effect blogging in a huge way.
View: Original Neowin Story (Removed) View: Microsoft Bloggers View: Electronic Frontier Foundation
System Requirements
- Windows 98/ME/2000/2003/XP
- 64MB of RAM (128MB recommended)
- DirectX® 7.0 or later
- DirectX® 7.0 compatible graphics adapter that has minimum 32MB of memory and is fully DirectX®7.0 compliant
Compatibility
Game XP has been successfully tested and developed under Windows 98 and XP.
It also works under all versions of Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP and 2003.
What's New
Version 1.5.1.120 - January 20, 2004
- Removed separate explorer task that it takes more system resources.
- Added some Desktop & File System & Network optimization.
- Optimized Boot system settings.
- Rewritten Restore state dialog screen routines.
- Add routine to reregister system (DLL) files for solving common application problems.
- Made some cosmetic changes.
Trust me, MS likes Neowin, but Neowin does cross the line some time and needs to be put in its place.
Stop letting the stupid companies halt the spread of information.
(Check out jokes section)
Apple and Microsoft are the victims here. Not these sites nor "DePlume". "Nick" is using Apple's trade secrets inappropriatly. "Nick" never got permission to freely show Apple's trade secrets. By doing so, Apple's rights were violated.
Just because someone does something illegal and you didn't, doesn't make it ok to go along with it and use that illegal info as you wish.
That's kind of the definition of America. And the rest of the world. Captialism rocks.
Kinda sad, kinda funny; depends at your angle
Last edited by 16901 on 21 Jan 2005 - 13:43
Can't really have a go about that can you?
Some of the Neowin posts like the MCE article a few days ago gives competitors an advantage; given that the releases are several months away.
It shouldn't have been posted at all.
I wouldn't really care if this information was posted a few days before launch.
Anyways in this case the legal notice only came after the friendly request was ignored.
Read all information about permissions Microsoft grant to you in your EULA, agreements and on http://www.microsoft.com/permission/.
wave to him, his creditbilty has expired.
Trolls tend to ignore this stuff when faced with logic that put's their product choice in a less then perfect light. I have an aquaintance who's a Mac developer, and a bit of a Mac zeleot. Of course, one day, she posted an article that slightly critizised Apple (it was a well thought out, logical, and well supported article), but suddenly trolls started calling her an Apple basher, MS lover and other stuff a little to inappropriate to post here.
Your original post, jaged, was logical, looked at both sides of the arguement, and was well written. You like OS X, and hate Windows. But, unfortuately, you were able to see faults in your brand choice, which makes you a basher to some idiotic trolls.
If person A goes into your favorite local electronics store and lifts (steals) an MP3 player and sells it on the street and person B purchases it. Somehow that local electronics store finds out person B has THEIR player, do you legally have to give it up even though you would be at a financial loss?
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the conflicting issue we have between M$/Apple & Bloggers/News Sites.
I sit back and wait for the answer from the courts.
(I know my answer)
Last edited by 10192 on 21 Jan 2005 - 17:17
Person A goes into your favorite stores, sees information and flyers about upcoming deals and offers. He takes those flyers and speads the word to Person B, C and D. They recieve this information. The store goes that they cant give out them flyers altho if person B C or D went to the site/person they got the flyers from they would have copped them themselves...
Its the same thing....It just seems you dont understand.
I see both sides, believe me. I LOVE inside information, in the sense of wanting to know what is around the corner. But I think ethically I would rather the "leaked" information be legal.
The thing that strikes me with M$ and Apple is the fact they are doing such aggressive tactics like this. Everyone who loves cars probably reads those magazines that capture those 'spy' shots of new and upcoming cars. I watched a documentary that discussed that and even though the big car companies publically don't like it, they also appreciate the fans and the desire to find out whats next and really they can in a way test the market to see how it responds. Wish they did that with that horrid looking Aztec minivan years ago.
Ohh well. It's up to us to talk about it, it's up to the lawyers to fight about it.
The answer to your question is, the person/company who lost the item to thievery must compensate the possessor of the item at the time of recovery. The only way to avoid that is to prove that said possessor "knew, or should have known" that the item was indeed stolen, thus making him/her an accessory to a crime.
