|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Nick haters are becoming very personal now, which says a lot about their arguments.
|
| quote |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
Please bear with me in this epic post, I'm sure I have a point somewhere in it... I've been studying all aspects of harassment and whistle blowing, regarding both UK and US law, for around 18 months, prompted by the poor treatment of workers - of which I was responsible for - and myself at the hands of a serial bully in the management chain. And once I get on the offensive - I don't let it lie. After all, in a world full of PCs - I choose to defend the Mac. But what the bully, in his idiocy, forgets is that in my job as a web based news reporter, reporting company image as portrayed in the press to multi-nationals and workers' unions alike - I get to correlate a vast range of data on high-profile actions against companies and individuals for wrong-doing both in and out of the workplace. (Long boring story of how I was nearly shit-on, that I'm completely sick of repeating to people - but hey - the guy basically messed with one of the best and will lose). My approach to the boss will be through "whistle blowing" - >BUT< only because it protects me in a number of ways otherwise not available to me through a more direct action (like laying down specific charges - which I really should be taking), such as disclosure, unfair dismissal and retaliation. Whistle blowing also has a couple of backdoor get out clauses attached to it, whereby a case can be allowed to just fade away. However, this method is completely defensive and does indicate that I accept that I may be found in the wrong (in my case, because the bully found my incident logs and disposed of them whilst I wan't around - Stupid, I am - Jedi I am not-mmm mmM). So without strong written evidence, whistle blowing is just about the only real alternative. Pause for breath... and In Nick's/Apple's case, and I haven't totally checked out the whistle blowing element yet, it leaves room for the incident to be dropped - or at worst for Nick to admit that he had solicited the info illegally (which for me is still up in the air after reading more informed posts - you know who you are) and walk away with just minor injuries to his feelings/bank balance/slapped wrists, etc-etc. But in all honesty, at this point in time, I can't actually see how the term can be used to discribe Nick's position - besides covering his ass in preperation for a rogering. I've logged it under WtF for now until I read more. Respect (disgruntled employee) TEMPEST: And they said I would be a one-post-wonder, ha... Last edited by waveydavey : 2005-03-21 at 06:35. Reason: Is my mum still charging you? Cos everyone else gets it for free!!! |
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
 Whistle-blowing? How did that get here? I don't see that being an issue here... 5th amendment? I don't see why we're discussing that as well.... The issue here is, 1) DId Nick break any law by publishing illegal information? 2) Should Nick be forced to give up his sources so Apple can deal punishment to those who broke the NDAs? 3) Are bloggers, web journalists and the like entitled to same protection/benefits/rights as the mainstream journalist, and how will that be done without unreasonably restricting the free press part of 1st amendment? If we're going to add anything else to that list, at least make clear why it is a issue. I don't see what Nick did can be classified as whistle blowing, neither whether he can plead 5th. (besides, if I'm not mistaken, you can't plead 5th in a court of law, and especially if you have a lawyer to assist you with the line of questioning) At this point; what I can see is- We have no definition of journalism. Thus Nick is in a gray area and the court need to sort it out. Related to above, we need to decide whether Sheild Law can be used in this case where Nick discloses some trade secret, and do not have to give up sources. Few more points- I want to re-affirm- even if Apple was in right, I do think they're barking up the wrong tree by going after Nick. To me, it's analogous to asking Mafia leader to take out a thug, who is a cousin to the leader, who works for Mafia because that thug cussed your wife. They may cooperate. But more likely, they won't and give you good ol' sweating. Apple would have far more easier time if they controlled their secrets to point where it was impossible for anyone to leak without leak being traced to that person (e.g. because that person is only one who knows anything about that particular feature) or other similar controls. I already stated that for better or for worse, free press by necessity, will have to tolerate shaddily and shady journalistic works and leave it all up to the public to digest the news. To my mind, it's not as much of a question of Nick's responsiblity, but as well public's. Magnus at least makes one point; if we don't like rumors, don't visit rumor mills. The cold, hard reality is that it's nothing more than a noble sentiment. People will still go there to get the latest scoop, and why not? They want the most bang for their bucks, given Apple's upgrade cycle patterns. I am also curious- Did Nick profit from that leak? |
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
We're trying to clear up what this case (these cases) does and does not entail, and whistleblowing does not enter into this one at all, even though some folks are trying to make a link. So yeah, you're right, it needs to be cleared off the board.  Quote:
Consistently good information raises his reputation as a 'good source', which means people are more likely to click on a link to his site instead of ignoring it (like, say, MOSR) -> he profits both in public opinion and monetarily. Yeah, he profits. Kind of weakens the 'lone wolf reporter out for the good of the public' image, in my mind. |
||
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
 |
Spot on.......
