PDA

View Full Version : Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret


cambridgebrian
2005-01-12, 11:55
Originally published on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 in the News section of The Harvard Crimson.

Apple Sues Student
By JOSEPH M. TARTAKOFF
Crimson Staff Writer


Apple Computer, Inc. is suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products, including two unveiled at this week’s Macworld conference.

Nineteen-year-old Nicholas M. Ciarelli ’08, known on the internet as Nick dePlume, has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13.

Ciarelli’s site announced the arrival of the Mac mini—a $499 computer—and the iLife ’05 software package two weeks before they were introduced at the Apple expo yesterday.

But in a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara last Tuesday, Apple alleges that Think Secret has not obtained its information legally.

Apple claims that Ciarelli and his company, The dePlume Organization, broke the law when soliciting insider tips online from anonymous sources, “inducing” Apple employees to break their confidentiality agreements with the company.

The suit does not identify Ciarelli by name, saying dePlume’s “true name and identity” could not be confirmed. But a Nov. 11 letter Apple sent to Think Secret ordering the site to stop publishing trade secrets included Ciarelli’s name as publisher and editor-in-chief of Think Secret.

Ciarelli, who is also a Crimson editor, confirmed in an e-mail yesterday that he owns and runs Think Secret.

He wrote in the e-mail that he has done nothing wrong.

“I employ the same legal newsgathering practices used by any other journalist,” he wrote. “I talk to sources of information, investigate tips, follow up on leads, and corroborate details. I believe these practices are reflected in Think Secret’s track record.”

The site, for example, broke the news that Apple would release a digital music player one week before Apple released its first iPod in 2001.

Apple representatives did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. Apple’s attorney, George A. Riley, also did not respond to several phone messages.

Ciarelli, a Wigglesworth resident who hails from New York, wrote that he has not yet hired an attorney.

“Neither the dePlume Organization nor I can afford to defend a suit against Apple, and have few connections in California,” he wrote.

THE CORE OF THE SUIT

Apple’s lawsuit alleges that Think Secret is illegally soliciting Apple employees to violate confidentiality agreements and disclosing that information online without Apple’s permission.

Offering tipsters “complete anonymity,” the website contact page urges visitors to submit “news tips” and “insider information.”

According to the complaint, Apple employees sign confidentiality agreements in which they promise not to disclose information about product plans to anyone outside of the company.

“Defendants’ knowing misappropriation and disclosure of Apple’s trade secrets constitutes a violation of California law and has caused irreparable harm to Apple,” the lawsuit states.

But several experts said that Apple might have alternative motives for suing the site.

“Usually you would want to sue your enemies and not your friends,” said Gary Fine, a Northwestern professor of sociology and expert on rumors. “I can’t think of an instance in which a corporation would sue its own fans. I haven’t heard anything like this.”

Fine said that it was possible that Apple was suing Think Secret to generate publicity. The lawsuit came the week before Apple’s biannual exposition where it released its latest products.

“If [the lawsuit] gets everyone’s attention, that’s all for the good of the company. Maybe there is a quiet understanding that they’ll get media attention and [then] quietly drop the lawsuit,” Fine said.

Ciarelli denied speculation that his site collaborated with Apple to generate buzz.

“Apple’s leadership is not feeding me information,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Roger M. Milgrim, a New York intellectual property attorney and the author of Milgrim on Trade Secrets, said that Apple might be trying to scare off other sites from copying Think Secret’s tactics.

“They figure that if they place financial pressures on this fellow, they’ll stop others from doing this same,” said Milgrim, who was unfamiliar with the case. “A preliminary injunction issued by a California court is useless against a Massachusetts or New York resident. But they seek damages and this young man will have to appear and he will have to hire a lawyer.”

Milgrim and Harvard Law Professor Lloyd L. Weinreb, when told by a Crimson reporter about the case, said Ciarelli might have a difficult time defending his actions.

“If that student is inviting people to give him information that was violating a trade secret he might be liable as a contributory infringer,” Weinreb said. An infringer violates the law directly, but a contributory infringer knows about the infringement and facilitates it in some way.

Milgrim agreed, saying that even if Ciarelli had not solicited trade secrets but had simply posted them, he might still be liable under California law.

“California is one of approximately 44 or 45 states that have adopted [the] Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another,” Milgrim said.

“Just because you receive something on the internet does not mean you have a green light to do whatever you want with it,” Milgrim added.

He explained the type of damages that could have motivated Apple’s lawsuit. “Sometimes in the software field where advances are measured in nanoseconds, the preannouncement will permit competitors to develop products more timely,” Milgrim said.

In its complaint, Apple demands that Ciarelli and his company pay damages, hand over “gains, profits, and advantages” from the alleged “misappropriation” of trade secrets and attend a trial by jury. According to the complaint, Think Secret generates revenue from online advertising.

Apple also requested an injunction to stop Think Secret from spreading future product information.

In the past, Apple has sent at least four cease and desist letters to Think Secret to stop the site from posting Apple trade secrets. Apple is also suing the unidentified individuals who tipped off Think Secret and has urged Ciarelli to reveal their identities.

But Ciarelli wrote that he will not disclose information about his sources.

“In my view, it is crucial that a reporter have the ability to maintain the confidentiality of his or her sources. And I think the public realizes this, since the news has been filled lately with instances of journalists being forced to reveal confidential sources,” Ciarelli wrote.

According to California Superior Court records, a case management conference will be held on May 3.


Go back to original article.
Copyright © 2004, The Harvard Crimson Inc. All rights reserved.

scratt
2005-01-12, 12:22
Personally I am on Apple's side on this one.. I know I am going to be unpopular for this, but I take their point in the Law Suit.

But I sure do like checking the goss. out at Think Secret. ;)

El Guardo
2005-01-13, 01:32
I too can appreciate Apple's position in this matter. And while I suspected that Thinksecret would be legally safe, "contributory infringment" does not look good....

usurp
2005-01-13, 01:53
I think Apple sucks because of this. I think ThinkSecret did nothing wrong. Let Apple fire the employees who leaked but you cant sue ThinkSecret.

datapusher
2005-01-13, 02:07
lol, come on. apple is trying to get the names of the sources from nick and obviously he isn't giving them up, so apple has to go ahead and sue.

scratt
2005-01-13, 02:25
I think Apple sucks because of this. I think ThinkSecret did nothing wrong. Let Apple fire the employees who leaked but you cant sue ThinkSecret.

So let me think...

If you had a great idea... A world changing idea, and you couldn't make that thing by yourself, so you hired people to help you make that thing...

You really don't want people to copy your idea and bring it to market before you do and sell loads 'cos otherwise all that money your borrowed from your Mum would have to be paid back, or she'd have to go on the streets... 'cos you'd not have any way of paying the debt...

You made your friends who you were paying to work on this idea (using the money you borrowed from your Mum) promise to keep your idea a secret...

Then you found out that Johnny from next door was offering your friends sweets and money to share your idea with them..

You don't know which friend took the money, if it was all, or just some and you are up to your eyes in debt.. Your Mum's a bit worried.

All your friends are shitting themselves 'cos you will kill them for betraying you so they arn't gonna fess up...

What would you do...

Icarusty
2005-01-13, 02:41
Yes, but in ThinkSecret's case (both with the music device (iPod) and with the recent new products) the announcements were just a week or two before it was actually released for all to see. Now, it's practically impossible for a company, no matter how rich, to take ideas, features, design etc. of leaked technology/products, improve on them and finalize the design, and then mass manufacture and market it in two weeks... so really, bit of a null argument you put across there, as the damage dealt really is miniscule.

Hi to everyone on the forums by the way.

iRobot
2005-01-13, 02:56
The other major difference is that in your analogy sweets are being offered in return for the idea.


Now.. I'm fairly confident that Thinksecret has not offered anything to its sources. It simply links to an anonymous mailer system so that anyone at all can send them news tips.



That is certainly not illegal.

scratt
2005-01-13, 03:04
Firstly, I think it is pretty obvious to assume that Ciarelli knows the people he is getting the information from... I don't think the accuracy of the information is from anonymous mailings, to be perfectly frank. So this begs the question what are these people getting for putting their jobs on the line!??!

The joy of seeing rumours on a third rate site?

I don't think so.

Secondly, while I take your point that he may not be offering incentives, the fact remains that he is profitting from illegally obtaining information via his online advertising.

His site serves no useful purpose apart from titillation for fans and may have affected release shcedules for products.. Asteroid, for example.

Apple is in the right legally, and I would say morally to ask people to stop encouraging employees to break the law and to stop stealing from it.

But, hey, maybe I am just old fashioned that way.

scratt
2005-01-13, 03:07
Yes, but in ThinkSecret's case (both with the music device (iPod) and with the recent new products) the announcements were just a week or two before it was actually released ...

Your honour it was only a small bag of crack.

Your honour she was 80 years old already when I ran her over, she probably wouldn't have lived much longer...

Your honour it was only a $1 I pick-pocketed him for...

Your honour I didn't mean any harm....

Your honour.....

etc.

Icarusty
2005-01-13, 03:37
With the exception of the last point, those all have clear boundaries that are crossed. With this, it's just information; and more to the point, time sensitive info. One week after the allegedly illegal announcement of the new items, we get the official one. Now tell me what tangible damage has been done, worthy of a lawsuit.

scratt
2005-01-13, 03:47
You need to understand the law, and also actually develope some ideas of your own and then perhaps have them stolen.

Physical theft and theft of ideas, or theft of information is still theft.

Encouraging people to break the law is also a crime.

There are the legal arguments.

Apple don't want their information leaked, and there is the crux.. It is their proprietory information right up to the point they choose to make it public.

That to my mind is worthy of a law suit. It is certainly what the courts think too, otherwise they would have thrown the case out. AND THEY HAVEN'T.

Now if I listenend in on your phone calls (from the next room - nothing illegal there) and then (from stuff I heard in the convo.) told your boss you were planning to go work for another firm, and that lost you your job (assuming you have one). What would you do?

I mean your boss had a long term plan for you... but you only wanted to be there another three weeks to pay the bills... but because he now knows you are leaving anyway, he lets you go, screws your plans, and hires someone else...

Would you be happy about that...

You can try to brush my argument away... But all I have done is let information out of the bag a bit early.. No harm done, eh?

I think it would be possible to contrive some law-suit there also...
Would you be justified.. Who knows?

But I bet you'dd be pissed, and I bet if it did you some damage, you wouldn't compound it by making the reason public... Or perhaps I just had told stories on you one time too often and you wanted to nip it in the bud..

Either way you might investigate legal options to sue me, or even your boss, for using information which was going to be public anyway in a couple of weeks, and hey is just information anyway...

cambridgebrian
2005-01-13, 03:54
lcarusty, I think scratt's point was that it doesn't matter if any tangible damage has actually been done. It's the principle of the thing.

Stealing $1 from someone's pocket hardly does any real damage, but it is just as morally wrong, and criminally punishable, as stealing $500.

Icarusty
2005-01-13, 04:09
Yeah, I agree with that; in principle it is wrong, and as Apple I would be damn annoyed that the news got out. But because there really wasn't any lasting damage dealt, I think Apple's decision to file a lawsuit was much an overreaction.

Much better to find out how and who leaked the info in the first place, and how to prevent it in the future, seeing as, in this case, the "major blow" has already been made (i.e. the premature revealing of the mac and shuffle). Hence filing a lawsuit wouldn't achieve much; more likely to damage its reputation with its fans more than anything else.

usurp
2005-01-13, 05:03
so if i am standing at a bus stop, and someone comes and starts talking to me and tells me that Apple is coming out with the G6 in february and then walks away. I go and tell my friends that btw someone came to me and told me the G6 is comiing out in february... Apple now has the right to sue me?

scratt
2005-01-13, 05:11
so if i am standing at a bus stop, and someone comes and starts talking to me and tells me that Apple is coming out with the G6 in february and then walks away. I go and tell my friends that btw someone came to me and told me the G6 is comiing out in february... Apple now has the right to sue me?

Depends whether you were wearing a big dumb ass T-shirt saying... Please tell me all Apple's secrets in confidence... and if you had an advert for some crappy smilies web site on the back of your shirt that you were getting paid for wearing too..

Come on... You can do better than that! :p :lol: :lol:

SilentEchoes
2005-01-13, 05:35
Not only that if Apple does not punish those who leaked the rumors this time, You think they are going to just NOT do it next time? Get real.

If they just slapped them on the wrist they would be right back at it just like all of the bittorrent sites and countless other examples.

You think Nick is going to want to get back on there and tempt Apple another time? Maybe, but thats a whole lot less likely now.

Eugene
2005-01-13, 05:43
So let me think...

If you had a great idea... A world changing idea, and you couldn't make that thing by yourself, so you hired people to help you make that thing...
You learn how to file a patent. It's not hard and you don't even have to make the thing, only describe it. That will protect you for what, 15 years? That's long enough for most IP holders to have their cake before it goes stale or is emulated in a non-patent infringing way.

scratt
2005-01-13, 05:55
Yeah right... And in the real world..

I suggest you look up Patent law..

But a small lesson for you...

1) File the patent in a way that so well describes your idea that no-one else can plagiarize it and get away with it.

2) Filing a patent in the US alone will not protect you worldwide and the cost of adding regions to a Patent is as simple as adding a 0 to the end of the cost of filing eahc time.

3) Have enough money to actually defend that Patent should it be infringed...

4) Be willing to lose all that money and have your idea copied in many many countries which you simply cannot touch... Thailand, springs to mind...

and so on...

ast3r3x
2005-01-13, 06:29
lcarusty, I think scratt's point was that it doesn't matter if any tangible damage has actually been done. It's the principle of the thing.

Stealing $1 from someone's pocket hardly does any real damage, but it is just as morally wrong, and criminally punishable, as stealing $500.

I forget what, but I thought stealing under $20 is not as bad as stealing over it...legally of course, both are morally wrong.

scratt
2005-01-13, 06:38
But then if you do it three times you are a lifer! :p

Barto
2005-01-13, 06:45
Urg. Edit. I can't be bothered trying to wrap my mind around under-the-RDF incoherence in this thread.

thequicksilver
2005-01-13, 08:41
Perhaps I'm the only one that didn't know, but…

Nick dePlume is 19??? And running TS since he was 13? Blimey.

TednDi
2005-01-13, 09:25
...and that is why apple couldn't touch him.... till now. Now, he is an adult and can be sued.

LoCash
2005-01-13, 10:13
...and that is why apple couldn't touch him.... till now. Now, he is an adult and can be sued.
No, before they could have gone after his parents since they are his legal guardians and therefore held responsible.

alcimedes
2005-01-13, 10:14
Your honour it was only a small bag of crack.

Your honour she was.....

i'm having a hard time figuring out where you stand on this exactly. :p

I never toss shit out of my window either... just cigarette butts. And for the record mine are Golden Virginia rollies with no filter and are 100% bio-degradable.

