It really pisses me off when people whine about crap like this. There are legitimate instances of damaging censorship in the world today.

The piece should never have been posted, and trying to turn this into a free speech issue only hurts actual civil liberty abuse arguments by trying to elevate the trivial to the same level.

I used to work for a large computer company that fired a technical writer for using the word "will." The sentence in question was "this feature will appear in a future release." The problem was that if that sentence occurs in a document, it is a binding agreement, but it might not be possible to implement the feature.

So I'm with Apple here. Apple's focus and its main stock in trade is not software or hardware but the user experience. This sort of article ruins that.

Suppose Microsoft and Apple are planning ten features for their next release. Microsoft talks about them, but Apple does not. If Microsoft can only implement one of the ten, they catch a lot of flack for the nine they did not implement. If Apple can only implement one of the ten, no one knows about the other nine. So with the same accomplishment, Microsoft looks like a failure, but Apple looks like a success.

That sort of article sets Apple up to look like a failure. Apple's business is about the customer perceptions. If I were Apple, I'd object to the article too.

Well, someone woke up on the cranky side of the bed this morning, eh?

I'm going with "public interest" on this one, specifically along the lines of me being the public and being interested in what's coming to my Mac. I'm very happy to support APC on this one. Bollocks to Apple if details of their upcoming software leaks out. I can't believe that at this stage of development there are still NDA's all over the place and that people can't talk freely about it. Are we seriously worried about Microsoft stealing ideas now?

I really like Apple's products but their secrecy and attitude drives me nuts at times. Thank goodness for Google caches as you can read the full article, complete with screenshots, here.

Thanx to Google cache you can still read the article. It is indeed very positive, and all small stuff (it starts with saying how beautiful the new rounded corners are in the file menu)(Oops, now this comment has to be removed...)

Public interest ≠ peeking ahead to see future features of a piece of software.

So, a company illegally downloads software illegally distributed on the Internet, writes a public review on it knowing full well that those who legally obtained it are bound by an NDA, and throws a hissy fit because Apple has a problem with that? People are stupid.

From the link provided above:
"APC is not bound by any sort of confidentiality agreement with Apple, and we were writing about things like Spaces, Stacks and Leopard's new look that Steve Jobs has demonstrated at length in his recent MacWorld keynote."

So what's the difference between MacUser's article about wireless iPod technology and APC? Especially after MacUser posted this comment:
"Positive or not is irrelevant. By discussing features of a product that have not yet been released, it creates customer expectation. Those features may not make it into the final version, creating customer discontent."

I think critiquing APC looks hypocritical, especially after the McCracken fallout.

Kelmon, please re-read what I wrote. At no point did I make reference to a danger of Microsoft copying ideas.

Tayker, the US patent system is a public record. By filing the patent, Apple has publicly disclosed their interest in a particular technology (with no attempt to hide it). Additionally, we discussed the patent and its possible application to the iPod. We did not say the iPod will use this technology the next time around. APC referenced features that "will" be in Leopard.

I have no idea what the McCracken comment is supposed to mean.

Derik - What Apple announced via WWDC was official and public. IRT the patent, you're right, Apple publicly disclosed that information by registering it with the USPTO. I want to restate the MacUser quote:
"Positive or not is irrelevant. By discussing features of a product that have not yet been released, it creates customer expectation. Those features may not make it into the final version, creating customer discontent."
That being said, the USPTO was route more "discreet" and, IMO, would be more worthy of a lawsuit. What if the wireless technology doesn't make it into the next iPod? Right there is an obvious example where MacUser is creating "customer expectation." The Leopard announcements at WWDC were verbal commitments by Jobs himself. So the lawsuit threats toward APC, IMO, were unnecessary.
IRT McCracken, I think 2 people will know where I'm coming from. If MacUser doesn't get pinged from Apple then that validates some outside claims that were made when McCracken quit his job - ie Jobs has input on MacWorld content. Why sue the people working for you?

"What Apple announced via WWDC was official and public." The features that APC discussed were not part of the WWDC presentation, invalidating the rest of your argument.

I don't know which two people you are talking about. Rather than being cute, why not just say it? As for Apple having influence on Macworld (I'm a little surprised I have to correct you on this after correcting it for Warne in my post) and transitively on us, it's not true in any bit. We have never been pressured to temper our content or opinion by an outside force, much less bent to that pressure.

You are wrong. In fact, I'm offended by your baseless accusation.

"The features that APC discussed were not part of the WWDC presentation, invalidating the rest of your argument."

