Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Slow blog day? Need a little baiting to liven things up?

I have a bunch of macs and I plan on buying more of their products in the near future. There, I'm a bad person. I don't know how I will endure.

If "markets are conversations," how would you treat someone who went around soliciting information that you intended to be kept confidential, and then shared it with the world? That is, how would you treat someone who broke a confidence with you, and someone else who exploited that breech of confidence in order to profit from it?

Would you want them to stop? Would you welcome it to continue?

Of course, markets are not conversations. And many corporations in the marketplace are large entities with significant resources. It seems to me, if one is attempting to profit from information that is provided in violation of confidentiality agreements, information which in no way, shape or form could be said to advance some larger public interest, then one ought to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences in some meaningful way other than to claim "They're picking on me!"

First of all, don't forget that a 19-year-old is not considered a "kid" in the eyes of the law.

Secondly, trade secrets are not free speech under the law and logically, how could they be? Is the formula for Coke or Kentucky Fried Chicken free speach? The employees involved broke the law by breaking non-disclosure contracts that they agreed to. Basically the guy helped with the release of stolen information. (Similar to helping to fence stolen goods, etc.)

That's why Apple won.

Should trafficking in trade secrets be a crime? Under most circumstances, I think so. In this case, Think Secret was benefiting from it, so that matters, too.

See Daring Fireball perspective here:
http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/nyt_credibility

Even if Ciarelli was technically in violation, Apple didn't have to press it. They did because they're being dicks.

There are trade secrets and there are trade secrets. Coke's formula is a trade secret. An upcoming product launch is just PR.

And, as Hiawatha points out, Apple would never have gone after a newspaper with some cash in its pocket. It picked on Ciarelli precisely because he's a little guy.

Macs are for the rest of us, but Apple is not for us. So fuck 'em.

Dave Rogers writes, "If "markets are conversations," how would you treat someone who went around soliciting information that you intended to be kept confidential, and then shared it with the world? That is, how would you treat someone who broke a confidence with you, and someone else who exploited that breech of confidence in order to profit from it?"

If you work for xyz corporation and you call me out of the blue to tell me something that you have an agreement with xyz corporation to keep confidential (without telling its confidential), I should not be under any obligation to also keep it confidential. As a third party, how can I possibly be the arbiter of something I know nothing about? Even if I knew or suspected that the information was confidential, I should not have to be put in a position of having to control what other people tell me. Nor should I then have the obligation of having to censor myself.

I agree that corporations probably will continue to have issues with the freedon that the internet allows. If I were head of a corporation I would want to exert as much control over my employees as the law would allow. As a condition of your employment (what leverage, by the way--if you don't agree to my termst, you don't eat!) I would demand all sorts of things. I would begin by sampling your bodily fluids--blood and urine--then I would look into your credit record to make sure you were not the sort of person to be in arrrears. I would poke in to you private life as far as I could by checking your criminal history, calling your friends for references, and interrogating your former employers. After that I would make you sign both a non-compete clause which would bar you from working from any of my competitors, and a confidentiality agreement, and on and on, and on. If you ever had a novel idea no matter how obliquely related to your work, I would own 100% of it without any obligation whatsoever to pay you so much as a single penny. If you ever shared any of my precious corporate information with anyone else, then I would go after them too!

Unfortunately, corporate interests and the interests of others who possess, contractually, fewer rights, are not always in harmony. Sometimes corporate interests have to yield.

On another tact, if I were to report right now that Dell will be coming out with a Power Edge server in eight weeks that will be priced 38% below what it is now selling for, does the appearance of this information on this blog somehow make Dave Weinberger liable? Shouldn't the very possiblity that someone could, in fact, post such infomation publicy make running a blog hugely irresponsible where corporate interests are concerned? Can we have an open internet where information continues to be relatively free, or do we need to start looking over our shoulders all the time for fear of being sued by this corporation or that because we are deemed to be in breach of some kind of contract which weren't explicitly party to? I think our claim to liberty and freedom of expression takes precedence over the desire of many corporations to have absolute control.

"Would you want them to stop? Would you welcome it to continue?"

