Sounds like Nick is ready to move on..and apple is probably more than happy that he does so?

IT is troubling that Apple would go to such lengths - but corporate money is corporate money.

I have always been rather ambivilent about this case. Think Secret engaged in some marginally ethical behavior that I wasn't really comfortable with. On the other hand Apple while within its rights, handled it in a rather clumsy fashion and came off as a bit of a bully.

For all concerned it's a good thing this is over and can fade into history. I hope both sides learned from the incident.

You've got give a boat load of credit to a then-freshman in college who gets sued by a corporation and stands firm on not revealing his sources. He had a lot on the line and handled it beautifully. Way to go Nick dePlume.

But sadly, it will be on c|net's Behind the Website in 10 years and detail a sordid devolution into Dungeon's and Dragons, menthol cigarettes, and farm animal porn involving only farm animals. Sad to see you go Nick.

First, no one knows what the terms of the settlement are. In addition, you don't know if he gave up his sources or not.
Second, Apple's money is shareholder money not "Corporate money"--whatever that is.
Third, just because any idiot can publish a blog does not confirm upon them the right to steal confidential information. This is the real reason why EFI settled instead of going to court--they were not on solid ground equating bloggers with journalists' First Amendment rights--which have repeatedly been proven not to be widespread, despite popular opinion . Again, it's not about Freedom of Speech, it's about stealing and disseminating someone else's confidential information. You can't, and if you do you are subject to legal action.
Fourth, just because he's a college kid at Harvard (?) means nothing. You play with the big kids, you might get hurt. It ain't high school anymore.
All this being said, Apple could have handled this better.

You apple drones don't get it. Apple is the only company worse than Micro$oft and yet you continue to support them. When are you fanboys going to wake up and realize you are supporting a tyrannical organization, who will lie, cheat, misrepresent, and sue anyone who gets in their way? Apple products are garbage, including Macs, OSX, iPods, and iToonz!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You apple drones don't get it. Apple is the only company worse than Micro$oft and yet you continue to support them. When are you fanboys going to wake up and realize you are supporting a tyrannical organization, who will lie, cheat, misrepresent, and sue anyone who gets in their way? Apple products are garbage, including Macs, OSX, iPods, and iToonz!

Yeah. Whatever, dude.

What a drama queen.

I agree with the sentiment that while Apple could have handled the situation better, they were well within their rights - and duties to their shareholders - to address the problem of company secrets being published on a blog site. They are also within the bounds of propriety in pursuing the individuals who leaked those secrets to the publisher of the blog site, hence the law suit. The suit was not about what Ciarelli published, but rather who he got his info from.

Nick Ciarelli was in the wrong, and he knew he was in the wrong when he published his blog. It does not matter if bloggers are considered a part of professional journalism or not. The ideal of keeping sources secret as a protected right does not now nor has it ever extended to the right to use that shield when breaking the law. In the case of Apple, civil law was broken when the information released was the obvious result of one or more people violating one or more NDAs.

To be perfectly honest I'd sorta moved on from reading them since I was rather conflicted about what they were publishing. My current employer for instance would probably be very upset if I just went to a news site and blabbed about what we had under development. An NDO is an NDO. My company competes with two MUCH larger companies who could outspend our R&D for the quarter in one day. If they could see what we're developing they could easily develop a competing product or if what were making isn't patent protected, beat us to market. I'm afraid I'm with Apple in this case. They totally goofed on dealing with it but still I'm going with Apple.

NDO should have been NDA. Not sure what I was thinkin'

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You apple drones don't get it. Apple is the only company worse than Micro$oft and yet you continue to support them. When are you fanboys going to wake up and realize you are supporting a tyrannical organization, who will lie, cheat, misrepresent, and sue anyone who gets in their way? Apple products are garbage, including Macs, OSX, iPods, and iToonz!

You're just basically describing any big "for profit" company in the industrialized world, Apple included. Period. I like Apple, products, I buy them. When I'll stop liking them, I'll stop buying them and I'll buy something else from another tyrannic company. That's how the world work, for better or for worse!

Marc P.

...of journalism!

I own an iMac and my family owns a few iPods. I've convinced a few households to purchase iMacs throughout the past few years so I'm no stranger to Apple loyalty. They make great products.

I do understand what an "NDA" is and the penalties breaking one can incur. I do understand what corporate espionage is and how important it is to guard your latest and greatest but not yet released product. What I don't understand is why Apple needs to pursue sites who publish information they've received which really only serves to drive interest in Apple's own products.