Stacks, Coverflow, and Spaces, were mentioned at WWDC and the videos are on Apple.com and YouTube, so I'm not wrong. I will give you that Jobs didn't cover the menu items that APC covered. However, if APC isn't bound to some NDA, then the lawsuit was baseless.

I had a quick exchange with Moren and Snell about this here. I should have been more direct, my bad. However, I have a hard time believing that any magazine completely devoted to 1 genre isn't influenced on some level. Another example, IMO, is PC Magazine and Symantec. Regardless, MacUser published an article about the iPod that clearly creates customer expectation - I think we can all agree that there are more iPod users than there are Mac users. So, if there's no mention of a lawsuit toward MacWorld over something that could have more of an impact on iPod sales, then that validates what skeptics believe, IMO.

Whew, I'm beginning to understand how there can be so many lawyer jobs.

Indeed, I entirely appreciate that the article made no reference to Microsoft and I apologise if my comment suggested otherwise. However, I am confused as to why this article represented such an issue to Apple that they decided to break out the lawyers. As has already been noted, much of what is in the article was already public knowledge and that which was not is so small in detail that it hardly bears mentioning. I mean, rounded corners on menus? Given that Apple had previously stated that features were not revealed because they didn't want Microsoft to use them in Vista (a preposterous reason given the time, in my opinion) I merely throw this "reason" out as a possible one.

However, my major issue with this bashing of APC is that these sorts of screenshots are posted all the time by the likes of ThinkSecret and yet they aren't required to take them down. What's the difference here? Leopard is now in an almost public beta status and yet no one seemed to bat an eyelid when screenshots were posted earlier in the year prior to WWDC.

Seriously, I don't understand the big deal about this. However, if someone can explain the difference between APC's magazine articled and the likes of ThinkSecret's February 2007 gallery of Leopard screenshots then please be my guest.

@tayker: "Stacks, Coverflow, and Spaces, were mentioned at WWDC and the videos are on Apple.com and YouTube, so I'm not wrong. I will give you that Jobs didn't cover the menu items that APC covered. However, if APC isn't bound to some NDA, then the lawsuit was baseless."

It's true that many elements of the APC article were publicly available material, based on what we've seen from Apple. However, I think it's pretty clear that not everything they discussed was already announced. But consider this: if APC had their hands on a copy of the Leopard beta, then either they acquired in a legitimate manner (via, say, the Developer Connection), in which case they are bound by the NDA, or they got it via a source that was themselves bound by the NDA, which still means a breach of that agreement (though not necessarily by APC themselves). At some point in this chain, an NDA has been broken. That is undeniable. APC shouldn't act all surprised to find themselves on the receiving end of legal action. Just a few weeks ago, Wired did the same thing and got the same result. I'm not an American lawyer, much less an Australian one, but in my understanding receiving stolen goods is usually just as illegal as stealing.

Comparing that to patents just doesn't float with me. As Derik pointed out, patent information is published, and what's more, Apple knows that it's published. There's a large difference between speculating at future functionality based on publicly available information and presenting information culled directly from legally protected intellectual property. Obviously, Apple can't sue us for speculating, so please don't be too surprised or disappointed if we don't get sued over that.

What it comes down to is the fact that there are rules. Being a blogger or a journalist does not mean having carte blanche. For example, I can write outright lies about people, but I need to be prepared for the fact that I will probably get sued for that. There are, of course, legitimate cases where journalists can and should break the rules: in cases where it involves issues of public safety or gross impropriety. I'm not sure the details of an unreleased piece of software fall under that heading (and I realize that there are slippery slope arguments to be made here).

"However, I have a hard time believing that any magazine completely devoted to 1 genre isn't influenced on some level."

I'm sorry you have a hard time believing that. We've have this discussion before, and I'll simply repeat what I've said before: from my own experiences, and those of people I work with at Macworld, I've never been subject to or heard of any of my colleagues being pressured by Apple or other companies. You are, of course, totally entitled to your opinion, though I find it somewhat hard to fathom why you continue to read the site if you're convinced that we're a) under pressure from external influences and b) lying to you about said pressure.

"Comparing that to patents just doesn't float with me. As Derik pointed out, patent information is published, and what's more, Apple knows that it's published."