This is irrelevant. What they want is not my concern. My claim to free speach is, and that is what is being interfered with here. As was noted, what if proprietary information was leaked to the Boston Globe instead of a 19 year old without a bottomless warchest to defend against a costly lawsuit? Perhaps the Boston Globe would have a more valid argument to advance if it did publish this kind of information according to your logic since the fiscal soundness of the news business is predicated to some degree or another on printing news that others do not have. Therefore, to tamper with this is to tamper with yet another corporate interest which for some reason is more important and deserves more protection than a 19 year old posting "information which in no way, shape or form could be said to advance some larger public interest"

"Of course, markets are not conversations...."

That certainly is true

"It seems to me, if one is attempting to profit from information that is provided in violation of confidentiality agreements, information which in no way, shape or form could be said to advance some larger public interest, then one ought to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences in some meaningful way other than to claim "They're picking on me!"

Again, the person violating the confidentiality agreement, is at fault. Period. A third party who might possibly have annonymous sources has no way of knowing the nature of an agreement under which a bit of information might or might not be protected. And again, by your logic, if you told me something which you agreed with another party to keep secret, I too would be bound to secrecy. What if, instead of posting the information publicly, I simply told someone? Would I be breaking some kind of law? No! If I were breaking a law in this case, then we no longer live in a free state.

The idea that anyone would take Apple's side in this matter shows us just how much we have lost our sense of which liberties and freedoms we are entitled to. Very sad.

"If you work for xyz corporation and you call me out of the blue to tell me something that you have an agreement with xyz corporation to keep confidential (without telling its confidential), I should not be under any obligation to also keep it confidential."

So wherefrom springs your obligation to keep your source confidential. Transparency is good for some people, but not for others, eh? Situational ethics anyone?

"Even if I knew or suspected that the information was confidential, I should not have to be put in a position of having to control what other people tell me. Nor should I then have the obligation of having to censor myself."

No one is suggesting that you are in a position to control what anyone tells you. Soliciting confidential information is something you can control though. So don't do it.

I love this phrase "censor myself." Censorship is such a "sin" that avoiding it supposedly forgives all manner of other sins. If you found Paris Hilton's cell phone, then I suppose the burden of not censoring yourself would simply require you to share its contents with the world. Your integrity is inspiring.

"I agree that corporations probably will continue to have issues with the freedon that the internet allows."

And I agree that internet users will continue to have issues with the responsibility that accompanies freedom. As inconvenient a notion as that is to all our cherished illusions about what "the internet" is.

"If I were head of a corporation I would want to exert as much control over my employees as the law would allow. As a condition of your employment (what leverage, by the way--if you don't agree to my termst, you don't eat!) I would demand all sorts of things. I would begin by sampling your bodily fluids--blood and urine. .... (all the rest) ... If you ever had a novel idea no matter how obliquely related to your work, I would own 100% of it without any obligation whatsoever to pay you so much as a single penny. If you ever shared any of my precious corporate information with anyone else, then I would go after them too!"

Welcome to the real world.

"Unfortunately, corporate interests and the interests of others who possess, contractually, fewer rights, are not always in harmony. Sometimes corporate interests have to yield."

How so? Just wave your and and say it?

"On another tact, if I were to report right now that Dell will be coming out with a Power Edge server in eight weeks that will be priced 38% below what it is now selling for, does the appearance of this information on this blog somehow make Dave Weinberger liable?"

No, Dave Weinberger didn't solicit it, doesn't present his site as a source for such information, and doesn't endorse it.

"Shouldn't the very possiblity that someone could, in fact, post such infomation publicy make running a blog hugely irresponsible where corporate interests are concerned?"

No. Self control, maturity, common sense, these are all useful tools in "writing oneself into existence."

"This is irrelevant. What they want is not my concern."

Oh, that's rich. So screw any sort of reciprocity of interests here. What's IMPORTANT is what I WANT, and screw anyone else! Well done.

"My claim to free speach is, and that is what is being interfered with here."

Well, the courts will have to determine if there's a free speech issue here. Commercial speech is not "free" speech. You can't say, "Smoking makes you healthier!"

"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

"And again, by your logic, if you told me something which you agreed with another party to keep secret, I too would be bound to secrecy. What if, instead of posting the information publicly, I simply told someone? Would I be breaking some kind of law? No! If I were breaking a law in this case, then we no longer live in a free state."