There is more shit coming out of your exhaust than any cigarette leaves behind on the floor. If you have a problem with some tobacco and paper on the ground then you should get rid of your car and set a real example instead of bitching and moaning and picking on a trendy subject for whiners to bash these days.

scratt
2005-01-13, 11:44
er, What?

Can you explain the relevance of the two quotes... Because they are totally unrelated and one is sarcastic!?!?!??! :err:

EDIT: Oh sorry! I just noticed the smilie!! :o :p :D

usurp
2005-01-13, 13:58
if nick cant rely on us to stand with him who can he rely on. Nick is a fan like us. he is not dealing with child porn, warez, or any other type of trash. all he is doing is posting "rumors". Apple should leave him alone. I dont understand how Nick could have so many enemies within the mac community. Who here hasnt checked thinksecret before a mac event? we all do as a teaser to see what might come or might not come. i am gonna go now and make "Leave Nick Alone" tshirts and sell them using cafepress :)

oldmacfan
2005-01-13, 14:49
Well, I do not pretend to know all the facts, but maybe some of those rich analysts that read his site will pop for his legal defense. They need Nick and his sort so they can play Apple's stock better.

morningstarrising
2005-01-13, 14:58
You know no company out there(well besides Disney and Microsoft) really sues anyone for no good reason.

Apple must have a really good reason to do so, but we won't ever know if they settle, or if this doesn't go to court. this isn't about the rumors, if it was, they would done so last year..Apple must have new info that goes beyond "cute, innocence" rumors...

SonOfSylvanus
2005-01-13, 15:06
Perhaps I'm the only one that didn't know, but…

Nick dePlume is 19??? And running TS since he was 13? Blimey.

Yeah :eek: I was amazed too. Go Nicky boy you whippersnapper you! Woot!

if nick cant rely on us to stand with him who can he rely on. Nick is a fan like us. he is not dealing with child porn, warez, or any other type of trash. all he is doing is posting "rumors". Apple should leave him alone. I dont understand how Nick could have so many enemies within the mac community. Who here hasnt checked thinksecret before a mac event? we all do as a teaser to see what might come or might not come.

I agree completely.

Plus, everyone who read the ThinkSecret rumours is an accessory to his 'crimes' and a probably knowing one at that.

Hipocrits, some of you :\

But anyway, lets all smile :D

adam_tj
2005-01-13, 15:11
What the heck is Apple doing?!? Their SUING their own buyers/fans? This is ridiculous!!! If they try to close ThinkSecret, i'll open my own rumors site. Screw Apple. I mean, how does "early product announcement" deduct money from them? They should be basking in the publicity, not trying to sue.

WBG4
2005-01-13, 15:33
It can cause them to lose money by that fact that it gives competitors a jump start. Also it seems to make their stock price fall when rumors are not true. People are also breaking the law with Nick's help.

scratt
2005-01-13, 16:41
I would certainly agree that there is more to this than just what we are seeing.

Eugene
2005-01-13, 17:22
1) File the patent in a way that so well describes your idea that no-one else can plagiarize it and get away with it.

2) Filing a patent in the US alone will not protect you worldwide and the cost of adding regions to a Patent is as simple as adding a 0 to the end of the cost of filing eahc time.

3) Have enough money to actually defend that Patent should it be infringed...

4) Be willing to lose all that money and have your idea copied in many many countries which you simply cannot touch... Thailand, springs to mind...
1) How well the IP is described is on you.

2) No, it won't, but nothing will. It doesn't matter if you're first to ship anyway, so delaying copycats by a few cycles isn't what you should be most worried about.

3) You invent such a mind-blowing concept and you have no money to defend it? You'd have a zillion VCs knocking at your door to help.

4) Unavoidable. They will copy you regardless of whether trade secrets were stolen or not.

scratt
2005-01-13, 18:23
1) How well the IP is described is on you.

2) No, it won't, but nothing will. It doesn't matter if you're first to ship anyway, so delaying copycats by a few cycles isn't what you should be most worried about.

3) You invent such a mind-blowing concept and you have no money to defend it? You'd have a zillion VCs knocking at your door to help.

4) Unavoidable. They will copy you regardless of whether trade secrets were stolen or not.

1) Actually this has to be reviewed by a Patent Lawyer other wise you are almost guaranteed to be 100% SOL!

2) Patent law and Copyright law are two totally different things. When you ship means diddly-squat in terms of patents and everything in terms of Copyright. Have you ever heard of posting something to yourself in a recorded delivery envelope and never opening it? That's one good way of protecting copyright... but has nothing to do with patenting. In fact you can ship while patents are still pending.

3) Not every idea that is patented, or should have been patented and isn't is a mind blowing multi-million dollar concept.

4) Agreed.

SonOfSylvanus
2005-01-13, 18:27
You know no company out there(well besides Disney and Microsoft) really sues anyone for no good reason...

:|

...


...


...


AHA-AHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHA HAHA—AHAHAHA...


HAHAHAHAHAHA...


Huh dear. Silly billy.

El Guardo
2005-01-13, 21:26
Yeah, I agree with that; in principle it is wrong, and as Apple I would be damn annoyed that the news got out. But because there really wasn't any lasting damage dealt, I think Apple's decision to file a lawsuit was much an overreaction.

No lasting damage? Not only does it further reveal part of Apple's corporate strategy, but it affords other manufacturers at least two weeks to copy/reverse-engineer a similar product and get it to market. The end result could therefore be greater competition and reduced sales. And that would be costly....

ZogDog
2005-01-13, 21:37
I mean, how does "early product announcement" deduct money from them? They should be basking in the publicity, not trying to sue.

Ever heard of the Stock Market? I guarantee people involved with the stocks of Apple are also perturbed by this leak. Sure, it's cool to have the info a bit in advance, bask in the "Coolness" of having their secrets revealed, but who gave you the right to know those secrets? The ones who made them confidential in the first place surely didn't.

People get involved with fan sites like thinksecret, and hope for upcoming "things" that are not supposed to be let out of the company room yet, but forget that there is a very STRONG business world in this country. ANY information about a competitors product coming out is BIG for them, the competing company. Let me ask you something about secrets and how you think some are okay to know/tell and others aren't; you remember a thing called the Cold War? Russia and the U.S., big enemies, spies, James Bond and the like? What if say, a person who was bribed or was given the chance to "give information away via mail" about the scheduled appearances and routes of important officials, like the President. Say the time frame was two days, they could easily, yes easily, organize an assassination of that official.

The business world may not be well known to all who frequent this board, but like cities outside of your own, there are many people who see things differently and businesses do NOT stand for their secrets being leaked. I would be just as ticked should someone leak something I was working on REGARDLESS of how close to launch time it was leaked. What if I had an entire event, like say Mac World Expo, for which to show this product, and let my stocks RISE at the news of a sub $500 mac. I would bask in the business success of which I strive to achieve... Am I rambling or do any readers know what I am saying? I understand it is all repetitive from earlier posts, but this was something I wanted to say in me own lingo. ;)

scratt
2005-01-13, 21:56
I hear ya.
And I agree... :)

EDIT: Not sure where assasinating the president came into it.. But that sounds like a good idea too.. Oops.. There goes my cheap shopping trip! ;)

Wraven
2005-01-13, 23:36
--EDIT--
I overreacted scratt - I apologize. One comment should not define someone. Carry on...

But would you do me a favor scratt and remove the part about assassinating the president and keep things mac-related? I try not to bring my own divisive political views into Mac discussions and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you and others in this forum. We can move that type of talk to the AppleOutsider forum perhaps. Thanks! :)

kscherer
2005-01-14, 00:47
Scratt, Wraven: You're both excellent candidates and have great careers ahead of you but . . . you're fired!

Uhh . . . back on subject: :p

I'm amazed at how easily people find it to justify wrong-doing. $1, $5, whatever. You lift it, you bad! Apple has a legal and moral right to defend their property. While I think suing ThinkSecret might seem a bit chinsey, I agree with others that even a slight miscalculation on timing can cost a company dearly. Apple has struggled to remain competitve for so long that we half expect them to fail each year. They have finally caught on to something big and, now that they are king in one area, everyone wants to knock them down. Apple has survived because their innovative ideas strike the consumer market as intuitive and useful and because they have been able to keep secrets.

I love the rumor mill and always watch it because it is fun. I hope ThinkSecret survives this, but I also hope that Apple's leaks are revealed and silenced. If you sign a contract, you should live up to it.

ZogDog
2005-01-14, 01:14
If you sign a contract, you should live up to it.

With that statement, I bid thee all a goodnight...

Icarusty
2005-01-14, 03:22
No lasting damage? Not only does it further reveal part of Apple's corporate strategy, but it affords other manufacturers at least two weeks to copy/reverse-engineer a similar product and get it to market. The end result could therefore be greater competition and reduced sales. And that would be costly....

Oh yeah, because those two weeks are really going to get Apple into debt. All that was lost were two simple ideas, nothing revolutionary at all. Hell, it's not even new - instead of turning the shuffle function on from the software within, you do it physically.

And the whisper quiet, small form factor PC has been done for years. Even Apple did it a while back with the cube.

I'm sure the folk who come up with new features are losing sleep over the genius of the Apple engineers.

oldmacfan
2005-01-14, 10:08
And the whisper quiet, small form factor PC has been done for years. Even Apple did it a while back with the cube.

Outside of laptops, and the Sinclair 1000 what PC's are you talking about that have been done for years. A Cube is huge compared to the Mac Mini.

scratt
2005-01-14, 10:18
--EDIT--
I overreacted scratt - I apologize. One comment should not define someone. Carry on...

But would you do me a favor scratt and remove the part about assassinating the president and keep things mac-related? I try not to bring my own divisive political views into Mac discussions and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you and others in this forum. We can move that type of talk to the AppleOutsider forum perhaps. Thanks! :)

I am not sure that I suggested that.. I merely commented on a statement above on the thread.. Something about spilling the beans on a dignitarys movements... I think any of us can read between the lines on that one...

I'm not really of a mind to remove what I post. Sorry. Nothing personal.
I wish I had seen what you posted originally... must have missed the email update... But I bet it would have made me chuckle! ;)
Been a busy day hurling myself out of planes again. :)

One of the things that is great about AppleNova is freedom of expression and I may be close to the mark in other areas, at times... but I am quite happy to take the heat and heck this place is not the Apple Forums..
Lighten up, dude. :D

scratt
2005-01-14, 10:25
Scratt, Wraven: You're both excellent candidates and have great careers ahead of you but . . . you're fired!

Uhh . . . back on subject: :p

I'm amazed at how easily people find it to justify wrong-doing. $1, $5, whatever. You lift it, you bad! Apple has a legal and moral right to defend their property.

Awww... Dude... And I so love the benefits... Gimme another chance. ;)

I think we are at least in agreement on the crux of this matter and the subject of this thread... Look back on topic! The bottom line is, and it does bear repeating, if you break the rules and get caught then you have to pay the price. People and companies (The two are seen as the same in legal eyes anyway) have a right to defend their property, be it physical or intellectual.

I do think Apple held back for a while because of Nick's age, and the unpopularity of suing parents of adolescents. Also they showed great patience sending quite a few 'Cease and Decist' notices..

Perhaps these is more to this than we all know as has already been pointed out... But then perhaps it si also the proverbial last straw and a case of it all coming of age...

Either way I am with Apple all the way. You know why... because I do believe they will seek a fair and equitable settlement. I do not think Nick will do any where near as bad as most people (and he probably) thinks. In fact I think in the long run he'll probably benefit.. Whether it is in more publicity or a change of track and a lesson well learnt.

ThunderPoit
2005-01-14, 10:32
Outside of laptops, and the Sinclair 1000 what PC's are you talking about that have been done for years. A Cube is huge compared to the Mac Mini.

mini-itx.com has been making tiny pc's for quite a while. their smallest one that theyve been working on is called the nanode:

http://www.davidlegatt.com/pix/nanode.jpg

more info on it can be found here: http://www.mini-itx.com/news/nanode

800x600 is too big? sorry :o

Wraven
2005-01-14, 10:35
Freedom of expression is very important to me - so is obeying the law. I know you live in Thailand, so U.S. laws do not apply to you. It's just getting old to see stuff like this (i.e. political discussions) in non-related threads.

No big deal, and I have "lightened up dude." That's why I edited my post to begin with. Duh...

scratt
2005-01-14, 10:46
Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing... I do find it strange that freedom of expression in the land of the free has limits!! Now isn't that an oxy-moron of sorts?

Amen to not being subject to US laws whilst I reside in Thailand. :)

Wraven
2005-01-14, 10:49
I'm not saying it's right that there are laws that put some limits on freedom of expression, I'm just saying that there ARE such laws. And I (and others) living in the U.S. must obey them. Feel free to do as you wish (obviously). No big deal. I'm done in this thread (no offense to you scratt) - these types of (really, pointless) discussions give me tired-head. Besides, we are now COMPLETELY off topic. :)

jrenney
2005-01-14, 12:42
Encouraging people to break the law is also a crime.



Cops do that all the time with undercover solicitors...

jrenney
2005-01-14, 12:53
Let me ask you something about secrets and how you think some are okay to know/tell and others aren't; you remember a thing called the Cold War? Russia and the U.S., big enemies, spies, James Bond and the like? What if say, a person who was bribed or was given the chance to "give information away via mail" about the scheduled appearances and routes of important officials, like the President. Say the time frame was two days, they could easily, yes easily, organize an assassination of that official.



And what, you think the U.S. Government never had spies bribing nationals of other countries for secret information, possibly leading to assassinations?

It is okay for them to do it though, huh?

scratt
2005-01-14, 13:19
It's interesting the number of unique new posters who are recent members in this forum.... Not that I'm paranoid or anything... ;p

jrenny, I don't quite get your point...

Cops and spies [do that] all the time and it's not right you would seem to infer...
To quote an old addage... Two wrongs don't make a right, and anothers wrongdoing doesn't justify ones own.

What I am saying is that really your point isn't a point, really, and it tends to lend more weight to the arguments that I, and others, here are making, rather than the other way around.. Or am I misunderstanding you and that is what you intend?

IVIIVI4ck3y27
2005-01-14, 13:27
mini-itx.com has been making tiny pc's for quite a while. their smallest one that theyve been working on is called the nanode:

http://www.davidlegatt.com/pix/nanode.jpg

more info on it can be found here: http://www.mini-itx.com/news/nanode

800x600 is too big? sorry :o
That's scary on that Nanode. Outside of the large fascia machine screws, the overall height, and the crappy "Nanode" text on the front, it's actually pretty elegant (minimalist-style) looking for a PC. Almost like a Cube crossed with a Mac mini. Quite scary. The proportions are still a bit "odd" (hard to work with suppliers on the PC side I'm sure to get mechanisms that are as compact as the Mac mini) and the port arrangement out back is @ss ugly and almost random (typical PC), but compared to most of the teeny-tiny PC's that one's rather nice looking.