|
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now please, just go away. You're not contributing anything to the thread other than bile. Banana, please post more. |
|||||
| quote |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
Again, Please read my first post. I wish to rally people to send a msg to apple regarding the stupidity of their actions. 1. The argument that Apple cannot abide the leakage of screenshots, etc is ridiculous on it's face. If you really beleive that MS doesn't just have people who pay the whopping $500 to receive copies and then look at them you are out of your mind. Also, they post the screenshots of it on their site currently!! Furthermore, the hype about the mac mini did nothing to reach the masses, it reached a small core of committed fans. Big damn deal. I swear, by the way I was attacked for viewing this differently, I'm supprised some of you aren't calling for the death penalty. (Please flaming jackals, reserve your attacks for your own brain cells as they are almost vanquished and your quest completed) 2. I beleive that Apple, which was kept alive by nothing moreso than the faith of its most evangelical supporters during it's long foray into stupidity and near death, does both itself and it's supports a GREAT disservice by punishing its most avid fans. Just as the music industry was proven moronic for refusing to do what Itunes Store now profits from, Apple should find a solution to adress the needs of it's consumers not punish them for wanting more. Apple sold the beta of 10.0 for a profit and the sales of 10.0 were not diminished. If people so desperately want to play with a beta with all it's bugs then dammit, don't sue them, PROFIT FROM THEM!! Stop worring about suing the nda leakers of the beta because I have no doubt that people would rather just buy it for a small fee. And time limit them to stop people using them instead of the final product. (again, I have said this before but NOT ONCE has anyone written a sentance discussing this fact, instead they write personal attacks) So clearly you can see I am not an attacker, but at this point I do preemtivly respond to the attacks that any viewpoint other than their own recieve here. |
|
| quote |
|
I shot the sherrif.
Join Date: May 2004
 |
my god. i have no idea where to even start on this. i suppose i could go back and wipe out all the crap, but that would take forever. i could lock up the thread but there was actually a lot of good discussion until recently.
how about instead every goes back on topic, and leave the insults at home. there's plenty of meat to this story for some meaningful discussion/dialogue. no reason it has to sink this low. 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 |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
I agree and will ignore any further personal attacks in all posts. I have made clear the origin of my first post, explained that my statement was regarding APPLE's foolishness not any one person here, and made clear that calling something that is the definition of hypocrisy by that name is not a personal attack as some have tried to claim. I have listed the purpose I was posting for and made clear that I only reached this forum because it is the forum from a Mac rumors site and my viewpoint is such. I wish to extend my hand to any and all who have offended my and been offended by me and declare the slate clean. I wish this had been posted earlier for I fear my dedication to logical discussion has lengthened this thread far enough that I must apologize. This is a worthy topic and it has room for differing views. |
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Let's try and take a different perspective. Everybody, take off your legal glasses.
First question: Does AN's affilation to TS imply that we are encouraging rumor mongering, and thus promoting NDA leakage? As I said earlier, that question is really moot when we decide that it's ultimately up to Apple to keep secret a secret. Contracts of any kind are rarely ironbound and there's always exceptions. Kinda like English grammar when you think about it. Even if Apple has legal footing and win the case, Apple is actually doing it the hard way, and yes, maybe even alienating people along the way. Thus, Apple would be wise to learn from NSA. uh... scratch that... KGB.... yeah, maybe. KGB. Yep, KGB should be the ticket.  Second question: Is Apple making same mistake as musical business (was that RIAA? I didn't follow that Napster thingy too closely) and setting itself up for a painful failure in future? I don't have a crystal ball, but I do think there are something to be considered- 1. We have a NDA breach. With Napster, there wasn't any secret being passed around... They were already out of the bag. You just can't have them for free. 2. Whereas RIAA is essentially a congmelate (yes, I'm a great speeler!) of major music business, Apple is a minority player and thus has more stakes than RIAA. I wouldn't dispute that RIAA's actions are largely superficial and self-promoting, whereas Apple, can be argued as defending its livelihood? (e.g. Do we wanna Dell to eat up Apple's mini for example?) 3. Apple always, or at least always has been secretive... and I don't think they're going to change the pattern. Numbers of rumor sites dedicated to scoops on Apple's doings testifies to that. RIAA basically tried to foster a new paradigm... or at least make a paradigm the way they want it on the public who had a different paradigm. Thus the big clash. I hope that makes sense out of what was being flamed just before. |
| quote |
|
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley
|
off topic -alcimedes (rest of post was on topic)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| quote |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
First quesion: I see your point about AN and I now that I understand the relationship, I'm not very inclined to the view of this site supporting the rumor sites. I just didn't have any reason to imagine that the forum for thinksecret would be a different site. That's all. Second: 1. The NDA matter is a truly sticky one, but I just think Apple could find a more creative solution that embraces and grows its support instead of strangling it. In the past they have done foolish things, but in the past they were also losing $40 million dollars a quarter. I think they can and should do better than this action. I think the essential thing to compare is the mentality. RIAA wanted the same things these people always wanted: control at it's absolute even to the detriment of themeselves in the end. It took the supreme court of the US to strike down laws agains VCR's and dvd players, cd recorders, etc... when they could have changed their model to profit from people's desires for one song, not an album, they refused and attacked people for not bending to their will. That's the essential viewpoint I'm arguing against. 2. I feel that the majority of things being leaked that they are going after are already leaked in one form or another in the real world. The damage is slight from my view. Software is already unveiled most of the time it's in beta, the hardware was leaked to such a small group I don't think it mattered much except to spur sales from that group. I tried to explain that in other posts but couldn't get a factual discussion of this. |
|
| quote |
|
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley
|
please respond to my post. it's what you wanted, someone to dispute your "claims".
