I'm talking about the reaction to not broadcast the show. Who's going to reach the audience, if not Apple itself? Right, the rumour sites with their live or almost-live transcripts.

Am I right or what?

Yeah I'm a bit annoyed by the apparent decision not to give a live broadcast of the keynote.

Gotta love Lisa's arguement: "Lots of trade secrets get leaked so that makes it OK." Do these leaks generate publicity for Apple? Yes. Is it Apple's right to choose between secrecy and publicity? Yes. NDA's exist for a reason. Are the lawsuits just a publicity stunt? Who knows.

Quote

Biff wrote:
Yeah I'm a bit annoyed by the apparent decision not to give a live broadcast of the keynote.

Gotta love Lisa's arguement: "Lots of trade secrets get leaked so that makes it OK." Do these leaks generate publicity for Apple? Yes. Is it Apple's right to choose between secrecy and publicity? Yes. NDA's exist for a reason. Are the lawsuits just a publicity stunt? Who knows.

If Apple wants to protect their NDAs (and who can blame them for doing so), they should subpoena ThinkSecret (to help identify the leak) rather than sue them. In short, its the informant who should be held accountable (for violating the NDA), rather than the publisher.

Give THink Secret a break!! All they are is Mac lovers with a very efficient way of showing it...they have their own very popular web site that generates nothing but good publicity for Apple and their products. I am a Mac fan, and I speak on behalf of all the Mackers out there:)

Quote

jimothy wrote:

If Apple wants to protect their NDAs (and who can blame them for doing so), they should subpoena ThinkSecret (to help identify the leak) rather than sue them. In short, its the informant who should be held accountable (for violating the NDA), rather than the publisher.

I think that IS what they're doing. They probably think a lawsuit will force them to give up their source very quickly.

I agree with you; I don't think this is the right way to go about it, but in theory I do think that Apple is trying to do what you suggest...they're just going about it a bit more forcibly than you or I would.

http://daringfireball.net/2005/01/the_rumor_game

Looks like old Steveo didn't want to look worse than Gates with Spinning Beach Balls of Death of his frozen Mac. Get ready iLemmings you're going to be the beta testers again.

your Widget...
http://www.theouterlimits.com/welcome.html

Quote

Guest wrote:
Give THink Secret a break!! All they are is Mac lovers with a very efficient way of showing it...they have their own very popular web site that generates nothing but good publicity for Apple and their products. I am a Mac fan, and I speak on behalf of all the Mackers out there:)

I'm also a Mac fan, and you don't speak for me. Think Secret may be guilty of being too enthusiastic about the Mac, and doing some damage to Apple's management of their business out of that enthusiasm. Apple is right to protect itself; all they've done so far is file the suit and put people on notice that they won't tolerate willful violation of their non-disclosure agreement. When the dust settles, Think Secret will have had its hand slapped and will be a bit more circumspect about crossing the line between investigation and possible receipt of stolen material.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
If Apple wants to protect their NDAs (and who can blame them for doing so), they should subpoena ThinkSecret (to help identify the leak) rather than sue them. In short, its the informant who should be held accountable (for violating the NDA), rather than the publisher.

You can't get a subpoena without a lawsuit pending - and while Apple could file a John Doe complaint, if ThinkSecret published 411 that they knew, or reasonably should have known, was confidential, they are legally responsible as well.

This is not to say that I agree that Apple is right to sue one of their biggest boosters, but just commenting on the process.

cannot sell computers. No sense in blaming Think Secret..a little denial on the corporate level. The market is ripe for the Mac, but the control the "whole widget" mentality as time has proven is not conducive for the sale or promotion of the Mac.

Ghingas Kon here..

You haven't posted for a while. Were you trying to disinfect your computer or recover from the blue screen like Billy, your daddy? Or are you trying to connect a camera on your computer in 2005 without breaking your OS (if this can be considered an OPERATING System)?

Quote

jimothy wrote:
If Apple wants to protect their NDAs (and who can blame them for doing so), they should subpoena ThinkSecret (to help identify the leak) rather than sue them. In short, its the informant who should be held accountable (for violating the NDA), rather than the publisher.