I do like MSI's 1990's-style Aiwa mini-system style PC with the AM/FM tuner but it definitely has a "Cheesy" factor going on with the funkadelic 90's style LCD display. LoL I almost want one though for the fact it's that ridiculous looking. LoL At least it's got "some" style compared to Shuttle's offering which is just flat out dull.

http://www.msicomputer.com/pressrelease/MEGAPC.asp

But yeah, "small" PC's are hardly new, but a "sliver" of a Cube is still pretty noteworthy.

pxlphish
2005-01-14, 19:02
I'm happy they tracked down this knucklehead. Sounds like this guy still has the mental compacity of a 13 year old.

Nick put Apple in this position. I think it's irrational to give Apple a hard time for this. They have to take action at some point to curb this behavior. In this marketplace Apple has to protect their ideas and intellectual material. Not to mention the fact that Apple is a PUBLICLY TRADED STOCK. This sort of crap can be devasting to a corporation financialy.

Honestly, if I could donate cash to Apple Legal fund I would be more than happy to do so. Apple lawers have plenty of things to deal with rather than to waste their time with this brat.

oldmacfan
2005-01-14, 19:08
mini-itx.com has been making tiny pc's for quite a while. their smallest one that theyve been working on is called the nanode:

http://www.davidlegatt.com/pix/nanode.jpg

more info on it can be found here: http://www.mini-itx.com/news/nanode

800x600 is too big? sorry :o

Um, ok but what you just linked to hasn't been released yet. (Q2 2005)

and don't point me to Shuttle boxes...

adam_tj
2005-01-14, 19:10
1) I'm 13. The "mental compacity of a 13 year old is kind of insulting, don't you think? (by the way-you have the spelling capacity of an eight year old)

2) He is gathering rumors about Apple and displaying them in one place. He is helping the Mac Community. I personally think his writing and reporting skills are great. Though I usually side with Apple, this time I am going to side with the defense. If I had the money, I'd help Nick's Legal team.

FallenFromTheTree
2005-01-14, 20:13
It's funny that both the White House and Apple are willing to threaten a reporter with jail to force them into revealing their sources.

What they really want is the leak source, not the publisher.

Let's imagine for a moment that the publication High Times
has a best plants photo contest.
Then imagine the Department Of Justice threatening High Times editors
with jail time if they did not reveal the sources of those photos.

This is why the press is protected from revealing their sources.

Nick's forum did not openly encourage any illegal activity.
In fact,
If you read the entire contents of the ThinkSecret Terms of Use
from the home page, it clearly states that ThinkSecret will not be
liable for any illegal activity by it's members.

pxlphish
2005-01-14, 20:23
Adam -

Oops. You are right. You get an A+. My spelling was a bit off, wasn't it. Funny, the "little red dotted lines" I rely on for spellcheck were turned off for some reason. See what happens when you rely on technology. I was typing with my daughter on my lap wiggling around trying to see Elmo in the other browser window.

I'm sorry if I offended you. Honestly. Free speech is one thing, but to inflict material damage on people in the name of free speech should be unacceptable, don't you think? This guy does it over and over.

Cheers.

ThunderPoit
2005-01-14, 20:56
Um, ok but what you just linked to hasn't been released yet. (Q2 2005)

and don't point me to Shuttle boxes...

yes, but it has been made public since they announced it last year, and if you look around the site more, youll see more computers that arent much bigger than either it or the mini. not that im defending them, as they are not the nicest looking computers, im just trying to point out that apple isnt the first company to come out w/ the idea of a tiny computer, so releasing news that they were really didnt cause anyone to beat them to it.

ericcode
2005-01-15, 00:49
To APPLE.

Back in the early '80s, everybody thought Microsoft was the coolest company. Now are hated. Every little bug they make is Published. Every time they make a mild bluder they are teased and it is pointed out and they are made out to look like morons even though they are clearly not. I don't hear much bad mac stuff. This is not to say that you don't make mistakes. Do you think that the public won't shift on you? Microsoft is still trying to get back their good image not the money hungry innovation buying out company they are seen as today. You can't Buy PR back. Microsoft would have if they could.

I don't Care if you have some Fruity law that goes against free speech. Tell you what. Lets move all Apple discusion sites to CANADA. I will host some if need be. We still got FreeSpeech to the North. Lets see that lame third-party disclosure stuff work here. I don't think so.

This is not a good light to have your company shined in. I would drop the case. There is no way the public will support you. There are sites like that for all large Tech companies. Even Nintendo and Playstation and they don't go after their customers!

Why do you think People keep going to Linux? Price? NO, its because they are sick of Microsoft crap.

Do websites discusing your next technology impact your buisness? I don't care!!! Its Free Speech. Ever hear "I whole heartedly disagree with you but I would fight to the death for your right to say it"? To the DEATH! That is what free speech cost us. Lives. You are litterally walking into a ongoing War with this trial. You may win the case but you would lose much much more.

Yours Trully,
Rights Martyrs

drivel
2005-01-15, 01:57
I agree with much of what ericcode says. If apple does proceed with this lawsuit, this may be the last mac, currently being typed on, I buy. I think ThinkSecret only helps Apple with their speculation of what may be in the works and is in fact a free promotion for Apple products. I think people that visit the site get excited about the possible products that may be soon available. Regardless of morality/ethics Apple should thank ThinkSecret for promoting their products. The RIAA has sued their customers and now Apple is doing the same. While I don't promote stealing music, going after the very people that support your products and love your products is wrong. :no:

Go ahead Apple sue and I will thank you for introducing me to linux. Just like i have thanked Microsoft for introducing me to apple before ;).

usurp
2005-01-15, 03:21
Student Seeks Legal Aid in Apple Case
Friday January 14, 8:51 pm ET
By Mark Jewell, AP Business Writer
Student-Online Editor Facing Apple Lawsuit Seeks Legal Aid in Trade Secret Case

BOSTON (AP) -- The 19-year-old publisher of a Web site facing a lawsuit over an article about a top-secret $499 Apple computer said Friday he can't afford to defend himself.

Apple Computer Inc. is suing Harvard University student Nicholas Ciarelli's Web site, www.ThinkSecret.com, alleging it illegally published company trade secrets. The Jan. 4 lawsuit also targets the Web site's unnamed sources for the leaks.

Ciarelli, whose identity as the site's publisher and editor was only published this week, is not named as a defendant. But he still needs a lawyer, and said he is hoping to find free or low-cost legal help to argue that he deserves First Amendment protection and used proper newsgathering techniques to break news about the Mac mini computer and other inside information about Apple.

"A lot of lawyers are interested in my case, but few are able to do it for free or low cost," Ciarelli, of Cazenovia, N.Y., said in an e-mail interview. "I'm seeking representation."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties group, said Friday it would not defend Think Secret even though it is defending two other sites, AppleInsider.com and PowerPage.org, that Apple is trying to subpoena to reveal sources.

Unlike the Think Secret case, those sites are not being sued.

"In addition to being subpoenaed for sources, he's being directly sued for trade secret misappropriation," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney with the organization. "We're trying to find him counsel."

Ciarelli, who described himself as "an enthusiastic fan of Apple's products since an early age," started www.ThinkSecret.com in 1998 when he was 13. The site, which accepts advertising, is read by Apple enthusiasts and industry analysts because of its exclusive stories about company developments.

On Dec. 28, the Web site published an article that, citing "highly reliable sources," revealed details of an inexpensive, bare-bones Mac mini computer that would be priced at $499 -- two weeks before the Mac mini was launched at Apple's MacWorld conference.

Another Think Secret story on Jan. 6 correctly predicted Apple's rollout at this week's show of a $149, 1-gigabite flash-memory version of the company's popular iPod music player. The Web site goofed, though, on some of the details, citing sources suggesting Apple would also offer a 2-gigabyte version for $199.

In a statement Friday, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple said the Web site "solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet."

Apple declined to answer questions Friday about whether Ciarelli, who called himself Nick dePlume online instead of using his real name, would also be sued.

Ciarelli's identity as the site's editor and publisher had circulated recently on the Internet, but the information only became widely known on Wednesday, when The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, confirmed it.

The Think Secret case is the third intellectual-property lawsuit that Apple has filed recently. Apple also sued two men who allegedly distributed pre-released versions of its upcoming version of its Mac OS X software, as well as unnamed individuals for allegedly leaking details about a future and as yet-unannounced music product, code-named Asteroid.

At the MacWorld show on Tuesday, executives said the company is merely defending itself.

"Innovation is what Apple is all about, and we want to continue to innovate and surprise and delight people with great products, so we have a right to protect our innovation and secrecy," said Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing.

wrinkles
2005-01-15, 05:38
I believe in journalistic protection of sources, but here is where I draw the line: When the very act of the speech is illegal (revealing government security secrets, breaking non-disclosure agreements, yelling fire in a theatre, defamation, etc.) then aiding that speech should also be unlawful.

Say I yelled "fire" in a theatre. Say I reported a bogus bomb threat. I've broken the law, but I can claim "A protected source told me, I was just passing along what I heard". Tell it to the judge, I say.

If you break the law with your speech, either give up the source, or take responsibility.

Stand in line at the airport and yell "an undisclosed source says a bomb is on the plane!" If you can't back up your story with credible references, you are going to jail, buddy.

Journalists try to hide behind "privacy" ethics, but if their speech is unlawful and causing harm, we have a right at least to know who is responsible.

Have I made my point? How about if a CNN reporter reports that our 125 troops are just about to attack a city at 8am from the northeast. The enemy watches CNN and 125 of our soldiers die. Hey, he was just passing on what his sources told him. NOT! (So far Robert Novak has gotten away with his part in "outing" a CIA agent). This is not just theoretical.

When ThinSecret participates in illegal speech, they better put up or shut up. I'm a registered Libertarian. Personal liberty (especially free speech) is very important to me. But without personal responsibility, liberty cannot last.

drivel
2005-01-15, 06:16
Not the best examples I might add. Life and Death situations in comparison to this?

*hopes someone more articulate comes along to point this out*

Barto
2005-01-15, 06:24
Can we merge the TS threads? People have started cross posting.

collegedegrees.ws
2005-01-15, 08:44
Apple seems to never learn . Here is a company that refused to share their code in the early days with software developers. So instead the software developers flocked to Miscrosoft and thats why Microsoft is the dominant player and Apple is an after thought no matter how much the School Systems tried to force everyoe to use Macs they couldnt change the fact that in the real world business uses PC's.

So here we are in a new Century and Apple has a chance to to let rumors of new products tohelp fuel interest in Apple products and instead of embracing this interest and funneling it to generate salesonce again they try and cut the head off .

Maybe it's true ..we never learn from our mistakes and that can be sad because Apple does have some great products but they really need to learn to go with the flow and tell the lawyers and advisors to take a long vacation once in a while.

Jim S.
2005-01-15, 08:49
A lot of people think that Nick did this as a service for others. Unless I am mistaken, ThinkSecret is a BUSINESS that has revenue (advertising) based on the amount of traffic it generates. We do not have to debate "how much" revenue allows someone to cross the line but the fact is that Apple views ThinkSecret as a business who's income is based on NDA information it can obtain. Some have said that ThinkSecret has not paid its sources for information and it makes me wonder how you would know that. If Nick can generate advertising money from traffic, are you sure that he would not pay someone for information? Since Nick has "no money" to defend himself, should we wonder how he can afford to attend Harvard?

collegedegrees.ws
2005-01-15, 08:50
Does Apple even own 7% of the market ?

Seems they need to worry more about gaining marketshare instead of going after someone generating discussions about them .

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 08:51
This is my first post to this board (so please be gentle), I havn't read any of the other threads yet (will do later) - but read the 'Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret' on - poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=43707 - this morning and felt strongly enough about the case to sign up to the forum and give my 'two-Mbits' worth of feedback - as a dedicated user of Macs and subscriber to the Mac ethos since 1988, as Macs provide me with work and opportunities in all things digital. Oh, and excuse my spelling - I'm a Brit without a spellchecker cos the PC I'm using to write this picked-up a virus yesterday and decided to trash some of my programmes.

Trust me, most of the major players in PC construction will have been aware of the 'mini' design months before the official launch date, look at Apple's investors, parts manufacturers, etc - and that's before you get into any illegal trading of design secrets business, which is rife in all technology led sectors worldwide and always for 'monetary gain' by both illegally trading parties.

From what we have been allowed to know about the case so far, what needs to be established is whether the information passed was based on 'hearsay' conversation between the individuals concerned (and an educated guess extrapilated from the discussion) - which is inadmissible as 'hard' evidence in court, or whether written or recorded documentation on specifics (such as patents, design specifications, dimentions, incorporated technologies or anything innovative about the product - including 'exact' price) was exchanged by "highly reliable sources" for monetary gain or just notoriety, which would significanlty change the outcome of an investigation. The only real way to extract a prosecution (as it stands so far and from what I've read) if it was just 'hearsay', is if the meeting itself was recorded either openly or covertly (providing a viable form of evidence for espionage) or if an
independent witness can confirm that he or she saw and, or, heard the passing of secrets between identifiable parties, or whether communication between individuals was a one-off (showing the insider to be willing to pass on specific information - and so breaching secrecy laws pertaining to his contract, if indeed his contract contained such a clause) - or if the insider is a (known) friend of the guy in trouble - another factor that would the weaken the case against Ciarelli. There are other aspects after these basic qestions have been answered, but failing that, only a confession by both parties that matches on a number of different levels would secure a prosecution.

If I haven't done so already, I could go on... But hey, I'm no expert - I just talk a good fight - one that Apple really should not be taking seriously just because someone >nearly< spoiled the tea-party. Don't get me wrong Mr & Mrs Macintosh (love-you long-time! - if you're watching), deliberately flouting secrecy (or any) laws is wrong - but there are degrees of seriousness - the info distributed was so obviously not ment to be malicious or for anything more than an 'I told you so' reaction from other users from a true and visible
Mac devotee.

Other posters on this thread have a good grip on the case in point and point out excellent opinions both for and against the guy in the dock - but the person(s) that need(s) routing out works for Apple - and that's where you'll find the wrongdoer.

Laters...
waveydavey

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 09:37
One bad 'Apple' (employee) is spoiling the barrel... I guess 'size' really does matter...

Arrhh c'mon, they were just too obvious - I'll shut-up now... sorry

TEMPEST - Ssshhh... mmm - better

drewprops
2005-01-15, 11:53
I notice that we have a lot of new members to the board who have joined simply due to this topic. I hope that you'll all stay on to be contributing members to the board and not just looky-loo's here to poke into Nick's business. Most of us are fans of Nick's site and have quietly enjoyed its accuracy as we make our own purchasing decisions from time to time.

