ThinkSecret Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

ThinkSecret announced (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html) that it has filed a special motion to have Apple's lawsuit against the rumor site dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

The lawsuit in question is distinct from the issue of subpoenaed information (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/03/20050304061219.shtml) which is also an ongoing legal battle between Apple and a number of Apple-releated websites.

In this instance, however, Apple had sued (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/01/20050105145737.shtml) ThinkSecret itself for posting Apple trade secrets and encouraging the release of contractually protected information.

[~Shard~]

I don't know who I'm siding with on this one. I like the rumor sites (obviously!) yet I don't think that news and upcoming products releases should be released sometimes if they are of detriment to Apple and perhaps lessens their competitive advantage. Also, I think lots of people abuse the whole 1st Amendment thing, but that's for another discussion...

[MattG]

I don't know who I'm siding with on this one. I like the rumor sites (obviously!) yet I don't think that news and upcoming products releases should be released sometimes if they are of detriment to Apple and perhaps lessens their competitive advantage. Also, I think lots of people abuse the whole 1st Amendment thing...

Same here. I think this is taking the whole 1st Amendment argument a little too far.

[nbs2]

Not sure if I should report or not, but the first link doesn't work. [Note from the moderator: fixed]

As for my thoughts? I don't think it will get dismissed. Looking at the allegations in the most favorable light to Apple, TS is dead in the water.

[Palomino]

Interesting, however Applemac has always been very secretive. Not sure this has helped them gain market share as intel and AMD are always releasing product roadmaps and plugging products yet to hit the shelves. Case in point is the fact that they had versions of the Athlon 64 running in 2001, but they weren't released until 2004.

Cheers
Jordan

[Eniregnat]

I was think about the fact that we, as a society, are in a difficult spot. The first amendment doesn’t protect against anything other than government suppression, thou it has been extended. I am of the opinion that another amendment needs to be created so that business can't stifle speech, as long as no trade secrets, financial information and the like are revealed. Personal information about people shouldn't be freely expressed, i.e. people shouldn't be able to post anybodies home address and phone number, but they should be able to express why they are pissed off an individual, corporation, etc. Look at the number of people fired over blogging. Some of whom were fired over short-stories, posted class work, and or things that they did on their off time.
Remember that McCarthy and good old Walt Disney both wanted to be able to control, judge, and act on peoples “private” lives.

[PlaceofDis]

i dont know, i agree with Shard here.....not sure who to side with, both have compelling arguments

[bosrs1]

Same here. I think this is taking the whole 1st Amendment argument a little too far.
Especially after today's update.

"internal documents recently obtained by Think Secret"

He's stealing insider information. Which is not a protected right by the First Amendment no matter what kind of press member you are.

[Sun Baked]

Same here. I think this is taking the whole 1st Amendment argument a little too far.Especially after today's update.

"internal documents recently obtained by Think Secret"

He's stealing insider information. Which is not a protected right by the First Amendment no matter what kind of press member you are.He didn't think that he was doing anything wrong before, and was ignoring Apple at his own peril.

Now that he finally has a lawyer that has convinced him that he's not doing anything wrong, he has launched an offensive against Apple.

Generally lawyers will tell people to cease all activities relating to a lawsuit, if it at all feasible.

Taunting Apple and continuing in a brash manner will do nothing but dig him a deeper hole with respect to Apple and the judge, especially lines like today's "internal documents recently obtained by Think Secret."

I look forward to reading more because this is going to make for some rather interesting legal entertainment for us in the future.

[bosrs1]

He didn't think that he was doing anything wrong before, and was ignoring Apple at his own peril.

Now that he finally has a lawyer that has convinced him that he's not doing anything wrong, he launched an offensive against Apple.

Generally lawyers will tell people to cease all activities relating to a lawsuit, if it at all feasible.

Taunting Apple and continuing in a brash manner will do nothing but did him a deeper hole with respect to Apple and the judge, especially lines like today's "internal documents recently obtained by Think Secret."

I look forward to reading more because this is going to make for some rather interesting legal entertainment for us in the future.
Seriously. He's playing with fire, and frankly I have no sympathy for when he gets burned. If he'd ceased what he was doing and played for sympathy he mgiht have won this, but he's been brash, and downright dumb. And several news outlets are starting to question the validity of his claims to be a "press" member. He's a college kid who thinks he's invincible, nothing more.

[zac4mac]

Personally, I think Nick stepped over a line last Fall when he posted the info in question. Previous posts of upcoming hardware or software had a sense of uncertainty, aka a rumor. Last Fall Nick posted info including descriptions, prices and internal Apple part numbers. It actually pissed me off by taking ALL the surprise away. Absolutely nothing left to conjecture. That was the most boring keynote I've watched yet, because all the beans were spilled. Not even a "One more thing".

It's just like some A-hole spilling the ending of a mystery movie you've been anticipating for months, halfway thru the movie. Way to go Nick. Too bad it won't cost the spoilt rich kid anything.

Z

[fixyourthinking]

For every letter Apple has to send for cease and desist, for every motion they have to answer, for every court proceeding they have to file ... adds a few pennies more to each and every Mac.

Shame on Nick Ciarelli - although I believe this is his and the "reseller lawuit filers" intent all along.

[Eniregnat]

It comes down to this. The individuals who violate a NDA are culpable. A portal (a new site) isn’t liable for publishing information volunteered by others with out remuneration. If a portal offers money or seeks information with malicious intent (i.e publishing financial information so that Apple , then they should be held liable. What is interesting is that rumor sites have become very selective as to what they deem “worthy”. Who ever furnished the information, if under an NDA, should be held liable for their actions. If the rumors were provided by people who just happened across the information, like looking onto an open truck, or overhearing a conversation, then they shouldn’t be head liable.

Loose lips sink ships.- Companies should be able to defend themselves against information loss, but they shouldn’t have the ability to control peoples personal lives. They should be able to defend themselves against those with malicious intent, i.e. corporate espionage, but they shouldn’t be able to have control over the press. The press should act with due diligence.

I think that Apple is grasping straws, less the need to know sources. ThinkSecret should publish new worthy information, much of which they publish turns out to be false- hence rumors. If the sources were truly anonymous , less some sort of identifying code, then ThinkSecret should have nothing to fear. If the sources were not sending in anonymous information, for instance if they were Apple employees, then they have to deal with the consequences.

One of two terrible presidents could be set with this case.
If Apple Wins1.) Nobody can ever publish any information if it could be considered a trade secret.

If rumor sites win 2.) Anybody can violate an NDA by going to some sort of information portal and having their information posted through proxy.

Either extreme is not beneficial to society as a whole.

[bosrs1]

It comes down to this. The individuals who violate a NDA are culpable. A portal (a new site) isn’t liable for publishing information volunteered by others with out remuneration. If a portal offers money or seeks information with malicious intent (i.e publishing financial information so that Apple , then they should be held liable. What is interesting is that rumor sites have become very selective as to what they deem “worthy”. Who ever furnished the information, if under an NDA, should be held liable for their actions. If the rumors were provided by people who just happened across the information, like looking onto an open truck, or overhearing a conversation, then they shouldn’t be head liable.

Loose lips sink ships.- Companies should be able to defend themselves against information loss, but they shouldn’t have the ability to control peoples personal lives. They should be able to defend themselves against those with malicious intent, i.e. corporate espionage, but they shouldn’t be able to have control over the press. The press should act with due diligence.