We all know a rumor site may or may not have doctored images. We all know a rumor site may or may not be blowing smoke out its orafices. Yet, we all drive traffic on those sites - and comment in their forums. Why? Because it's FUN to speculate about the future - and about our favorite computer/gadget company.

Pulling down a rumor site (just because Apple can) is shameful. I haven't done any research on this (so please, correct me if I'm wrong) but, I'm wondering, does Microsoft penalize sites when they mention hinted features in IE8? Does Ford sue sites when they publish pictures of yet-to-be-released vehicles which are photographed during test drives in all their shrouded (they *do* literally shroud them!) glory? No. You know why? Because they know this "news" (even if it's just a rumor) is fueling interest in their brand name and fanning the flames of fanbois everywhere.

Rumor sites are free advertizing! Apple is not only shutting down free PR but it's tarnishing its own image with this behavior. At the moment, I'm ashamed of Apple for this. Tsk-tsk!

Quote

Guest wrote:
...of journalism!

I own an iMac and my family owns a few iPods. I've convinced a few households to purchase iMacs throughout the past few years so I'm no stranger to Apple loyalty. They make great products.

I do understand what an "NDA" is and the penalties breaking one can incur. I do understand what corporate espionage is and how important it is to guard your latest and greatest but not yet released product. What I don't understand is why Apple needs to pursue sites who publish information they've received which really only serves to drive interest in Apple's own products.

We all know a rumor site may or may not have doctored images. We all know a rumor site may or may not be blowing smoke out its orafices. Yet, we all drive traffic on those sites - and comment in their forums. Why? Because it's FUN to speculate about the future - and about our favorite computer/gadget company.

Pulling down a rumor site (just because Apple can) is shameful. I haven't done any research on this (so please, correct me if I'm wrong) but, I'm wondering, does Microsoft penalize sites when they mention hinted features in IE8? Does Ford sue sites when they publish pictures of yet-to-be-released vehicles which are photographed during test drives in all their shrouded (they *do* literally shroud them!) glory? No. You know why? Because they know this "news" (even if it's just a rumor) is fueling interest in their brand name and fanning the flames of fanbois everywhere.

Rumor sites are free advertizing! Apple is not only shutting down free PR but it's tarnishing its own image with this behavior. At the moment, I'm ashamed of Apple for this. Tsk-tsk!

Well said. I couldn't agree more. I have been an Apple using my entire computing life and been called a fanatic. But I do believe Apple is a bit of a corporate bully.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
does Microsoft penalize sites when they mention hinted features in IE8?

Hinted features is very different from information essentially stolen from the company (through violation of the NDA) and published. Anybody can speculate. People under NDAs have different rules applied, because they signed a legally binding document. That is why it is called a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They agreed, in a legally binding document (a contract between them and the company) to NOT DISCLOSE information regarding whatever they signed the agreement for.

Quote

Does Ford sue sites when they publish pictures of yet-to-be-released vehicles which are photographed during test drives in all their shrouded (they *do* literally shroud them!) glory?

No, because the photographs are legally obtained from off the premises. The wonders of long lenses. Ford knows they cannot do anything about that, which is why they shroud them. Taking a picture inside the design facility and publishing those, however, would be in violation of the companies policies (I would bet), and the violator can/would be fired ( if it is an employee), or sued (if it is not). Often, when you enter a facility like that, you sign NDAs for that very reason.

Quote

Rumor sites are free advertizing! Apple is not only shutting down free PR but it's tarnishing its own image with this behavior. At the moment, I'm ashamed of Apple for this. Tsk-tsk!

Apple isn't shutting down rumor sites on a whim. They are going after those that are soliciting for information (not just rumors) and publishing it. Macrumors,MacOSrumors and others are still around. If they publish things that are obviously in violation of an NDA, then they run the risk of being sued. That's business.

I don't particularly like it either (after all, everybody loves getting early "insider" information), but I can't really blame Apple for trying to protect their product designs and info. Every company does (or should do) it. If they don't, they are remiss in their responsibilities to their shareholders.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Third, just because any idiot can publish a blog does not confirm upon them the right to steal confidential information.