No, I didn't say that, now did I? Do you believe you're under some kind of obligation to keep the identity of every person who tells you something secret? If you don't make money from trafficking in confidential information, what interest do you have in "protecting" your sources? If someone tells you something that you probably weren't meant to know, and Apple or some other corporation asks you to tell them who gave you the information, you should probably tell them. If you don't wish to, you should probably be prepared to deal with the consequences.

It baffles me that we should allow Think Secret to maintain the confidentiality of its information, even as it profits from violating the confidentiality of others' information.

"If I were breaking a law in this case, then we no longer live in a free state."

Uh, hello... There are limitations on political freedom, always have been, and they seem to be growing of late. This isn't a strictly political issue. But you are always free to choose your course of action; though you are never free to choose the consequences of those choices. Again, Real World 101.

"The idea that anyone would take Apple's side in this matter shows us just how much we have lost our sense of which liberties and freedoms we are entitled to. Very sad."

Your post has shown just how little grasp you have of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility.

You're free to poke the dog with a stick. You're free to cry "Unfair!" when the dog takes your arm off at the shoulder. You're not free to have your protest taken seriously by anyone.

"Even if Ciarelli was technically in violation, Apple didn't have to press it. They did because they're being dicks."

Whereas soliciting confidential information and publishing it isn't being a dick? It's just being an upstanding "citizen journalist," or something.

When a Grizzly Bear disembowels an unlucky camper who happens to stray into his territory, is the Grizzly being a "dick?"

When a shark attacks a swimmer in the water, is it being a "dick?"

Anthropomorphizing corporations, as appealing an idea as that is, isn't helpful. Steve Jobs may well be a dick. My guess is most people are dicks at least some of the time. But this isn't just about Steve Jobs' personality. Let Hiawatha Bray solicit confidential information from the pages of his newspaper column and let's see how fast his publishers respond to that. We've already observed the sturdy spinal column of both Mr. Bray and his publisher, if that isn't anthropomorphizing the Boston Globe too much. (It is, by the way.)

But I bow before the superior logic of your tightly reasoned argumentation, David, and retire from the field.

Newspapers constantly solicit confidential information, It's called "getting a scoop" and it goes on the front page. And the last page of many industry journals solicit and publish just such information.

For me, what this comes down to is that Apple's behavior sends a chill through the blogosphere. I understand you think that it only makes us more responsible, but to me it's a petty, pointless responsibility that overinflates the value of "trade secrets" and makes the conversation among bloggers more restricted in this regard than that of major media.

And, Dave, surely you don't mean to rule out the possibility of applying moral evaluative terms to corporations or other collective nouns on the grounds that it's anthropomorphicizing, do you? Frankly, I think you're just being cranky about this.

If I may be forgiven for retaking the field after announcing my retirement from it, I emphatically don't rule out applying morally evaluative terms to corporations and other collective nouns, I just object to expectations of "human" behavior, and appeals based on the same. We might hope to expect or demand "humane" behavior, but groups of human beings acting together are an entirely different animal than an individual human being.

Similarly, I believe that corporations do have some "moral" standing to expect that agreements with individuals be honored. I believe that corporations do have some "moral" standing to object to individuals, or other corporations or groups, soliciting individuals to violate those agreements.

If one of the virtues of the internet is supposedly, "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog," why do we then object when a powerful corporation takes on someone who is able to obtain information they are otherwise not entitled to, and then use that information to entice people to their web site and use that traffic to sell advertising?

I think the guy was either extremely naive or terminally stupid if he believed that Apple would never take action against him, or, if they did, his "position" as a youthful "fan" of Apple would somehow insulate him from the consequences of his actions.

I believe there are competing claims here, and I happen to think Apple's are more compelling than Think Secret's. But since Apple is a big bad corporation, they get all the negative emotional energy from people who have certain views on the nature and the role of the internet, which themselves are more projection and wishful thinking than reality.

It's not about the value of "trade secrets," it's about a corporation being able to rely on confidentiality agreements, which are something of a necessity at the pace and intensity of competition in the wired marketplace. Failing to attempt to enforce those agreements weakens their utility. Newspapers solicit information, they don't solicit individuals to violate confidentiality agreements. Ask Hiawatha Bray to invite someone under an NDA to disclose information covered under that NDA to him, and to publish it; and see if the Boston Globe will defend him in court. Not going to happen.