Saying that after saying this:

"Positive or not is irrelevant. By discussing features of a product that have not yet been released, it creates customer expectation. Those features may not make it into the final version, creating customer discontent."

doesn't float with me. Just because something is registered with the USPTO doesn't mean it will make it in the device. It's not common knowledge but most major companies usually register ideas with the USPTO that they never follow through on and never publically announce.
Also, we can speculate all we want about how APC acquired the software for the screen shots. However, they posted on their site saying "APC is not bound by any sort of confidentiality agreement with Apple." If you don't take them at their word, then why should I take you at yours?
That being said, I can't see how bits about a menu could affect Leopard sales. Since there are more iPod owners than there are Mac owners, IMO, the MacUser article about wireless technology in iPods would create more "customer discontent" - which is the point published by MacUser against APC. Although I agree with that point, I think that argument applies more to MacUser's wireless iPod article.

"You are, of course, totally entitled to your opinion, though I find it somewhat hard to fathom why you continue to read the site if you're convinced that we're a) under pressure from external influences and b) lying to you about said pressure."

I totally agree with that mindset because I can't fathom why people who hate Microsoft continue to read and write about them, or their products. (Playful little poke) I consider myself a computer enthusiast. I like all my Macs, Windows and Linux computers equally, and I like to read everything I possibly can that support that interest. Also, Dan, I've liked your enthusiasm ever since I saw you on MacBreak's video podcasts, and I can still appreciate what MacUser provides - even if I feel the writers/bloggers go a little overboard on their articles at times. I think I share that enthusiasm but on a broader scale which gives me a different perspective. To be fair, not all of the comments I've posted to articles on here are critical.

@tayker: Not that I want to continue this for the rest of time, but I can hardly resist a spirited discussion!

"Just because something is registered with the USPTO doesn't mean it will make it in the device. It's not common knowledge but most major companies usually register ideas with the USPTO that they never follow through on and never publically announce."

Totally agree: that's why when we write about patent stuff, we're always very careful to frame it in the light of something that might make it into the product discussed. If you go back and read the story about wireless in the iPod, you'll note that we never claim this is definite functionality that we'll see in the next iPod, or, in fact, ever. Again, I see this as the difference between speculation on publicly available information and reporting on features that are in an existing piece of legally protected intellectual property.

"Also, we can speculate all we want about how APC acquired the software for the screen shots. However, they posted on their site saying "APC is not bound by any sort of confidentiality agreement with Apple." If you don't take them at their word, then why should I take you at yours?" "

For what it's worth, I don't believe APC is acting maliciously or lying. It is quite possible, however, that they are mistaken about what their legal obligations are vis-a-vis material in Leopard. From what I understand (and I am, of course, not a lawyer and may be mistaken myself), there is no way for them to have acquired Leopard in a fashion that would be legal for them to publish about it.

"I can still appreciate what MacUser provides - even if I feel the writers/bloggers go a little overboard on their articles at times. I think I share that enthusiasm but on a broader scale which gives me a different perspective. To be fair, not all of the comments I've posted to articles on here are critical."

And you'll no doubt have noticed that not all of our posts are sycophantic, fawning adoration pieces about Apple. We have gripes with them too. In this case, we appear to have a difference of opinion on what is and isn't acceptable to publish, and that's fine: I'm more than happy to have an open discussion about it, just as long as we can all remain friendly. :)

Since this discussion is still on-going, Dan, I'd really appreciate it if you can address my last comment where I questioned what the difference is between APC's article and the like of ThinkSecret's posts and galleries of unannounced Leopard features that they've been running pretty much since the OS was announced.

Basically, why are we giving APC flak for stuff that other sites do? Why aren't we requesting ThinkSecret to remove its galleries and articles on Leopard betas? Heck, ThinkSecret is surely under US law while APC is an Australian site. Unless I'm missing something it sounds like a case of "one rule for one, another rule for others" and that just isn't fair.

@Kelmon: A good question, I agree. Is this merely the capricious nature of Apple Legal, or do they have some ulterior motive for not pursuing Think Secret? I think the situation may be complicated by the fact that they're already engaged in legal action against Think Secret for publishing leaked information about Apple products. Perhaps Apple doesn't want to give Think Secret any more attention?

APC is hardly the only site that they've asked to take down Leopard material, though. As I mentioned in one my above comments, one of Wired's blogs did the same thing just a week or two ago, and they had the same result.

Lucky ol' ThinkSecret. Still, while it's Apple's decision as to whether they wish to unleash the lawyers (again) on ThinkSecret I do think that in the time that they don't that we should not be criticizing other sites who have not been blessed (APC and, as you mention, Wired). If we're going to be criticizing sites that publish undocumented Apple hardware/software features then it's not exactly fair if we turn a blind eye to sites that are seemingly permitted to publish such information. In this respect I fully support APC on this issue - if ThinkSecret can do it, why shouldn't they?

Full marks on the use of "capricious", incidentally.