I think you're overstepping. Nick did not STEAL confidential info, he simply left an open invitation on his website for Apple insiders to contact him with news of upcoming product releases. Apple was using him to get at those employees and/or contractors who violated their NDA, and he wouldn't give up names on grounds of journalism. And let's be clear on another thing: Thinksecret.com was not a blog - it was a news site, PERIOD. Big difference between the two.

Of course, the right to free speech loses its traction when it comes to blabbing about sensitive corporate materials, but all the same if Apple were really that much of a corporate thug that a lot of people seem to have a perception of, they'd be going after many other rumor and blog sites, such as the Fake Steve Jobs blog, or AppleInsider.com. Thinksecret's downfall was that it was too accurate with info that isn't publicly available.

Quote

Guest wrote:
First, no one knows what the terms of the settlement are. In addition, you don't know if he gave up his sources or not.
Second, Apple's money is shareholder money not "Corporate money"--whatever that is.
Third, just because any idiot can publish a blog does not confirm upon them the right to steal confidential information. This is the real reason why EFI settled instead of going to court--they were not on solid ground equating bloggers with journalists' First Amendment rights--which have repeatedly been proven not to be widespread, despite popular opinion . Again, it's not about Freedom of Speech, it's about stealing and disseminating someone else's confidential information. You can't, and if you do you are subject to legal action.
Fourth, just because he's a college kid at Harvard (?) means nothing. You play with the big kids, you might get hurt. It ain't high school anymore.
All this being said, Apple could have handled this better.

Corporate money here: http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/coalition.html

Here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983755

Here:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ge_bC0wQb8EJ:www.transparency.org/content/download/4422/26677/file/06_Corporate_money.pdf+corporate+money&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=safari

Here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib/2003/0711gifts.htm

Corporate money is money used by the corporation to pursue it's own designs via it's own motivation. Shareholders are just playing a bet hoping for the best. Corporate money belongs to the corporations - I.E., Eron, S&L etc... Sure, Shareholders can sue if the corporation mismanages their funding, but that is what a shareholder does, fund an idea.

Shareholder definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder

Quote

xmattingly wrote:
I think you're overstepping. Nick did not STEAL confidential info, he simply left an open invitation on his website for Apple insiders to contact him with news of upcoming product releases. Apple was using him to get at those employees and/or contractors who violated their NDA, and he wouldn't give up names on grounds of journalism.

That seems to be an accurate synopsis of the issue. Therefore, because Apple really had no grounds to sue someone like Nick who was NOT violating any NDA that he had ever made with Apple when he published information given to him by people who were violating THEIR NDAs with Apple, what I'm wondering is, "Why is ThinkSecret giving up? Was Nick just tired of it all, or did Apple make him a rich offer?"

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
Therefore, because Apple really had no grounds to sue someone like Nick who was NOT violating any NDA that he had ever made with Apple when he published information given to him by people who were violating THEIR NDAs with Apple, what I'm wondering is, "Why is ThinkSecret giving up? Was Nick just tired of it all, or did Apple make him a rich offer?"

The grounds of their lawsuit was more or less being a party to a person(s) who violated legal contracts. Or in other words, their stance is "just having someone tell you secrets doesn't give you in inherent right to tell the world those secrets, under the umbrella of journalistic freedoms." To that extent, I think Apple does have some precedence I they can prove that the release of confidential info can harm their business.

It's hard to say what the terms of the settlement were. One thing's for sure though, Apple's legal team would have dragged Nick dePlume over the coals had they gone to trial.

Quote

xmattingly wrote:

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
... Apple really had no grounds to sue someone like Nick who was NOT violating any NDA that he had ever made with Apple when he published information given to him by people who were violating THEIR NDAs with Apple,

The grounds of their lawsuit was more or less being a party to a person(s) who violated legal contracts...

I don't see how that could be valid grounds. It seems to me that if one has no contract with Apple, Apple cannot (reasonably/successfully) sue one for violating someone else's contract - that's not illegal even in California, surely.

Quote

Or in other words, their stance is "just having someone tell you secrets doesn't give you in inherent right to tell the world those secrets, under the umbrella of journalistic freedoms." To that extent, I think Apple does have some precedence I they can prove that the release of confidential info can harm their business.

If Nick had resided & published in California, where there is a tough "Trade Secrets" law which may or may not legitimately trump a journalist's "privilege" (we have yet to see that decided), then he WOULD be subject to suits under that law, and Apple would then need, as you indicated, to "... prove that the release of confidential info can harm their business." But if Nick instead resided and published in the other states where there are no such laws (as I understand is the case in most other states), then on what basis could Apple sue him there? I don't see any grounds for Apple to legitimately sue him outside of California's "Trade Secrets" law.