If I am cranky about this, it's in response to your presumption that as a mac owner I am under some obligation to take Apple to task for what you call their "bullying" behavior. And the "Apple scum" and "dicks" terminology seldom succeed in eliciting the better part of my otherwise charmingly laconic disposition. ;^)

So, your complaint isn't that I anthropo'ed, it's that you disagree with my characterization. Fine.

Reporters routinely report information from sources violating confidentiality agreements. Remember Deep Throat? As to what constitutes "soliciting," well, that's a line that will turn out to be meaningless short of trading money for news. So, Dave, I disagree with you about how major newspapers work, which matters because Apple's dickness consists of its choosing to go after a blogger when (Hiawatha assumes, and I agree) they wouldn't have gone after The Globe.

As for my imputing a moral responsibility to Mac owners: Yeah, who am I to tell you that? Fair enough. On the other hand, the next time someone smugly tells me to "Get a Mac!" I'm going to add, "Before it gets you!"

"If you work for xyz corporation and you call me out of the blue to tell me something that you have an agreement with xyz corporation to keep confidential (without telling its confidential), I should not be under any obligation to also keep it confidential."

So wherefrom springs your obligation to keep your source confidential. Transparency is good for some people, but not for others, eh? Situational ethics anyone?

It is not an obligation. If the kid wanted to reveal his sources, he is certainly in his right to do so. No one, however, has the right, in my opinion to coerce that information. It may surprise you that I have no problem with Apple wishing to keep information secret. I have no problem even with confidentiality agreements. If you come to me with information that you agree with another party to keep secret, however, that is between you and the other party. I have nothing to do with your agreement. And what differnce does it make if this informationis profitable? Should that fact be of paramount consideration in deterining whether information is free, and speach protected? By the way, something not talked about yet is the legal idea of whether any harm had been done. Not that this forms in any way the basis of my argument, but I seriously doubt any harm had been done. And just for the record, this discussion has nothing to do with making Apple users feel guilty for continuing to like and support a product they like. For me, it is about a judicial system which has gained a reputation of showing unequal and preferential treatment a large corporations over the liberties of individuals.

"Even if I knew or suspected that the information was confidential, I should not have to be put in a position of having to control what other people tell me. Nor should I then have the obligation of having to censor myself."

"No one is suggesting that you are in a position to control what anyone tells you. Soliciting confidential information is something you can control though. So don't do it."

Why not do it? Just because it is inconveient to Apple? So far you haven't even attempted to mount an argument against my point that a third party has no obligation whatsoever to abide by an agreement among two other parties. You have merely suggested that it is unethical, or that Apple did the only logical thing a big corporation would do.

I love this phrase "censor myself." Censorship is such a "sin" that avoiding it supposedly forgives all manner of other sins. If you found Paris Hilton's cell phone, then I suppose the burden of not censoring yourself would simply require you to share its contents with the world. Your integrity is inspiring.

C'mmon. Your logic if full of holes here, and you know it. You're just trying to be clever.

"I agree that corporations probably will continue to have issues with the freedon that the internet allows."

And I agree that internet users will continue to have issues with the responsibility that accompanies freedom. As inconvenient a notion as that is to all our cherished illusions about what "the internet" is.

Something is either free or its not. When corporate lawyeres start appending conditions to freedom of speach, then it becomes free in name only.

"If I were head of a corporation I would want to exert as much control over my employees as the law would allow. As a condition of your employment (what leverage, by the way--if you don't agree to my terms, you don't eat!) I would demand all sorts of things. I would begin by sampling your bodily fluids--blood and urine. .... (all the rest) ... If you ever had a novel idea no matter how obliquely related to your work, I would own 100% of it without any obligation whatsoever to pay you so much as a single penny. If you ever shared any of my precious corporate information with anyone else, then I would go after them too!"

Welcome to the real world.

At least we agree that what I've written describes the real world. It's not one that I'm particularly happy about. Corporate power continues to accrete, and my power continues to attenuate. I am more interested in protecting my interests than helping them to an ever larger slice of the pie. And while we're talking about the real world the one of yester year was one of segregation, colonialism, women being denied the vote, etc. I don't think our arguably freer society burdens us with "greater responsibility". Freedom and the exercise of responsibiliy is a false dichotomy.

"Unfortunately, corporate interests and the interests of others who possess, contractually, fewer rights, are not always in harmony. Sometimes corporate interests have to yield."

How so? Just wave your and and say it?

