this is so wrong... a guy who puts alot of effort into promoting apple and spreading the word gets sued.. this can't be right...

Quote

smokeonit wrote:
this is so wrong... a guy who puts alot of effort into promoting apple and spreading the word gets sued.. this can't be right...

This should come as no surprise. He bullies everyone at Apple too. Very likely the legal department is too scared to tell him he's off his rocker and that Apple might end up paying attorneys fees for abusing the legal system just to bully someone they don't like.

I'm confused. Is the Examiner saying that I can take articles they've written and put them in my own publication and they won't sue me for it?

I mean, that's what I'm getting out of this. That's a rather odd position for a paper to take, but hey, I guess they're fine with it!

Think Secret had it coming.

Was Apple always secretive of their stuff and made a show of their products, or was it not as hush hush as it is now? Like in the mid 90's before Jobs returned?

Quote

NeverFade wrote:
Was Apple still secretive of their stuff and made a show of their products, or was it not as hush hush as it is now? Like in the mid 90's?

Does it matter? You know how it is...people think that Jobs does everything at Apple, Bill Gates is the only one at Microsoft...I'm sure people think that Ronald McDonald actually makes all the choices over at his place.

It doesn't really matter if it's Jobs or not...people will still THINK it's all his idea, no matter what it is.

I mean, I understand the stance of they're helping , but there's a reason why it's called "ThinkSecret".

It's telling stuff that's supposed to be kept a what? A secret!

I'm not saying is right in suing them, but I do understand.

Let's say that ThinkSecret releases information about a mac mini, and 2 days before the release of said Mac Mini, Dell computers releases a miniature computer...

Now, what if it's almost as small, light, and powerful... in otherwords a decent computer.
's big announcement is now nothing special, and in my opinion THAT is a big deal. By releasing the ideas of apple computers on the internet, you're giving the competition something to use against apple... It seems hokey, but it could happen.

It is 's stuff after all, it's their right to protect it.

I'm not saying it's right , but I understand.

The point is that Think Secret encouraged people to break their non-disclosure agreement with Apple. Right on the website, it days, "Got Dirt, Call: XXX-XX..." amongst other reasons.

There's a difference between an enthusiest website (such as the MacObserver) and ThinkSecret. Both are great ways for people to learn about Apple and Mac related news, but only ThinkSecret actually encourages people to break a contract.

I'm not saying Apple is the great, super-nice company - but at some point, they have to protect their own trade secrets though.

>The point is that Think Secret encouraged people to break their non-disclosure agreement with Apple.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. There are any number of ways folks could find out about these things. Besides, doesn't free speech give him the right to say anything he wants as long as it isn't a) libelous b) breaking any agreements he has signed (which he hasn't).

Nobody sues ABC for releasing sealed Grand Jury testimony from the Michael Jackson case -- even though everyone who had access to it was supposed to keep it a secret. The SF Chronicle did the same thing with the Balco investigation and Giambi/Bonds.

I don't see how ABC/SF Chronicle are that different from Think Secret in this case (other than the number of lawyers they have at their disposal).

What Apple should do is pay these sites some sort of stipend but as part of the agreement the sites would have to sign an NDA. End of story...

Quote

kevdo wrote:

What Apple should do is pay these sites some sort of stipend but as part of the agreement the sites would have to sign an NDA. End of story...

So...all rumor sites would be "owned" by Apple?

I bet that would work just as well as when they tried giving iPods "ratings" on the Apple page last year!

>The point is that Think Secret encouraged people to break their non-disclosure agreement with Apple.

> I'm not sure I'd go that far. There are any number of ways folks could find out about these things. Besides, doesn't free speech give him the right to say anything he wants as long as it isn't a) libelous b) breaking any agreements he has signed (which he hasn't).

No it doesn't. First, free speech only applies to government, not to consensual relationships. When someone signs a non-disclosure, they are relationship that precludes free speech.

That beings said, Think Secret never agreed to a non-disclosure agreement.

That being said, it would be illegal for Think Secret to encourage others to break contractual obligations.

That beings said, Apple has only alleged Think Secret encourages others to break their contractual obligations; as of now, Apple has proven nothing.



> What Apple should do is pay these sites some sort of stipend but as part of the agreement the sites would have to sign an NDA. End of story...

I refuse the stipend, now what???

Most of the posts have no real knowledge of the history of Jobs and the company post 1985 after Jobs was run off the campus in Cupertino. Apple became the domain of John Sculley and other bozos in suits for the next 11 years. The dynasty that almost did Apple in. One of the big problems was product intellectual property security. There was none during that era. Every time Apple came up with something new they were dogrobbed by a competitor. The secrets spigot was wide open. And M$ did it's part as well. Both before and after Jobs departure in '85'. The issues of 'look and feel' and 'intellectual property' and the vagueness of the law, in the early 80's, allowed M$ to steal the Mac GUI. Apple took it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. If the law had caught up with intellectual property and design property issues back in the early to mid-80's I think Windows would be a far different product than it is today.