Rumor sites aren't likely to go away. At most they'll become decentralized and less accurate, but fans will still pore over all of the available rumors and distill the most-likely scenarios via public consensus.

If it's proven that TS encouraged employees to break their NDAs we're sure to lose Nick's "service". Long, impassioned, angst-filled posts won't change any of that... but g'head, angst is just another word for nothin' much to do.

ZogDog
2005-01-15, 12:04
You make some valid points there Waveydavey, but they thing that we all need to remember is this, where do we draw the line? When is it okay to break some laws, or reveal some secrets and it's not okay to reveal others? Is it okay to reveal >nearly< all the items being brought forth at the M.W.E. or is it not okay? Is it okay in the eyes of the people here and other boards just because they think it's cool to have the inside track before hand or is it because they really think what apple is doing is wrong?

Let's look at this from all angles here, and bear with me those who have gotten this far in reading the posts, TS's side and Apple side. ThinkSecret gets hits after hits because of the news it breaks, more so now because of the lawsuit, but he/they get hits. Advertisers like hits, especially ones directed towards their ads, so anything that the creators of ThinkSecret can do to get people to hit his site and advertisers, all the better. He/They have opted to allow anonymous users to send in emails of inside information, top secret or not, it's info they can send in and let the site ops do with as they please. ThinkSecret enjoys a bountiful system of information at no cost to him, that we know of. To us, this seems like a pretty simple issue, people happen to tell him info and he passes it along, no big deal.

Apple sees it as a different issue, as they rightfully should. If they were making a brand new Mac, which allowed people to pay for a true entry level machine, get the Windows based PC users to come over, switch and bask in glory, then have that come to light before their speech prepared, money costing expo had a chance to reveal it, they have EVERY right to be perturbed. Breath. If they find out a website, like ThinkSecret, allows for anonymous users to simply tell them whatever they know and never have their identities revealed, they lose. Regardless of how Apple is considered here or everywhere, they are a business first, before a religious and design based sentient being. They have a right to protect THEIR information however they see fit. They spend a lot of money on the Mac World Expo for good reason; people come to hear the latest news and to witness the stock market rise at such announcements. Imagine if the news never came out about the mac mini before hand, the stock would NOT have raised as it did prior to the event, and after the expo it would have soared and Apple could have said gains to their stock instead of a loss, even if not by much from the previous weeks. The news all day long would have shown how the stock this and the stock that, it would have been grand for them, but no, the stock didn't really do much, but falter even as the keynote was being addressed.

People come on here and explain freedom of speech, secrets of some magnitude should not be allowed to be spoken, but others are okay or because it was gathered via hearsay or other means, it's then okay. I will refrain from getting too passionate here, and no offense to anyone cause I really want to say this, but screw you guys.

Whether Apple wins, loses, settles, drops or continues the lawsuit, I stand behind them. People say they are going to leave if they continue, they say they will no longer support Apple and move on to other OS's like Linux, I say to you stop. Listen. Think. You are basing your decision NOT on what we believed you to have a love for, the Mac OS and it's apps, but because the company is defending itself. How dare you and anyone else claim to know or think that this action is the wrong step for them to continue on with if you are not in their shoes. They have a legal obligation to their employees and their families to take this step. If they want to find the source of the leak and they have tried everything BUT sue the site, don't you think they should do whatever it takes to stop the leaks, even if that means suing the only source they have with info on the leaks?

I doubt they want to send Nick to the poor house, I doubt they want to become like Microsoft with the lawsuits, but I think they want to be like any smart and established business, they want to defend what is rightfully theirs. Information. They don't want people to think it's okay for their information to become other peoples monetary gain and not do anything about it, would you? Do you think it's okay for people to make money off of Apples stolen secrets, even if you consider it a little or big secret or the timeframe of that secrets unearthing? Ask yourself these questions, and be open-minded about it from a business perspective.

If I am to be flamed on this, I better not read any childish remarks, I would enjoy some critical feedback on my thinking pattern with regards to the subject. Yes, I again apologize for the "screw you" statement, but I really wanted to make a statement, not an attack.

ZogDog

alcimedes
2005-01-15, 12:05
the real question will be how he gathered his information, and whether or not his sources were componsated financially or otherwise. if not, Apple's going to have a hard time proving this case.

ZogDog
2005-01-15, 12:22
In a statement Friday, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple said the Web site "solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet."

killa X
2005-01-15, 12:39
Lets get something strait. Is this really about the 2 weeks or is it the scooping of steve jobs that is the real issue. A Big corporate egomaniac like him is bound to be pissed that he was scooped. Its funny also that mac chose the least resourceful of the three blog sites to sue.

I am merging from the closed thread what I posted a minute ago also:

I found out about this story in the NY post today and so I checked out the site and the Harvard Crimson Article. I was a beneficiary of the early release of the news of the mac miny as I am in search of a cheap second computer to use as a Soft Synth Generator for my recording studio. I have monitors galore and would love to buy a cheap mac to use as a second.
I am thankful that independent Journalists like nick actively persue(sp?) information gathering strategies that provide the consumer with useful and timely information. I am not a lawyer but from what I understand of the trade secret laws they are intended to stop corporate espionage not independent journalism. Nick's publication should be protected by the bill of rights. He should counter-sue apple for attempting to violate his right to freely publish with this litigous lawsuit. This is an obvious attempt to cost nick money and bleed him till he submits. I beleive that this kind of lawsuit should be counter attacked completely. I wish I had the ability to help young nick and I hope that someone steps up and fights this battle for him. Apple started this lawsuit they should pay the legal fees in the end and they should pay nick large damages for attempting to muzzle him in this way. Take this to the supreme court please somebody. Call the ACLU please!. This case is a fundemental assault on Blooging (Sp?{I never used this word in a sentence before sorry}) that will have historical consiquences in the way information is shared on the web. We need heroes to step up and fight the big corporations who have subverted the legislatures of 44 states into helping to protect thier profits over the rights of citizens. NICK NEVER REVEAL YOUR SOURCES. "I Refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I believe it violates my 1st and 5th amendment rights under the contitution" Memorize that NICK. Memorize it. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" nick does not have to reveal his sources.

odetosecrets
2005-01-15, 13:37
Well I read of this site in the wall street journal and the impending suit against the creator.Well you got some awesome press which I'm sure has brought smiles to your day wow another new user/member,thanks for sueing me apple and thanks for the national press my revenue is busting my wallet pocket boy howdy if I knew when I was thirteen I would gain such noteriety for creating a place where one could discover investigate and learn what was forbidden to know would I have done it?Well anyway Apple you got a real big problem with this frivilous lawsuit and that is you don't have a leg to stand on and to make matters even worse Freedom of press is a shield that even your mighty bank account cannot weaken.You see here is the scoop We have in only offered others in the world freedom of speech freedom of press and freedom to discover whatever we so desire to discover and we also choose to report what we discover openly to the world so that for whatever motivation we might have that to is our right to conceal from you and anyone else who might be interested in knowing why and it is your right and freedom to discover that truth as well.Freedom to share what I know with the world and freedom to discover and allow others to do the same is not a contract that I signed with you nor did the creator of this site of whom I am not I just thought I would assume his persona for a moment and ride on the coat tails of his fame.Truth is I could care less about apple computers I own a hewlett Packard laptop though I would love to own an apple I'm not in the market to expensive if you ask me.You know your coming across like Goliath attacking David and whether you see his five shiny smooth stones or not he has them and they will fly true straight to your afformentioned forehead without even a grainof sand fromthe center.COUNTER SUE HIM for defamation of character for starters and get more publicity equals more dollars.What the heck one thing is for ceartain your the defendant and you have the right to remain silent and burden of proof is upon the plaintiff.Now that I'm thinking legally it just occured to me that you can ask some extremely revealing questions regarding their business operations and demand alot of information from them and truth is they cannot reach past the shield of secret revelations submitted here.Talk to a lawyer with the cunning to cut through the hype and accusation and do the counter jab right back at em .Ask questions they have to submit to your questions this is the power of the court the defendant is in a more powerful position than the plaintiff.You get to stay silent to keep from self incriminating and you have the right to face your accuser.Now for just one last thought that might give you some insight as to what you might learn .I learned from a very powerful source that the CEO Peter Chernin made his fortune selling cocaine oh no I said it its on the world wide web oh my God Peter what will you do now? Will they discover this accusation?Will it become a household conversation?Will the powers that be become embarrassed as the information concerning your poisoning of the american people cause your mighty position to become your worst nightmare?Well you know what Peter sue me I need the money.odetosecrets....The secrets in your heart can sure enough tear you apart.

killa X
2005-01-15, 13:41
This guys run on sentence makes me think he is the one on cocaine. (I should be the one who talks my horrible spelling makes me seem like I smoke to much weed

hmurchison
2005-01-15, 14:38
Wrinkles:

Nick never signed a NDA so he's broken nothing. There's a huge difference between yelling "Fire" and reporting on rumors. If a journalist reported that 125 soldiers where going to attact and that resulted in the deaths of these soldiers then that is horrible but I don't hold the journalist responsible I hold the person who leaked the information possible. Howeve 1st amendment rights are paramount and this is what makes America..America. Giving someone the option of being a rat and giving up their sources or going to jail is about as unamerican as they come. With that ideology don't ever wrap yourself up in a flag and have the nerve to mention Freedom or Liberty.

If it's proven that TS encouraged employees to break their NDAs we're sure to lose Nick's "service". Long, impassioned, angst-filled posts won't change any of that... but g'head, angst is just another word for nothin' much to do.

That will prove very difficult. Apple would need to find that actual person who was coerced to break their NDA. Nick's in MASS and Apple is in California. Chances are the contact was initiated by the Apple employee over secure email lines. Nick probably doesn't have an idea who this person is or what official capacity this person works in. All he needs to know is a codename for the Apple worker and how accurate they are.


If I am to be flamed on this, I better not read any childish remarks, I would enjoy some critical feedback on my thinking pattern with regards to the subject. Yes, I again apologize for the "screw you" statement, but I really wanted to make a statement, not an attack.

Zogdog I don't think you should be flammed for your post which was fine but rather emotive. Let me sum this up for you. 1st amendment rights are a paramount. America "is" America because of the 1st Amendment. I keeping reading lines like "Apple deserves to protect their IP or information" well then they should be careful about who they divulge information to. Let me succinctly sum this up. The courts don't give a damn about Apple or any other companies IP unless they can adequately prove that damages were sustained by the link. Even then you have an uphill battle because Journalist have protection in 31 our of the 50 states. They should never have to reveal their sources because that is tantamount to having your career destroyed. Investigatory Journalism is finding the information that somepeople don't want others to know.

Summary :

Our 1st Amendment rights trump the desire for companies to protect their sensitive information. The onus is on said company to keep vital trade secrets ..secret.

In a statement Friday, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple said the Web site "solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet."

Then wouldn't Apple's problem be with these employees who've broken their NDA. Confidentiality Agreements are only binding to the person that signs them. This is all posturing.

ast3r3x
2005-01-15, 14:39
You guys could talk to our resident long poster pscates. I can't speak for other people, but I just skip posts like that because they are too hard to read. Put in some carriage returns, indenting, something!

killa X
2005-01-15, 14:46
You guys could talk to our resident long poster pscates. I can't speak for other people, but I just skip posts like that because they are too hard to read. Put in some carriage returns, indenting, something!

Sorry we posted to long. I know it can be very hard to read english words when they are all bunched up together like that. ;)

ZogDog
2005-01-15, 14:53
You guys could talk to our resident long poster pscates. I can't speak for other people, but I just skip posts like that because they are too hard to read. Put in some carriage returns, indenting, something!

Ahh potatoes, I can't even get recognition for my enters!!! ;)

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 15:05
ZogDog: Mine is not to fry, mine is but to read and reply.

My post was not intended to fly in the face of Apple for essentially doing the right thing - nor in the face of TS for possibly doing the wrong thing, but to point out that damage has been done to a certain degree and further persuit of the wrong person could financially and perceptually backfire on Apple (who make my music studio operate with a minimum amount of fuss - MoTU's DP4.5 based).

My angle actually backs Apple from a business point of view, with several years experience behind me in corporate image/design and around three years in reporting on a daily basis to some of the world's largest companies/lobbies and trade associations on how their image is portrayed in the public eye (legally and otherwise) through mediums such as the national newspapers and how issues such as this one work against their shares value if they fail to prosecute - something I would not wish on Apple or anyone who stands in the right.

The 'mini' is definitely going to be a winning product, imagine networking six together in the space previously occupied by one tower in your rack - five controlling a seperate midi/soft synth/audio device and one master unit sending/reciving timecode/recording - nice, and tight. It's only me that's drifting... So - Persue the 'individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements' - these are the people putting Apple at risk and not just on this instance but the very future of Mac's productivity.

I don't think for a second that a counter case would be on a Mac addict's mind, but a failed prosecution would give grounds for such a move - and further erode Apple's image after a failed trial. Give the guy a job in Apple's marketing department - and pay him officially for his efforts.

Let us not draw the line around every instance of broken secrecy/law, stick to this one and whether the law has been broken or not - which wont be decided on until the hammer falls in what will be looked upon as a very public trial - the one thing Apple really do stand to lose as the case stands - and if my simple questions are raised in defence.

Of course they 'have a right to protect THEIR information' then, now and in the future but on this occasion I feel Apple needs to asses potential image damage limitation and firstly exercise an internal investigation, report their findings, name and shame the employees in breach of contract and take it from there. The 'hearsay' bit is looking realistically at the events that have already taken place going by the info available and (I can say with some experience - but that's a... secret) that the courts should not take anything other than 'hard' evidence, info on which we are not yet privy to.

And now... for the "childish remarks" - Have some respect, "screw you...", I could be your daddy (C and C 'Still Smokin') - and, I dare because my nards are massive, correctly positioned, so much more hairier...and in your face. Nobody likes a snitch - So don't snitch Nick - dig? (sorry - meant in the best possible taste - but it was just sitting there officer).

But seriously - good debate, all sides taken care of and ready for the next peice of real information to chew on.

