User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

Ruling Made in Apple vs. Think Secret Case


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Ruling Made in Apple vs. Think Secret Case
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last Thread Tools
LoCash
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2005-03-04, 10:29

A San Jose judge ruled today that three web sites including Think Secret can be forced by Apple to surrender the names of sources that released confidential information. Gizmodo has an opinion and Mac Daily News has some background on the case.

It is with great regret that we say our farewells to Jack, who passed away on May 28th, 2005. Jack, you will be missed by all

Superior thinking has always overwhelmed superior force. - Marine Corps Officers

"You don't lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership." - General Eisenhower
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-03-04, 10:42

Wow. That strikes a pretty hard blow not just to TS but to journalists everywhere. This could easily be used as a precedent for subpoenaing journalists of the more "respected" written mediums as well.

Whoosh!! What was that sound? That was the sound of more freedoms getting sucked away by the American judicial system.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
ast3r3x
25 chars of wasted space.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to ast3r3x  
2005-03-04, 10:57

I think everyone is used to that sound by now.
  quote
Marcellus Wallace
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rotterdam, Holland!
 
2005-03-04, 10:59

Are they stark raving mad?! This will absolutely not do 'Judge' James Kleinberg... what a nerve!
  quote
zman2005
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-03-04, 11:00

yes, big brother is always watching, propaply reading this right now lol hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm haha
  quote
Marcellus Wallace
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rotterdam, Holland!
 
2005-03-04, 11:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman2005
yes, big brother is always watching, propaply reading this right now lol hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm haha
'1984 won't be like 1984'... yep: up my ass!
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2005-03-04, 11:10

Hmmm.... It would seem that they're treating "breaking an NDA" as a crime rather than a breach of contract. IIRC, if you know someone broke the law and don't report them, you're considered an accomplice. Under normal circumstances proving that you knew something is rather difficult because as long as you weren't actually involved, there won't be any evidence and if you're questioned you can just play dumb. Journalists, OTOH, publish their info, making their knowledge rather obvious.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2005-03-04, 11:12

I hate to be an ass or something, but journalist sources were never protected by law (at least not a federal one). This is nothing new. The only laws I know of in a state to protect anonymous sources are for exposing corruption. But that's not what this is.

Hopefully Nick kept all of his sources anonymous.

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
Marcellus Wallace
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rotterdam, Holland!
 
2005-03-04, 11:16

# I fought da law, and da law won... # I fought da law, and da law won...
sheesh.
  quote
SKMDC
superkaratemonkeydeathcar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: chicago
Send a message via AIM to SKMDC  
2005-03-04, 11:29

this is very early in the process to say anyone has won.
  quote
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2005-03-04, 12:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by alcimedes
I hate to be an ass or something, but journalist sources were never protected by law (at least not a federal one). This is nothing new. The only laws I know of in a state to protect anonymous sources are for exposing corruption. But that's not what this is.

Hopefully Nick kept all of his sources anonymous.
Really? If that's true and Nick kept records, then he acted like an idiot.
  quote
The Return of the 'nut
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley
 
2005-03-04, 13:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Wow. That strikes a pretty hard blow not just to TS but to journalists everywhere. This could easily be used as a precedent for subpoenaing journalists of the more "respected" written mediums as well.

Whoosh!! What was that sound? That was the sound of more freedoms getting sucked away by the American judicial system.
may I ask you to please explain how this is sucking away your "freedom" or anyone else's?

I'm tired of people interpreting freedom as meaning you are free to do whatever you want.
  quote
oingoboingo
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-03-04, 13:28

Quote:
I'm tired of people interpreting freedom as meaning you are free to do whatever you want.
If you're saying De Plume did something wrong, then he can take the 5th Ammendment.
  quote
FFL
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2005-03-04, 13:49

LOL, look at all these words like "crime" and "5th Amendment" being tossed about. Geez, does anyone here know the difference between a criminal and a civil case?
  quote
Banana
is the next Chiquita
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2005-03-04, 14:41

I know! I know!