I think that Apple is grasping straws, less the need to know sources. ThinkSecret should publish new worthy information, much of which they publish turns out to be false- hence rumors. If the sources were truly anonymous , less some sort of identifying code, then ThinkSecret should have nothing to fear. If the sources were not sending in anonymous information, for instance if they were Apple employees, then they have to deal with the consequences.

One of two terrible presidents could be set with this case.
If Apple Wins1.) Nobody can ever publish any information if it could be considered a trade secret.

If rumor sites win 2.) Anybody can violate an NDA by going to some sort of information portal and having their information posted through proxy.

Either extreme is not beneficial to society as a whole.
Well frankly I'd rather have option 1 then option 2. Apple is well within it's rights to demand that TS give up the people violating their NDA. Frankly I don't know why TS didn't give them up immediately. He is under no compulsion to protect people who by right should be stopped.

[martman]

I think all this litigation is disgusting. Jobbs is on an ego trip here and it is sad. The only thing more sad is all the fan boys lined up to suport EVERYTHING Jobbs does no matter how wrong it is. Nick's life should not be ruined because he spoiled Apple's "surprise".
Before you insist that what Jobbs is doing is right because it is legal remember not all laws are right.

Long live the EFF!
Apple: end the lawsuits, they don't suit you. Leave this **** for the likes of SCO and MS.

Think different! (remember?)
:mad:

[bosrs1]

I think all this litigation is disgusting. Jobbs is on an ego trip here and it is sad. The only thing more sad is all the fan boys lined up to suport EVERYTHING Jobbs does no matter how wrong it is. Nick's life should not be ruined because he spoiled Apple's "surprise".
Before you insist that what Jobbs is doing is right because it is legal remember not all laws are right.

Long live the EFF!
Apple: end the lawsuits, they don't suit you. Leave this **** for the likes of SCO and MS.

Think different! (remember?)
:mad:
These lawsuits are definitely right. This kid is involved in corporate espionage. He needs to be stopped.

[martman]

Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

This is about revenge not about what is right.

Apple is losing customers over this and those of you who have stock should be pissed.

I own a Dual G5 1.8, a Molar Mac, an iPod 4G, iMac 266, B&W G3 400 and an Apple Studio Display 23" CRT Monitor. If these various lawsuits against mac fans don't end my purchases will and I'm not the only one.

This litigation is BS and it is time for it to stop. Jobbs has made his point. :mad:

[bosrs1]

Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

This is about revenge not about what is right.

Apple is losing customers over this and those of you who have stock should be pissed.

I own a Dual G5 1.8, a Molar Mac, an iPod 4G, iMac 266, B&W G3 400 and an Apple Studio Display 23" CRT Monitor. If these various lawsuits against mac fans don't end my purchases will and I'm not the only one.

This litigation is BS and it is time for it to stop. Jobbs has made his point. :mad:
Well I'm the opposite. I find this hardens my resolve to buy mac stuff. I know they're losing customers because of the infomation he's leaking so I want them to knock him out to stop that bleeding. And as a stock holder I'm more worried about their secrets getting out then about some college student.

Frankly if you let what happens to this kid color your views of Apple then you know nothing of business and are delusion in thinking that Apple is anything but a company.

[Doctor Q]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?

[bosrs1]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?
They're working pro-bono

[elo]

Nothing BS about it. Corporations have a right to keep secrets, just as you or I have the same right. If I tell you my secret and have you sign a binding NDA, then you must follow the terms of the contract you signed unless they are otherwise illegal. It doesn't matter whether you decide the secret was worth keeping or not--you are bound.

The law may also required third parties to respect the keeping of such secrets, as it does in the case of corporations. Here, if a third party solicits you to break your contract, then he is liable as if he has broken it himself. He also may not feel the secret is worth protecting. But he has still broken the law. In his case, however, the law has a state of mind requirement. He must mean to get the prohibited information, or must not care that it is illegal. That is an issue of fact.

Apple feels that its interests are best served by keeping upcoming products secret. To me, this seems obvious, given the rest of the industry's usual race to copy Apple's most exciting products. Even if you disagree, however, the law protects the *ability* to keep secrets and the contracts willfully entered into by those who would work there. Take away that principle and a company couldn't keep *any* secrets.

Apple has to enforce its rights or it will lose them. If it sits idly by this time, then it could be estopped from raising these issues in a future case. Jobs also owes a fiduciary duty to Apple shareholders that could be breached by failing to prosecute a valid cause of action (at the cost of millions to Apple). That's no small issue, as Apple's stock fell considerably after the Macworld announcement, arguably because its secrets had been compromised.

Apple may or may not be right about ThinkSecret, but it is absolutely correct to vigorously defend its rights.


Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

This is about revenge not about what is right.

Apple is losing customers over this and those of you who have stock should be pissed.

I own a Dual G5 1.8, a Molar Mac, an iPod 4G, iMac 266, B&W G3 400 and an Apple Studio Display 23" CRT Monitor. If these various lawsuits against mac fans don't end my purchases will and I'm not the only one.

This litigation is BS and it is time for it to stop. Jobbs has made his point. :mad:

[gwangung]

Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

What makes you think this ISN'T a case of industrial espionage? With Nick being made the fall guy?

[Sayhey]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?

My understanding is the lawyers are donating their services, or most of the cost of their services, because of the importance of the case. I know he made a plea for help because he did not have the financial resources to fight the case. The result was the legal team he has now. I've made a very small donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) to help with the legal costs in the broader case involving more than just ThinkSecret. I would encourage others to do so.

I would also encourage those that think Apple has overstepped the bounds on this case to write to them and tell them so.

[~loserman~]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?

They are being represented pro bono.
I believe EFF is representing them at no cost to TS

[Sayhey]

What makes you think this ISN'T a case of industrial espionage? With Nick being made the fall guy?

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

[Sun Baked]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?The EFF set him up with a former EFF lawyer.

Even though the guy is doing pro-bono work right now. I'd fully expect to see this lawyer submit paperwork, to get Apple cover the costs of litigation, if he wins.

As a writer for the Harvard Crimson, Nick Ciarelli is a "journalist."

But, should those credentials be used when the journalist is no longer under the legal umbrella of his paper? When he is doing something on his own for profit.

Nick Ciarelli isn't a little guy, he owns a company, advertises it quite well, and has high traffic. Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

Unless he's willing to submit his complete financials, along with his parents financials, it'll be hard to say he is impoverished. But pleading poverty could be dangerous, especially if there is any Apple stock in his portfolio.

[gwangung]

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

And how is that going to happen? Trail leads straight to Nick.

Seems to me, if you were an industrial spy, you could be set yourself up well by exploiting some young journalist who's wet behind the ears and who'll take the heat instead of you.

[Sayhey]

And how is that going to happen? Trail leads straight to Nick.

Seems to me, if you were an industrial spy, you could be set yourself up well by exploiting some young journalist who's wet behind the ears and who'll take the heat instead of you.

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.

[gwangung]

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).

[martman]

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.
exacty. Apple's beef should be with the people who violated their NDAs. These folks who run the sites have not signed NDAs. Apple's problem is that they are leaking like a sive right now and blaming Nick is not going to solve the problem but if they win this then the internet is going to dry up as a source of news at least in the US.

The folks who are saying Nick et al are not journalists are only saying this because they don't like him and mostly because Jobbs doesn't like him.
His readership is WAY larger than many print opperations so this "he isn't a REAL journalist" argument is lame and I think the courts will agree.

Apple seems to be looking for the legal system to do the work Apple should be doing. Someone(s) is leaking information the the CEO of the company doesn't want to get leaked. Apple needs to look inward to see who is doing this and why. Going after Nick is wrong and this tactic jeprodises the first amendment rights of all US based online journalists. This is about the rights of people online to publish the same kind of stories their print counterparts can and do all the time.
What Apple needs to do is change whatever behaviours it is doing that is allowing these leaks to happen not attacking the rights of online journalists.