Cheers fellas Easy now
Wavey D
(Day off work! - Too much time to think, too little to do)

killa X
2005-01-15, 15:32
I take it a step further than Wavy. I say that apple's lawsuit against Nick is a attempt to leverage a vulnerable target into helping them to ferret out thier security leaks by sueing Nick into financial oblivian. (even if he isn't at fault here his legal fees to prove it against the Apple's massive legal machine will be costly) This kind of lawsuit is a textbook example of Litigiousness and a countersuit to bleed apple of enough funds to make them think twice about this kind of legal attack would be my idea of justice.
I think most people would agree that nick has a right to freely print information he aquires from anonomous sources. This lawsuit is an attempt to silence him with the prospect of an overwhelming legal assault. This kind of legal attack should be punished with logorithmic damages relative to the threat. Take the prospective legal fees that nick will have to pay times them by 1000 and countersue apple. If the estimated legal defence costs are 300,000 dollars. Sue apple for 300 million dollars. I think that a company with 6.5 billion in cash might(or maybe not) feel a little pain from that kind of loss and maybe think twice before attacking teenagers with their massive evil legal army. APPLE DESERVES LARGE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

killa X
2005-01-15, 15:36
By the way the kind of legal counter attack I metioned has some precidence. I.E. the people vs larry flint.(yes I got this philosophy from a movie)

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 15:46
A good and damn fine point Mr X, I'm all for justice for the individual and at least the impression of freedom of speech - which the UK is having serious problems with at the moment. This kind of thing goes on in the music industry all the time - but usually behind closed doors cos of the bad publicity for both record company and agreived artist. Slightly different scenario, but similar legal procedure.

But I hope it can be sorted before it gets to that point - PCs just don't cut it in my studio.

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 16:19
Coming soon... the G-Wizz wtf woz that all about law suit.

Jim S.
2005-01-15, 16:20
Some of you think that you know more than Apple's lawyers! :lol:

Hopefully everyone read the Harvard law professor's explaination in the first post of this thread.

hmurchison
2005-01-15, 16:56
Some of you think that you know more than Apple's lawyers! :lol:

Hopefully everyone read the Harvard law professor's explaination in the first post of this thread.


Some of us have attorney in our immediate family that "aren't" on Apple's payroll.

Harvard Law Professor ...means nothing. When's the last time this guy tried a case in court?

It's really as simple as the courts must defend at all costs the preservation of our constitutional rights. They trump anything and by far Apple's problem with keeping their products under wrap.

I'm thankful for Journalists who are out there ensuring that corporations and our government are flying as straight as possible. If you start thowing journalists in jail then tyranny and the collapse of this quasi democracy we have here in America is imminent.

Apple needs to fix their own leaks. It's their sloppiness that is at fault here.

waveydavey
2005-01-15, 17:06
Hats off to hmurchison, nail on the head me thinks.

ZogDog
2005-01-15, 17:16
Apple needs to fix their own leaks. It's their sloppiness that is at fault here.

They ARE trying to fix their leaks, been doing so for awhile, trying to send "Cease and desist orders" that have produced nothing. They are not trying to kill Nick, they are trying to get WHO leaked the info. So Apple is trying to fix their own leaks, what else do you think they are trying to do with the lawsuit, slam some kid who promotes their products?

Do you really think Apple and it's entire legal team and those involved with this are THAT idiotic to just randomly sue somebody? This is a serious issue that probably has more info then you or I know.

I am still a believer in the lawsuit and I don't want to have any rehash of freedom of speech thrown around. Freedom of speech doesn't mean taking trade secrets, or launch dates, and freely throwing them out. Freedom of speech is about democracy, voicing your opinion. To what end was the rumor leaked? It's a website, just like mine, and traffic is what we all seek, having a leak provides traffic.

I don't buy the freedom of speech here, I think there is zero ground to support it. TS got information they weren't supposed to have about secret files inside a company, which people have signed to keep secret. There is no freedom of speech in that, it's stealing, plain and simple.

How are you all bringing up freedom of speech, i don't get it? How is telling the world about someone else's obvious secret files legal and morally okay with you? Is it because he got it, and since he has the info, that makes it okay to freely do with it as he sees fit?

Jim S.
2005-01-15, 17:49
Some of us have attorney in our immediate family that "aren't" on Apple's payroll.

Harvard Law Professor ...means nothing. When's the last time this guy tried a case in court?


This is funny. I suppose I could call the two lawyers in my immediate family (really!) but I know that this is not their field of expertise and would not be a boon to this thread. I googled the Harvard professor and did not feel like going through 5,000+ hits to answer your question. I'd assume that he must know a thing or two to teach Law at Harvard.

jaubele1
2005-01-15, 17:54
Apple's draconian approach to dealing with this "problem" would make the gang at Microsoft blush!

RandomTux
2005-01-15, 18:34
I think Apple are prolly more shocked that they have insiders who are sneaks. The again no company is entirely watertight. They also dont want any thunder being spanked from their new product launch plans-understandable. And on the other hand ThinkSecret is just a rag doing his role really, whatever info you get yer hands on, by god get it out.

ZogDog
2005-01-16, 00:00
And on the other hand ThinkSecret is just a rag doing his role really, whatever info you get yer hands on, by god get it out.

Man, I hope your next employer reads this. How can you be anyone be trusted with these type of remarks? This is why confidentiality papers are signed and enforced. If you can't understand the reason behind security and secrets, you have no reason to be arguing free speech for TS.

sbejarano
2005-01-16, 01:41
This is really funny.
Think Secret did not pay for the received information, it was posted probably and there is a disclosure of information between the user of the forum and Think Secret, I do not see why Think Secret is being targeted as responsible for an information posted without coercion or offered payment, the lead was posted anonimously and got published.
If this is the case then take this example:
Is the government going to sue every single newspaper for publishing leaked information about briefing on Iraq war? nope, because it is part of the first ammendment and let me paste it here to refresh memory:
" The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulkwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Apple "SORE LOOSER".

:lol:

iRobot
2005-01-16, 05:35
Man, I hope your next employer reads this. How can you be anyone be trusted with these type of remarks? This is why confidentiality papers are signed and enforced. If you can't understand the reason behind security and secrets, you have no reason to be arguing free speech for TS.


Nick didn't sign anything!


Confidentiality papers have nothing to do with this case at all.

Nick is liable for nothing unless he specifically solicited apple employees to break their NDAs.

As far as we can tell, he didn't. The website itself has no solicitation that would hold up as such in court. The structure of information gathering and whatnot isn't any different than any other news media.

So unless he privately emailed contacts requesting information that he knew was protected under NDA, he did nothing illegal, and is protected under the first amendment.

Addison
2005-01-16, 10:13
What is the situation with spy photo's of new cars in the USA? Most motoring magazine in Britain pay a fortune to get their hands on elicit photo's or tip about cars on test runs in disguise. Do your motoring magazines routinely publish photos of new cars? If they do I don't see how the actions of TS are any different. If your motoring press is hamstrung and plays poodle to Ford, G.M. etc then .... :no: :no: :no:

laxxx8
2005-01-16, 14:56
yo nick remember me (pat roszel) from ur school cazenovia? havent talked to u in a while but then i saw this thing in the paper and damn son another lawsuit im hopin u end up on top in this one, if ya need any help hit me up, good luck, later

hungsnguyen
2005-01-17, 00:46
Apple should not be able to sue the messanger. THat'd be infringment of rights. Amendment one says: freedom of speech. I belive Amendment five is: freedom of the press. Why should Apple not be able to sue Think Secret? Plain and simple. Think Secret did not sign a form to confirm the secrecy of Apple's product. They didn't sign any document saying none of Apple's future products can be announced to the public. Why are news stations able to announce new drugs or medicine that will hit the shelves. Why are news reporters able to report of future probable incidents? Isn't that what Think Secret did, report probable incidents.

And no one should have to reveal sources, just like Apple shouldn't have to reveal plans. It'd be double standards. Why can't people get court orders telling Apple to reveal. That's just plain stupid. Apple's just trying to get a few extra bucks.

jccbin
2005-01-17, 09:50
What about the California law that says if the publisher has a reasonable expectation that the info is a trade secret/ covered by NDA that he is guilty if he publishes it? Constitutional challenge anyone?

johnq
2005-01-17, 09:55
Should I have the "Constitutional right" to post your Social Security number, your credit card number and your bank account info and PIN numbers on the internet?

Hey, I didn't know this was going to adversely affect you financially. :rolleyes:

rkevwill
2005-01-17, 10:34
Personally, I think Steve Jobs has a long memory. Such as when he previewed the Mac OS to Gates before he brought it out. (to get software written). Remember what that led to? The initial imitation called WINDOZE.

drewprops
2005-01-17, 12:18
I think that these "one post wonders" have a mean age of 14 years and possess a better understanding of how to bring their Dark Magician Girl back from the Graveyard than an understanding of Corporate Law.

I also think that this thread belongs in General Discussion.

709
2005-01-17, 12:20
Nail -> Head

:D

Akumulator
2005-01-17, 12:43
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/01/16/nailgun.accident.ap/story.xray.kusa.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/16/nailgun.accident.ap/index.html)

Random Hero
2005-01-17, 12:44
I think that these "one post wonders" have a mean age of 14 years and possess a better understanding of how to bring their Dark Magician Girl back from the Graveyard than an understanding of Corporate Law.

I have a belly button.

killa X
2005-01-17, 14:39
Is Zogdog a possible infiltrator? Could he be one of the lawyers who advised apple to sue TS in the first place? Apple will get nowhere with this lawsuit and I hope the law in california is struck down as an example to these corporate f*cks who think that thier money is more inportant than the constitution. FInd your leaks some other way than by grabbing some kid by the neck and shaking him around ho[ping the change will come out of his pockets. In other words they should pick on someone thier own size.

ZogDog
2005-01-17, 15:07
LOL you think I am an infiltrator? That's clever and quite a compliment, thank you. No, I am not some espionage running spy trying to find the key tactics needed to run a lawsuit, heck, check my freakin sig, I am a college kid runnin my own site minding my own business, BUT I have an opinion. It seems that my opinion runs the opposite way as your does, but I stand by it.

Awhile ago, someone on my message board put the PC Gamer review of Doom 3, or was it HL2, on my site and I was sent a legal notice to remove the article. I did, know why? It was not my article and I did not get the approval of the said owner to have it on my site.

Who gave TS permission to put obvious secrets on their site? And stop with the First amendment and freedom of speech crap, it holds no grounds here guys! I like the post about your credit card and social security number, if someone were to get ahold of it somehow and post it on the net, would that be okay with you?

Freedom of speech doesn't give a person the right to exploit a business and it's trade secrets no matter how they got their material.

killa X
2005-01-17, 15:34
Apple is a publicly traded company and any information about them is fair game for public journalism. You got a sease and desist cause you plagerized. TS was publishing news that other news outlets also published. This was not plagerism, this was simply journalism. My SS# and CREDIT info are private because I am not a public company I am a private citizen. The moment Apple goes public on the open market with thier stock any information about the company is fair game for journalists to report. If they can't keep thier information secret then they should secure thier information better. They should'nt attack small independent journalists with large armies of lawyers.
This law in california is unconstitutional and I think that if this gets to the SC we will see a ruling against apple. Lawsuits should not be designed as attacks. They should be defensive in nature. Apple is counter attacking the wrong guy litigously.

cloud 9
2005-01-17, 15:48
What is the situation with spy photo's of new cars in the USA? Most motoring magazine in Britain pay a fortune to get their hands on elicit photo's or tip about cars on test runs in disguise. Do your motoring magazines routinely publish photos of new cars? If they do I don't see how the actions of TS are any different. If your motoring press is hamstrung and plays poodle to Ford, G.M. etc then .... :no: :no: :no:

if it's in a magazine it 99,9% legal...it they show it like it's a 'elicit photo'...but nothing actually happens, as in lawsuits, ...it's marketing...more excitement, more story...

malibu
2005-01-17, 19:43
I have read EVERY one of the posts in this thread, I found the discussion fascinating and will watch to see how Nick fairs in the coming months with concern.

I had to register to contribute one word to this debate:

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

To understand this; follow this link >>> http://www.zogdog.com/theboard/viewtopic.php?t=5309

If Apple is serious about persuing this lawsuit, then they will likely cite you as a co-defendant as well, Zogdog. Don't bother deleting your post linking to (and thereby REPUBLISHING and REDISTRIBUTING) the information on ThinkSecret. That's right, by posting on your website, you have PUBLISHED this same allegedly known trade secrets, as you said, to "provide traffic". They'll probably just subpeona the harddrive from your webhosting company. Or they can just look at the incoming link logs here at TS.

Zogdog: I am still a believer in the lawsuit and I don't want to have any rehash of freedom of speech thrown around. Freedom of speech doesn't mean taking trade secrets, or launch dates, and freely throwing them out. Freedom of speech is about democracy, voicing your opinion. To what end was the rumor leaked? It's a website, just like mine, and traffic is what we all seek, having a leak provides traffic.

I don't buy the freedom of speech here, I think there is zero ground to support it. TS got information they weren't supposed to have about secret files inside a company, which people have signed to keep secret. There is no freedom of speech in that, it's stealing, plain and simple.

That was worth registering for!!!

roku
2005-01-17, 19:50
I dont know anything about the U.S. law but after reading all this I am thinking dam maybe I should sell my apple stock.

Trumpetman
2005-01-17, 21:27
Apple is wrong. They are hoping to put sites like Think Secret out of business due to the financial strain of defending the lawsuit. The suit itself will not prevail. The actual article did not picture nor spill any "secrets" regarding the Mac mini. The specs have been on Apple machines for years as the machine itself is a retread in a new small case.

Predicting that electronics is going to get smaller, cheaper and that PC makers are entering the commodity market is nothing new and innovative. It certainly doesn't amount to a "secret" no matter what you try to turn it into.

I hope/know Apple will get handed their ass on this one.

Nick

Messiahtosh
2005-01-17, 21:35
Apple is wrong. They are hoping to put sites like Think Secret out of business due to the financial strain of defending the lawsuit. The suit itself will not prevail. The actual article did not picture nor spill any "secrets" regarding the Mac mini. The specs have been on Apple machines for years as the machine itself is a retread in a new small case.

Predicting that electronics is going to get smaller, cheaper and that PC makers are entering the commodity market is nothing new and innovative. It certainly doesn't amount to a "secret" no matter what you try to turn it into.

I hope/know Apple will get handed their ass on this one.

NickThat's an absurd statement.

scratt
2005-01-17, 21:49
Apple is wrong. They are hoping to put sites like Think Secret out of business due to the financial strain of defending the lawsuit. The suit itself will not prevail. The actual article did not picture nor spill any "secrets" regarding the Mac mini. The specs have been on Apple machines for years as the machine itself is a retread in a new small case.

Predicting that electronics is going to get smaller, cheaper and that PC makers are entering the commodity market is nothing new and innovative. It certainly doesn't amount to a "secret" no matter what you try to turn it into.

I hope/know Apple will get handed their ass on this one.

