
How can the iPhone SDK be NDA'd? - blasdel
http://rentzsch.tumblr.com/post/397721495/how-can-the-iphone-sdk-be-ndad
======
timdorr
It's not the SDK that you pay for, it's the _beta_ SDK that you pay for (along
with cert signing and app distribution). The 3.2 SDK is currently only
available for paid developers. Everyone else gets 3.1 and the docs are
available without a login. I understand it's a moot point when people are
violating the NDA left and right, but it's supposed to be that the information
in the 3.2 SDK about the iPad is all confidential info.

It's confidential in theory, it's just nearly unenforceable in practice. It
reeks of evil because it's only enforceable via fear.

~~~
smokey_the_bear
It's funny that they go to the trouble of making the SDK available to paid
developers early, yet it's still unclear to us if the iPad will actually have
a physical GPS chip or not. The tech specs are vague.

------
eli
You're asking how it can be confidential? It's confidential because you signed
a contract agreeing that it's confidential.

Sure, if you got everyone who bought your book to sign a contract agreeing not
to write bad reviews, then you could potentially sue them if they violate that
contract. Indeed I'm aware of several hardware and software products that at
least claim that by using them you agree not to post bad reviews or
benchmarks.

~~~
baddox
You can't change reality by signing a contract. If you signed a contract
saying it was directions to build a time machine, would that make it so?

~~~
houseabsolute
None of the contracts mentioned in the post you're replying to purport to
change reality. They just restrict what the signer is allowed to do.

~~~
pyre
I think that the point that was attempting to come across in that post was
that just because something is in a contract doesn't mean that it's
enforceable.

I can't sign a contract that says that if I don't crack a joke that makes you
smile, you get to kill me. I could sign that contract, and you could kill me,
but you'll still go to jail for it.

~~~
sparky
I think seldo's comment above captures it. What you said is true, but you also
can't force Apple to give you a development environment for their device and
let you sell apps in their private store. They have offered to do so anyway,
so long as you keep it to yourself. I would bet that many SDKs for closed
devices (e.g. game consoles) are under similar restrictions. Can anyone
comment on that?

~~~
pyre
To be the devil's advocate, most game console SDKs are sold at a much higher
price therefore setting the barrier to entry much higher.

    
    
      Apple iPhone SDK = $99
      Sony PS3 SDK = $10,250 [1]
    

One could argue that $99 is affordable by most anyone. $10K? No so much.

[1] [http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony-slashes-price-of-
PS3-SD...](http://www.betanews.com/article/Sony-slashes-price-of-PS3-SDK-to-
fix-game-problem/1195491681)

------
mcherm
Actually, I think there is an interesting question here. Please bear with me,
because I am not a lawyer and my knowledge of intellectual property law is
limited, but here is what I think applies.

(1) There are various sorts of intellectual property, with different standards
and rules. For instance, there is patent law: if Apple had a patent on the API
of the iPhone then they could tell anyone not to use it except on Apple's
terms. They don't have a patent. There are two other sorts of law which might
apply: copyright law and trade secret law.

(2) Copyright law would allow Apple to go after anyone caught making copies of
the API docs. But it would NOT allow Apple to prosecute anyone for mailing a
printout to all their friends, nor could they prosecute anyone for knowing the
API _or for writing code that calls it_. On the other hand, Apple clearly has
a copyright on the API docs.

(3) Trade secret law is another possible area that might apply. The archetypal
example of trade secret law is the "secret formula" for Coke. To be a trade
secret, Apple's business must depend, to some extent, on keeping it a secret
(I think we can safely assume this applies). Also, Apple must make an effort
to keep it secret -- that's what the NDAs are all about. The point that the
article raises is that perhaps Apple's willingness to share the "secret" to
anyone with $100 bucks to burn weakens this to the point where they can no
longer claim the full advantages of Trade Secret protection.

I believe that one of the things Trade Secret protection provides is the
ability to constrain 3rd parties. Contract law allows Apple to sue the guy who
leaks the API doc -- but perhaps he's a bum with $100 to his name: there's
only so much they can do. Trade secret law (I believe) is what would allow
Apple to tell OTHER people who got a copy from this bum to relinquish their
copy and stop using the information. If Apple's low price and wide number of
customers for the iPhone API have weakened this sort of protection, that is
interesting.

------
rtrunck
It is a simple matter of contract law - it is an exchanged for bargain. In
consideration of you getting access to the SDK, etc., you are agreeing to a
non disclosure clause and paying $99, among other things. If you don't want to
enter into that agreement, don't.

Shrink wrap licenses and related items are generally enforceable.

------
thewileyone
It's Apple. They sue people for spreading rumours, what do you expect?

~~~
jws
It's Apple. They sue people for inducing trusted people to break their NDAs
and publish trade secrets.

~~~
thewileyone
Is it really a trade secret when the SDK can be bought for $99? It's stupid
that's what it is.

~~~
jws
The "rumors" reference is to the ThinkSecret lawsuit, not to this SDK.

And I'll think you'll find the SDK can not be purchased. There is a way to
obtain a license that grants you some rights to use it.