Civil is where they play it nice. Criminal is where they shoot people, right?!

  quote
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-03-04, 16:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFL
LOL, look at all these words like "crime" and "5th Amendment" being tossed about. Geez, does anyone here know the difference between a criminal and a civil case?
Exactly. The judge didn't say ThinkSecret has to reveal sources to the police, only to Apple. Though, I still don't understand why a third party (TS) has to comply or agree to disclose anything having to do with a contract b/w Apple and its employees . Is this judicial legislation at work?
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-04, 17:03

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezkcdude
Exactly. The judge didn't say ThinkSecret has to reveal sources to the police, only to Apple. Though, I still don't understand why a third party (TS) has to comply or agree to disclose anything having to do with a contract b/w Apple and its employees . Is this judicial legislation at work?
Some sources of ts, ai, and Powerpage all believe to be under NDA, so they are breaking NDA by giving confidential info. Apple just wants to find out who broke them and punish them. If these sites comply, they will not be sued.

giggity
  quote
The Return of the 'nut
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley
 
2005-03-04, 19:08

i also tend to believe that "nick" has/had an ADC account.
  quote
LoCash
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2005-03-04, 19:14

Actually, the ruling says that Apple may now force the web sites listed in the suit to reveal their sources. Whether or not Apple is still going to do that is up to them again.

It is with great regret that we say our farewells to Jack, who passed away on May 28th, 2005. Jack, you will be missed by all

Superior thinking has always overwhelmed superior force. - Marine Corps Officers

"You don't lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership." - General Eisenhower
  quote
Mero
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Seattle, Washington
Send a message via AIM to Mero  
2005-03-04, 23:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Wow. That strikes a pretty hard blow not just to TS but to journalists everywhere. This could easily be used as a precedent for subpoenaing journalists of the more "respected" written mediums as well.

Whoosh!! What was that sound? That was the sound of more freedoms getting sucked away by the American judicial system.
Taking a companies trade secrets and placing them on the internet is not "journalism." It has never been journalism. And it has always been unacceptable. There is nothing new here.

If I buy drugs from someone who smuggled it out of Columbia, you think it's ok to only hold the person who smuggled it into the country responsible for a crime and let me go without incedent?

Sure, if Apple was breaking the law and these so called "journalists" acted as a whistle blower that would be great; this is not the case.

Burn it on a Mac, dig! :cool:
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-03-05, 00:49

This all depends on how the judge put things into context. If this only applies to people who divulge corporate trade secrets, that's one thing. If it applies to any journalist who is say reporting something from an anonymous whistle-blower or similiar scenario, this is total shit and should be knocked down by a higher court right away.

PS - technically speaking, Nick is not a journalist anymore than the people who write for Teen magazine are journalists IMO. Just having a scoop on something and repeating it is not really journalism. But I enjoy his stuff all the same so I hope whatever appeal they submitted today (see his site) goes through somehow.

...into the light of a dark black night.
  quote
MarkTime
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2005-03-06, 02:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut
may I ask you to please explain how this is sucking away your "freedom" or anyone else's?

I'm tired of people interpreting freedom as meaning you are free to do whatever you want.
yes, you may ask, but it doesn't sound, from your 2nd sentence that you are waiting on an answer.

But anyway, jumping on the wayback machine, in royal ole' england one of the ideas of the hated monarchy was the king could decide who was a journalist and who was not...(an idea later adopted by soviet union communism too, except substitute 'king' with party leadership).

anyway, the founding fathers decided government would not ever decide who was a journalist. If you publish a story, you are a journalist....write a journal, journal-ist...see

fast forward to now, California state law does protect journalists...Apple actually has the gall, to ask the Court to decide that online news portals are not real journalists...if the judge bites, for the first time in history, the government will set standards for who is a journalist and who is not.

This is very far reaching and a fundamental change to how free speech works.

'thank your Father kids'

does Apple really want to be at the forefront of anti-free speech movement?

Apple will be historically linked with this boneheaded decision, and all because Steve Jobs is a control freak. I'm not sure they are really thinking this one through.

Sigh...I'm not shocked in anyway, by the complete inability for people to understand things in historical context... it's simply not an easy thing to do, and i have to say, I'm not sure I could do it. But I am somewhat familiar with some of the low lights of the Soviet Union (how did they enter this discussion you may ask)...well, American freedoms are the envy of the world, but your willingness to toss those freedoms aside, is just astonishing and to be totally honest, makes me a bit sick.