Nick

You hope and you know!??! :err:
What a load of crap. :no:

ZogDog
2005-01-17, 22:17
Whoa, I forgot I posted that. The difference is

1) If they, TS or Apple, asked me to remove a link to their site, I would do so.
2) I did not solicit anyone to give me that news.
3) Do you really think I put that up there for traffic? How many active users do you actually see on my site? Do I have advertisers or a means to make money?
4) I actually got this news bit, and the news about this site, from one of my favorite web sites; Slashdot, so we are all in trouble I guess: http://apple.slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20050110 (look at the bottom)
5) Wow, someone actually went to my site! That alone should state how low end I am, thanks for actually going, sorry it's not much right now and there's a reason I post here, no one on my site is a mac user :)

hungsnguyen
2005-01-17, 22:50
So if I say that Apple will make a Mac OS XI, they have the right to sue me because I leaked information of a new product not yet announced? Oh yeah, and Mac is going to release a Mac that sells for $900. Go ahead Apple, make the $900 Mac, then sue me please.

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-17, 22:58
Pscates, where are you? (sung to the Scooby Doo theme)

(I have a wide variety of things to say, so I will keep them header-ed to relevant subjects.)

The First Amendment:

I find it astounding that people are not focusing on the rumors and speculations that Think Secret made that did not come true.

Consider: some of Think Secret’s rumors came true, but some did not. One could say that Think Secret is the Ms. Cleo of the Mac world. <Scratch that, Apple Insider is the Ms. Cleo of the Mac world; Think Secret is more like a well-written horoscope.>

In times like this, the nature of the word “rumor” must come into the foreground. A rumor makes no claim to truth-value. Think Secret is what it claims to be, a rumor site. Perhaps then Think Secret should not fall into the realm of Web Journalism and freedom of the press at all. It is possible that everyone is thinking of this case from the wrong perspective. Rather, as the site claims “rumor” and posits no factuality on its claims (outside of “this came from a reliable source”) perhaps Think Secret would be better protected under the first amendment as a piece of fictional writing.

The speculation published on Think Secret is just that: speculation. It is closer to situational fiction writing than to news reporting. As such, Nick is protected under academic and artistic freedom policies and statues. This is especially relevant considering that Nick is a student at Harvard.

The issue spans the divide between art and journalism.

Tomorrow, I could start a website with nothing but a story on how Apple is a front for an organ harvesting cult, how the proceeds from the organ donations go to the legal funds of pedophile priests, and how Steve Jobs is the Antichrist (of course, three things I do not believe) and there would be little to nothing Apple could do about it. <In fact, with a plot that good I could get published in the next anthology of Best American Short Stories.> Speculation, rumor, full out lies and fabrications are all protected by the first amendment, as well as other legal statues, as long as I dispel the idea that what I am presenting is fact. I think calling Think Secret a “rumor” site effectively does this.

Politics:

As for the comment by Wraven on page two:

“But would you do me a favor scratt and remove the part about assassinating the president and keep things mac-related? I try not to bring my own divisive political views into Mac discussions and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you and others in this forum.”

Actually, in this lawsuit, there is an underlining politic at work.

The issues at stake in this lawsuit: the limits of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to non-disclosure of informants/sources (as fallenfromthetree has mentioned), as well as who or whom count as “the press” and therefore should be afforded fifth amendment protections (this is the most pressing matter of all). All of these are political issues. While they are not as extreme a view as presidential assassination, they are still issues of politics and government that are immediately pertinent to the current lawsuit situation. To block what one sees as “political discourse” is effectively to block discourse at all.

On Punishment:

There are degrees to wrongdoing, despite what many members of this “community” (and looking at the posts I use this statement loosely at best) seem to believe. The Kant-ian categorical imperative is no longer a valid argument, the belief that what is wrong in one situation is wrong in all situations.

Even the legal system acknowledges the spectrum of responsibility, or on varying degrees of punishment based on the grievousness of the harm (i.e. Murder I/II/III, Rape/Criminal Sexual Conduct I/II/III, Theft/Grand Theft/Larceny). Then, clearly, Nick’s punishment should be proportionate to the actual harm caused.

However, defining this actual harm is a bit dodgy in itself.

Damages:

The question of damages is an interesting one. Apple reportedly is suing for damages because of information Nick leaked on his site [at least this is how I understand it]. As one poster put it. it is wrong to “Inflict material damage in the name of free speech”. Then the issue becomes a question of “material damage”; an issue of speculative damage vs. actual damages.

What is the material or actual thus far? All that has been presented in terms of damages to Apple are purely speculation (i.e. Steady stock prices, the absence of rising stock prices after keynote, allowing competition to see product two weeks early). Thus far, there are no immediately knowable damages have occurred due to Nick’s site.

Though, there has been a (four letter expletive starting with s) load of publicity and press surrounding this lawsuit that must have had the effect of bringing consumer and business attention to the keynote and to Apple’s new product line.

Remember, in the U.S. court system one is innocent until proven guilty (even if this is more lax in civil rather than criminal court, where more often than not monetary issues are addressed.) Apple is going to have to possess some clear, blatant, an clean cut evidence; evidence I do not think they possess (and if the case is thrown out at the hearing, that will be why).

Culpability:

<Assuming there are damages, and Apple meets the burden of proof > who, then, is the source of the damages to the company? Perhaps the greater issue at hand is the instability of public trading and the nature of the stock market. Even when the stock market is brought up in this forum, it is brought up as an assumed institution. Of course the stock market should be taken into consideration…no other thought could cross someone else’s mind. However, the stock market is no monolithic institution. Perhaps, the stock market (or Apple’s choice to go public) should bear part of the blame in any financial loss.

After all, is it right to blame Nick’s website for every idiot stock market analyst/speculator’s decision regarding the sale or retention of Apple stock? Since when did private individuals start to take responsibility for Apple’s stock going up or down a point. The stock market is little more than a wealthy man’s (or a wealth man in charge of other peoples retirement) daily lotto or trip to the Casino. Legendary lack of stability.

Final Thought:

I find it interesting that Apple is suing Think Secret in part because of Nick’s refusal to release the names of his sources, while the at the same time it worries about the violation of its own non-disclosure agreements. No matter how well designed Apple makes its products, there is no Snow White or Shiny Industrial Metal at all; there is simply a pot, a kettle, and the color black.

What this lawsuit essentially breaks down into is an issue of individual vs. corporate rights. (I understand that Think Secret is a company. However, Nick is the chief individual liable and has a company of VASTLY different scale.) This is a bad situation for Nick to be in because in this current administration and political climate individual rights have taken a far backseat (Ticket Reads: Second Balcony, Row 33, Behind the concrete support beam) to the rights of business.

I, for one, support Nick as he seeks legal council an attempts to defend his rights. To paraphrase Chomsky, corporations are private tyrannies. A corporation is the ultimate in a non-democratic institution (except perhaps, coming from this Catholic, the Catholic church). Most important in their goal of maintaining/retaining/consolidating power comes from the resistance of free flow of information.

In obtaining a corporate charter, a corporation must claim to exist to perform some form of “public good.”

I do not believe current corporations exist for public good. Rather, with actions such as the one Apple is taking that place basic civil liberties at risk, some current corporate entities pose a threat to democracy and human rights negating any hypothetical benefit for the common good. I love Apple (my fuzzy, benevolent despot that supplies me with such pretty, wonderful equipment) but I have to place my side with Think Secret.

scratt
2005-01-17, 23:04
So if I say that Apple will make a Mac OS XI, they have the right to sue me because I leaked information of a new product not yet announced? Oh yeah, and Mac is going to release a Mac that sells for $900. Go ahead Apple, make the $900 Mac, then sue me please.

I wish they would! ;)

iRobot
2005-01-18, 00:27
Amen to that, Mass_transit_prophet.

Amen

mama's left eye
2005-01-18, 11:30
if nick cant rely on us to stand with him who can he rely on. Nick is a fan like us. he is not dealing with child porn, warez, or any other type of trash. all he is doing is posting "rumors". Apple should leave him alone.

Too bad they aren't suing him for "rumors." Rumors are a lot different then trade secrets. Maybe he should stick to rumors?

If he is harming Apple by soliciting this information and then posting it, Apple has the right to sue. I highly encourage it because anything that harms Apple eventually rolls down the hill to the consumer.

scratt
2005-01-18, 12:33
Exactly..

And "Nick" is not behaving like a 'fan'.
He is cynically and illegally procuring information, and he is benefitting from advertising when he does this.

He is also damaging Apple as a company when he leaks information in advance.

That is worlds apart from discussing what we *think* might be coming out, making mock-ups and generally having a discussion with basis only in learned knowledge of developement style and paths, guesses and perhaps hopes...

To actually steal the information and then disseminate it is very very different indeed.

equus
2005-01-18, 12:50
I'm an "Intelectual Property" lawyer, and I have a concern that Nick may have stepped over the line in inviting people to submit information of an inside nature. However, it is an important practical principle of IP enforcement to use prudent good judgment in deciding whom to sue, and when, especially when the client has not suffered significant economic damage and seems to just want to make a point to third parties. Just about every aspect of that good judgment was ignored in this case, and for a company with the reputation that Apple has with its hardcore following, especially among college students, and the lack of any significant economic damages in this particular instance, Apple's ill-considered action (so redolent of its malevolent competitor) can only be described as a PR disaster in the making.

The mainstream computer press prints rumors all the time, and doesn't get sued (look at all of the basically stupid front page rumors concerning MS's Longhorn) because the hardware and software makers needs the press behind them and can ill afford to alienate them, because the makers sometimes like to see rumors creating interest, and because the press fights back. Its much easier to sue the little guy. So the kid took some of the luster off Steve's hammy turtleneck stage appearance. Big deal. Apple should hold its attack dogs in reserve until they find real pirates to go after. Apple can ill-afford to alienate its loyal followers of 20 years or more standing. This is not the Apple I have come to respect. I will not buy another Mac for my office or home until Apple publicly appologizes to Nick, and I urge others to do likewise, and please tell Apple.

melevittfl
2005-01-18, 13:07
To actually steal the information and then disseminate it is very very different indeed.

I've been reading these forums for a few weeks now. I decided to register today becuase I'm so disturbed by the willingness of people to toss away their civil liberties.

First, Scratt, I'm assuming the editor of this site did not physically break into Apple and take documents with the information? I'm assuming also that he did not break into Apple's computer network?

So, to say he "stole" information is very misleading. He was given some information by someone. Whoever gave him that information probably violated a civil contract with Apple. But that's not "theft".

"Theft" is where the taking of something from someone deprives that person of possesion of that something. I.e., If I steal your car, I have one more car and you have one less car. If I steal $100 from you, I am $100 richer and you are $100 poorer.

Second, I accept there may be an argument that posting this information may have hurt Apple (although given how close it was to the official announcement, I think it generated more buzz than harm). But, let's just, for the sake of argument, accept that perhaps Apple was harmed in some way by Nick posting this information. Even in the face of that harm, Apple should not be able to sue Nick, and certainly they shouldn't be able to win.

Why? Becuase I don't want to live in a world where wealthy people (and corporations are legally people) can use lawsuits, or even the threat of lawsuits, to prevent someone from publishing information about them that was a) legally obtained and b) true.

Now, that may mean that, occasionally, a good company will be hurt by someone to sell more advertisements.

But, it also means that companies like Enron, WorldCom, Exxon, etc. all have to be careful becuase there is a functioning free press that can and will expose things that they don't want exposed. Imagine if the energy industry was able to quash stories about nuclear safety by claiming they were "trade secrets". Imagine how much money would be left in state pensions if someone at Enron had leaked the story to a credible publisher. Would you want that publisher to be afraid to publish because they might get sued?

So, yes, apple may have been harmed by the story coming out a few days early. Yes, they have a right to sue the leaker for breaking a contract. But, I don't want to trade a free press, capable of exposing the wrongdoings of wealthy corporatens for the sake of Apple's marketing plans. The costs don't justify the results.

Back to lurking..

alcimedes
2005-01-18, 13:24
Well, it's more than just that. Personnally I'm close to 100% sure Apple is doing this just to try and ferret out their mole. Sorry, but that's not Nick's problem, that's Apple's problem. If they want to find their mole, they should go about it in some way other than trying to sue a student into oblivion. I'd put good money up that Apple will be willing to "drop" their lawsuit if Nick turns over and and all information about his sources.

And as melevittfl stated, I don't want to live in a country where the rich can bully the press when the press writes something they dont' like.

melevittfl
2005-01-18, 13:41
I'd put good money up that Apple will be willing to "drop" their lawsuit if Nick turns over and and all information about his sources.

Yes, and in some circle, threatening someone with negative consequences unless they do something to help you out is called extortion.

mrhilaryduff
2005-01-18, 14:10
Sweets are analogous to the recognition and importance (even anonymous) posited to its sources.

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-18, 14:12
Also, on an interesting note, did or did not Apple subpoena Think Secret for the names of his informants?

If they did, that is frightfully interesting. What a subpoena for sources implies is that Apple does not know whom the leak (or leaks) are.

If Apple does not have the word of the leaks themselves that Nick solicited information from them - as Apple does not know whom the leaks are and therefore what the nature of the leak to Think Secret was itself - then the evidence of any proposed solicitation is nill. Without the confession of the leak, which necessitates the subpoena for the leak's identity, Apple's case against Think Secret lacks sufficient evidence.

Think about it. How would Apple know if Nick recieved solicited the reported information or not? By being told such from Nick's informant. However, Apple's subpoena is an almost outright confession to not knowing the leak's identity. Logically, then, the charge of soliciting for trade secrets is missing the key component for conviction: a confession.

So Nick (if you happen to pass by this), word of advice, stand on your rights and refuse to give up identity of your informants. Essentially, your place right now is in the well known "prisoner's dillema." <it is also highly possible that Nick has nothing to give up...knowing only an anonmyous voice mail or e-mail address that produces the occational reliable rumor>

An assumed (i.e. a charged as opposed to convicted) solicitation is not in itself a factual solicitation. People sue all the time with false accusations. Perhaps Apple is assuming that Nick solicited Apple employees. This assumption would give their case more water in court (nevermind the validity).

Several people on this post are already assuming the factuality of Apple's charges against Think Secret. If these charges were indeed fact just because they were made or pressed, then what would necessitate a hearing, an arraignment, a trial by jury, or a verdict. Let us just skip the whole of judicial procedings and rule for Apple right now. Oh yeah, wait, there is that little thing called due process of the law. Drat.

iRobot
2005-01-18, 14:13
Sweets are analogous to the recognition and importance (even anonymous) posited to its sources.

I call BS. By that logic any and everything is soliciting some sort of incentive.

Fidosax
2005-01-18, 14:42
Just had to chime in on this one....

Posting the "rumor" of somehting yet to come is a far cry from violating "Trade Secrets". I mean, it's not like he posted the schematics on how to build the things online, nor did he have 100% acurate information.

I realize that we're walking the line on this one, but I have to agree with some of the other posters that the fault really lies in the Apple employees that violated their contract with Apple, not the person, or site, that repeats the info.