People still seem to be missing the central intent of the lawsuit, and the ramifications from the central intent. The intent of the lawsuit was to obtain the names of the people who violated their NDAs in releasing information to Think Secret.

The suit to obtain the names was based on the established fact that Think Secret DELIBERATELY invited individuals to violate their NDAs. That open invitation was what made Think Secret a culpable partner in the commission of a civil crime. Had an employee of Apple gone to Think Secret on their own, without that public invitation, then the legal scene would have been different. Openly inviting people to violate their NDAs is what put Think Secret in the wrong, both legally and morally.

Lucky for Nick that Apple could not prove any compensation taking place, or he would have been in REAL deep water as far as liability for what he published.

Apple's intent was not to shut down a rumor site, nor to interfere with free journalism. I am certain the executives of Apple are cognizant enough to understand the advantages of rumor sites building up anticipation and excitement about upcoming Apple products. But there is a huge difference between publishing rumors or conjecture, and publishing actual company secrets. Think Secret did the latter, and did so by obtaining those secrets using legally (and morally) questionable tactics.

Quote

xmattingly wrote:

It's hard to say what the terms of the settlement were. One thing's for sure though, Apple's legal team would have dragged Nick dePlume over the coals had they gone to trial.

Ironically, the terms of the settlement are probably covered under a confidentiality agreement (IAW an NDA).

Quote

zewazir wrote:
People still seem to be missing the central intent of the lawsuit, and the ramifications from the central intent. The intent of the lawsuit was to obtain the names of the people who violated their NDAs in releasing information to Think Secret.

The suit to obtain the names was based on the established fact that Think Secret DELIBERATELY invited individuals to violate their NDAs. That open invitation was what made Think Secret a culpable partner in the commission of a civil crime. ... Openly inviting people to violate their NDAs is what put Think Secret in the wrong, both legally and morally.

Ahhh... huh-uh.
It seems to me that while deliberately inviting others to "...violate their NDAs", may be morally wrong anyplace, it would only be a civil crime in jurisdictions where there are "Trade Secret" laws like the one in the state California (and that's only a "perhaps", there too).
In the rest of the US (where Nick presumably is/did this), the plaintiff Apple would have to have had an NDA with the defendant Nick Ciarelli in order to make the case that a civil crime like contract violation had occurred.

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:

Ahhh... huh-uh.
It seems to me that while deliberately inviting others to "...violate their NDAs", may be morally wrong anyplace, it would only be a civil crime in jurisdictions where there are "Trade Secret" laws like the one in the state California (and that's only a "perhaps", there too).
In the rest of the US (where Nick presumably is/did this), the plaintiff Apple would have to have had an NDA with the defendant Nick Ciarelli in order to make the case that a civil crime like contract violation had occurred.

And you STILL miss the point. Apple did not accuse Think Secret nor Nick Ciarelli of any civil crimes. The people guilty of the civil crimes were those who told company secrets covered under NDAs to Think Secret.

The suit was aimed at the fact that the actions of Think Secret induced a civil crime to take place. That action, regardless of trade secret law, makes Think Secret at least culpable. Had the same types of action led to criminal acts (as opposed to civil violations) Think Secret could well have been charged as an accomplice before the fact. But civil law is more lenient.

But the fact remains that the actions of Think Secret led directly to the violation of civil law (NDAs are legally binding documents in ANY state as it does not take a special trade secrets law to enforce them). That fact made the action of suing for the names of the individuals a legally sound action on the part of Apple.

Quote

zewazir wrote:

And you STILL miss the point. Apple did not accuse Think Secret nor Nick Ciarelli of any civil crimes. The people guilty of the civil crimes were those who told company secrets covered under NDAs to Think Secret.

The suit was aimed at the fact that the actions of Think Secret induced a civil crime to take place... That action, regardless of trade secret law, makes Think Secret at least culpable

Do I really miss your point? I think that merely somehow inducing a civil crime (like contract violation) to take place is not itself a civil crime anywhere, not even in California, unless one was a prior signator to that contract.

Quote

But the fact remains that the actions of Think Secret led directly to the violation of civil law (NDAs are legally binding documents in ANY state as it does not take a special trade secrets law to enforce them). That fact made the action of suing for the names of the individuals a legally sound action on the part of Apple.