Loose lips sink ships.

[bosrs1]

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.
That's what Apple is trying to do! They want Nick to give up the sources so they can nail them. Nick is protecting them. At that point he failed to remain a victim and became culpable as far as Apple is concerned.

[martman]

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).



Ok but give me an exaple of anything like this involving "traditional " media. This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict.

[bosrs1]

Ok but give me an exaple of anything like this involving "traditional " media. This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict.
Probably true, but TS is not a media outlet.

[martman]

That's what Apple is trying to do! They want Nick to give up the sources so they can nail them. Nick is protecting them. At that point he failed to remain a victim and became culpable as far as Apple is concerned.

this is not true until a court says it is. Personally i don't buy that for a second.
Nick is a journalist protecting his source. Period.

[bosrs1]

this is not true until a court says it is. Personally i don't buy that for a second.
Nick is a journalist protecting his source. Period.
Nick is a college student filching Trade Secrets from sources that deserve to be brought to justice.

And the court has said it is, that's what the inital ruling granted them.

[martman]

Probably true, but TS is not a media outlet.

TS is a media outlet as we shall soon see. TS has more regular readers than many Computer Magazines MANY more. What makes internent media any less media than a magazine? (especially if the site has more readers)

[bosrs1]

TS is a media outlet as we shall soon see. TS has more regular readers than many Computer Magazines MANY more. What makes internent media any less media than a magazine? (especially if the site has more readers)
Is he registered with any media groups?

[Sayhey]

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).

We have been down this road of argumentation before, gwangung. Yes, there are cases where protection of trade secrets will "trump" press protections. The whole point of this case, it seems to me, is it worth declaring on-line journalists as unworthy of First Amendment protections in order to protect Apple from the early release of very general future product information. Is this where we want to draw this line? I hope not.

I think Apple is going to alienate far more customers than it could ever get from protecting this information. I would again encourage others to let Apple know they are making a major mistake.

[martman]

Is he registered with any media groups?

not sure...

[bosrs1]

not sure...
Well we'll see. So far the courts don't think he is a media outlet based on the first ruling.

[martman]

Well we'll see. So far the courts don't think he is a media outlet based on the first ruling.

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.

[bosrs1]

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.
Point taken. Sad thing is this lawsuit was inevitable and sad thing is either ruling is not good for both Apple and their customers. This is a no win disaster.

[Sun Baked]

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.With a real media outlet, you expect that the circulation information is easy to find, names of key employees are there in the open, phone numbers, address, etc. are all there and in the clear, they have an inhouse legal team or one on retainer, they carry insurance, comply with a myriad of federal and state laws.

Heck if you plan on suing them and call up the editor, a real news organization would probably connect you with their legal team or the person to send notice of service to.

With thinksecret, nothings clear, he's hiding and doesn't anwer to anyone but himself. But if you want to advertise, send him money or information -- they'll make it easy. And probably run if you say you're a lawyer wondering where to send your notice of service to.

[fixyourthinking]

Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

This is about revenge not about what is right.

Apple is losing customers over this and those of you who have stock should be pissed.

I own a Dual G5 1.8, a Molar Mac, an iPod 4G, iMac 266, B&W G3 400 and an Apple Studio Display 23" CRT Monitor. If these various lawsuits against mac fans don't end my purchases will and I'm not the only one.

This litigation is BS and it is time for it to stop. Jobbs has made his point. :mad:


I don't think you know what you're talking about .... the EFF has also defended SuperNova and battled previously against iTunes and supports Kazaa.

SuperNova WAS a site used 90% for the distribution of unquestionable illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

EFF also defends Downhill Battle.org which has several anti Apple websites under it's belt.

[fixyourthinking]

The EFF set him up with a former EFF lawyer.

Even though the guy is doing pro-bono work right now. I'd fully expect to see this lawyer submit paperwork, to get Apple cover the costs of litigation, if he wins.

As the editor of the Harvard Crimson, Nick Ciarelli is a "journalist."

But, should those credentials be used when the journalist is no longer under the legal umbrella of his paper? When he is doing something on his own for profit.

Nick Ciarelli isn't a little guy, he owns a company, advertises it quite well, and has high traffic. Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

Unless he's willing to submit his complete financials, along with his parents financials, it'll be hard to say he is impoverished. But pleading poverty could be dangerous, especially if there is any Apple stock in his portfolio.


This post had some interesting points that many may not know the details to or may be ignorant to:

I run a website and a very successful local Apple consulting biz, my credentials stop at my website and stop within the confines of my immediate area. Saying Nick is a journalist online because he is one offline - is like saying Micheal Jackson is a good guy in person, so he MUST be a good guy in private too (with no perversion) Point also being - we don't know and can't really qualify ourselves for any speculation.

What I do know is that good journalists have ethics. They follow the law of reporting and RESPECT the subject matter on which they are reporting. Nick has broken SEVERAL laws - not just the UTSA. This may even extend into "obstruction of justice" if he's not careful. Good journalists also don't put their controversial sources at risk, nor their advertisers. Anyone who advertises with Think Secret at this point is just as sleezy in my eye.

Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

You do realize that 85% of Harvard students are on scholarship? It is the (or one of the) most well endowed Universites in the world. That said, MOST kids who are there - are from wealthy families. And to add, my own research puts The Deplume Organization (which isn't JUST Think Secret) at the high five figures in income!

[fixyourthinking]

I think Apple is going to alienate far more customers than it could ever get from protecting this information. I would again encourage others to let Apple know they are making a major mistake.

Would people just quit saying this?

It's ludacris .... no ONE will stop buying Apple products or alienate anyone if Apple comes out CORRECTLY in this matter.

People are taking this debate WAY TOO grand! Hardly anyone I know (I see dozens of Apple Users every week, hundreds a month) know about this or really even care.

If they do stop buying ... looks like Apple will gain significant marketshare this year - so there's plenty of users to take their place amongst the loyal Mac Faithful who love to discuss mac related issues such as we are here.

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

This ISN'T the facts - the information is SOLICITED for. There is a phone number and there WAS a process for submitting information. It is NOT leaked, it is asked for. It is bribed - if not by money - by egomaniacal anonymous fame - "I gave Think Secret that info" - I am a cool person (says the guy in the mirror to himself)

[Counterfit]

This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict. The suit wouldn't have been necessary if MacAddict had run the info, because they wouldn't have! Go read the UTSA (http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/utsa85.pdf)
One of the broadly stated policies behind trade secret law is “the maintenance of standards of commercial ethics.” Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974). The Restatement of Torts, Section 757, Comment (f), notes: “A complete catalogue of improper means is not possible,” but Section 1(1) includes a partial listing. Proper means include:
1. Discovery by independent invention;
2. Discovery by “reverse engineering”, that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to find the method by which it was developed. The acquisition of the known product must, of course, also be by a fair and honest means, such as purchase of the item on the open market for reverse engineering to be lawful;
3. Discovery under a license from the owner of the trade secret;
4. Observation of the item in public use or on public display;
5. Obtaining the trade secret from published literature.

Improper means could include otherwise lawful conduct which is improper under the circumstances; e.g., an airplane overflight used as aerial reconnaissance to determine the competitor’s plant layout during construction of the plant. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (CA5, 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 1024 (1970). Because the trade secret can be destroyed through public knowledge, the unauthorized disclosure of a trade secret is also a misappropriation. bold = mine. (1) “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;
(2) “Misappropriation” means:
(i) 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
(ii) 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 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. I'm really, really getting tired of quoting this :rolleyes:

[Dippo]

Whatever side you are on in this debate, I am sure that you would agree that it would have been better if Apple had not filed any lawsuits in the first place.

