[ThunderPoit]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan 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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Can we merge the TS threads? People have started cross posting.

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.]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x 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]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Coming soon... the G-Wizz wtf woz that all about law suit.

[Jim S.]

Some of you think that you know more than Apple's lawyers!

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

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Jim S. Some of you think that you know more than Apple's lawyers! 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.