"by Bryan Chaffin and Brad Gibson
SAN JOSE, CALIF. -- Lawyers representing Apple Computer and three Web sites argued Friday over weather journalists should be protected from revealing their sources about an unreleased Apple product."

The same sort of information that ThinkSecret publishes is also published by sites like

- eWeek.com (the descendant of PC Week and MacWeek, which included the infamous Mac the Knife column and commonly pre-announced Apple products with frightening accuracy), which currently carries MacWeek alumni like Matthew Rothenberg as well as the Spencer F. Katt rumor column,

- CNET's news.com.com, which commonly publishes rumor and speculation,

- InfoWorld.com, which carries the Robert X. Cringely column,

- etc., etc..

In fact, rumors and insider information about Apple have been published routinely as long as the company has existed! Consider publications like BYTE (e.g. Sol Libes' rumor column) and the various Apple ][ magazines!

The difference is that these sites and print magazines are (or were) backed by companies with deep pockets - companies that Apple thinks it would not be able to crush the way it intends to crush ThinkSecret.

the difference is, Think Secret didn't have RUMORS, it had the actual product plans, and they reported them. It's basically an issue of selling/providing STOLEN property. Mags like eWeek, INFOWorld, etc... don't divulge internal documents. They know better. I'm with Apple on this one... Rumors are fine, even FUN... but the buck has to stop at the real thing.

I agree with Apple and as it is stated by one of the guest posts here. This is not an issue of freedom of speech, it is about trafficking stolen goods. Most likely the people that have release this information to the sites had signed an NDA with Apple. Releasing the information would violate that agreement. I think that Apple has the right to discover who gave the sites the information. From that knowledge it can be determined if an agreement was violated or not. Maybe the person who gave them the information just happened to be sitting at a table next to some loose mouth Apple employees, in which case he would not have violated any agreement and there would be no case. And just in case you have not ept up on your constitution, it says that we are guaranteed the "pursuit" of happiness not the acheivment of happiness.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Maybe the person who gave them the information just happened to be sitting at a table next to some loose mouth Apple employees, in which case he would not have violated any agreement and there would be no case.

Maybe br more likely these sites actively solicted the NDA information. Just look at the extent they have gone to make it easy for people to send annonymous emails, faxes, and phone calls to them. They actively gather and then publicly share info they know is confidential. That's their only business.

What frustrates me about the reporting on this case is that it has been the providence of people with an inherent bias. To reporters and bloggers it is all about free speech. In fact, there is much more to this case, but how many news stories and blogs even mention NDAs and trade secrets. Talk about unfair and unbalanced. At least guys like Dan Gilmore could go through the motions of being responsible journalists. There have been many news stories about how this is a threat to the First Amendment. How many news stories have pointed out that a ruling against Apple would destroy NDAs as we know them and effectively damage innovation? And the comparison to the Pentagon Papers case makes me throw up. It's about time we start holding these reporters and bloggers accountable for their shoddy and biased reporting. Write letters; give them hell.

ThinkSecret reports exactly the same type of information (unannounced Apple product specifications and pricing) that was printed in MacWeek in the 90's.

The difference is that MacWeek was a print publication backed by Ziff-Davis, and ThinkSecret is just a web site made by a college freshman.

edit: fixed description of "Common Sense"

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was hardly "traditional media" It was the 18th century's equivalent of a blog. And it was originally published anonymously, for fear of prosecution.

If blogs don't have first amendment protection, then who does? Only large corporations?

Quote

It's basically an issue of selling/providing STOLEN property.

If news becomes "property" that is owned by the subject in question then we have totally redefined freedom out of existence. [/b]

If someone gives me all your credit card info. I can post all this info on the internet and be covered under the freedom of the press. Isn't this the same thing.

"If news becomes "property" that is owned by the subject in question then we have totally redefined freedom out of existence."

It's not the news that is the property in question, it is the commercially sensitive and confidential trade secrets of a company.

Comparing Thomas Paine to Think Secret is rather bizzare. The first amendment was written to protect the ability of the people to speak freely about politics, religion, and government. It was not designed to protect someone actively soliciting protected, confidential information to post for amusement purposes. Ultimately that is what all of these tech related blogs and magazines really are: entertainment.

Quote

Guest wrote:
And just in case you have not ept up on your constitution, it says that we are guaranteed the "pursuit" of happiness not the acheivment of happiness.

Actually, in case you have not kept up with your historical documents, that phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But I pick nits!

More bad publicity for Apple, from the anti-corporate communists at forbes.com:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/personaltech/2005/03/04/cx_ld_0304aapl.html