While I do believe that Apple has every right to protect their "trade secrets" and it is quite apparent that someone violated their NDA, Apple should be going after those people first.

Apple reminds more of a **AA with this shotgun lawsuit approach. Even if Apple takes down Thinksecret, there will be another rumor site that will stand up to take it's place. Apple needs to go after the true source of their problem, and not file lawsuits against their customers, just like the **AA's do.

[Sayhey]

Would people just quit saying this?

It's ludacris .... no ONE will stop buying Apple products or alienate anyone if Apple comes out CORRECTLY in this matter.

People are taking this debate WAY TOO grand! Hardly anyone I know (I see dozens of Apple Users every week, hundreds a month) know about this or really even care.

Perhaps you should go to a few websites and see how much discussion is being generated by this story. Or perhaps read the New York Times, Associated Press, or any number of widely read media. That's not counting TV news. This a HUGE story for anyone concerned about the extent of First Amendment freedoms. You may not like it, but others are taking note of what Apple is doing here and it will have an impact on how people view the company.

Finally, let's be real clear, ThinkSecret or any of the other defendants in this suit are not charged with breaking any laws.

[Sayhey]

The suit wouldn't have been necessary if MacAddict had run the info, because they wouldn't have! Go read the UTSA (http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/utsa85.pdf)
bold = mine. I'm really, really getting tired of quoting this :rolleyes:

You can quote it all you want, but you don't get to weigh what takes precedent the section of law you quoted or the First Amendment and California's Press Shield Law. That is what the case is all about, so don't be surprised if your understanding of what the law should be is not upheld by the court.

What can effect the case is pressure put on Apple. I hope more people view Apple's position with alarm and do so.

[bosrs1]

You can quote it all you want, but you don't get to weigh what takes precedent the section of law you quoted or the First Amendment and California's Press Shield Law. That is what the case is all about, so don't be surprised if your understanding of what the law should be is not upheld by the court.

What can effect the case is pressure put on Apple. I hope more people view Apple's position with alarm and do so.
The only people viewing this case with alarm are a few alarmists. No one else believes TS is a news source internet or otherwise.

[Sayhey]

The only people viewing this case with alarm are a few alarmists. No one else believes TS is a news source internet or otherwise.

I can see the mods have modified your post and deleted my response to it. Let me just say that it is not alarmist to raise first amendment concerns. Nor is it accurate to state that "no one else believes TS is a news source." A quick look at internet and mainstream press coverage of the case will show you that is not true.

[MontyZ]

Since when is the announcement of a new product considered a Trade Secret?

This lawsuit is ************ and Apple will lose. Nothing was stolen, Apple was not harmed. Steve Jobs is just mad because his surprise was scooped a few days early. Big ****** Deal! This is a frivilous lawsuit if ever there was one.

[bosrs1]

I can see the mods have modified your post and deleted my response to it. Let me just say that it is not alarmist to raise first amendment concerns. Nor is it accurate to state that "no one else believes TS is a news source." A quick look at internet and mainstream press coverage of the case will show you that is not true.
Since this lawsuit has no impact on the first amendment I disagree. The amendment protects us from the government, not from violating other's rights.

[aafuss1]

It comes down to this. The individuals who violate a NDA are culpable. A portal (a new site) isn’t liable for publishing information volunteered by others with out remuneration. If a portal offers money or seeks information with malicious intent (i.e publishing financial information so that Apple , then they should be held liable. What is interesting is that rumor sites have become very selective as to what they deem “worthy”. Who ever furnished the information, if under an NDA, should be held liable for their actions. If the rumors were provided by people who just happened across the information, like looking onto an open truck, or overhearing a conversation, then they shouldn’t be head liable.

Loose lips sink ships.- Companies should be able to defend themselves against information loss, but they shouldn’t have the ability to control peoples personal lives. They should be able to defend themselves against those with malicious intent, i.e. corporate espionage, but they shouldn’t be able to have control over the press. The press should act with due diligence.

I think that Apple is grasping straws, less the need to know sources. ThinkSecret should publish new worthy information, much of which they publish turns out to be false- hence rumors. If the sources were truly anonymous , less some sort of identifying code, then ThinkSecret should have nothing to fear. If the sources were not sending in anonymous information, for instance if they were Apple employees, then they have to deal with the consequences.

One of two terrible presidents could be set with this case.
If Apple Wins1.) Nobody can ever publish any information if it could be considered a trade secret.

If rumor sites win 2.) Anybody can violate an NDA by going to some sort of information portal and having their information posted through proxy.

Either extreme is not beneficial to society as a whole.

You made some excellent points oin this trade secrets case.

[Sayhey]

Since this lawsuit has no impact on the first amendment I disagree. The amendment protects us from the government, not from violating other's rights.

If Apple's position is upheld, online journalism will not have the same protections and will have to reveal their sources when more traditional journalists would not. I can't see a more clear impact on the first amendment press protections in this age of the internet than that. The simple fact you want to put some ideological blinders on doesn't change the self-evident truth of what this all means.

[~loserman~]

If Apple's position is upheld, online journalism will not have the same protections and will have to reveal their sources when more traditional journalists would not. I can't see a more clear impact on the first amendment press protections in this age of the internet than that. The simple fact you want to put some ideological blinders on doesn't change the self-evident truth of what this all means.

I agree Sayhey...

When this news first posted my comment at the time was about Apple filing this lawsuit to get access to TS et all's sources for their stories.
While I do think Apple should prosecute their NDA breakers(If they actually can) I also think that online news sources are just as valid as traditional print or TV media and should receive the same protections.

[Applespider]

I also think that online news sources are just as valid as traditional print or TV media and should receive the same protections.

I agree that online news sources are just as valid - I'd agree that ESPN.com or Salon should have protection too. But I don't class Thinksecret as a legitimate news source, nor do I think blogs are news sources per se. Most of them are pages for people to give their opinions on news stories/companies etc and are rarely backed up with the rigorous fact checking that real news sources have to comply with.

[Sayhey]

I agree Sayhey...

When this news first posted my comment at the time was about Apple filing this lawsuit to get access to TS et all's sources for their stories.
While I do think Apple should prosecute their NDA breakers(If they actually can) I also think that online news sources are just as valid as traditional print or TV media and should receive the same protections.

Thanks for the voice of reason ...

I don't mind folks who argue that Apple's position should win because they don't believe on-line journalists should have these protections. Or even those who believe that protecting trade secrets are more important than press protections. I don't agree with them, but it is an honest position. What drives me crazy, are attempts to say that press freedoms aren't involved and this is not important anyway. Give me a break!

[~loserman~]

Most of them are pages for people to give their opinions on news stories/companies etc and are rarely backed up with the rigorous fact checking that real news sources have to comply with.

RIGOROUS FACT CHECKING? Are you serious?

News sources reporting Opinion instead of News? Are you serious?

[~loserman~]

Thanks for the voice of reason ...

I don't mind folks who argue that Apple's position should win because they don't believe on-line journalists should have these protections. Or even those who believe that protecting trade secrets are more important than press protections. I don't agree with them, but it is an honest position. What drives me crazy, are attempts to say that press freedoms aren't involved and this is not important anyway. Give me a break!

Well at least the courts do get to decide this...
So just maybe... We will get a sane decision from the courts that will decide this once and for all. I'm all for getting precedent that helps to expand our rights and protections.