A low-ball price from a non-retail source is usally good enough to convince the courts that the possessor indeed did make a value judgement, likely thought the item was stolen, and still purchased it anyway. One way to overcome that is if the possessor has a receipt from a valid retail source (or even wholesale, if he's normally in that kind of business). From that receipt, law enforcement can usually track back to where someone made a decision to buy what was obviously a stolen item (commonly known as a fence).
And why should Person A have to "buy" back his own property? Because the law presumes that he had insurance, and that has been compensated for his loss. Ergo, his wallet doesn't actually suffer, and he doesn't end up with both the money and the item, something that borders on insurance fraud. But that's a story for another day.
Your state laws may vary a bit, but this doctrine will be at the heart of said laws.
So pontificates
Da Judge
Last edited by 48166 on 24 Jan 2005 - 00:41
I'll give you some links, but to summarize, Apple and Microsoft are not going to prevail. It’s all bound up in a doctrine called, of all things, Inevitable Disclosure. The meat of it is, you can’t label something a trade secret if you were intending to disclose it anyway. Announcing to the public a new product for sale qualifies for that particular exemption under the trade secret laws.
Now, for your education and entertainment, here’s a short course on trade secrets. First, you need to know what one is - go here. That's old law, but it’s never been overturned, so it’s still valid. A better restatement, much more up-to-date, can be found here.
But before you go shooting off your mouth because you think it supports the corporate position, you’d be wise to take a look at the Trade Secrets Home Page, found here. Spend some time there, he's wordy, but he's very thorough.
Next, peruse this case, probably the latest word from the Supreme Court on trade secrets - go here. Finally, if you’re still in doubt, there’s a complete discussion forum on the topic of trade secrets, at the same website.
That last case solidifies the Inevitable Disclosure exemption under the trade secret laws. Although a marketing plan iteslf can be called a trade secret, those portions of the plan which will be made public in due course, by design, are not eligible for trade secret protection. The way I read it, that includes any material released into the hands of trusted individuals prior to a scheduled date for publication. (emphasis added)
And therein lays the rub, boys and girls. Corporations are allowed to bring down websites (and other forms of publication) that disclose trade secrets, but in order to qualify as a secret, such materials must never be intended for eventual release to the public. And I don't think even you trolls out there are gonna be foolish enough to claim that an announcement of a new product for sale was never really intended for release, are you? Thought not.
So, T.S. and the others all take a walk. Neowin, it's safe to go back in the water. Might as well put the article back up. folks are talking about it anyway.
So finds
Da Judge
By posting this information for a product which is several months away from launch, Neowin is hurting their competitiveness in the market by giving away ideas to rival product developers.
I love to know insider information as a reader but I wouldn't want to do that at the cost of hurting anyone.
Two things that will become clear to you, once you read the links above.
One; just because you call something a trade secret doesn't automatically entitle you to sue some one for actions you don't like - you must prove a tort (you were harmed in some way); and
Two; you must overcome the Inevitible Disclosure doctrine when you deal with marketing plans in particular. Publishing to the public at large falls under this section of the law. (Although the case cited above only touches on this point.)
And a third thing should be kept in mind: what the Supreme Court says, goes. These things don't just spring up in a vacuum, they get hammered out over a long time frame.
But you are most certainly 100% correct about one thing - the words "law" and "logic" do not bear any resemblance to each other whatsoever!
~!~!~!~
figgy,
So what is the point here? Are we not debating the fine points of law? We certainly aren't discussing morals, ethics, or kindliness towards one's fellow man. Sorry to say, those concepts have no place in the law as we know it today. Please make a note of it.
~!~!~!~
PCyr,
Thank you.
~!~!~!~
SquareSoft0
And thank you for the support!
Da Judge
Only a Judge Pro Tem (meaning, temporary until they could get another sucker to take the job permanently!
Thanks for the kind words.
Da Judge
(and maybe SquareSoft0, too)
In case you didn't know, we're exorciating this guy. If we keep responding to him, it only encourages him. Let's let him dry up and blow away on his own accord, um?
In fact, SquareSoft0, didn't I just read a post somwhere that went:
"Stop it with your relentless logic, where do you think you are? This is Neowin, get with it.
Da Judge
EDIT: Anybody got any idea why the quote function seems to have gone TU?
Last edited by 20634 on 22 Jan 2005 - 14:50
EDIT: I got it already.
Last edited by 13614 on 23 Jan 2005 - 07:11
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.