ThinkSecret can choose to not tell them, of course, which risks being held in contempt, and I'd like to think that if I were in their place, I wouldn't reveal sources. That's a long, honorable tradition in the journalism/publishing business, and a good one. Apple carefully said they weren't trying to stomp on anyone's First Amendment rights, but by suing the publisher and asking for a subpoena, that's what they're doing. ThinkSecret is not required to divulge their sources. Apple has every right to protect their IP and enforce NDAs; this is the wrong way to do it.

Well high amongst the thoughts that the article provoked in my mind were onjections to the use of the adjectives slavish and fanatical to describe Mac users. There's other prejudicial words used too, like fervent, salivate.

All things considered Apple sues suprisingly rarely, cease and desist letters usually seem to work to remove the info and Apple doesn't pursue further. Prior to the recent events 2000 is the last year she cites that Apple sued to track down leaks.


Here's a different point of view:

http://jackwhispers.blogspot.com/

The rumors are out and can't be pulled back into secrecy, which probably irritates Steve J a lot. The efforts to find out who broke the NDA is to close that open door for future products. Someone is going to be out of there big time.

Sometimes breaking a NDA can cause significant problems. A friend at IBM told me years ago about a new mid range computer that was to be released. IBM pulled it less than 24 hours before it's release and then released the System 34 in its place. The tech guys in the office never disclosed the computer that didn't make it to the market, even internally.

The impact of a last minute decision to pull, or hold off, a product should be an internal decision that may be made for many factors. Having the product public knowledge before the release date may adversely impact stock values or cause a premature release to be made, just to keep the market happy.

I can understand Apple's position in terms of closing the source of the leak for future purposes. As for the current leak - it definitely takes the surprise out of Steve's "one more thing", but he'll live with that.

I can say that as an Apple stockholder, the rumor mills make Apple stock VERY volatile around keynote time. Look at right now all the analysts upping their ratings on apple because of rumored flash-ipods, iWork, headless iMac, etc. If those don't appear, the stock crash dives after a keynote (this has happened too often before) often to less than what it was before the rampant speculation began. I can understand their suit to some degree, but this is the byproduct of their own secrecy. Still I prefer it much better to M$'s way which is just having Billy or Balmerilla telling us "we are working on really exciting things here. Just wait and see! Everyone elses stuff will pale by comparison. You'll see!" Longhorn anyone?

Pretty soon Apple will start suing mere mortals for even _thinking_ about using one of their machines...

I love the rumors but that doesn't change the fact that Apple has the right to control their trade secrets. Despite the fact that ThinkSecret repeatedly and knowingly released trade secrets on their web site, I don't think Apple is looking to take them out. I think they are going after the source of all these leaks. As previous posters have said, the suit against the site allows Apple to more easily track down those responsible. Apple is perfectly justified and they are approaching this in the most effective way possible. The law is the law. If you don't like the law, then call your congressman.

I've read some interesting speculation as to how Apple's lawsuits are worded: Unannounced products would obviously fall under NDA protection, but can they actually qualify as 'Trade Secrets'?

from http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm :
(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Are specifications that are intended to intentionally become public knowledge in an identifiable span of time actually 'Trade Secrets', or are they nothing more than undisclosed PR Materials? Particularly when the leakers themselves gain no economic benefit? There seem to be no copyrights or patents being violated here. Does the fact that the rumor sites themselves DO gain economic benefit from the information bring it back into the definition?

It appears to me that simply because Mac rumor sites exist, specs would qualify as 'trade secrets' since the rumor sites earn money from publishing them, but if they didn't exist, this information wouldn't qualify as 'Trade Secrets'. Not an open or shut case for either side, as far as I can see. And just because I think the Law agrees with Apple doesn't mean I think the lawsuits are a wise move. It should be the Marketing staff using this situation, not the Legal department.

Quote

Steve W wrote:
ThinkSecret can choose to not tell them, of course, which risks being held in contempt, and I'd like to think that if I were in their place, I wouldn't reveal sources. That's a long, honorable tradition in the journalism/publishing business, and a good one. Apple carefully said they weren't trying to stomp on anyone's First Amendment rights, but by suing the publisher and asking for a subpoena, that's what they're doing. ThinkSecret is not required to divulge their sources. Apple has every right to protect their IP and enforce NDAs; this is the wrong way to do it.

I do not believe that the journalistic right to protect the identity of a source is extended to a source that breaches a legal obligation, absent the need to do so for the public weal (someone like Sherron Watkins or Jeffrey Wigand).

