get a grip....
First off i own a mac..
Get a fuckin grip apple it was a good informative article promoting your newest product.
God for bid aanyone should mention your name these days without expressed written consent from you.
On Tuesday evening UK time The Register received a take-down notice from San Francisco lawyers acting on behalf of Apple. Our hosting company, Rackspace, received a similar notice, Apple's beef being that The Register had posted "confidential trade secrets" in our First Look at Snow Leopard. You will notice that we have not …
... I ended up ordering snow leopard right after reading the article based on the review from somebody I trust to tell the truth about it.... not their marketing machine (which I've never trusted and has always annoyed me)... if they keep going this way they won't have any users left... incidently I had no intention of ordering it before the review.
*high fives El Reg* sticking it to man five!
Well this is the place I came to to decide if I was going to buy Snow leopard or not.
Then Apple decide they can't have the free promotion just days before the launch?
Never thought I would say this, but Apple have been a bunch of idiots.
As everyone else is going to say on here we support you El Reg for your excellent articles (And bizzare sense of humor)
Keep it up!
well, well, if that's not a bitter bite for the apple...
I still wonder what's the exact difference between a patent and a trade secret... because Steve himself has plenty of the former to his name (and they only last 20 years) but pleading deniability of something that is well known and announced looks fairly comical to me...
haven't Snow Leopard features be known for a while already and hasn't Apple itself publicised them? how exactly is that talking about these features is not allowed because they are a trade secret? then Apple should not even run commercials of anything they are not already selling...
(and the latter suggestions is for everybody really...)
Is to never cover anything related to Apple or its affiliates ever again.
That said your OS X hack article the other day was excellent and should be more likely to incur the jobsian wrath than advertising the latest release of sleet donkey 10.6.whatever.
How about some articles reviewing apple hardware with a Linux OS running on it? That should lead to some venting of the spleen (and possibly the liver as well ) from the fruitigonistic brigade.
Paris - brighter than sue, grabbit and run llp
If I worked at that law firm for apple, I'd send that letter too. Who cares if it's right or wrong, send it anyway, send a bill to apple, get paid lots and have a laugh doing it.
And I'd now be relishing taking el reg to court over this. Just think how many hours I could bill! I'd make a fortune!
Screw this, I'm leaving IT to become a lawyer!
I too am a Mac user, and found the article very useful, written in a non-partisan way.
Why Apple continues to shoot itself in the foot with such actions defies logic.
I will stick with the product, and probably upgrade at version 10.6.5 but not before. I am not a Mac Fanboy, I use the product because it makes business sense, and going for V10.x.1 is not sensible. There are always too many bugs, fixes/work-arounds. Also, the fact that I'd have to upgrade to Adobe CS4 makes it a very expensive move.
Apple's threats against El Reg alienate a Mac user of some 22 years.
Whether you think it's silly or not, Apple does have the legal right to issue information under NDA and try to manage the timing of reviews of new products. They don't want the Register to get in the habit. Pretty soon hundreds of sites would join in for future product releases. So they have to act, even though it seems trivial. To claim the information was in the public domain is to claim that Orlowski invented the review based on reading blogs etc, without relying on materials under NDA. We all know that's nonsense. Not much chance of Orlowski or the Reg ever being included in Apple's very short list of reviewers, but the Reg published a day too early to avoid the ire of Apple.
Your position in this case - along with the quality of most of your output and much of the user comment - makes El Reg a primary tech news source for me.
Maybe you will miss out on some page views through not having access to some PR tosh from certain vendors (often apparently regurgitated without edits by other "news" sites) - but I know that the substantive and important stories will be covered here.
Well done & keep it up.
it's all fine to try to get some of your reader's sympathy ElReg but you should have read the confidentiality agreement before posting snap shots that shouldn't have been posted.
Whilst installing the beta release you've agreed to the term and conditions. (remember that "I agree" button ? so why are you whining now ?
"Pressdram" is the name of the company which published Private Eye. No need to say more.
I suspect that a bunch of Lawyers in California are are pushing their luck, but perhaps they have to do something to notify everyone so as to make their claims stick against the people they can drag into court.
If my memory serves me correctly, El Reg was once hit with a DCMA as well as the host, or maybe it was just the host, which resulted in El Reg going down, after that situation El Reg changed providers so the same thing couldn't happen again, it's nice to see that prior planning allowed me to read this article today!
for some reason, not only did these guys <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/technology/personaltech/27pogue.html?_r=1&ref=personaltech> and <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352065,00.asp> _not_ get a take-down notice, _they got a mention on Apple's RSS feed_ <feed://www.apple.com/main/rss/hotnews/hotnews.rss>.
They really, really, REALLY don't like you guys.
Whatever did you do to earn the Jobsian ire?
Chris 19 above almost certainly has it right. It is very doubtful that Apple are even dimmly aware that el Reg did the review. The lawyers will be searching the web for any possible technical breaches, and billing Apple for the effort of writing the letters. It is a great business. Lawyers essentially making work for themselves. At $500 an hour at least. We are indeed in the wrong business.