Apple Finally Realizes That NDAs For Developers Are A Bad Idea

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

Wed, Oct 1st 2008 6:47pm — Mike Masnick

It was definitely surprising to see Apple trying to enforce an NDA to stop iPhone developers from talking about their applications, so it's nice to see Apple (for once!) respond to the backlash by dropping the NDA. However, the company's explanation for why it had the NDA in the first place doesn't make much sense:

We put the NDA in place because the iPhone OS includes many Apple inventions and innovations that we would like to protect, so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before. While we have filed for hundreds of patents on iPhone technology, the NDA added yet another level of protection. We put it in place as one more way to help protect the iPhone from being ripped off by others.

It's unclear what "inventions and innovations" would be "stolen" (the company probably means infringed, not stolen, obviously) without such an NDA in place. Also, the patents are a separate issue. The whole explanation, frankly, is misleading. The NDA and the patents protect entirely different things in very different ways, and it's difficult to see how the lack of an NDA allows anything to be "ripped off."

Either way, it's good that Apple has recognized that such NDA's significantly limit its developers. It's tough to have much of a developer "community" when said developers are barred from communicating.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: community, developers, iphone, ndas
Companies: apple

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2008 @ 8:21pm

Mike, your stories are the only ones on the techdirt main page, what happened to the other authors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keith, 1 Oct 2008 @ 8:32pm

Everyone else left
Non disclosure agreements are for trade secrets generally (which fall under state legislation and are different from copyrights and patents in that they deal with information that is not publicly available) They are generally applied to contractors and employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2008 @ 8:35pm

did you expect apple to spell out in detail their inventions and innovations for you to report on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long, 1 Oct 2008 @ 9:46pm

Ah... not quite.
Yes, developers are released from the NDA and are now free to discuss the SDK and their applications... but only for RELEASED products.

So if you're the developer of the game Trism, which is available on the App Store, you can discuss it and its code. You can also discuss and write about the currently shipping iPhone OS and its SDK (2.1).

Unreleased applications and SDK API's (2.2), however, are still bound under NDA, which basically works to prevent developers from disclosing new features and functionality before they've been officially announced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Woadan, 1 Oct 2008 @ 10:13pm
  
  Re: Ah... not quite.
  The real issue here is that for those who get rejected, the NDA still applies, and that means you can't report on the reasons for the rejection without breaking the NDA.
  
  So, for instance, the fellow whose podcasting app was rejected for competing with iTunes would be unable to disclose it because the NDA would apply.
  
  Apple just keeps confirming for me why I don't need or want their products.
  
  Woadan
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twinrova, 2 Oct 2008 @ 4:00am

FINALLY realizes?
Wrong. They knew ahead of time and were simply trying to prevent issues of others stealing work, another Techdirt conversation in which Mike believes the way to compete is to keep trying to "one up" the competition, without realizing there's a ceiling on development without new components to put them.

After all, why the hell do you think new TVs, DVD players, PCs, browsers, game consoles, cell... ah, hell. You get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajax 4Hire, 2 Oct 2008 @ 4:31am

Mixing Apples and Oranges...
NDA - Non-Disclosure Agreement.
This is an agreement to not disclose some proprietary information about Apple (in this case).

This is silly, the developers get documentation on the API (which is what Apple claims they need to NDA). APIs are doorways into your InnerWorks.

Apple is effectively saying that the doors to their building are secret, only a few thousand developers (and anyone else who is willing to purchase the SDK) are allowed to know where those doors are.

Yes, it sounds silly because the Apple NDA argument is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 2 Oct 2008 @ 6:16am

Already public
Isn't any patented part of the OS already public? It has to be disclosed in detail in the patent itself, right? So, if they are worried about already-patented information, how is it secret? And how does an NDS protect it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TX CHL Instructor (profile), 2 Oct 2008 @ 7:13am

"so that others don't steal our work"
...like we did with the work of Xerox PARC...
--
www.chl-tx.com Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest of the document is just wishful thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long, 3 Oct 2008 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: "so that others don't steal our work"
  You know that Xerox got Apple stock, right?
  
  How, again, is paying for something stealing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]