[fixyourthinking]

Perhaps you should go to a few websites and see how much discussion is being generated by this story. Or perhaps read the New York Times, Associated Press, or any number of widely read media. That's not counting TV news. This a HUGE story for anyone concerned about the extent of First Amendment freedoms. You may not like it, but others are taking note of what Apple is doing here and it will have an impact on how people view the company.

Finally, let's be real clear, ThinkSecret or any of the other defendants in this suit are not charged with breaking any laws.

I run an editorial website - MANY of my articles have offended and been controversial ... if I even remotely thought this was a 1st ammendment issue I wouldn't DARE comment on it - it may jeopardize my rights.

Second, ammend your comment to Think Secret hasn't been charged with breaking any laws YET - it will come. And SEVERAL (possibly MANY) laws HAVE been broken.

[Applespider]

RIGOROUS FACT CHECKING? Are you serious?

News sources reporting Opinion instead of News? Are you serious?

Yes. Most 'mainstream' news sources have teams of researchers/lawyers to back up stories their journalists bring in and check whether it's appropriate to publish, where their figures came from. Is it hearsay? Is the source believable/trustworthy? Newspapers have 'op ed' pages for opinion rather than news - although I accept that newpapers/media can still 'spin' stories for their own purpose. There is recourse for incorrect information - whether that's in the form of errata, damages, courtcases, rebuttals. Readers/viewers tend to trust the news organisation for this reason.

Many bloggers don't even check their spelling, let alone give the reader valid back up of any ideas they are spouting. Most blogs (at least currently) are comment and opinion on current issues/thoughts than hard news. Readers have no reason to trust the blogger knows what they are talking about - the best they can do is check the comments and see if others agree/disagree.

[wordmunger]

As the editor of the Harvard Crimson, Nick Ciarelli is a "journalist."

Just to clarify, he is not "the editor" of the Crimson, he is an editor, meaning he writes and edits stories for the Crimson. "The editor" would be the managing editor, who is Stephen Marks.

[fixyourthinking]

If Apple's position is upheld, online journalism will not have the same protections and will have to reveal their sources when more traditional journalists would not. I can't see a more clear impact on the first amendment press protections in this age of the internet than that. The simple fact you want to put some ideological blinders on doesn't change the self-evident truth of what this all means.

I agree with you - if this case were about online journalism or the 1st ammendment or the shield law.

You are trying to take the hard nosed "my rights are violated" approach to this whole issue.

Gossip is NOT journalism. Coercive, Bribe Doling, Law Breaking, Vengeful reporters are NOT journalists. Do you consider The Weekly World News (who this week is reporting that Armagheddon is in 2007) is journalism or news? It is fun ... it is words to laugh at ... it isn't even editorial opinion though. It isn't fact based. The only similarity is that it's on news stands and advertisers advertise in them.

Photographers are artists - Paparazzi are NOT photographers - they are picture takers.

I consider MacRumors a news site and I consider ARN a reporter, but not necessarily a journalist. This site reports and accepts and it seems researches the content a bit. This site reports rumors the way they should be - speculation on html code, application code, patent submissions, product cycles, features with hardware but no application yet, etc etc.

Many people supported, and still support OJ ... do you feel OJ wasn't guilty? Just as Think Secret is a journalist ... do you believe OJ was innocent? The criminal court said "Yes" - so there's his badge of innocence. Nick Ciarelli is an editor for the Harvard paper - so there's a badge of credibility. Does the fact that he puts words into an HTML template make him a journalist?

Step back for a moment and see how many people are getting upset over this issue and making in to an argument that Apple is now becoming Microsoft, and Apple is stripping our freedoms .... now step back and think about the theory I have posted in this forum and others .... is this Think Secret's intention? Is this the way the resellers filing lawsuits can win?

You are right, even though this issue is minor at best right now, it IS snowballing - due to this support for the case without the facts.

If I had the integrity of Think Secret, I would reveal more about what I know personally about all this. I have actually hinted at most of this on my website (not a shameless promo - just a fact)

I have no bone with Think Secret - other than the fact that TS seems to be succeeding in costing Apple customers more and more money every day.

Whatever side you are on in this debate, I am sure that you would agree that it would have been better if Apple had not filed any lawsuits in the first place.

No, in fact I am glad Apple is going after this - it will save me money as a product consultant/inventor for the Apple space. It will save us ALL money because it may be a hinderance towards trade secret theft - which costs Apple millions - but protecting makes them millions more.

I am happy that Apple asks for integrity of of the websites that report on it. Just as readers should expect integrity from Apple.

[Sayhey]

This discussion is strange enough without bringing the Simpson trial into it. Please, Please, I beg of you ... leave OJ out! :rolleyes:

[fixyourthinking]

This discussion is strange enough without bringing the Simpson trial into it. Please, Please, I beg of you ... leave OJ out! :rolleyes:

A convenient reply that doesn't answer the question. :confused:

Many of your posts have asked for similarities or quotes for cases.

When you are presented with the UTSA - you back down and say it is trumped by the shield law.

When you're refuted, you move back to 1st ammendment rights.

When many express the meaning of the 1st ammendment - you either don't answer or say, that's your opinion - then you lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm not trying to be confrontational - just begging of those that see this as bad move for Apple or a Freedom Of Speech issue to look at their facts.

You've brought the opportunity (moreso than others) to clarify a lot of this ... so thanks on that end of the conversation.

[Sayhey]

A convenient reply that doesn't answer the question. :confused:

It's more of an observation that your argument is wandering all over the place.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that if Apple's position is upheld it will only effect those on-line journalists who bump up against trade secrets? Or does the fact that a court could rule that only print and tv journalists are entitled to protect their sources effect you?

[fixyourthinking]

It's more of an observation that your argument is wandering all over the place.

No, just giving you the examples you keep saying everyone isn't giving you.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that if Apple's position is upheld it will only effect those on-line journalists who bump up against trade secrets? Or does the fact that a court could rule that only print and tv journalists are entitled to protect their sources effect you?

Good point and I've already answered it.

Whether I'm considered a journalist or not. I report.

I report with integrity though. I do not do it at the expense of others, rather I report consumer related scams as they relate to the Mac Community. I don't solicit for trade secrets. I research by phone, email correspondence, google, online searches, library. I'm sure Think Secret researches too. Nick is a much better writer than I am, but he also has a LOT more advertisers than I do.

If I had ANY feeling this would affect ME as a webmaster and my freedom of speech I would hold my tongue.

This WILL not set such a precedent though. It will (hopefully) reinforce the UTSA and send a message to corporate employees that NDA's are serious and the people you reveal these "business plans" to - will be forced to divulge your identity - so don't do it!

[Sayhey]

No, just giving you the examples you keep saying everyone isn't giving you.



Good point and I've already answered it.

Whether I'm considered a journalist or not. I report.

I report with integrity though. I do not do it at the expense of others, rather I report consumer related scams as they relate to the Mac Community. I don't solicit for trade secrets. I research by phone, email correspondence, google, online searches, library. I'm sure Think Secret researches too. Nick is a much better writer than I am, but he also has a LOT more advertisers than I do.

If I had ANY feeling this would affect ME as a webmaster and my freedom of speech I would hold my tongue.

This WILL not set such a precedent though. It will (hopefully) reinforce the UTSA and send a message to corporate employees that NDA's are serious and the people you reveal these "business plans" to - will be forced to divulge your identity - so don't do it!

Your argument assumes that only those on-line journalists involved with "trade secret" disputes will be effected. That would seem to be false on the face of it. Apple is asking a judge to force ThinkSecret and the others to divulge their sources because they believe the defendants are not entitled to the press protections - meaning they are not "real" journalists. Such a ruling would obviously effect you. You may never have a dispute with Apple or any other company over what you post on your site, but you will never have the right to say "no" to a judge who says to turn over your sources.

[scubus]

I think most people who discussing this issue have a misunderstanding of exactly what the case is about. It is not about preventing ThinkSecret from reporting news.

Apple wants the name of the source ThinkSecret used. ThinkSecret is refusing to divulge that name claiming journalistic privilege. Unfortunately for ThinkSecret, such privilege is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Journalists are required, like any other citizen, to testify in criminal proceedings.

An individual may not use the press as a means to shield themselves from illegal activity, nor may a journalist use his or her status as a jounalist to take part in illegal activity or solicit illegal activity. As has been pointed out, the UTSA prevents individuals from providing trade secrets to journalists.

At the same time, the UTSA makes it illegal for those journalists to knowingly divulge trade secrets to the public. At this juncture, ThinkSecret is also guilty of breaching the UTSA because it is pretty clear that they were aware that the information they were reporting was secret, but I do not believe that Apple has attempted to directly sue or otherwise charge ThinkSecret - they simply want to know who the source is that broke the law.

[sirjimithy1]

Whenever a debate like this starts, the people defending it seem to forget what they are defending. This was not just a product announcement, it was a breech of NDA. Then they want to hide behind the first amendment (which is irrelevent in this case) because it's their only recluse. And no offense martman, but your argument seems very uneducated. Not just because you can't properly spell Steve Jobs or you think the 23-inch Cinema Display is a CRT, but also because you think that Steve is just going after this guy for childish revenge, when there's really a bigger picture that you're missing. There's an underlying principle that Apple is defending, and that's the principle of corporate confidentiality. I'll give you an example: If Chevrolet releases the 2005 Corvette, and as this product is being released, an employee leaks that in approximately six months, Chevrolet will unveil the 2006 Corvette with a more sleek, futuristic looking body, more powerful engine, and a bunch of new features and options. You're trying to just say "All he did was spoil the surprise, boo hoo" but it's much more detrimental than that. In the above scenario, this secret getting leaked would most likely cost Chevrolet millions of dollars in worldwide sales. This situation with Apple is no different. Someone leaked a trade secret that was, as all upcoming products are, protected by an NDA. Breeching it has to have consequenses or this sort of thing could bring an end to the Apple products that we use and enjoy.

[jayscheuerle]

Jobbs is on an ego trip here and it is sad.

Funny. That's the exact line I used to describe Nick @ ThinkSecret.

He published this stuff because he could, which benefitted no one and possibly hurt Apple. This kid needs a legal spanking...

[jayscheuerle]

Yes. Most 'mainstream' news sources have teams of researchers/lawyers to back up stories their journalists bring in and check whether it's appropriate to publish, where their figures came from.

Ever heard of Stephan Glass?

[Sun Baked]

Just to clarify, he is not "the editor" of the Crimson, he is an editor, meaning he writes and edits stories for the Crimson. "The editor" would be the managing editor, who is Stephen Marks.I changed it to writer...

http://www.thecrimson.com/writer.aspx?ID=1201230

... since it was the easiest things to confirm on the net.


Even though the Crimson reported he was an editor in their own story, when I looked further at the list of the editors (http://www.thecrimson.com/about.aspx) for the Crimson Online I didn't find his name. So I'll refer to him as a writer from now on.

But does this make Nick DePlume a journalist?

[fixyourthinking]

I changed it to writer...

http://www.thecrimson.com/writer.aspx?ID=1201230

... since it was the easiest things to confirm on the net.


Even though the Crimson reported he was an editor in their own story, when I looked further at the list of the editors (http://www.thecrimson.com/about.aspx) for the Crimson Online I didn't find his name. So I'll refer to him as a writer from now on.

But does this make Nick DePlume a journalist?


But Sunbaked - I think for the detective work - we should call you a journalist - good work!

[martman]

All these people are saying Nick isn't a journalist because they don't like his content. If printing gossip means you are not a journalist then tell that to the National Enquirer.
Ya I don't like their content but they are journalists and so is Nick.
Live with it. The deffinition of journalist does not stipulate you must be a good journalist to be a journalist or even that the news you print is accurate.

[ASP272]

It's a shame TS has got into this situation. I didn't see the leaked rumor word for word that is the root of this lawsuit, so I can't say whether or not they intentionally leaked a known fact or portrayed it as a highly credible rumor. Either way, it's a shame. Apple surely doesn't need the money or the negative publicity from this, but a line has to be drawn in the sand and when someone crosses over to far, Apple has to take action. Otherwise, we would all know the exact release date of Tiger, the exact release date of the Powerbook G5 and it's benchmarks (if ever), the exact G6 release, etc. etc. It would just ruin the whole rumor site phenomenon.

[sirjimithy1]

All these people are saying Nick isn't a journalist because they don't like his content. If printing gossip means you are not a journalist then tell that to the National Enquirer.
Ya I don't like their content but they are journalists and so is Nick.
Live with it. The deffinition of journalist does not stipulate you must be a good journalist to be a journalist or even that the news you print is accurate.

People who write for the Enquirer are journalists by definition, but they're only loosely journalists. They don't investigate real stories and report facts.They follow celebrities around and make up lies about them. What about Weekly World News? Do they report facts? No. Instead, they tell us about the 500 lb. cat from outer space that's taking over the toilet brush industry in a vain attempt to get revenge against the woman painted in Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. It can be entertaining (like rumor sites) but i don't consider it journalism. Doesn't change the fact that someone broke an NDA and Nick is condoning it by protecting these scumballs.

[Sun Baked]

But Sunbaked - I think for the detective work - we should call you a journalist - good work!Don't really think I'd want the liability inherent to being a journalist or publisher of original content on the internet.

There's no media liability insurance shielding me, and I don't have a lawyer standing by to give me an opinion letter for my questionable opinion posts.

But if I'm dumb enough to be both the journalist and my own publisher, and have neglected to find out what my liabilities may be, I probably deserve everything I get.

[Rower_CPU]

http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times

Contrary to Think Secret’s statement-as-fact that Apple never would have even “considered” filing suit against The New York Times, I think in fact the opposite is true. If The New York Times, or any other deep-pocketed mainstream publication, had published the same information, obtained in the same way, Apple might have been more likely to file suit than they were against Think Secret. I no longer believe Apple’s suit is an intimidation tactic - I think their lawyers believe they have a winning case. If it had been The Times rather than Think Secret, they’d still have the same case, plus they’d avoid the negative publicity engendered by the David-v.-Goliath aspect.

An interesting take on this topic.

[martman]

People who write for the Enquirer are journalists by definition, but they're only loosely journalists. They don't investigate real stories and report facts.They follow celebrities around and make up lies about them. What about Weekly World News? Do they report facts? No. Instead, they tell us about the 500 lb. cat from outer space that's taking over the toilet brush industry in a vain attempt to get revenge against the woman painted in Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. It can be entertaining (like rumor sites) but i don't consider it journalism. Doesn't change the fact that someone broke an NDA and Nick is condoning it by protecting these scumballs.


Yet these journalists get the same protection as a NY Times writer. So why shouldn't Nick? He is far more credible a journalist than those at the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.

[martman]

http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times



An interesting take on this topic.


I don't buy that argument.

[Rower_CPU]

I don't buy that argument.

Feel free to elaborate.