Maxipeg
2005-01-18, 16:24
Sure, some law or contract was broken by somebody and of course the problem behind the curtains is serious. Apple has to be able to trust his employees that can get this kind of information. But all those who believe that Nick has done any harm to Apple - come on guys, this is completely ridiculous.

If anything, Apple's got some free publicity because lots of Mac enthusiasts wanted to know if the rumors were true. Perhaps Job's ego suffered a bit because he wasn't the first person to announce the new products.

I guess they are looking for a pretext to put Nick under pressure so he will tell them who the "bad" guys are. Sometimes this is all you need if you want to attack and we know it happened before. If the informands were reasonably clever, they didnt' reveal their identity to Nick and I doubt Apple will find any evidence this way.

Dave J
2005-01-18, 16:36
First of all to all the sycophants that posted enraptured defenses of Apple's action... please.... pack up all you have of value - deed to your home, title to your car, stock certificates, etc. and rush them to me care of this forum. (I'll make sure they get delivered to the Apple legal team.)

This case is about one of two things, possibly a mixture of the two:

1. To send a chilling warning to Apple employees. (If you supplied Nick with Mini and Shuffle info, you're no doubt having a little trouble sleeping right about now.) Why is the heat on now? Does Apple give a rat about the heads up on these two products? Nah. Because Apple is about to launch a huge project, as yet unshared with the majority of their workforce and for which absolute adherence to NDA's is a must.

What is this really big thing? While I confess I don't know for certain, I've got a damn good idea and debated with myself about whether to share it on this board. Decided against it primarily because if Apple thinks it's that important, so do I. I want Apple to succeed, even if I don't agree with their lawsuit and, given the ruthless character of business, they're entitled to privacy. Would I be breaking any law by divulging what this next big thing is? Of course not; I'm keeping my trap shut out of common decency.

2. More mundane. It has totally escaped the notice of all posters on this thread that some recent very high level personnel departures occurred at Apple. This usually indicates an in-house power struggle/squabble/spat which can get unbelievably ugly. Now if the dissenting, trouble-making camp within the Infinite Loop is the one that housed Nick's magpies, Apple management MUST ID these chaps to restore order. Hence the attempted shakedown of Nick.

Dave

Maxipeg
2005-01-18, 18:00
one more thing...

Think different? Remember 1984?

Now, who is who today? I'll bet Apple lawyers listen to music from iPods but they certainly aren't the ones wearing red shorts.

Professional spies don't go telling secrets on rumor web sites. You 've got the wrong man, Apple, and you know it. Booo!

scratt
2005-01-18, 20:15
Wow Intellectual Property lawyers talking about PR.
Newly registered users chiming in...
Whoo haaa haaa haaa.. All very suss!

Nick is guily.
Apple are in the right.
Period.

iRobot
2005-01-18, 20:40
Wow Intellectual Property lawyers talking about PR.
Newly registered users chiming in...
Whoo haaa haaa haaa.. All very suss!

Nick is guily.
Apple are in the right.
Period.


Ah, of course Mr. Rehnquist.

You know best.

Fuckin' Eye Roll extreme.

ZogDog
2005-01-18, 23:55
Man, I don't know what to say anymore cause I did post a link to thinksecret's article on the sub $500 comp, and never thought twice about it. When I read about the lawsuit, I forgot about that small post and went on a raging campaign to support Apple and it's secrets.

I still don't believe, this goes for journalism as well I guess, that people should tempt other people to break contracts. It's like asking a married woman to commit adultery with you. I don't know, and I don't know if I can even be taken serious again on the board because I did link to the thinksecret news article. I justify it by saying I linked to the site that broke the news, but then again, I helped spread the news.

Is the person who brought the rumor to life in blame or are all who supplied the news to blame as well? Was it that big of a deal? What difference did having that info on my site have, rather then a trusted and most frequented fan based site like TS have? Does Apple really care about small sites like mine and others, or only potentially bigger, dangerous sites like TS (dangerous because it generates more active users and hits)? Did linking to the TS story like I did, Slashdot, news.com.com and others cause the damage, or was it all on the shoulders of he who asked for the secrets?

I get what the other side has been trying to tell me, I was partly wrong, but yet I was partly right. I am going to sit back and see what happens and think about this for a few, because how can I justify blaming people like Nick, when I am one of it's supporters? Damn, my brain hurts!

ixocean
2005-01-19, 10:45
I'm not really saying anything new in my post, but feel it's necessary to put in my $.50 and walk away knowing that I've said my piece. :GOD SAVE THE INTERNET:

Apple, if it hasn't already figured this out, is in a precarious position right now, so we’d like to believe. They launch a machine to be a 'switcher-Mac' designed to bring the masses of borderline PC users over/back over to the Apple OS, therefore they need the media spin being generated covering the development. Yet, they were scooped on the launch of new products. They realize there is a leak somewhere in 'The Loop' and sue the fan site believing the founder may have solicited, possibly paid for, information about these products. Is this really what is going on?

From the Apple perspective, PR people know that lawsuits don't generate good press, but perhaps a small element of this drive to litigation is based on the StevEgo. No matter how many times PR tells him it's a bad idea, he pursues because someone stole his thunder. (NET RESULT = Bad PR) Of course, there is the Good PR, and that comes from the product launch, the pre-orders, the stories about the 2-6 week wait for the products, etc. Apple may well be counting on the Good PR to speak louder than the Bad PR, and therefore continues with the litigation. WHY? Apple doesn't know who is responsible for the leaks. Hypothetically this person works at Apple all day and goes home only to send details via web form on TS which claims the scooper will remain anonymous. (Yeah RIGHT! IP address, anyone?)

Apple can't go after the bigger sites who have re$ource$, which will take too long, such drawn out litigation will tie up what, if any, information they may have. Rather, they go after the little guy, the one who if pressured enough may settle out of court in a deal where the servers, logins, domains, etc are turned over to Apple Corporate Security. There is a LOT of data that can be reverse engineered from a computer, and unless there is a significant enough EM pulse to fry the drives, information leading Apple to their leak may well be found. Does Apple really think Nick paid someone for the information? Who knows? Money motivates people to make strange decisions, perhaps he did, but most likely he did not.

Sadly, for Nick, not THAT many people pay attention to the Tech rags. Therefore they don't get the news about Apple's suit and the BAD PR doesn't have much of a negative effect on the general population. The articles about the new iPod Shuffle and Mac mini seem to be just the opposite, and are being reported in mainstream media with a positive impact to Apple's finances. Most likely, Jobs & Co are well aware of this which reinforces their decision to push forward with the suit.

I don't believe Apple has something so 'big' up their sleeve that they need to 'secure The Loop' for an upcoming product launch. They are simply a corporation that is producing innovative products newly competing in established markets controlled by powerful corporations who stand to lose significant market share. Apple cannot afford for someone at Microsoft or Dell to hear about these upcoming products and begin to strategize their counter response. Apple has been burned by this before and I’d venture to guess Steve won’t let it happen again, no matter the cost. I strongly believe THIS reason alone, is what drives the lawsuit. Apple is placing their bet that Nick will fold his hand and turn over the keys to TS; they hope like Geraldo, that a treasure is contained within the vault.

What’s important is that we wait until the case is resolved to start pointing fingers at Nick or TS, if he has done nothing wrong then he at least deserves the moral support of the Apple community. Reserve the eye-gouging, torch-bearing, chain-wielding march up to the castle for another day.

In America, it’s innocent until proven guilty. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY JUSTICE WORKS

LoCash
2005-01-19, 11:57
I think a lot of people are still missing the point of Apple's legal action. They don't want to take down Nick and Think Secret, they just want the names of the people that released what turned out being rather precious and sensitive to Apple. Apple would drop it all if Nick ponied up the names of the sources, but in attempting to protect them, he is not doing that. So Apple is trying to strongarm him into doing so, and this is the legal course of action they have to make sure this doesn't happen again.

With the Think Secret stories this time around, it wasn't just a vague rumor, it was specs, prices -- some pretty solid and descript information. If Nick's details hadn't been so spot on Apple probably wouldn't have done more than a usual C&D letter.

killa X
2005-01-19, 15:48
Wow locash did you read the rest of the thread? or did you just want to post an opinion? I think we covered this in earlier sections. I found the news today of think secret's aquisition of legal consul and I am very happy. It looks like they have a strong case for a dismisal. I hope that they get this suit thrown out and counter-sue apple for punitive damages in the amount of 1 billion dollars. (punitive damages should be large enough to hurt a company so they suffer a penalty but not destroy them. This way Steve and Co. will think twice before attacking our countries young journalists.) Apple has 6.8 billion dollars in reserve and they are looking to aquire another major player in software. They would be hurt by $1 billion USD but they would'nt collapse.
I really believe in the aspect of the first amendment that is encountered here. I believe that apples lawsuit represents an attempt to crush Nick's freedom of the press and or EXTORT Nick into releasing his sources witch are protected under his 1st and 5th amendment rights. This kind of activity by apple is dispicable. I love my mac and have been a mac user for years and I always thought they were a good company. What is all the IMAC buzz getting to steve's head? Offer an apology to nick and I will be happy.

mama's left eye
2005-01-19, 19:21
That's a great idea! Not only is Nick costing Apple money, but let's just take another billion! Alright!

Anyone who knowingly hurts Apple is definately wrong. Yet some Apple fans are standing up for him? Like he is doing it for us, or because he loves mac. Get real. He is profiting over Apple's loss.

This case isn't about the 1st or 5th amendment. It's about someone stealing from Apple. It's about someone hurting the Mac community. It's about time Apple brings the hammer down. Hasn't he been warned several times?

odetosecrets
2005-01-19, 19:44
Lawyers are whores they will sell you out for thier fee.A lawyer see how much it costs to proceed and so they charge what they can get the market to bear and then they push their client to settle for it is in the lawyers best interest to minimize proceedings and there by fatten his bottom line.Sorry to pop your bubble but lawyers are businessmen and businesswomen who seek the greatest amount of return on their tradeable asset which is their coveted knowledge of how to hood wink a client in their lack of knowledge.As for me I was mentored in the ideals of law and have formerly studied law and the psychology of how it could work if applied.A supreme court justice said,The court is for the beligerent. Hell it was a supreme court justice who after considering the argument of Al gore's campaign lawyers who cried foul in Florida that after listening said "I am afraid the office of the White house has been taken over by organized criminals".What's that got to do with this ?Well it just goes to show you lawyers will argue a lie as quick as they will argue the truth.What was that Quote In the law we have a saying innocent until proven broke !Justice is served only when the defendant is beligerent and willing to endure in the battle to maintain their innocence without persuasion from any other interests which would seek to circumvent their will of direction for their own selfish interests.Justice is only won with battle not in submissive oh well better luck next time attitude.And to clarify the first persons accusation no sir I am not a cocaine addict nor do I desire to ever try the drug.But as I said oh Peter chernin their reading about your dirty past the word is spreading,Oh my Peter when it hits the main stream what will you do?If and when it does I shall follow your defense with incredible tenacity.

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-19, 20:59
@odetosecrets: "And this brings us to our next point kids...don't smoke crack."

@mama's left eye: Prove that Nick has cost Apple money. I don't mean speculate on possible competition advantage or stock effects. Lets see some figures.

Also, do we have any way to view Nick's books? Of course not...so infering that Nick is profiting off of Apple's loss (a loss which is at this point is still unsubstantiated) is equally unsubstantiated.

mama's left eye
2005-01-19, 23:05
@mass transit prohpet. You want figures ask apple. You want to use your brain, read on...

How does Apple make their money? Innovation. The less time between Apple's new product and PC cheap copy, the less money Apple makes. Nick is giving the competition a head start.

Why would Apple spend money to sue if he wasn't causing them a loss? If you want proof, read the court transcripts when it's over with. I will speculate all I want. This is a "rumor" site.

As for Nick making money from it, your will have to use your brain again. (If it is too much, slow down. Don't force it.) Go to the front page of thinksecret.com. Look at all the advertisement. Be prepared to realize that maybe he isn't doing it for you, or for the love of Apple.

iRobot
2005-01-19, 23:11
@mass transit prohpet. You want figures ask apple. You want to use your brain, read on...

How does Apple make their money? Innovation. The less time between Apple's new product and PC cheap copy, the less money Apple makes. Nick is giving the competition a head start.

Why would Apple spend money to sue if he wasn't causing them a loss? If you want proof, read the court transcripts when it's over with. I will speculate all I want. This is a "rumor" site.

As for Nick making money from it, your will have to use your brain again. (If it is too much, slow down. Don't force it.) Go to the front page of thinksecret.com. Look at all the advertisement. Be prepared to realize that maybe he isn't doing it for you, or for the love of Apple.


I have to say that I'm incredibly offended that you defend your argument by ridiculing the intelligence of others.

Stop being an asshole.

CitizenTony
2005-01-20, 00:36
Go to the front page of thinksecret.com. Look at all the advertisement. Be prepared to realize that maybe he isn't doing it for you, or for the love of Apple.

I really have no opinion on the lawsuit or some of the other subjects brought up in this long thread. I do wonder about the above comment.

I count four ads on the front page of www. thinksecret .com. Do you really think that brings enough monthly revenue to assume he's doing this for the money? With hosting costs, broadband access costs, the amount of time spent gathering information/making up rumours, the amount of time building the site, etc... I can't imagine it would be worth it for financial gain alone, that is, if the amount of money he makes from the ads even covers his hosting bill every month. Not to mention, he had to actually build the site into a high traffic area before advertisers would even bother with it.

This isn't 1999 anymore, and internet advertisements no longer bring that much money. At least, not that I've heard of.

Anyway, carry on with the bickering, at least it's something to read.

mama's left eye
2005-01-20, 05:54
I have to say that I'm incredibly offended that you defend your argument by ridiculing the intelligence of others.

Stop being an asshole.

I don't defend anything by being an asshole. I defended my argument with my opinion. But I will use this as an example.

I post things that you don't like. You want me to stop. You tell me to stop. I believe I have every right to post what I feel. You don't want me to post something, but it is ok for Nick to post trade secrets? Hmmm, I am sensing a big double standard here.

The big differences between this and the ts case is that I didn't solicate the infringment of trade secrets. I also will try to stop being an asshole. I'm not going to try to claim "1st amendment." Maybe if I had an internet lawyer, I would...

mama's left eye
2005-01-20, 05:55
I really have no opinion on the lawsuit or some of the other subjects brought up in this long thread. I do wonder about the above comment.

I count four ads on the front page of www. thinksecret .com. Do you really think that brings enough monthly revenue to assume he's doing this for the money? With hosting costs, broadband access costs, the amount of time spent gathering information/making up rumours, the amount of time building the site, etc... I can't imagine it would be worth it for financial gain alone, that is, if the amount of money he makes from the ads even covers his hosting bill every month. Not to mention, he had to actually build the site into a high traffic area before advertisers would even bother with it.

