Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- From: "Nichols, Jared - 1160 - MITLL" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:08:20 -0400
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
By asking the question, I didn't know I'd light such a firestorm. I was
merely asking if an Enterprise-level feature was going to be in the next
OS version. Obviously, if you're under NDA, abide by it. I'm not under
that NDA so I don't know what's privately in the next OS.
I'm in the process of vetting the Ipad for use in my workplace and in my
testing found that signed email appears to not work. So, I thought I'd ask
the list if it was known to be in the next OS. I was referring to publicly
available info, but perhaps should have been explicit. There are so many
resources available I'd think that if someone had seen it, someone on
Fed-Talk would know.
Sorry kids.
--Jared F. Nichols
Desktop Engineer, Client Services
Information Services Department
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02420
781.981.5436
On 4/19/10 1:36 PM, "Pike, Michael (IHS/HQ)" <email@hidden> wrote:
>I've seen the heavy hand of apple smack a developer out of iPhone dev
>existence so I never say anything just to cover myself. What makes me mad
>is we would keep our software secret until release to be safe. Then some
>jerk posts screen shots to macworld for their own product which is
>blatant nda violation but they get free press.
>
>When iPhone 2.0 debuted we were explicitly warned that if any of our
>press releases hit before official 2.0 release at 9am est our apps would
>be pulled and we would be booted out of the dev program.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:26 AM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Dan Morrison wrote:
>>
>>>FWIW, isn't an NDA similar to Government classified information
>>>guidelines, in that someone who is cleared should not reference
>>>third-party reports, thereby lending them legitimacy?
>>
>> No, it is not. Again, please note:
>>
>>> Apple Confidential Information will not include: (i) information that
>>>is generally and legitimately available to the public through no fault
>>>or breach of yours, (ii) information that is generally made available
>>>to the public by Apple, (iii) information that is independently
>>>developed by you without the use of any Apple Confidential Information,
>>>(iv) information that was rightfully obtained from a third party who
>>>had the right to transfer or disclose it to you without limitation, or
>>>(v) any third party software and/or documentation provided to you by
>>>Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose
>>>confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software
>>>and/or documentation.
>>
>> Apple's own NDA exempts material that is in the public domain,
>>including "information that is independently developed by you without
>>the use of any Apple Confidential Information", i.e., informed
>>speculation.
>>
>> Again, I fully realize that this creates "gray areas".
>>
>>>For example, just because Popular Mechanics prints specs on a weapon
>>>system does not make those specs unclassified, and someone with a
>>>clearance may not comment on their accuracy.
>>>
>>> This is a concept that most professionals in theFederal government
>>>sector deal with on a regular basis.
>>
>>
>> The weapons system analogy is flawed; I didn't say or imply that
>>someone under NDA should confirm information that is in the public
>>domain based on knowledge of material under NDA, or use the fact that
>>information is publicly available as an excuse to violate their NDA, or
>>as a shield from legitimate provisions of the NDA for the protection of
>>Apple Confidential information. What they CAN do is reference that
>>material, note it as being rumor or unconfirmed as necessary, and allow
>>individuals to make their own judgment as to its veracity. You just
>>don't pretend that a whole pool of information doesn't exist because
>>you're covered by an NDA, especially when the NDA itself makes an
>>explicit exemption for such information.
>>
>> - Dave
>> <smime.p7s>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>>Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>
>> This email sent to email@hidden
> _______________________________________________
>Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
>Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
>This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden