Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
|
I think Apple are prolly more shocked that they have insiders who are sneaks. The again no company is entirely watertight. They also dont want any thunder being spanked from their new product launch plans-understandable. And on the other hand ThinkSecret is just a rag doing his role really, whatever info you get yer hands on, by god get it out.
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Utah
|
Quote:
..::| www.zogdog.com |::.. |
|
|
This is really funny.
Think Secret did not pay for the received information, it was posted probably and there is a disclosure of information between the user of the forum and Think Secret, I do not see why Think Secret is being targeted as responsible for an information posted without coercion or offered payment, the lead was posted anonimously and got published. If this is the case then take this example: Is the government going to sue every single newspaper for publishing leaked information about briefing on Iraq war? nope, because it is part of the first ammendment and let me paste it here to refresh memory: " The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulkwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." Apple "SORE LOOSER". |
Member
|
Quote:
Nick didn't sign anything! Confidentiality papers have nothing to do with this case at all. Nick is liable for nothing unless he specifically solicited apple employees to break their NDAs. As far as we can tell, he didn't. The website itself has no solicitation that would hold up as such in court. The structure of information gathering and whatnot isn't any different than any other news media. So unless he privately emailed contacts requesting information that he knew was protected under NDA, he did nothing illegal, and is protected under the first amendment. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that this handle wasn't taken?! Come on, people! iRobot?! |
|
|
What is the situation with spy photo's of new cars in the USA? Most motoring magazine in Britain pay a fortune to get their hands on elicit photo's or tip about cars on test runs in disguise. Do your motoring magazines routinely publish photos of new cars? If they do I don't see how the actions of TS are any different. If your motoring press is hamstrung and plays poodle to Ford, G.M. etc then ....
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Apple should not be able to sue the messanger. THat'd be infringment of rights. Amendment one says: freedom of speech. I belive Amendment five is: freedom of the press. Why should Apple not be able to sue Think Secret? Plain and simple. Think Secret did not sign a form to confirm the secrecy of Apple's product. They didn't sign any document saying none of Apple's future products can be announced to the public. Why are news stations able to announce new drugs or medicine that will hit the shelves. Why are news reporters able to report of future probable incidents? Isn't that what Think Secret did, report probable incidents.
And no one should have to reveal sources, just like Apple shouldn't have to reveal plans. It'd be double standards. Why can't people get court orders telling Apple to reveal. That's just plain stupid. Apple's just trying to get a few extra bucks. |
Multi-touch Piñata
Join Date: May 2004
|
Should I have the "Constitutional right" to post your Social Security number, your credit card number and your bank account info and PIN numbers on the internet?
Hey, I didn't know this was going to adversely affect you financially. "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
I think that these "one post wonders" have a mean age of 14 years and possess a better understanding of how to bring their Dark Magician Girl back from the Graveyard than an understanding of Corporate Law.
I also think that this thread belongs in General Discussion. |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
Is Zogdog a possible infiltrator? Could he be one of the lawyers who advised apple to sue TS in the first place? Apple will get nowhere with this lawsuit and I hope the law in california is struck down as an example to these corporate f*cks who think that thier money is more inportant than the constitution. FInd your leaks some other way than by grabbing some kid by the neck and shaking him around ho[ping the change will come out of his pockets. In other words they should pick on someone thier own size.
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Utah
|
LOL you think I am an infiltrator? That's clever and quite a compliment, thank you. No, I am not some espionage running spy trying to find the key tactics needed to run a lawsuit, heck, check my freakin sig, I am a college kid runnin my own site minding my own business, BUT I have an opinion. It seems that my opinion runs the opposite way as your does, but I stand by it.
Awhile ago, someone on my message board put the PC Gamer review of Doom 3, or was it HL2, on my site and I was sent a legal notice to remove the article. I did, know why? It was not my article and I did not get the approval of the said owner to have it on my site. Who gave TS permission to put obvious secrets on their site? And stop with the First amendment and freedom of speech crap, it holds no grounds here guys! I like the post about your credit card and social security number, if someone were to get ahold of it somehow and post it on the net, would that be okay with you? Freedom of speech doesn't give a person the right to exploit a business and it's trade secrets no matter how they got their material. ..::| www.zogdog.com |::.. |
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
Apple is a publicly traded company and any information about them is fair game for public journalism. You got a sease and desist cause you plagerized. TS was publishing news that other news outlets also published. This was not plagerism, this was simply journalism. My SS# and CREDIT info are private because I am not a public company I am a private citizen. The moment Apple goes public on the open market with thier stock any information about the company is fair game for journalists to report. If they can't keep thier information secret then they should secure thier information better. They should'nt attack small independent journalists with large armies of lawyers.
This law in california is unconstitutional and I think that if this gets to the SC we will see a ruling against apple. Lawsuits should not be designed as attacks. They should be defensive in nature. Apple is counter attacking the wrong guy litigously. |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
|
I have read EVERY one of the posts in this thread, I found the discussion fascinating and will watch to see how Nick fairs in the coming months with concern.
I had to register to contribute one word to this debate: Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion To understand this; follow this link >>> http://www.zogdog.com/theboard/viewtopic.php?t=5309 If Apple is serious about persuing this lawsuit, then they will likely cite you as a co-defendant as well, Zogdog. Don't bother deleting your post linking to (and thereby REPUBLISHING and REDISTRIBUTING) the information on ThinkSecret. That's right, by posting on your website, you have PUBLISHED this same allegedly known trade secrets, as you said, to "provide traffic". They'll probably just subpeona the harddrive from your webhosting company. Or they can just look at the incoming link logs here at TS. Quote:
|
|
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. |
Apple is wrong. They are hoping to put sites like Think Secret out of business due to the financial strain of defending the lawsuit. The suit itself will not prevail. The actual article did not picture nor spill any "secrets" regarding the Mac mini. The specs have been on Apple machines for years as the machine itself is a retread in a new small case.
Predicting that electronics is going to get smaller, cheaper and that PC makers are entering the commodity market is nothing new and innovative. It certainly doesn't amount to a "secret" no matter what you try to turn it into. I hope/know Apple will get handed their ass on this one. Nick |
Apple Historian
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
Veteran Member
|
Quote:
What a load of crap. |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Utah
|
Whoa, I forgot I posted that. The difference is
1) If they, TS or Apple, asked me to remove a link to their site, I would do so. 2) I did not solicit anyone to give me that news. 3) Do you really think I put that up there for traffic? How many active users do you actually see on my site? Do I have advertisers or a means to make money? 4) I actually got this news bit, and the news about this site, from one of my favorite web sites; Slashdot, so we are all in trouble I guess: http://apple.slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20050110 (look at the bottom) 5) Wow, someone actually went to my site! That alone should state how low end I am, thanks for actually going, sorry it's not much right now and there's a reason I post here, no one on my site is a mac user ..::| www.zogdog.com |::.. |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
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.
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Pscates, where are you? (sung to the Scooby Doo theme)
(I have a wide variety of things to say, so I will keep them header-ed to relevant subjects.) The First Amendment: I find it astounding that people are not focusing on the rumors and speculations that Think Secret made that did not come true. Consider: some of Think Secret’s rumors came true, but some did not. One could say that Think Secret is the Ms. Cleo of the Mac world. <Scratch that, Apple Insider is the Ms. Cleo of the Mac world; Think Secret is more like a well-written horoscope.> In times like this, the nature of the word “rumor” must come into the foreground. A rumor makes no claim to truth-value. Think Secret is what it claims to be, a rumor site. Perhaps then Think Secret should not fall into the realm of Web Journalism and freedom of the press at all. It is possible that everyone is thinking of this case from the wrong perspective. Rather, as the site claims “rumor” and posits no factuality on its claims (outside of “this came from a reliable source”) perhaps Think Secret would be better protected under the first amendment as a piece of fictional writing. The speculation published on Think Secret is just that: speculation. It is closer to situational fiction writing than to news reporting. As such, Nick is protected under academic and artistic freedom policies and statues. This is especially relevant considering that Nick is a student at Harvard. The issue spans the divide between art and journalism. Tomorrow, I could start a website with nothing but a story on how Apple is a front for an organ harvesting cult, how the proceeds from the organ donations go to the legal funds of pedophile priests, and how Steve Jobs is the Antichrist (of course, three things I do not believe) and there would be little to nothing Apple could do about it. <In fact, with a plot that good I could get published in the next anthology of Best American Short Stories.> Speculation, rumor, full out lies and fabrications are all protected by the first amendment, as well as other legal statues, as long as I dispel the idea that what I am presenting is fact. I think calling Think Secret a “rumor” site effectively does this. Politics: As for the comment by Wraven on page two: “But would you do me a favor scratt and remove the part about assassinating the president and keep things mac-related? I try not to bring my own divisive political views into Mac discussions and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you and others in this forum.” Actually, in this lawsuit, there is an underlining politic at work. The issues at stake in this lawsuit: the limits of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to non-disclosure of informants/sources (as fallenfromthetree has mentioned), as well as who or whom count as “the press” and therefore should be afforded fifth amendment protections (this is the most pressing matter of all). All of these are political issues. While they are not as extreme a view as presidential assassination, they are still issues of politics and government that are immediately pertinent to the current lawsuit situation. To block what one sees as “political discourse” is effectively to block discourse at all. On Punishment: There are degrees to wrongdoing, despite what many members of this “community” (and looking at the posts I use this statement loosely at best) seem to believe. The Kant-ian categorical imperative is no longer a valid argument, the belief that what is wrong in one situation is wrong in all situations. Even the legal system acknowledges the spectrum of responsibility, or on varying degrees of punishment based on the grievousness of the harm (i.e. Murder I/II/III, Rape/Criminal Sexual Conduct I/II/III, Theft/Grand Theft/Larceny). Then, clearly, Nick’s punishment should be proportionate to the actual harm caused. However, defining this actual harm is a bit dodgy in itself. Damages: The question of damages is an interesting one. Apple reportedly is suing for damages because of information Nick leaked on his site [at least this is how I understand it]. As one poster put it. it is wrong to “Inflict material damage in the name of free speech”. Then the issue becomes a question of “material damage”; an issue of speculative damage vs. actual damages. What is the material or actual thus far? All that has been presented in terms of damages to Apple are purely speculation (i.e. Steady stock prices, the absence of rising stock prices after keynote, allowing competition to see product two weeks early). Thus far, there are no immediately knowable damages have occurred due to Nick’s site. Though, there has been a (four letter expletive starting with s) load of publicity and press surrounding this lawsuit that must have had the effect of bringing consumer and business attention to the keynote and to Apple’s new product line. Remember, in the U.S. court system one is innocent until proven guilty (even if this is more lax in civil rather than criminal court, where more often than not monetary issues are addressed.) Apple is going to have to possess some clear, blatant, an clean cut evidence; evidence I do not think they possess (and if the case is thrown out at the hearing, that will be why). Culpability: <Assuming there are damages, and Apple meets the burden of proof > who, then, is the source of the damages to the company? Perhaps the greater issue at hand is the instability of public trading and the nature of the stock market. Even when the stock market is brought up in this forum, it is brought up as an assumed institution. Of course the stock market should be taken into consideration…no other thought could cross someone else’s mind. However, the stock market is no monolithic institution. Perhaps, the stock market (or Apple’s choice to go public) should bear part of the blame in any financial loss. After all, is it right to blame Nick’s website for every idiot stock market analyst/speculator’s decision regarding the sale or retention of Apple stock? Since when did private individuals start to take responsibility for Apple’s stock going up or down a point. The stock market is little more than a wealthy man’s (or a wealth man in charge of other peoples retirement) daily lotto or trip to the Casino. Legendary lack of stability. Final Thought: I find it interesting that Apple is suing Think Secret in part because of Nick’s refusal to release the names of his sources, while the at the same time it worries about the violation of its own non-disclosure agreements. No matter how well designed Apple makes its products, there is no Snow White or Shiny Industrial Metal at all; there is simply a pot, a kettle, and the color black. What this lawsuit essentially breaks down into is an issue of individual vs. corporate rights. (I understand that Think Secret is a company. However, Nick is the chief individual liable and has a company of VASTLY different scale.) This is a bad situation for Nick to be in because in this current administration and political climate individual rights have taken a far backseat (Ticket Reads: Second Balcony, Row 33, Behind the concrete support beam) to the rights of business. I, for one, support Nick as he seeks legal council an attempts to defend his rights. To paraphrase Chomsky, corporations are private tyrannies. A corporation is the ultimate in a non-democratic institution (except perhaps, coming from this Catholic, the Catholic church). Most important in their goal of maintaining/retaining/consolidating power comes from the resistance of free flow of information. In obtaining a corporate charter, a corporation must claim to exist to perform some form of “public good.” I do not believe current corporations exist for public good. Rather, with actions such as the one Apple is taking that place basic civil liberties at risk, some current corporate entities pose a threat to democracy and human rights negating any hypothetical benefit for the common good. I love Apple (my fuzzy, benevolent despot that supplies me with such pretty, wonderful equipment) but I have to place my side with Think Secret. |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 4 of 6 Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple sues ThinkSecret... (Merged w/ Ethics (split)) | LudwigVan | General Discussion | 73 | 2005-01-22 19:28 |
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 |