This isn't 1999 anymore, and internet advertisements no longer bring that much money. At least, not that I've heard of.

Anyway, carry on with the bickering, at least it's something to read.

Whether he makes 2¢ or $30 shouldn't make much difference if he is doing it at the expense of Apple.

scratt
2005-01-20, 06:06
Right on...

For the record I can tell you now that I make several hundred $$ a month from very limited on-site advertising... And that more than covers hosting, renewal etc...

Now I know 'Nicks' site gets a lot more traffic than mine...

Go do the maths...

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-20, 08:12
@mama’s left eye:

Apple does not make money through “innovation.” Money is not made through vague concepts or repetitive metanarratives.

Apple makes its money through the sale of product (whose production resources are dictated by investor confidence – better known as the stock market, whose quantitative elements are measured in stock price loss and stock price gains). Pure and simple.

Both movement of product and stock loss/gains are issues that are material.

Apple’s current budget surplus is extremely high; the sale of the iPod over the Christmas holiday brought in a tremendous influx of capital (the figures of iPod sales are mentioned in Steve’s Keynote). With this excess capital, Apple no longer requires the absolute beck and call of the market for production funds, research and development funds, etc. Indeed, because of the massive profits Apple has taken in, its stock prices have a stopgap from massive investor loss (what Wall Street analyst loses confidence in a company that has such a high budget surplus, popular and critical acclaim, and a cornerstone on “cool”.)

The iPod, perhaps for the first time in the past eight years, has granted Apple a form of economic autonomy from the whims of the market. Investor confidence is at an all time high. Therefore, the chief pivot on whether or not Apple generates profit comes from its ability to move product. (This is what makes the iPod Shuffle and the Mini Mac such brilliant ideas at this moment in Apple’s success; both products have exceedingly low costs and therefore the near-assurance of Apple having the ability to move the product quickly and consistantly.)

Apple’s stock prices will not surge further until Apple increases its market share, even by a percentage point (again another quantitative element).

Even if I were to ask either Apple, or Think Secret, to open their books to the public so that I could see what losses/gains have been incurred neither company would do so. Why is that one might ask? Because both are businesses for whom their financial records are privileged information. Therefore, none of use on this forum are qualified to speak on actual, material loss or gain of either company; such things are folly and absurdity.

“Why would Apple spend money to sue if he wasn’t causing them a loss?” This question has multiple answers of which many have been brought up already. A lawsuit on the precipice of keynote brings both publicity and market interest in Apple’s impending announcements. Filing a lawsuit is an extremely cheep procedure (especially for a company like Apple Corporate, which no doubt has plenty of lawyers already on staff).

Think of the Apple lawsuit as the business equivalent of a commercial. It also has the effect of stopping any further leaks (which has already been brought up). Material loss or not, no corporation appreciates its employees breaking NDA’s and therefore violating their contract agreements. (I do whole-heartedly support prosecution of Apple’s leak…however I do not think they should be suing a reporter to get to his sources. i.e. fifth amendment – freedom of the press protections).

Both of these effects are entirely agreeable to Apple and result in its gain, not its loss.

What I prefer to do is analyze the gaps and fissures in arguments. This is the realm where speculation is meaningful. All analyses have the bent of personal opinion. I make mine in the spaces, ruptures, and fissures where valid speculation can take place. The truth-value of the charges in Apple’s lawsuit cannot be substantiated. Any potential loss or gain by either company cannot be substantiated. For this speculation, we have very few epistemological sources (so you don’t have to look that up – few places from which our knowledge may come). We have reporting on the lawsuit, and Nick’s statement saying he used valid journalistic methods.

Given the limitedness of our sources, it takes effort to make meaningful speculation that does little more than say the same (four letter expletive starting with a d) thing as everyone else on these forums. I have shown that I am capable of this ability. I have tipped my hand. I have yet to see you tip yours.

P.S. The rhetorical technique of countering someone’s argument or opinion through defamation of intellect and character is a wonderful and effective tactic. Ask any schoolyard bully (fully capable of picking on others, but scores a consistent C or D on every assignment) what tactic is their method of choice. Or better, ask anyone who has worked in the 2000 or 2004 presidential campaigns…perhaps you are in the wrong profession.

I will never tell you to stop posting; to do so would be to squelch your freedom of speech (you know, the first amendment). However, I will tell you that you are being infantile.

@iRobot: Gracias for the quick defense.

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-20, 08:38
“The major media, like its racist projections, is to be rejected - not consumed - for your very patronage gives it life.”

Mumia Abu Jamal, All Things Censored

If one objects to Nick’s journalistic practices, meaning that one believes Apple’s allegation that Nick solicited trade secrets, then I do ask the question:

why do you continue to come and post at this site?

This forum has already discussed that Think Secret is a business. It makes money from the hits it gets due to its reporting and its forums.

However, businesses do not function without customers. Each time one comes to this site to expound their opinion, positive or negative, one effectively partakes of the product that Nick offers his customers: the Think Secret website itself. You effectively give him your currency, your “hit”, your internet traffic, when you come to Think Secret.

When I don’t like a businesses practices, you know what I do – I don’t buy the product.

If I don’t like Nike’s use of sweatshop labor – I don’t buy Nikes. If I don’t like Coca-Cola’s anti-union practices in Columbia – I don’t buy Coke. If I don’t like Walmart’s forcing of its suppliers down to rock bottom price to put product on their shelves (a policy that nearly guarantees that almost every product sold in Walmart is produced via means of a sweatshop to keep cost down) – I don’t buy Walmart. If I don’t like Ford or Exxon/Mobil’s funding of Bush’s inauguration gala (as opposed to using the money for defensive equipment for our boys dying in Iraq) – I don’t buy what they have to sell.

I find this a curious contradiction and I wonder how several of you manage to negotiate this ethical dilemma. In Mumia’s words, “your very patronage gives it life.”

I really am interested in answers to this question. I would not have put it out there if I wasn’t looking for answers (as your continued visiting and arguing gives the site I support more hits).

scratt
2005-01-20, 08:54
Even if I were to ask either Apple, or Think Secret, to open their books to the public so that I could see what losses/gains have been incurred neither company would do so. Why is that one might ask? Because both are businesses for whom their financial records are privileged information. Therefore, none of use on this forum are qualified to speak on actual, material loss or gain of either company; such things are folly and absurdity.


erm... Apple are a public company and as such they do publish their accounts. They have to by law.

'Nicks' 'Outfit' is a small internet site which trades on the theft or innapropriate gleaning of information which is not his intellectual property. He does not publish accounts. He doesn't have to as he is not a Public Company. He is however guilty as charged and Apple are in the right to pursue.

How you can say 'none of us are qualified to speak on...' and then launch into your version of the world baffles me! :err:

scratt
2005-01-20, 08:56
And another thing... Apples entire business strategy is based on 'innovation' and by definition they must therefore rely on 'innovation' in order to have a revenue stream...

scratt
2005-01-20, 09:03
why do you continue to come and post at this site?


This site is a separate entity from Think Secret.. Just because, for example, my business sites link to other peoples companies, and visa-versa, does not mean we are in 'bed together'.

Now as for challenging people for infantile tactics and insults etc.. Ref. Your school yard bully espousement... To then go on and insult someone right after even obliquely rather dulls your point, so to speak.

Hey, and using big words doesn't mean that what you say is any more right or wrong... Using them and then being conceited about it is the height of bad taste. At the end of the day your post just has big words in it. The actual content needs work.. Concentrate on substance before worrying about embellishment. Be careful you don't trip yourself up trying to be too clever. :p :smokey:

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-20, 09:09
@Scratt: I'll bite that one. It is best to admit one's mistakes. Apple is a public company. It has to submit quarterly financial statements to its shareholders.

(How embarrassing. Especially after my earlier rant on Corporate Charters as requiring that a corporation exist for the public good. To quote Charlie Brown, Good Grief.)

However, no one on THIS forum has numbers for these gains/losses yet. This has all occured during the current fiscal quarter, with no statement available to shareholders, i.e. the bastion of public corporate accountability. No statement has been made to the public on Apple's losses by the hands of the dastardly Think Secret.

And again, as for Nick being guilty as charged. That one is for a jury to decide. Charges are mere allegations. Convictions are the acceptance of the allegations as true <beyond reasonable doubt.> I think there is still plenty of a case for reasonable account.

This juror for one is unconvinced; but I'll be keeping a close eye on the trial precedings.

(As for the mass_transit_prophet verson of the world...how does one reply to that? All one has is their own version(s) of the world...I try to keep mine as well informed as possible.)

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-20, 09:27
@scratt: Look at anyone of my posts and you'll find plenty of content. I don't even need to comment on that.

Mama's left eye's post was plenty infantile. To simply state this is not an insult. I can post some pretty infantile things once and a while. I'll admit my "so you don't have to look it up" comment was plenty infantile. Though, I thought it a pretty restrained response considered the repeated strikes on my intellegence in Mama's left eye's post.

As for big words, I've existed in academia all my life. When I use big words, its because there are concepts associated with them. If I sound pompous and arrogant, that's not necessarily how I mean to come off. I'm the first to admit that I AM pompous and arrogant. However, that is completely separate from my vocabulary.

Also, is this not the Forums site off of Think Secret (a tab on Nick's site: the first being "News", the second being "Archives", the third being "Message Board", etc.)? How are these two sites associated? I believe this site to be merely an extension of Nick's site (or at bare minimum a strategic partnership).

Is not profiting off someone else loss simply aquiescence for the behavior to continue? If you claim that Apple lost something by this news being broke, and you use this news to further your own site (thereby extending the reach and influence of the news...furthering the damage - if the hypothetical damage is the spread of this information before Steve's keynote) they are you not party to this as well? Perhaps you should have asked the question of, "Where did TS's information come from?" before using it to advantage.

Me think you doth pertest to much.

scratt
2005-01-20, 10:03
Also, is this not the Forums site off of Think Secret (a tab on Nick's site: the first being "News", the second being "Archives", the third being "Message Board", etc.)? How are these two sites associated? I believe this site to be merely an extension of Nick's site (or at bare minimum a strategic partnership).

There is a lot of history to do with these sites, and how this forum came about. I am a relative newcomer to this community. It peaked my interest as I got into many battles myself at the Apple forums when witnessing outrageous behaviour by certain 'moderators', and eventually got bored of it all and became a cyber refugee.... The final straw came when I found that the word 'suck' was censored! I was actually trying to post about using a hoover to clean parts of a computer!!! Hence my arrival at Applenova... I like it here. I am not sure whether people are happy or sad that I hang out here.. but I like it, so I think I'll stick around!!! I digress... there are many references to the origin of this site here in the forums, and if I understand correctly the link to Think Secret is nothing more than part of the break down of the old forum, from which most of the orignal folks here are refugees.. I think quite a few people here hold 'Nick' in high regard, others don't. I am not bothered either way, but think that he could do with some polish and savvy. With regard to forum history - Please correct me if I am wrong, those who watch from above! ;)

Applenova is definitely not part of 'Nicks' 'erm 'empire!?!?'! :err: (*tongue firmly in cheek with the 'empire' reference!!*)

Now as to the whys and wherefores of the alleged crime... 'Nick' has been using information which is not his to use. Period. So there is a case to answer... A good journalist, like a good cop, must operate within the bounds of certain rules of ethic and law. 'Nick' has not done so (for some time), and there are reasonable grounds to suspect him of actually 'feeding' his stories with information that he has solicited. His actions are irresponcible and they are also well within Apple's domain of (shall we say) prejudice.

Unless someone pulls a hat out of the bag, assuming this thing ever gets to trial, or a settlement (which I doubt) then 'Nick' has got some fancy footwork to do to get himself out of this mess....

In the end I suspect he will roll over on the guys who fed him...

mama's left eye
2005-01-20, 10:35
Mama's left eye's post was plenty infantile. To simply state this is not an insult. I can post some pretty infantile things once and a while. I'll admit my "so you don't have to look it up" comment was plenty infantile. Though, I thought it a pretty restrained response considered the repeated strikes on my intellegence in Mama's left eye's post.


It got your attention, didn't it? Do I think you aren't intelligent? I haven't the slightest clue, I haven't met you. If you do have some lights on in your brain housing group, you should know that I, nor anyone else on the forum can do what you asked.

"@mama's left eye: Prove that Nick has cost Apple money. I don't mean speculate on possible competition advantage or stock effects. Lets see some figures. "

That's a job for the courts. If someone here can prove that it costs or doesn't cost Apple money, I think I know where you can find a job. Asking questions you know can't be answered can also be a very good tactic in an argument. Ask that same school bully you mentioned earlier.

mass_transit_prophet
2005-01-20, 10:39
Gracias for the update on da history scratt. As you can tell, I am exceedingly new to the forums myself. I try making sure that I read as much as I can before I post - hense the low post count.

I only had the article on Applenova's home page by LoCash to run from describing their partnership.

I have a tendency to side towards the individual (or smaller business) vs. the larger corporation. It shows in all of my posts...it comes from the more marxist side of my thinking. I have no knowledge of Nick whatsoever...I just have a predisposition to defend the figurative little guy. (How big the "little guy" is is something I do not know...just smaller than Apple that's all).

As I have no history with this place, however, I also had no reason to particularily suspect that Nick has frequently done things to bring question to his journalism (I was aware of the s&d letter sent to him...but I know plenty of companies that use them frivolously to shut up news sources.)

Here's to an entertaining series of legal procedings. Cheers!

CitizenTony
2005-01-20, 10:50
Whether he makes 2¢ or $30 shouldn't make much difference if he is doing it at the expense of Apple.

To that, you are correct. Though, I was voicing concern over your earlier implication that TS was in this for the money, not the fun/fame/etc...

To again quote:

Go to the front page of thinksecret.com. Look at all the advertisement. Be prepared to realize that maybe he isn't doing it for you, or for the love of Apple.

To which, I disagreed.

CitizenTony
2005-01-20, 10:59
Right on...

For the record I can tell you now that I make several hundred $$ a month from very limited on-site advertising... And that more than covers hosting, renewal etc...

Now I know 'Nicks' site gets a lot more traffic than mine...

Go do the maths...

As I said, I was unaware of how much on-line ads brought in these days. Even still, I truly doubt he's in it for the money more than for the fun, but if he pulls more than $1k a month it does raise an eyebrow. Esp. when you figure how easy it is to garner traffic around any DC with false rumours, and more so with the true stats. If he pulls more than $2-3k a month, which is more than $8-10 an hour after taxes. The implication of him truly seeking out sources for hits to his site really could come into play in the court room. More so when you consider his age and student status.

It would be more than intresting to know this information.

LoCash
2005-01-20, 11:04
I'm sticking a fork in it, this thread is done folks.

And to whomever asked earlier, yeah, I pretty much did just pop in on the last page to drop in my own opinion. :p