Jump to content

Talk:Apple v. Does

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of external links

The following are links to ongoing news and commentary to help us keep a track of ongoing events. Many may be suitable for inclusion in the article.

March 14, 2005 http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111057284957077375,00.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39128658,00.htm http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_hi_te/apple_secrets http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/03/14/teen_reporter_pays_price_for_apple_coverage/

March 12, 2005

March 11, 2005

  • "Apple Wins Trade Secrets Legal Dispute". Associated Press, 11 March 2005. Retrieved 11 March 2005.
  • "Apple wins round in lawsuit against fan sites". CNET News.com, 11 March 2005. Retrieved 11 March 2005.
  • "Apple should think differently about blogger suits". Open letter by Mike Langberg, 11 March 2005. Retrieved 11 March 2005.

March 10, 2005

March 9, 2005

March 8, 2005

March 7, 2005

March 6, 2005

March 5, 2005

March 4, 2005

January 28, 2005

January 10, 2005

Difference between "John Doe" suit and lawsuit against Think Secret

[edit]

Although these lawsuits are separate they are very much related and in my opinion we should keep them both in this article, at least for now. We just need to be clear about the difference. Also we may need to change the title of the page as "Apple v. Does" refers specifically to Apple's case against ThinkSecret, Appleinsider and PowerPage in regard to Asteroid (the codename for an as-yet-unreleased firewire audio interface product). [1]Christiaan 13:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the section on the anti-slapp motion to the correction section - it was mixed up with the Apple Vs Does case. I'd recommend totally seperating Apple Vs dePlume and Apple Vs Does, and I'll try to do this later on. Ianbetteridge 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

[edit]

"All parties concerned have publicly told Apple to go forth and multiply."

Does not seem very neutral to me. 199.244.214.30 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple v. Does latest info.

[edit]

I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. [2] Also, adding a nice summary with the updated information here would be a good addition as well. PaulC/T+ 06:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think it would be beneficial to define some legal terms to make it easier to comprehend. Nicole.young1 (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Apple v. Does. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]