[scratt]

Originally Posted by hungsnguyen 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]

Amen to that, Mass_transit_prophet.

Amen

[mama's left eye]

Originally Posted by usurp 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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by scratt 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]

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]

Originally Posted by alcimedes 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]

Sweets are analogous to the recognition and importance (even anonymous) posited to its sources.

[mass_transit_prophet]

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]

Originally Posted by mrhilaryduff 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scratt 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye @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]

Originally Posted by mama's left eye 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]

Originally Posted by iRobot 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]

Originally Posted by CitizenTony 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]

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...