I can tell you, you really don't need the government deciding that teen beat is not journalism, and washington post is journalism.

Don't you realize, this system set up by Thomas Jefferson and the gang has worked for a long time! You are going to fundamentally change it now, and for what....because the mac mini was leaked a week or two early.

to be totally honest, I'm being reserved here, but what I really want to do, is take every last one of you that agrees with apple and stick your head in the toilet and let it flush....

Last edited by MarkTime : 2005-03-06 at 02:30.
  quote
Somynona
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-03-06, 06:51

Wikipedia has a page on the case (which anyone can contribute to):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Does
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-03-06, 07:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Hmmm.... It would seem that they're treating "breaking an NDA" as a crime rather than a breach of contract. IIRC, if you know someone broke the law and don't report them, you're considered an accomplice. Under normal circumstances proving that you knew something is rather difficult because as long as you weren't actually involved, there won't be any evidence and if you're questioned you can just play dumb. Journalists, OTOH, publish their info, making their knowledge rather obvious.
Just to clarify something here. Theft is criminal. Stealing secrets is theft.
That opens up the pandoras box and allows the criminal law to be applied... and rightly so IMHO.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Somynona
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-03-06, 07:32

As is noted, the people Apple are suing never particpated in the theft of anything.
  quote
Somynona
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-03-06, 07:41

It's also worth noting that Apple's incredibly weak argument is that 'the public had no interest in the leaked information, and that only Apple's competitors could gain from the knowledge of the leaked product.' Clearly, judging by the 3 website's audiences, uncluding ourselves, this is complete and utter tripe.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-03-06, 07:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somynona
As is noted, the people Apple are suing never particpated in the theft of anything.
Er! Der... Yes they did. They were in receipt of stolen intellectual property and in fact probably could be accused of inciting those people to give out the secrets.

As the people who gave them the secrets were allowed to have them but not disclose them they are simply in breach of an NDA, however once the defendants accepted that information they had in fact participated in a theft.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Somynona
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-03-06, 07:54

Firstly, as you note, they didn't steal anything: they were in "receipt" of information, information that the public had an interest in knowing. It's not called theft, it's called news.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-03-06, 08:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somynona
Firstly, as you note, they didn't steal anything: they were in "receipt" of information, information that the public had an interest in knowing. It's not called theft, it's called news.
Your definition may hold in your own world-view, unfortunately your interpretation of the facts of the case are just totally incorrect. When you actually understand the law surrounding this case I suggest you come back into the discussion. Until then I suggest you go and read up a little bit.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Somynona
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2005-03-06, 09:10

Maybe you should respond to my argument instead of sidestepping with a personal remark. I could equally respond to you that "your definition may hold in your own world-view" and that "your interpretation of the facts of the case are just totally incorrect". I won't though because it's a silly emotional argument based on nothing.

In the end it boils down to a question of what is considered more important: corporate rights or public rights, corporate power or constitutional power, trade secrets or freedom of the press. (and even if you believe Think Secret, etc. do not constitute "the press" only someone with blinkers on would refuse to admit that a ruling in favour of Apple could have far-reaching implications for the press)

For those who are true patriots of the U.S. (i.e. those that love their country and their constitution) the answer will be obvious: the constitution trumps any corporation and should not be watered down to benefit corporations at the cost of the public. For those who love corporations (and often governments) more than their country the answer will also be obvious: corporate rights trump constitutional rights and shouldn't be let to stand in the way of profit and power.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation about Sony and Apple Corpus_Callosum Speculation and Rumors 59 2005-04-24 13:06
Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret cambridgebrian Speculation and Rumors 162 2005-01-20 11:04
What is it with Apples Jules26 Apple Products 79 2005-01-18 04:33
Think Secret opens the MWSF floodgates (iLife, mini Mac, iWork, flash iPod) Frank777 Speculation and Rumors 340 2005-01-11 18:00
Apple livid over Toshiba iPod leak curiousuburb Speculation and Rumors 11 2004-06-05 17:49


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2023, AppleNova