Apple sues over Internet info leak

scruffy said:
OK, this is some kind of weird.

A) How on earth do you file a lawsuit against someone that you don't know who they are? Only in the USA
Click to expand...

So true.

scruffy said:
Satcomer - if you're allowed to answer this....
Click to expand...

Some what.

scruffy said:
...how on earth do they determine that it was you who leaked some information, if they don't hold a trial?
Click to expand...

They would determine it VERY easily.

scruffy said:
Could someone who had a grudge against you just fake some allegations, and get you thrown in the clink with no chance to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

No, after a long investigation, the fake would be thrown in (with a hush, hush trial). No jury, just a series of judges.

scruffy said:
Only in the USA, Russia, Libya, Iran, Cuba, North Korea...
Click to expand...

Before you group the US in the statement, take a look at some western European countries. They are even more harsh about it then the US. Some of my European colleagues have had some real horror stories. No government is as nice it portrays itself to the general public, especially since 2001.
 
Satcomer said:
No government is as nice it portrays itself to the general public, especially since 2001.
Click to expand...

True, true. My apologies. Even good old Canada has turned rather nasty, albeit in a very polite, spineless, creeping, southward-grovelling, altogether Canadian sort of way.

Still, I was just wondering what mechanism they'd use to determine guilt, if not a trial. As you said, any false accuser would likely be given a form of trial (perhaps unconstitutional in half a dozen ways, but still a trial). Did you mean, you wouldn't get a fair and open trial, or one that would satisfy the standards of the constitution in some other way, or truly no trial at all?

As for the lawsuit - if you file a complaint, that complaint is almost always a matter of public record. So if Apple knew who they were suing, and included it in the complaint, it would have taken next to no work for the reporters to find out who it was - it would practically be negligent for them not to...
 
Basically, what Apple is doing is performing a "John Doe" suit. This allows them to then approach the ISPs and the website hosts to release to them information so they can track the person who did it. This is what the RIAA does with their John Doe suits.
 
I don't even care about the legal details, but sueing "somebody" (true identity unknown) about leaking "something" (which Apple can't talk about because it _should_ have been a secret in the first place) sounds rather funny. Might be the only way Apple can actually _handle_ this, but it still just sounds strange.
 
They did it 2 years ago and were successful in the suit.
Yeah, it is odd, but is one way to do it, unfortunately.
 
scruffy said:
Still, I was just wondering what mechanism they'd use to determine guilt, if not a trial. As you said, any false accuser would likely be given a form of trial (perhaps unconstitutional in half a dozen ways, but still a trial). Did you mean, you wouldn't get a fair and open trial, or one that would satisfy the standards of the constitution in some other way, or truly no trial at all?
Click to expand...

Well, trials have to follow the constitution. The open part is what is different. The trial can not be held in public. I have heard of such trials, in my country as well as others. The accused is given most rights. The security nature of the trial is what held back. The general public is not informed and participants have to keep somewhat hush hush. It is not because someone's rights are being trampled on, it's because of the nature of the information in the trial. Even the judges in the trial have to meet certain criteria. Plus, it is only in extreme cases does someone go straight to jail. They know what they are getting into when they choose the life. They sign away on the dotted line. However, I stress this is only in the most extreme cases. The case is automatically reviewable by higher courts. The courts still have the final say, just not released to the public.

Now, the way they find out things is still the mystery. I just know (from experience) that there is a reason I choose, use Apple computers at home. Windows is so full of wholes (plus ghost data), Apple home computers are much harder to squeeze info from (live or retrievable) . Especially OS 9 and below.
 
fryke said:
I don't even care about the legal details, but sueing "somebody" (true identity unknown) about leaking "something" (which Apple can't talk about because it _should_ have been a secret in the first place) sounds rather funny. Might be the only way Apple can actually _handle_ this, but it still just sounds strange.
Click to expand...

I think they are seeking out the identity of the person through IP traces. They need the court to trace the identity down for the suit to go forward.
 
I know, I just said it sounded so funny. 'Bit like if I'd go to the police and told them something bad happened, but I couldn't tell them what or where or by whom. But that they should immediately send out at least two cars! ;)
 
bookem said:
I think it's more to do with the latest Tiger build being spread all over the Internet.
Click to expand...

The only reason i would think it isn't this is because torrents have been flying around for every latest MacOS and Apple has never done anything. This, and the fact that in 2002 Apple sued someone a few weeks prior to the macworld conference for releasing detailed drawings of some new hardware.
 
I think it's that sound board that was rumoured a while ago. 'Asteroid' it was called, I believe.
 
Guess that wraps up the idea that it might have been related to the latest Tiger builds. Funny but i don't remember reading anything about the product they mention? I guess now everyone will know, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top