|
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Whatever. Back on topic...
Throughout all of this, I don't think anybody has analyzed California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Well, here it is (I presume this is the full law code). The opening section I want to highlight are given below. Caveat: I'm no lawyer, nor have any learning in the judicial arts, so all my comments will admittedly be rather superficial and/or naive. Code:
3426.1. As used in this title, unless the context requires
otherwise:
(a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation,
breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or
espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or
independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means. This seems rather straightforward.Code:
(b) "Misappropriation" means:
(1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows
or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper
means; or
(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express
or implied consent by a person who:
(A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
or
(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know
that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
means to acquire it;
(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had
reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it
had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(c) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust,
estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association,
joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any
other legal or commercial entity.
(d) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula,
pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process,
that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Putting the "TS supports Apple/Ciarelli is an Apple fan, not foe/Ciarelli is a journalist" arguments aside for the moment, it appears there was some illegality on TS's part. At least, that seems to be the opinion of at least two legal scholars:Quote:
|
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Now, here's where the things get really ugly.
The legal system do not always agree with ethics/morals/whatever you call it. On the surface (and that's a stretch), Apple has a legal standing to prosecute Nick for blah blah. That's regardless whether 1. The leaks actually benefits Apple 2. The leaks are widespread. Usually contracts has a clause saying something about negilence of contract does not necessarily breach the contract or something like that. I can't remember the legal term for that one clause. But basically, just because there were leaks in past, does not void and null the NDA, and that's true even if the past leaks did not lead to any consequences whatsoever. Legal systems are a contrived thing and will sooner call black white and white black than reveal itself in simple form for anyone to understand. So, basically, if you feel that the whole scheme of RIAA/Apple dominating for total dominance over their products and wrapping in shrouds after shrouds of deep, dark, dank secrets, the only thing to do about this is to get the laws changed to reflect the sentiments. I find it really galling is that the status quo never ever reflects anything that was intended to fix what was the wrong with it in first place. Reality rears her ugly head. |
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
LudwigVan
Thank you for the links. |
| quote |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Since this post from return of the nut contains arguments and discussion I can safely reply ignoring his first part which contains more of the personal attacks.
"you think you reading a rumor site helps apple? how?" You do point out some of the negatives that can occur and I don't dispute that some people hold off buying. But those posts on rumor sites are almost always just before mac world or such events. They people know that a new power mac or imac or such is coming, and I doubt very much the impact is that strong in the negative. But you must also consider the continual impact of keeping people interested in Apple and it's products on such a level that they spend that much time going to these sites. It's advertising on a level Apple simply cannot buy because it's genuine love of the product not purchased flat ads. Apple doesn't even run TV ads for it's non music products, let alone for it's OS. It benifits in many ways that are not exact, but are referred to as "in kind." I said this many times, but you never discussed it. "500 dollars gets you an ADC membership and a tight NDA. You dont get hardware seeds. You get occassional seeds of OS X. I don't see how this point is related to this case at all. Apple is pursuing sources of hardware leeks." I read back when it happened that apple begain this attack clear back when a developer build of 10.4 got leaked. I saw that was one of the major areas that they are pursuing. I don't think that the rumor site should have posted pics of the mac mini. I think that was a mistake because the leaks making people curious help, but the picture deflates that. The hardware info contained hardly any details and the idea that Apple has to meet these expectations doesn't seem very strong to me. The rare rumor that CNN ran is an exception not the rule. "what service is that? and do we deserve a service that is illegal? You are debating this from the point of view of someone who likes rumors. Not from a legal point of view like everyone else in this thread. Guess what, this case is going to be decided on the law, not what you think is a service to users and Apple." Would you like any one of those answered? That is a verbal pile on to me and it is not appreciated. I explain above the service I feel they offer both the user AND Apple. The legality of the service is the same as every story every broken by a journalist. Do you also feel that the pentagon papers should simply never have been published? do you also think woodword and Berstein should be in Irons? I am shocked, I say, shocked that a case in a court of law with a judge would depend on the law and not my decision. I suppose I can finally leave my house since they're not calling to get my opinion. (BTW that is called sarcasm. You wrote this in a personal attacking way and I'm not playing into that again.) |
| quote |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Quote:
There is nothing legally to support him other than the journalism argument and that's a very thin line with the NDA's. (as an aside, I wish you could all read the swear filled things return of the nut keeps sending me. It's pretty funny since I won't respond his attacks anymore.) |
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
/tangential
Quote:
/tangential |
|
| quote |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
The formula for Coca Cola is a trade secret. A description of the product, that would be obvious when the product is released, is not a trade secret.