[Sayhey]

Feel free to elaborate.

For one thing, Rower, press shield laws are much more explicit in their protection of media like the NYT. It is highly unlikely that a judge would even consider forcing the Times to revel their sources. What makes this a cutting edge issue is the fact that the laws haven't yet caught up to the reporting done on-line. I can't see Apple wasting time and money on media giants like the Times.

[martman]

The best I can do at the moment is to say that newspapers have scooped automobile release info and published said info and never had to face this kind of crap. There is no integrity in the US media and to pretend there is is just naive.

It is a very bad precident to make, that rights and protections people have do not apply to the internet. As the internet becomes more prevelant this attitude will become more and more destructive to our freedom.

[Rower_CPU]

For one thing, Rower, press shield laws are much more explicit in their protection of media like the NYT. It is highly unlikely that a judge would even consider forcing the Times to revel their sources. What makes this a cutting edge issue is the fact that the laws haven't yet caught up to the reporting done on-line. I can't see Apple wasting time and money on media giants like the Times.

The DF article is attempting to get away from the "media giant" vs "small website" comparisons and look at the manner in which the information was obtained and published.

I find the argument that an established media outlet would not have behaved similarly to ThinkSecret in the first place quite compelling.

[Sayhey]

I find the argument that an established media outlet would not have behaved similarly to ThinkSecret in the first place quite compelling.

The behavior or misbehavior of the defendants in the case is not the critical factor. Apple is trying to go after legitimate targets (the folks who violated NDAs) by forcing ThinkSecret and others to revel their sources based on the belief on-line reporters should be part of a category not covered by press shield and First Amendment protections. The conduct of the defendants has little to do with the critical issue in the case.

[Rower_CPU]

The behavior or misbehavior of the defendants in the case is not the critical factor. Apple is trying to go after legitimate targets (the folks who violated NDAs) by forcing ThinkSecret and others to revel their sources based on the belief on-line reporters should be part of a category not covered by press shield and First Amendment protections. The conduct of the defendants has little to do with the critical issue in the case.

Am I misinterpreting the "tortious interference" aspect of Apple's initial claim when it seems to deal with directly the conduct of the defendant?

[Sun Baked]

The behavior or misbehavior of the defendants in the case is not the critical factor. Apple is trying to go after legitimate targets (the folks who violated NDAs) by forcing ThinkSecret and others to revel their sources based on the belief on-line reporters should be part of a category not covered by press shield and First Amendment protections. The conduct of the defendants has little to do with the critical issue in the case.The California Supreme Court has already ruled in a unanimous decision, the court said it is acceptable to suppress speech in order to protect trade secrets under certain conditions.

The judge here has already hinted that he was leaning in the direction of making his decision based on "trade secrets" and the rights of the company trumping free speech.

The judge will probably err on the side of protecting trade secrets and getting the stuff removed while barring Nick from using his sources while the court determine if what he's publishing is a trade secret.

[rpatrick]

I want to make a point loud and clear "I AM AGAINST THE SPREAD OF ANY RUMORS UNLESS IT HAS A DOCUMENT PROVING THAT SUCH A RUMOR WOULD BE A REALITY; A case in point "Safari 1.3; where is the update from Apple? I have contacted Apple, talked with their "tech support" folks and their response was "We do not respond to rumors, since our engineers have no update in the works. Since this rumor was spread in June of 2004, by this site I have yet to see the update; in fact, Software update direct from Apple has no such version. I don't want to "spoil any fun", but until I receive "written documentation", I will not respond; I will try to reprimand if possible. I believe "Think Secret should be buried; where is the written proof? Where is the written justification? Until this site can EMail me "proper documentaton" then it is only a rumor.

Sincerely

Robert

[Sun Baked]

Am I misinterpreting the "tortious interference" aspect of Apple's initial claim when it seems to deal with directly the conduct of the defendant?One of the easiest things to prove, that you interfered with somebody's contract. There are so many ways to do it.

By saying he was a journalist and working leads like any other journalist he walks his way into a trap. A very savvy one prepared by the Apple lawyers.

This isn't about the Apple employees conduct, it's all about Nick's conduct. Conduct before the lawsuit, and conduct after the lawsuit was filed.

[fixyourthinking]

The best I can do at the moment is to say that newspapers have scooped automobile release info and published said info and never had to face this kind of crap. There is no integrity in the US media and to pretend there is is just naive.

It is a very bad precident to make, that rights and protections people have do not apply to the internet. As the internet becomes more prevelant this attitude will become more and more destructive to our freedom.

You couldn't be more wrong by using this example.

I live in Greenville South Carolina. The BMW plant is here. (They make the Z4, X3, and X5) They have a test track here. They are CONSTANTLY arresting and prosecuting "Motor Trend" (and otherrs) for breaking on to the property. They confiscate cameras, they file injunctions.

My next door neighbor works there in IT and has told me some of the weirdest stories.

These websites are actually NO DIFFERENT - THEY TOO ARE STEALING PROPERTY - AND obtaining it from a source who got it from private property.

I say to the this forum again, as I have said in others - call this business plans - not trade secrets - and see if that takes new meaning to you.

There is absolutely nothing involved here about free speech. Apple's intent is NOT to surpress Think Secret's speech or really even stop them from posting Apple rumor. Rumor sites are not in danger AT ALL. Internet writers/journalists rights are not in danger- because the intent here is to stop the traffic of stolen property and the distribution of business plans to competitors.

[fixyourthinking]

I want to make a point loud and clear "I AM AGAINST THE SPREAD OF ANY RUMORS UNLESS IT HAS A DOCUMENT PROVING THAT SUCH A RUMOR WOULD BE A REALITY

Ummm, then it's not a rumor and Apple definitely has the case.

Rumor is SUPPOSE to be speculation, prediction, assertion, and then reporting it as potential fact.

A rumor starts out like this:

"I saw 4 women go in to Robert's apartment yesterday." - person A

"Yeah I saw several go in last week too" - person B

"Robert is a male prostitute" - person C who overheard B & A

In reality, Robert is a home based psych biz who caters to battered women.


OR, it starts as many Macrumors.com rumors do - Apple hasn't released new PowerBooks in a while - the product cycle indicates new models are due.

OR, Apple filed a patent for a mouse with a strange button design on it. Are two button/scroll mice finally here?

OR, the Apple website has the words PowerBook G5 buried in it, this may mean PB G5's are due soon

OR, Garageband has a section for some weird new hardware device - does anyone know what an asteroid is?

OR, here is a picture taken from an elevator two days before expo.

I'll also briefly touch on that - the guy that put those fake iHome pics on the internet - got his info from Think Secret. What if, and it is a big what if, something happened just hours before the introduction of the mac Mini and it was decided NOT to show the units to the public? Well, now there's been EXACT specs posted, incredible prices posted, speculation on how this is Apple's comeback machine, and there's EVEN A PHOTO!

We've seen Apple's stock do really well, but Think Secret's reporting could be VERY dangerous if analysts strting pinning financial forecasts on Apple rumors - which I'm not so sure they didn't do in December.

[~loserman~]

You couldn't be more wrong by using this example.

I live in Greenville South Carolina. The BMW plant is here. (They make the Z4, X3, and X5) They have a test track here. They are CONSTANTLY arresting and prosecuting "Motor Trend" (and otherrs) for breaking on to the property. They confiscate cameras, they file injunctions.


Therin lay the difference.
Of course they can arrest Motor Trend and others for breaking into their property. But if someone(supplier/s of BMW or an employee/s)gave Moto Trend information of some new wizbang car then if Moto could confirm it then they would publish it.