I cannot disagree with Apple's legal action...not for one minute.

KLM

re: Nicholas Ciareli

It’s NOT a question of “free speech” at all!!!

The problem should be settled out of court. Nicholas Ciarell probably thought he was being “clever” to divulge Apple secrets - BUT he is a Mac fan.

Apple has a constitutional right to protect its private property - BUT why not let go of a little “ego”?

Steve - save the lawyers’ fees and give Nick a job at Apple

I agree with many that aren't so sure of what the Think Secret "journalist" is doing...
- First of all, if he's so good with insider thing, why he doesn't spend his talent in something more important: Exxon, 9/11, Monopolies, Bush lobby,...
- Second: Insider trading. He's doing the same job of someone who get from insiders important financial data does. Never heard of the real use of Echelon satellites after the end of cold war? But really, how can you compare information that make democarcy a real thing, with reavealing industrial or marketing secrets/strategies? The answer is ignorance or interests or both...
- Third: sorry but Ciarelli is really a poor teenager, that can't afford lawyers, he's an Harvard student...is it Harvard a pubblic school? Am I missing something lately from europe?
- Fourth: Have you seen the Keynote video? No? Have you seen how the audience reacted when Jobs announced Mac Mini or iWork? Almost silence, absolutely nothing more than few claps... Sad, really sad, not only for a Steve clearly proved by his recent hill, but for all of the Apple guys and girls that have worked hard to make it... They do not deserve that, sorry...
- Fifth: from an european point of view: why spend all of
this efforts for the freedom of speach, or freedom of press when after the Patriot Act freedom of press or of opinion in the US is by now just a word....

Take it easy.

The Apple lawsuit is offensive to me as an American. To try to "bully" a magazine that aquires information legally is a statement of Apple's skewed values that demonstrate more concern with a bottom line than freedom of expression. Shame on you Steve Jobs.

Freedom of speech and the press is what makes America a strong democracy. If this case were to go to the Supreme Court it would be a severe embarassment for Apple. They make the best products but the avariciousness is disheartening.

I wonder if some people's opinions would be the same if it was their information that was reported early by a website - prior to their corporation announcing a new product.

I have seen how things change when the 'shoe is on the other foot'.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Freedom of speech and the press is what makes America a strong democracy. If this case were to go to the Supreme Court it would be a severe embarassment for Apple. They make the best products but the avariciousness is disheartening.

Heh. Do you even know WHY Martha Stewart is in jail?

i wonder what the Washington Examiner said about billy g, steve "i swear i am not the missing link" ballmer and M$ when they sued a teenager in canada for starting mikerowesoft.com

sorry, but companies need to protect their intellictual property-- apple is doing the right thing, but i hope that this fizzles out, and is just for image sake

companies are always trying to make an example of someone when they do something they shouldnt

i love think secret, and respect their journalism-- but apple has a right to defend its IP

it could have just as easily been macosrumors.com, macrumors.com, appleturns.com, or even macobserver.com-- which seemed to all have the same information (granted, from think secret) prior to the expo

is what apple did wrong? no

is what they did deplorable? i think so

TRO

Hey, guest from Europe...name a single American whose freedom of speech or opinion has been limited by the Patriot Act. Anyone else here know of someone? If there was any limitation, every poster on democraticunderground would be in a camp somewhere. It doesn't happen and it won't happen. The Patriot Act may be a bunch of misguided, unecessary crap...but it does not and cannot infringe on constitutional rights. I still view it with the contempt that almost anything passed by our congresscritters so richly deserves.

Most Europeans don't understand the US Constitution. It can't be altered, except by very specific actions. Such actions have not taken place. Therefore, the Patriot Act hasn't altered the Bill of Rights. Does your country even have a Bill of Rights? Please note that if any rights in your country can be overturned by declaration of a "state of emergency" or some such governmental decision, they don't count. There's no basis for suspension of these constitutional rights in the US, except by amending the constitution itself...which can't be done by the executive branch, only the legislative branch or the state legislatures. Any law (passed by a simple majority of both houses of congress and signed by the President) that tries to alter the constitution will be overturned by the courts. Most European countries don't operate that way, so such things aren't understood over there. If your rights can be simply overturned by a decision of the executive (president, premier, prime minister, etc), then they are NOT rights...they are privileges you are allowed at the whim of your executive. That is NOT the case in the US.

If you think US public opinion is in any way constrained by the Patriot Act, you must exist in some alternate reality. Look at democraticunderground, michael moore's website and any of thousands of other websites for US based opinions (most of which could be easily traced, and many of which are public figures anyway). To state otherwise is to exist in a reality distortion field orders of magnitude beyond anything of which Steve can even dream.

Sorry, major rant there.

I agree with most of the posters here...this lawsuit should get tossed. My suspicion is that the tactic has two aims:

1. Intimidate this site and others so that the trade secrets aren't prematurely disclosed; "prematurely" being from Apple's point of view, certainly not from mine. I don't know if this is additionally impacted by stock prices, SEC filings, competition, or what.