|
| quote |
|
Not sayin', just sayin'
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
  |
Thanks for doing the legwork there, LudwigVan. That "misappropriation" claim seems like the area where Ciarelli has the greatest exposure, plus it clears up the debate over whether some of this stuff is considered trade secrets at all. The law seems to consider someone in Ciarelli's position to be aiding and abetting. The case would be to prove that Ciarelli has reason to know of the NDA, which is probably not too hard if you use common sense, but the courts don't necessarily follow common sense.
[added] As far as what constitutes a trade secret, I supose you have to argue whether a description of the product violates any of these definitions: Quote:
***this opinion/analysis is from a very non-lawyer type*** |
|
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
|
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Quote:
 IMO, if I said, "a G4 chip in a small box" that's a description, because it is conveciable before mini came out. If I said, "Using xxx and yyy to put G4 and VC and RAM into single shared space, and using zzz to cool the small space" that's trade secret. Someone above mentioned that a picture was posted on the article.... I can't find the article (didn't really look that hard). If that's the case and that picture was in fact posted prior to the release, then yes, Nick is screwed. |
|
| quote |
|
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rare rumor that CNN ran is not an exception. CNet, eWeek, financial websites, even the NYT have all picked up on ThinkSecret's articles. Quote:
Also, you continue to write PMs to me telling me that you will not respond to me and the moderators will see the light of your view or some BS. stop making excuses for yourself |
|||||||
| quote |
|
I shot the sherrif.
Join Date: May 2004
|
there was no picture, IIRC. and to be honest, i'm not sure how it could be much of a trade secret when Apple themselves had already produced the cube. a headless mac with a small form factor.
this was basically the same exact concept only smaller, and didn't contain enough working details to really differentiate between the two. IMO, the only real leg Nick has to stand on is that Apple's going to have a hard time proving this was financially detrimental. in reality i think it was free marketing and hype for them. however, trying to hide behind shield laws/right to know arguments doesn't hold water either. 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 |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Got off my ass and looked for the article...
Alcheimdes is right- no pics. There's some details... it's kinda of murky. Yep, that will be a battleground where the case will turn on. Tangentially- I'm just curious- how come nobody noticed/responded to my earlier post about Nick finally disclosing his source?  |
| quote |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
There is another case that may apply. California and federal law recognize a common-law privelege, which, among other things, prevents any party from forcing a journalist to reveal unpublished material, research material, and sources unless and until that party can demonstrate a compelling need and that it has exhausted its ability to obtain the sought materials from alternative sources. See Mitchel v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 266 (1984). Even if a compelling need could be established, to date Apple has taken no depositions of any other witnesses to my knowledge in any of the pending lawsuits. By law it is not entitled to seek such information from reporters before it has exhausted all other avenues (the obvious being deposing witnesses from its own company). You may argue that that these websites are not real journalists, but the judge has thus far steered clear such precedent setting opinions. |
|
| quote |
|
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| quote |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
(I want to reiterate that I don't know Nick or his sources from Adam. Pure hypothetical specualtion). Suppose the spouse of an Apple employee is reading said employee's email, and gossips to their friend about it, who tells Nick under condition of anonymity. Nick may not even know how the information is getting out. All he knows is that it's reliable. In that case he is not committing Tortious Interference, because he has not induced an employee with a contract to break it. Suppose that a cameraman from Access Hollywood told you that he heard who shot JR on Dallas, and he's 99% sure it's correct. Would you be obligated to keep your mouth shut? |
|
| quote |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
|
|
| quote |
| Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Page 5 of 8 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next |
| 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 10:16.