Wal-Mart threatens legal action over Black Friday leaks

[quote name='Nephlabobo']They don't have a legal ground to stand on.
This is bullying and scare tactics.
[/QUOTE]
No, it's bullying and scare tactics with a very solid legal foundation. You cannot dispute that Wal-Mart's ad circulars are copyrighted and you can't dispute that they are trade secrets. Dsitributing either of those without permission opens you up to liability.

That said, I don't feel sorry for them at all.
 
i do think it potentially hurts their sales. It can also help their sales.

Maybe if the leaks didn't happen we would get good door buster deals again as the last couple years sucked, for every store.
 
I work at a Walmart DC... the place that ships the stuff to the stores. They push this bs onto their employees even more so..... Every step you are threatened to a new level.

But still, most of the threats are just that, threats.


Every day I go to work I dislike the place a little more... so i agree with most of the hate.
 
[quote name='Damian']No, it's bullying and scare tactics with a very solid legal foundation. You cannot dispute that Wal-Mart's ad circulars are copyrighted and you can't dispute that they are trade secrets. Dsitributing either of those without permission opens you up to liability.

That said, I don't feel sorry for them at all.[/quote]

Agree...
 
I'm more pissed at BFAds.com for actually going along with them.

Stick up for your first ammendment rights, BFAds!
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I'm more pissed at BFAds.com for actually going along with them.

Stick up for your first ammendment rights, BFAds![/QUOTE]

after reading the scan from walmart's legal department... I am thinking Walmart is planning something to top the 300 dollar laptop for this year..

what could it be? a 250 dollar 42inch HDTV after MIR?
 
Telling someone that Wal-Mart is planning on selling a $300 laptop on Black Friday HAS to be protected free speech, right?

There couldn't be any honest legal basis behind this, could there?
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I'm more pissed at BFAds.com for actually going along with them.

Stick up for your first ammendment rights, BFAds![/quote]While I don't agree with this bullying at all and think it will only hurt WalMart in the end, I don't believe this type of thing is covered under free-speech. It would be illegal for me to leak source code to a game or program. This trade or corporate secret is no different.

That being said, it's still lunacy for these companies to not want free advertising I think.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']$149 HD DVD player....C'mon....[/QUOTE]

a good brand name HDDVD player for that price would cause me to prematurely ejaculate and get on the HDTV bandwagon that day.
 
i side with walmart its their ads. if they wanted them out early they would put them out early,.

sort of funny thing though

Wal-Mart: Stop leaking Black Friday deals
Retailer is threatening legal action if Web sites leak its highly-popular Black Friday circular before Nov. 19.

Why is it okay to leak the ads on monday ? that doesnt add up.


The notice said Wal-Mart's circulars are protected by copyright laws, and any unauthorized reproduction, publication or distribution of that information prior to Wal-Mart's release date of Nov. 19 for its Black Friday ads "violates Wal-Mart's right

hell if they wanted too im sure they could sue anyone who post any of their ads online since you dont have permisson to post them


LOL
So it's not unusual for people to line up in front of stores as early as 4 a.m. to bag these special low prices on the season's must-have items.

more like line up at 4pm


ALSO RUMOR BE CARFUL AT BEST BUY THIS YEAR. if your best buy is next to other stores and you line up the other stores can call the cops and arrest them for blocking their business
 
[quote name='neocisco']Nobody has made a comparison between this and the Speedy debacle yet? For shame, CAG's, for shame.:shame:[/QUOTE]

In a bad way? Because if Wal-Mart has legal grounds, who's to say CC doesn't?
 
[quote name='neocisco']Nobody has made a comparison between this and the Speedy debacle yet? For shame, CAG's, for shame.:shame:[/quote]I thought I made the implications pretty strong in my post without stating it. Maybe not.

The same goes for Wal-Mart as went/goes for CC. They're allowed to protect themselves, but this just seems to be hurting their business rather than helping in my eyes, but whatever. CC's attack was just more personal for CAG.
 
This doesn't surprise me, but I really don't like Wal-Mart at all in my area. It's all about Meijer for me (or Super Target when I'm in other cities).
 
[quote name='neocisco']Nobody has made a comparison between this and the Speedy debacle yet? For shame, CAG's, for shame.:shame:[/quote]
There's a huge difference.

Wal-Mart is making the threats themselves. Circuit City was FORCED to make the threat by Sony.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I'm more pissed at BFAds.com for actually going along with them.

Stick up for your first ammendment rights, BFAds![/QUOTE]
As others have pointed out, this has nothing to do with first amendment rights. Trade secrets are not covered under the first amendment, and furthermore, someone is having to violate their job to get these out there to toe public, as anyone working at Wal-Mart or a printing facility would have a policy about this for their job. So, you can't really go to work for Coca-Cola, steal their formula, and then post it online. Some people learned this when they tried this by approaching Pepsi to sell it. Pepsi turned them in.