Yes, true. Apple CAN sue (or at least subpoena) for those names anywhere.
But, no. None of Nick's actions "...makes Think Secret at least culpable..." for any civil crime (outside of California - and that's only a "maybe")

An NDA is a legally binding CONTRACT between an employer who wishes to keep secrets and the employee with whom the employer entrusts those secrets.

It does not matter what state you reside in, violation of a legally binding contract has certain legal liabilities associated, to include any damages which result from the contract violation as well as any stated penalties defined within the contract. (Such as being summarily fired without severance, etc.)

If a government agency entices an individual into unlawful action, it is called entrapment. Not only is the entrapped individual immune from any prosecution, the agency is liable for any damages to the idividual resulting from the entrapment.

Similarly, if a private individual deliberately entices another into the commission of a crime, they can (and often are) held criminally liable for the crime as an accomplice before the fact.

There is more leeway when talking about enticing others to violate civil law, but the bottom line remains that an individual who instigates a civil violation can be held accountable for the results of the violation.

All Apple wanted was the names of those employees who violated their NDAs, and they were right to pursue those identities. Nick had that information that Apple needed, and the REASON he had the information is he INSTIGATED the entire episode. Apple was correct in trying to get those names from Nick (Though they probably could have handled it better) and Nick was wrong in withholding the names.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
An NDA is a legally binding CONTRACT between an employer who wishes to keep secrets and the employee with whom the employer entrusts those secrets.

Correct.

Quote

It does not matter what state you reside in, violation of a legally binding contract has certain legal liabilities associated, to include any damages which result from the contract violation as well as any stated penalties defined within the contract. (Such as being summarily fired without severance, etc.)

Correct.

Quote

If a government agency entices an individual into unlawful action, it is called entrapment. Not only is the entrapped individual immune from any prosecution, the agency is liable for any damages to the idividual resulting from the entrapment.

Correct, for the most part, as I understand it. But since this would be a governmental action, this whole question will be one of criminal, not civil culpability/immunity.

Quote

Similarly, if a private individual deliberately entices another into the commission of a crime, they can (and often are) held criminally liable for the crime as an accomplice before the fact.

No. NOT correct in the case of a enticing another into the commission of a CIVIL crime.
Someone who, like Nick, could not be subject to such civil culpability (because he never had any contract with Apple which could be violated - which is the civil crime we've been talking about) would NEVER be held criminally or civilly liable as an accomplice for the civil crime someone else committed, regardless of how much he might have induced it. Only those who have signed a contract can be held in any way responsible for violating that contract. There's no such thing as being civilly liable as an accomplice for a civil crime. It can't happen under civil (contract). law, as I understand it.

Quote

There is more leeway when talking about enticing others to violate civil law, but the bottom line remains that an individual who instigates a civil violation can be held accountable for the results of the violation.

Totally untrue. There is not just "more leeway when talking about enticing others to violate civil law", there's total freedom to do so.

Quote

All Apple wanted was the names of those employees who violated their NDAs, and they were right to pursue those identities. Nick had that information that Apple needed, and the REASON he had the information is he INSTIGATED the entire episode. Apple was correct in trying to get those names from Nick...

OK.

Quote

...and Nick was wrong in withholding the names.

Morally wrong? Perhaps.
Wrong before civil law (other that a Trade Secrets law)? NOPE!

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
I don't see how that could be valid grounds. It seems to me that if one has no contract with Apple, Apple cannot (reasonably/successfully) sue one for violating someone else's contract - that's not illegal even in California, surely.

That would be called willfully facilitating a criminal act. If you knowingly drive someone to a bank heist, you're no less of a criminal than if you stole the money. This so-called "trade secret" law that you keep falling back on isn't the central contingency: the broader scope of Apple affiliate(s) having violated a legally binding contract is.

Locality has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction in this case. Once you hit that "upload" button and broadcast it to the world, as far as U.S. is concerned it becomes a case for Federal courts. Are you under the misnomer that you can get away with a crime in the U.S. by fleeing into Mexico, or that Chinese software pirates have immunity from stealing from U.S. businesses?

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Ironically, the terms of the settlement are probably covered under a confidentiality agreement (IAW an NDA).

Heh heh... this is true.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
Openly inviting people to violate their NDAs is what put Think Secret in the wrong, both legally and morally.