2. They can subpoena this guy as part of the lawsuit, if it goes forward far enough. If the site owner can make a case that he is news media (somewhat doubtful, but I'm no lawyer so could be completely wrong here), he might be able to keep sources confidential. If he doesn't, then he will be forced to divulge his sources to Apple. That may be the main aim of this whole thing.

Think Secret has as much right to Apple's trade secrets as child molesters do to your children.

Think about it.

Because there is legal necessity. The way I understand it, under California business legal precident, Apple is obliged to persue this lawsuit to uphold its nondisclosure clauses. And "free speech" only aplies when the government is involved, as someone said earlier. This is business.

Apple is perfectly within their rights and perfectly within their legal responsibility. They did this to expose the person(s) who broke their NDA.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Free speech doesn't apply to business? So if a company breaks no laws but treats me shabbily, you're saying my free speech rights don't apply. Crap!

The guy at ThinkSecret broke no laws. He did not compel anyone to talk to him, nor did he pay anyone to talk to him, and he is not bound by another person's NdA. The fact that he published what blabbing objects told him means only that he took advantage of his right to free speech. The fact that this involves a business entity is utterly irrelevant. Apple sued him because they're trying to track down the blabbing object and decided that the quickest, easiest way to do so was to try to intimidate the publisher of the information into revealing the source. ThinkSecret is under no legal obligation to reveal that source.

I must also point that the apparent idea that business strategies and products are somehow more important than national security strikes me as ludicrous.

^^^
Yup, ThinkSecret has the RIGHT to say what they want. Apple also has the RIGHT to sue him for it.

Everyone involved in this has had the RIGHT to do what they've done.

I don't know who started the whole RIGHTS stuff but I also think it's pretty dumb to worry about it because it's entirely irrelevant.

Free speech has nothing to do with this issue. Do you get that? The constitution does not confer any privilege to use someone else's property for your own benefit (Think Secret is a for-profit business, The Mini---and all related business plans, prices, technical secrets---belongs to Apple. When Apple chooses to release that information is up to them, not Think Secret. The damages for revealing the product or plans could be huge, whether or not they were in this case.

As I've said before, the First Amendment does not even mention journalism, journalists, or publishers. And just because you publish a weblog, web site, newspaper or TV show, or just write letters to the editor, you gain no special status regarding the use of confidential information.

You also fail to understand the nature of an NDA. Think Secret is indeed bound by the NDA. It obviously obligates the signer not to reveal the confidential information, but more importantly, if YOU receive any such information, it is YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THE DISCLOSER IS FREE TO REVEAL SUCH INFORMATION TO YOU, even though you were not a signatory to the agreement. If you use this information without determining whether you are free to use it, you can (and should) be held responsible. Lots of people/commercial interests have paid huge fines for ignoring this. In the biomedical business, this is standard practice--nobody wants to use information that has even a remote chance of belonging to someone else, as the costs down the road after you spend $$$ and release a product and get your butt sued for using someone else's great idea in the formulation are too astronomical.

Speech isn't free, never has been since the passage of the Constitution. Everything has a cost. Every action has consequences.

Yeah Baby!
If Apple is going to put rumor sites on the payroll, I am opening my own rumor site. Applesecrets.com. I can quit my job and go golfing all day! I won't tell anything unless the checks stop.

>>>The guy at ThinkSecret broke no laws. He did not compel anyone to talk to him, nor did he pay anyone to talk to him, and he is not bound by another person's NdA

You don't actually know that Apple could easily know something we don't. Well said, farmboy.

And FYI folks, Apple has warned Nick and Think Secret plenty of times. It has been the policy, most likely from the first day Nick bought his own Macintosh, that Apple DOES NOT DICLOSE products before they are announced publicly. And the INFORMATION that they provide in their formal PRESS RELEASE is the FORMAL DISCLOSURE of information to the PRESS and PUBLIC about the product. The Mini was ONE of MANY times that Think Secret has obtained information that he knew was not legally obtainable.

I love Think Secret, I go there every day. Nick is a fellow Seattlite. But if in the end of this the conclusion is "the gig is up Nick." Oh well, that sucks for him. Somehow I doubt Apple well go after him with the full extent of the law. I think they will just ask him to sign an NDR or something to that extent. Maybe even bring him on as part of Apple marketing.

I did what I should have done and actually looked things up. You're absolutely correct, farmboy. I'd forgotten the depths to which corporate protectionism has plunged. My bad, and my apologies for wasting everyone's time.

[Looks wistfully at soapbox] Nah, it wouldn't do any good.

I'll go review Rollerball as part of my rehabilitation.

1. carrot eater.
2. lettuce killer.

I can't think of any more right now. "Bully" seems so uncreative though, doncha think?

What if the secret hadn't been a trade secret? What if it had been a national security one? Would they be sympatheic then?