« Community network for women bloggers ready to bust out of beta | Main | Legal tips for bloggers: Audio advice from experts on BlogHer.org »


See I see it differently all-together. The Wall Street Journal actually led with the news at least a day before cNet had anything. My thinking is that Apple deliberately leaked the information to get people talking about it. Jobs loves the "wow" effect, but I don't think it would have gone over very well at his keynote if that was the first time we had ever seriously considered it. I think Apple isn't suing because it is what they wanted. I don't, however, disagree that they would treat a media powerhouse like CNet or the WSJ differently than ThinkSecret or PowerPage. In this case, though, in Apple's eyes, I think the two events are drastically different. Apple wanted the information out there for people to chew on and WSJ provided a "respectable rumor" that didn't kill Jobs' wow effect completely and allowed the idea to sink in enough that he wasn't pelted by iPods.

Of course, I've been wrong before...

Apple sued ThinkSecret etc. to get information.
It is quite possible that the reason they aren't suing CNet & WSJ because they already know who leaked the story - hence no need to sue.

Most people don't quite get it. In Apple V. Does, Apple wants to find out which person broke their confidentiality agreement about a specific product which Apple wanted to keep confidential. They most likely want to find who leaked it so they don't work with that person again. Would you want someone working for you who broke your trust (as well as broke their contract)? Since the Apple moving to Intel story isn't a specific product, there are probably not any non-disclosure agreements involved. As well as the buzz created around the story wouldn't sink a perhaps "not ready for prime time" product. Apple isn't sueing to limit free speech, they want to find and hold responsible, the person who broke their non-disclosure agreement. Don't ya think?

I think the whole thing sucks that Apple is suing the Does'.

I am not a lawyer, but the distinction between leaking Astroid and switching chip suppliers is that Asteroid is a new product yet to be released (at that time) where as the chips are already out there in production and there is no trade secret being disclosed about the internals etc of the chip. The only information being "leaked" is that they a switching suppliers. I think there is a distinct difference between leaking a yet to be released product and leaking the news that they will switch to a different supplier of a already produced chip(set). MHO.

'Since the Apple moving to Intel story isn't a specific product, there are probably not any non-disclosure agreements involved.'

I would wager that any WSJ or CNET source who had knowledge of the Intel announcement was violating their employee NDA by disclosing the information to the reporter.

Seriously ppl, a company like Apple is way ahead of the game when it comes to what consumers see and hear about the company and its products. Everything Jobs does, including leaking stuff to the media before the Intel announcement is 100% predetermined by him and his marketing team. These days Apple is a first class marketing company if not much else. The hype you have all experienced is pure marketing hype.. even all the bits that appear to be journalism... these 'journalists' never even left their seats.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Surfette

Conferences and meet-ups

Five-second therapy

  • Gail Sheehy
    "Women's liberation is not the end...it is the beginning of a lot of work. There is a whole world out there that needs to be totally transformed so that women and men can create, desire, build and play..."
  • Isabel Allende
    "The primary sex organ is the brain."