Yep, the open invitation is what sealed the deal. However, I don't really consider it a moral issue. Publicly releasing photos of Britney Spears' fun zone is amoral (and we all know she can afford to buy underwear); telling Apple's secrets a couple o' days/ couple o' weeks before the product hits the market is more like giving everyone a sneak peek at the Christmas presents under the tree.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
Lucky for Nick that Apple could not prove any compensation taking place, or he would have been in REAL deep water as far as liability for what he published.

Well... he did have advertising on his site. So I'm sure there was at least some profit involved.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
But there is a huge difference between publishing rumors or conjecture, and publishing actual company secrets.

This one sentence sums up the issue better than anything else I've read. Add to that the unfailing accuracy if TS' reports: Apple knew someone was dishing their junk.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Apple not only figured out who was talking to Nick, but may have also showed him those NDA contracts? It could have been as simple as the lawyers telling Nick, "Look, we know who's been talking to you and they've been dealt with. Here are the legal contracts they signed with us: you're not going to be hearing from these guys again, so the gig's up. If you close down your site, we won't sue you." That's of course, all an assumption on my part but one way or another I really think Apple had him in checkmate, and Nick had no choice but to discontinue.

Quote

xmattingly wrote:

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
I don't see how that could be valid grounds. It seems to me that if one has no contract with Apple, Apple cannot (reasonably/successfully) sue one for violating someone else's contract - that's not illegal even in California, surely.

That would be called willfully facilitating a criminal act. If you knowingly drive someone to a bank heist, you're no less of a criminal than if you stole the money.

You seem bound and determined to keep confusing civil (contract law) culpability with criminal law culpability, so I really should now just give up on this thread to avoid repeating myself. But, instead, I'll give it one last try:

As you worthy opponents have correctly said, if a private individual deliberately entices another into the commission of an act defined as a crime under CRIMINAL LAW, s/he can be (and often are) held criminally liable for the crime as an accomplice before the fact.

But we are talking about CIVIL LAW culpability, not CRIMINAL LAW culpability, in case the case of Nick the accomplice. If a private individual such as Nick entices another person into the commission of an act that is only a "crime" under CIVIL LAW* for that other person, then Nick the enticer COULD NOT BE subject to any CIVIL culpability as long as he never had any contract with Apple which could be violated (which he did not have)*. Under civil (contract) law, only those who have signed a contract can be held in any way responsible for the CIVIL LAW "crime" of violating that contract, and so obviously there cannot ever be any such thing as as being liable as an accomplice for the civil "crime" someone else committed, regardless of how much the accomplice might have induced it (No contract = no CIVIL LAW liability.). So, again, there is not just "...more leeway when talking about enticing others to violate civil law", there's actually total freedom to do so under civil (contract) law,

*(NOTE: The only way I could see that Nick MIGHT be culpable under civil law for enticing another person into the commission of that CIVIL LAW "crime" would be if Nick's actions somehow constituted a violation of a jurisdiction's local "Trade Secrets" civil law code. But if Nick did NOT violate a local jurisdiction's "Trade Secrets" civil law code, then he would have NO culpability under civil law for his enticing actions.)

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
You seem bound and determined to keep confusing civil (contract law) culpability with criminal law culpability, so I really should now just give up on this thread to avoid repeating myself.

But we are talking about CIVIL LAW culpability, not CRIMINAL LAW culpability, in case the case of Nick the accomplice.

You seem bound and determined to run this topic into the ground, and it's like Kenny Bania's bad comedy routine: you keep coming back with more of the same, and none of it is insightful or entertaining. Regardless of civil or criminal liability, the conventions of society still apply: aiding and abetting.

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
If a private individual such as Nick entices another person into the commission of an act that is only a crime under CIVIL LAW* for that other person, then Nick the enticer could not be subject to any CIVIL culpability as long as he never had any contract with Apple.

So if someone hands me the the answers to a test and I merely photocopy them and hand them out to the rest of the class, I can't be held accountable? You need a reality check, bub.

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
So, again, there is not just "...more leeway when talking about enticing others to violate civil law", there's total freedom to do so under civil (contract) law,!

You could have fooled me. Oh wait a minute, you didn't: not for a second. Nick dePlume came to an undisclosed agreement with Apple's legal team and had to shut down his site. How'd that happen?