ThinkSecret has a legal and moral obligation to check the source of its information. And they should certainly know that someone who claims to be an Apple insider has no right to be leaking specific information about Apple products. There is a difference between gathering descrete pieces of information, such as supplier contracts, patent and copyright filings, annual and quarterly reports to develop a story, and taking information that is protected by a confidentiality agreement.

I don't care if it's Apple or MicroSpooge - I believe in IP rights and enforcement of confidentiality agreements - otherwise innovation dies.

I rather enjoy it. Like not knowing what's under the christmas tree.

And apart from my personal feelings, look at what MS does all the time: anounce products years before they're ready for market, hype them to sizes nobody dares touch anymore and while competition leaves the battlefield prematurely, delay and downsize.

No, compared to that, I think I like the Jobs way. And you've got to love those "we're not interested in that market - woops, gotcha, here's our next killer product" flipflops (sorry, horrible word, can't find another one).

This said, bring on that headless sucker, my cube is cute, but about ready to retire.

Quote

Dreadnought wrote:

Quote

Steve W wrote:
ThinkSecret can choose to not tell them, of course, which risks being held in contempt, and I'd like to think that if I were in their place, I wouldn't reveal sources. That's a long, honorable tradition in the journalism/publishing business, and a good one. Apple carefully said they weren't trying to stomp on anyone's First Amendment rights, but by suing the publisher and asking for a subpoena, that's what they're doing. ThinkSecret is not required to divulge their sources. Apple has every right to protect their IP and enforce NDAs; this is the wrong way to do it.

I do not believe that the journalistic right to protect the identity of a source is extended to a source that breaches a legal obligation, absent the need to do so for the public weal (someone like Sherron Watkins or Jeffrey Wigand).

ThinkSecret has a legal and moral obligation to check the source of its information. And they should certainly know that someone who claims to be an Apple insider has no right to be leaking specific information about Apple products. There is a difference between gathering descrete pieces of information, such as supplier contracts, patent and copyright filings, annual and quarterly reports to develop a story, and taking information that is protected by a confidentiality agreement.

I don't care if it's Apple or MicroSpooge - I believe in IP rights and enforcement of confidentiality agreements - otherwise innovation dies.

Agree.

Rumors are part of the human condition, no more, no less. NDA's aren't going to stop them. and it's reasonable to assume reasonable people know that. To not object to rumor sites with suits or desist orders would be an implicit approval, sort of a wink and a nod policy.

DiCarlo doesn't give Apple enough credit if she thinks Apple doesn't appreciate the "fawning...... slavish devotion".

Apple would be moronic if they did nothing.

Just one of those decisions where you don't make many friends either way.

Honestly, Think Secret is by Apple fans for Apple fans. The author is merely suggesting that the lawsuit tactics could be worse for Apple's image than other ways to plug leaks. I agree fully, lawsuits are used too often to intimidate the small guys and really do represent the worst of corporate excess. Frankly since this, I have to say that my opinion of Apple has taken a turn for the worse.

IMHO, jakee, you nailed it -- "provoking and not thoughtful," indeed.

Being a lifelong Mac fan who loves the platform but doesn't start flame wars with any person with the slightest dislike of Apple, I also bristle at being categorized as a "slavish" "fanatic", though the more vocal fringe subculture of Mac fans/users unhelpfully helps to perpetuate that stereotype.

Ms. DiCarlo, I respectfully submit to you that the collective hands of true Apple believers will be bitten when quality control nosedives, Apple stops caring about customer needs, feedback and ease-of-use, and that sorta thing, not when Apple gets justifiably upset about a Mac rumor site leaking eerily accurate product details and specs before their announcement (much as I love my Mac rumor sites).

The reason for the secrecy is obvious to anyone who had a mac in the "beleagured" 1997 era - before Jobs, Apple was sinking into a mire of amazing new products in development that never shipped, or if they did ship sounded tired and dated by that time (is Longhorn the MS Copeland?)

All this is advertising for Apple. Everyone talks about it, all those rumors, so Think Secret gets more site hits, so does apple, and when the expo is over and the new products are released more people will know something about it.

Here's hoping that the dust will settle and issues resolved before MWSF opens.

There are a whole lot of other (more pressing) problems requiring Apple's attention that have come to light over the past 12 months e.g. quality control, build quality (particularly the new iMac), screen quality etc.

If we don't have enough confidence in these factors, it makes the aforementioned spats over alleged new products quite irrelevant.