Well, perhaps if you had your way, they wouldn't have to yield, and maybe that is how things will turn out. This case would certainly seem to indicate that. I happen to advocate human interests over corporate interests.

"On another tact, if I were to report right now that Dell will be coming out with a Power Edge server in eight weeks that will be priced 38% below what it is now selling for, does the appearance of this information on this blog somehow make Dave Weinberger liable?"

No, Dave Weinberger didn't solicit it, doesn't present his site as a source for such information, and doesn't endorse it.

OK, say at the top of his blog he posted the statement "Please share all confidential corporate information that you are privy to" Then he would be liable? Ok, fine. What if he took down the statement, but people still shared confidential information on his blog because it had become the place on the internet for people to do so? What if he posted a statement that explicitly asked people not to post such information, but the did anyway, all the time? What should he be required to do then?

"Shouldn't the very possiblity that someone could, in fact, post such infomation publicy make running a blog hugely irresponsible where corporate interests are concerned?"

No. Self control, maturity, common sense, these are all useful tools in "writing oneself into existence."

Whose standards of commmon sense, self-control, and maturity? Yours or mine? Who gets to decide?

"This is irrelevant. What they want is not my concern."

Oh, that's rich. So screw any sort of reciprocity of interests here. What's IMPORTANT is what I WANT, and screw anyone else! Well done.

Your words, not mine. Preserving my rights is what's important to me. It's Apple's responsibility to enforce its confidentiality agreement, not mine. Look, with freedom comes distasteful behavior of all sorts.

"My claim to free speach is, and that is what is being interfered with here."

Well, the courts will have to determine if there's a free speech issue here. Commercial speech is not "free" speech. You can't say, "Smoking makes you healthier!"

I don't think that's the issue here.

"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

"And again, by your logic, if you told me something which you agreed with another party to keep secret, I too would be bound to secrecy. What if, instead of posting the information publicly, I simply told someone? Would I be breaking some kind of law? No! If I were breaking a law in this case, then we no longer live in a free state."

No, I didn't say that, now did I? Do you believe you're under some kind of obligation to keep the identity of every person who tells you something secret? If you don't make money from trafficking in confidential information, what interest do you have in "protecting" your sources? If someone tells you something that you probably weren't meant to know, and Apple or some other corporation asks you to tell them who gave you the information, you should probably tell them. If you don't wish to, you should probably be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Well, there would certainly be a reason to protect my sources even if I wasn't profiting from the information. For instance, I might be worried about protecting the sources job! People get fired from jobs all the time for revealing personal information that has nothing to do with their place of employment. I suppose you don't see anything fair about this either? Your statement, "If someone tells you something that you probably weren't meant to know, and Apple or some other corporation asks you to tell them who gave you the information, you should probably tell them" NO! You can't see how wrong this is? That should have no legal recourse to coerce informtation from me that someone told. Do you remember the groundbreaking Apple commercial during the Super Bowl of 1984 (I believe it was)? Apple has become the character that the guy running up to the screen was trying to smash.

It baffles me that we should allow Think Secret to maintain the confidentiality of its information, even as it profits from violating the confidentiality of others' information.

The violation of confidentiality occred when the source(s) revealed information to Think Secret. Maybe Apple should inquire after how Think Secret is able to maintain the confidentiality of its sources. Keeping things confidential is something they are clearly having trouble with. If I found out who their sources were because someone at Think Secret told me after I asked them to tell me, they shouldn't have the right to prevent me from publishing that information, nor should they have the right to legally coerce me to tell them who it was that told me the information in the first place.

"If I were breaking a law in this case, then we no longer live in a free state."

Uh, hello... There are limitations on political freedom, always have been, and they seem to be growing of late. This isn't a strictly political issue. But you are always free to choose your course of action; though you are never free to choose the consequences of those choices. Again, Real World 101.

"The idea that anyone would take Apple's side in this matter shows us just how much we have lost our sense of which liberties and freedoms we are entitled to. Very sad."

Your post has shown just how little grasp you have of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility.

No, it shows how much we disagree. My claim to these concepts as I see them are just as valid as your claim. Anyway, thank you for expressing your opinion in an un-censored fashion.

You're free to poke the dog with a stick. You're free to cry "Unfair!" when the dog takes your arm off at the shoulder. You're not free to have your protest taken seriously by anyone.