As for others questioning why Wal-Mart doesn't want this out there? Easy, they don't want their competitors countering any of their deals last minute. THe longer they can keep this a secret--the better. For example, say this year they have a $250 laptop. They don't want that getting out in October giving Target and Best Buy a full month to figure out a way to counter with a $225 laptop or something. The worst thing a store can have on Black Friday is a loss leader that doesn't actually bring people into the store.
 
whats everyone #$#$# about your still getting the ads early

NOV 19


its not like you can run out and buy this stuff and then price match it the day after.

though i did know some people years ago go out and hide stuff

THis will no work any longer cause few days before thanksgiving they clean the entire store looking for items people hide for BF

at least around here. i remember last year one person i knew never got off till around 3 or 4am after closing at midnight thanksgiving night (Thursday morning)
 
[quote name='daroga']It would be illegal for me to leak source code to a game or program. This trade or corporate secret is no different.[/QUOTE]
Alright, I know it's just Wiki, but this was my understanding of "trade secrets":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

[quote name='Wiki']A company can protect its confidential information through non-compete non-disclosure contracts with its employees (within the constraints of employment law, including only restraint that is reasonable in geographic and time scope). The law of protection of confidential information effectively allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information - it does not expire as would a patent. The lack of formal protection, however, means that a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered.[/quote]

[quote name='Wiki']Trade secrets are by definition not disclosed to the world at large. Instead, owners of trade secrets seek to keep their special knowledge out of the hands of competitors through a variety of civil and commercial means, not the least of which is the employment of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and non-compete clauses. In exchange for the opportunity to be employed by the holder of secrets, a worker will sign an agreement not to reveal his prospective employer's proprietary information. Often, he will also sign over rights to the ownership of his own intellectual production during the course (or as a condition) of his employment. Violation of the agreement generally carries stiff financial penalties, agreed to in writing by the worker and designed to operate as a disincentive to going back on his word. Similar agreements are often signed by representatives of other companies with whom the trade secret holder is engaged, e.g. in licensing talks or other business negotiations.
Trade secret protection can, in principle, extend indefinitely and in this respect offers an advantage over patent protection, which lasts only for a specifically delimited period, for example twenty years in the U.S. For example, Coca Cola has no patent for its formula and has been very effective in protecting it for many more years than a patent would have. However, the "down side" of such protection is that it is comparatively easy to lose (for example, to reverse engineering, which a patent will withstand but a trade secret will not) and comes equipped with no minimum guaranteed period of years.
[/quote]

I perfectly understand intellectual property like source code, but it seems absolutely villanous (and it should to you) that a private citizen would be gagged from revealing ANYTHING about a large company simply because they are a large company. That's an extremely slippery slope you are treading on, willing to hand over your civil liberties so easily.

[quote name='elwood731']So, you can't really go to work for Coca-Cola, steal their formula, and then post it online.[/QUOTE]I perfectly understand this as well. It's called submitting to a legal contract.

But if you have information about a company, and are not under contract from them to keep it secret, certainly it's your right to yell it out as loud as you can.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']That's an extremely slippery slope you are treading on, willing to hand over your civil liberties so easily.[/quote]
I understand everyone hates Bush, but we can't as a nation call it quits with the civil liberties talk? Wal-Mart threatening legal action over someone disclosing their secrets has nothing to do with someone's civil liberties.

I perfectly understand this as well. It's called submitting to a legal contract.

But if you have information about a company, and are not under contract from them to keep it secret, certainly it's your right to yell it out as loud as you can.
It matters how you get that information. If someone else has violated a contract, and therefore a legally binding document, you are still not legally allowed to do with that information whatever you want. If that were the case, you could simply hire someone to steal secrets and be in the clear as long as you weren't the one stealing them (minus the conspiracy charge). I also think you're trying to play semantics with an issue that doesn't require it. For example, discussing on a blog about Wal-Mart's in-store policies is protected under free speech. Disclosing Wal-Mart's sales beforehand is something, legally, they're entitled to do. Morally or ethically is another issue. I don't think anyone has argued that nothing can be revealed, but certainly a competitive ad falls under protection this far in advance. It's very similar to how Apple can serve sites with cease and desist orders for posting pictures of new iPods. They don't want anyone knowing too far in advance.
 
[quote name='elwood731']I understand everyone hates Bush, but we can't as a nation call it quits with the civil liberties talk?[/QUOTE]
Decent patriotic Americans, including myself, cared about liberty long before Bush came along. I don't understand what point you were trying to make there, but it was foolish, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and ignorant.
[quote name='elwood']If someone else has violated a contract, and therefore a legally binding document, you are still not legally allowed to do with that information whatever you want. If that were the case, you could simply hire someone to steal secrets and be in the clear as long as you weren't the one stealing them (minus the conspiracy charge).[/quote]I also perfectly understand the conspiracy charge.

Besides the conspiracy charge, you still haven't told me WHAT IT IS THAT IS ILLEGAL about saying Wal-Mart is selling $300 laptops on Black Friday. Or HOW that isn't protected free speech. You're saying there's something MORE than simply the conspiracy charge. I don't see it. The conspiracy is obviously illegal, but the speech itself is protected.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Nobody has made a comparison between this and the Speedy debacle yet? For shame, CAG's, for shame.:shame:[/QUOTE]

I was going to ask when the boycott of Walmart would start.
 
bread's done
Back
Top