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
*(NOTE: The only way I could see that Nick MIGHT be culpable under civil law for enticing another person into the commission of a CIVIL LAW crime would be if Nick's actions somehow constituted a violation of a jurisdiction's local "Trade Secrets" civil law code.

BurmaYank want a cracker... BWAAAK! First of all, what you "see" and what you "know" are two entirely things, and your premise is based entirely on your own assumptions: namely that state law in some bizarre way takes precedence over Federal jurisdiction. I'll say it again, whatever laws have jurisdiction in California don't apply: what part of World Wide Web do you not understand?

Quote

xmattingly wrote:

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
...But we are talking about CIVIL LAW culpability, not CRIMINAL LAW culpability, in case the case of Nick the accomplice.

You seem bound and determined to run this topic into the ground, and it's like Kenny Bania's bad comedy routine: you keep coming back with more of the same, and none of it is insightful or entertaining. Regardless of civil or criminal liability, the conventions of society still apply: aiding and abetting.

Yes, I'm chagrined to admit, I do "...seem bound and determined to run this topic into the ground," Alas!

And yes, the conventions of society DO apply, but according to them, I expect you will find, aiding and abetting culpability never applies to violations of civil contract law - only to violations of criminal law and perhaps to some NON-contract civil codes (such as local "Trade Secrets" laws.)

Quote

So if someone hands me the the answers to a test and I merely photocopy them and hand them out to the rest of the class, I can't be held accountable? You need a reality check, bub.

Your copied test example fails as a refutation to my statement that, "...only those who have signed a contract can be held in any way responsible for the CIVIL LAW "crime" of violating that contract, ...", because it does not address the issue of the accomplice who is not a signator to a violated contract or who is not within the jurisdiction of a civil code, as Nick was not.

In your copied test questions case, I WOULD be held accountable for violating my own civil contractual obligations, because, I, too, became contracted with the school when I joined that class, and it is on the basis of that contract of mine in joining the class that my culpability for abetting cheating arises - and NOT from my role as an abettor or accomplice. If I did not belong to that class when I copied the questions, and if I violated no copyright laws by copying it, nor got any benefit from doing that, then NO, iI would not be culpable for violating any laws, civil or criminal, that I can think of, just because I abetted cheating in a class.

On the other hand, in the case in which Nick entices another person to commit the civil "crime" of violating that other person's contract, Nick the enticer could not be subject to any ciivil contract-violation culpability as long as he never had any such contract of his own with Apple. If you look into this question, I expect you will find that that's just how the law actually works: civil law culpability never applies to abettors and accomplices who are themselves not prior agree-ers to the violated contract or or not otherwise subject to the violated civil code.

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
Yes, the conventions of society DO apply, and according to them, aiding and abetting culpability never applies to violations of civil contract law - only to violations of criminal law and perhaps to some NON-contract civil codes (such as local "Trade Secrets" laws.)

And yet somehow, ThinkSecret.com will not continue. Social laws don't apply, according to what? Sources you have yet to disclose to the rest of us, or the whims of your own imagination?

Quote

BurmaYank wrote:
If I did not belong to that class when I copied the questions, and if I violated no copyright laws by copying it, nor got any benefit from doing that, then NO, iI would not be culpable [etc, etc]

Long after you'd been expelled from school and had to explain your actions to your parents, you'd still be in denial of any wrongdoing. Laws and discipline apply equally to ignoramuses.

From the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton:

"Section 1832. Theft of trade secrets.

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly -

(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;

(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches,. draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;

(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;

(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or

(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000."

IANAL, but it seems to me that this could apply.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
From the Economic Espionage Act of 1996

IANAL, but it seems to me that this could apply.

Thank you - I think this is the only really authoritative reference we've had in this thread. Pfft... "jurisdiction under CA 'trade secrets' law"??

There isn't any way Nick dePlume could claim he was not aware of the sensitivity of that information... unless he were to plead the "Patented Senator Craig 'Wide Stance'" defense.

What does IANAL stand for?

I Am Not A Lawyer.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
I Am Not A Lawyer.

Oh, ok. I halfway wondered if that was something on the masthead of Apple Legal's documents.

iAnal
Because you'll take it up the wazoo when we serve you with our papers.

Nick, the arrogant, self-aggrandizing, "I don't really give a crap who gets hurt as long as advertisers give me money and I get popular" dePlume is gone.

and Atlas ... farted.