Corporations, like people, are not animals even though they act that way at times. We do hold them to higher standards of behavior. Apple has as much capacity as any other corporation or person for that matter to behave in a way that isn't heavy handed, unfair, or despotic. They are free to choose their course of action.

David,

You are correect. Apple legal were being dicks. But don't get so blinded by this one incident to overlook the history between young Nick and Apple legal. They asked him several times to stop publishing trade secrets and/or reveal the leaker, and he blew them off. Not just said no, but blew them off. If you're one crazy guy spouting off trade secrets, fine. But if you make a business out of it, you have to treat legal inquiries seriously. If you don't they will eventually get out of hand.

You know, I have a neighbor who used to insist on parking his truck during the day in a way that made it difficult for me to get my cars into my garage and made it impossible for another neighbor to do same. Not just an occasional innocent loading/unloading or washing situation, but him just being a jackass. We asked nicely several times. It kept going on. I filed a complaint with the association and had his truck towed. Guess what? The guy hates me now, but he doesn't park there. Problem solved. Apple legal basically just had Nick's truck towed. Shame it came to this, but sometimes you have to deal with dumbasses that way.

Brad,

You seem to relish the fact that Apple is able to wield its power indiscriminanatly to smash the rights of others. Why not address the heart of the matter which has to do with the unreasonability of a third party being the arbiter of an agreement between a fist and second party. So far you haven't made the claim that the person in question was doing anything wrong unless you count ignoring a legal challenge. Don't you think it is the principle that should matter?

Daniel, You really have a knack for reading whatever motivations you want into someone else's position. Geez dude. No, I do not relish Apple's ability to wield power indiscriminantly. I could give a shit. But we have laws in this country, and we rely on contract to get business done. Have you ever heard of tortous interference? This is textbook, and Young Nick doesn't even contend that he either had no knowledge of the employment contract in question nor that he induced its violation. He and his defenders, like you, yell "free speech". It's hilarious.

Please, please, please use up all your political and moral capital on this case. Please, please, please. Because it is so cut and dry and obvious to regular folks (note that I'm not the only one here defending Apple) that the stand you take destroys your credibility. I especially like to see the EFF engaged in this fiasco. It's a very good indicator that their motivation in other content debates is to ensure that content producers don't get paid, because they show themselves to be radicals of the "information wants to be free" position.

Brad, I think the last several years have shown us that regular folks sometimes radically disagree. But there are a couple of fascinating currents here. One is the assumption that a system of laws built on equating the rights of a corporation with those of a freed slave (anthropomorphization, anyone?) is a feature of the "real world." To the extent that blacks' skin color once required them to accept greatly restricted rights in the "real world," I guess that's so. Similarly, attributing the innocent amorality of sharks and grizzly bears to corporations, with the implication that is something that we should accept, is another breath-taker. And finally there's the implicit assumption that some prior "way, shape, or form" can always be divined to decide whether a revelation is in the public interest.

Brad,

Interesting comments. Just because EFF frowns upon many of the restrictions that corporations are all too eager to put on information does not mean they don't want content producers to get paid. Getting paid is fine so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. Should we ban guns just because some people use them illegally? Just because some people abuse the freedom that they are allowed on the internet does not mean that we should be less free.

And I disagree with you that the Apple case is one that is cut and dry. If ordinary citizens protected their constitutional right to free speech the way that gun owners protect their right to bear arms, this wouldn't be a case at all. Unfortunately, the advocates of free speech having nothing quite so influential as the NRA!

And yes, I do think you were a little cavalier about the fate of this 19 year old. First of all, even if you come down on Apple's side, you have to give this kid some credit. He had to be pretty clever to get all those employees to give him his information. The fact that Apple even ever took notice of him is extraordinary in itself. What were you doing when you were that age? The fact that he was viewed as a material threat even more so, and a testament to the kids resourcefulness. Secondly, I don't think being sued by a multi-billion dollar corporation is comparable to "having your car towed." Even if Apple could be said to be in the right in this instance, there have been innumerable cases where corporations, owing to their vast resources have been able to assert their will over the rights of individuals. You are willing to concede this much, no? If not, read Lawrence Lessing's recent Wired article in the March '05 issue on how Verizon has come out against municipal wi-fi in Philidelphia. Clearly a case of corporate power suberting democracy.