[fixyourthinking]

Therin lay the difference.
Of course they can arrest Motor Trend and others for breaking into their property. But if someone(supplier/s of BMW or an employee/s)gave Moto Trend information of some new wizbang car then if Moto could confirm it then they would publish it.

Think Secret infiltrates the Apple campus and Apple suppliers to obtain business plans = private property. They solicit for this information unlike any other site and OFTEN use these words,"sources deep inside Apple", "reliable sources at an Apple developer" etc etc.

I don't have to have to break into your house to steal anything, I can get a neighbor of yours to do it.

I am guilty as an accessory to crime

I could also hack into your computer, and steal information - information which is your property. But going by your logic, if I could confirm that your credit card number is XXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX then I am free to publish it for everyone's consumption.

[rpatrick]

Ummm, then it's not a rumor and Apple definitely has the case.

Rumor is SUPPOSE to be speculation, prediction, assertion, and then reporting it as potential fact.

A rumor starts out like this:

"I saw 4 women go in to Robert's apartment yesterday." - person A

"Yeah I saw several go in last week too" - person B

"Robert is a male prostitute" - person C who overheard B & A

In reality, Robert is a home based psych biz who caters to battered women.


OR, it starts as many Macrumors.com rumors do - Apple hasn't released new PowerBooks in a while - the product cycle indicates new models are due.

OR, Apple filed a patent for a mouse with a strange button design on it. Are two button/scroll mice finally here?

OR, the Apple website has the words PowerBook G5 buried in it, this may mean PB G5's are due soon

OR, Garageband has a section for some weird new hardware device - does anyone know what an asteroid is?

OR, here is a picture taken from an elevator two days before expo.

I'll also briefly touch on that - the guy that put those fake iHome pics on the internet - got his info from Think Secret. What if, and it is a big what if, something happened just hours before the introduction of the mac Mini and it was decided NOT to show the units to the public? Well, now there's been EXACT specs posted, incredible prices posted, speculation on how this is Apple's comeback machine, and there's EVEN A PHOTO!

We've seen Apple's stock do really well, but Think Secret's reporting could be VERY dangerous if analysts strting pinning financial forecasts on Apple rumors - which I'm not so sure they didn't do in December.



Where is the "attached documentation for the following: Safari 1.3 Upgrade
ITunes 4.8
IPod releases
New Powerbooks
the list continues
Also with every "Rumors" on this site comes the fact that a "sourced hyperlink" is "letting the cat out of the bag"
Since this website made a point of saying that Safari was seeded in June,2004, where is the documentation on it's delay?

Also as said on my initial Post, I have contacted Apple; I haved TALKED TO THEM, NOT PROVIDING A HYPERLINK WHERE THIS "INFORMATION IS FOUND"
I want Think Secret buried and am with Apple, not Think Secret, I also want answers as to why rumors have to be spread without any documentation as proof.

Some time back, I reprimanded several people who were spreading rumors; their response was they had nothing else to do; some justification huh?
Regards
Robert

[Sayhey]

Am I misinterpreting the "tortious interference" aspect of Apple's initial claim when it seems to deal with directly the conduct of the defendant?

Rower, this suit is different from the "John Doe" suit Apple filed in which they seek to force AppleInsider and others to hand over names of sources only. In this suit Apple does claim ThinkSecret did things it shouldn't have. However, the core of the dispute is the same. Apple wants these sites to stop posting information they deem trade secrets. With Apple that covers most everything. They also maintain that none of these sites are legitimate news outlets covered by the First Amendment or Press Shield laws.

I would recommend reading ThinkSecret's response to all of Apple's allegations and to all the rumors being spread out there. For instance, ThinkSecret denies paying for rumors. They also deny they posted anonymous sources. While Apple may be right that good ol' Nick is a lowlife so-and-so, their saying so doesn't make it so. It seems to me regular readers of a rumor site like this one might want to be careful before helping to throw another such site to the wolves.

[gwangung]

Rower, this suit is different from the "John Doe" suit Apple filed in which they seek to force AppleInsider and others to hand over names of sources only. In this suit Apple does claim ThinkSecret did things it shouldn't have. However, the core of the dispute is the same. Apple wants these sites to stop posting information they deem trade secrets. With Apple that covers most everything. They also maintain that none of these sites are legitimate news outlets covered by the First Amendment or Press Shield laws.

I would recommend reading ThinkSecret's response to all of Apple's allegations and to all the rumors being spread out there. For instance, ThinkSecret denies paying for rumors. They also deny they posted anonymous sources. While Apple may be right that good ol' Nick is a lowlife so-and-so, their saying so doesn't make it so. It seems to me regular readers of a rumor site like this one might want to be careful before helping to throw another such site to the wolves.


I'm going to point out again that the decision on this case is going to depend on the particular details of this case. If there are trade secret information involved, then Think Secret is in a difficult place, First Amendment or not (it's simply well established law that the First Amendment will not protect you against a trade secret violation). He will have to make a case that the shield law covers a press outlet even when it involves trade secrets...and that's NOT cut and dried case law, despite all the arguments here. Think Secret may eventually win, but it necessitates creating a new precedent (parallels with government cases are of limited use because this involves a private entity where the right to know is less than with the government, and also because the distribution of the information by Think Secret contributes to the violation of Apple's trade secret protection).

This is not a slam dunk case, particularly with the case of Asteroid, which is clearly in trade secret territory.

[Sayhey]

I'm going to point out again that the decision on this case is going to depend on the particular details of this case. If there are trade secret information involved, then Think Secret is in a difficult place, First Amendment or not (it's simply well established law that the First Amendment will not protect you against a trade secret violation). He will have to make a case that the shield law covers a press outlet even when it involves trade secrets...and that's NOT cut and dried case law, despite all the arguments here. Think Secret may eventually win, but it necessitates creating a new precedent (parallels with government cases are of limited use because this involves a private entity where the right to know is less than with the government, and also because the distribution of the information by Think Secret contributes to the violation of Apple's trade secret protection).

This is not a slam dunk case, particularly with the case of Asteroid, which is clearly in trade secret territory.

I've never said this case was "cut and dried." I don't pretend to be a lawyer, though obviously many of us pretend to be one on the internet, and I don't know how the judge will rule. I believe in any area where their are competing rights the lines of what is acceptable will be a moving target. I also think that when First Amendment concerns are at risk, those that value them had better fight for them or we lose them.

I would like some of the more knowledgeable among us to explain such rulings as Ford Motor Co. v. Lane (http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/99/november/nw1105-5.htm). Does anyone know if this judgment was overturned? To my untrained eye it would seem to help ThinkSecret.

[Sun Baked]

I've never said this case was "cut and dried." I don't pretend to be a lawyer, though obviously many of us pretend to be one on the internet, and I don't know how the judge will rule. I believe in any area where their are competing rights the lines of what is acceptable will be a moving target. I also think that when First Amendment concerns are at risk, those that value them had better fight for them or we lose them.

I would like some of the more knowledgeable among us to explain such rulings as Ford Motor Co. v. Lane (http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/99/november/nw1105-5.htm). Does anyone know if this judgment was overturned? To my untrained eye it would seem to help ThinkSecret.Edit: A public interest case would be different... sites like www.lemonaidcars.com and www.blueovalnews.com thrive on their "illegally" obtained documents. And all the companies can do is make it occasionally painful and expensive for them to operate at times.

[scubus]

I've never said this case was "cut and dried." I don't pretend to be a lawyer, though obviously many of us pretend to be one on the internet, and I don't know how the judge will rule. I believe in any area where their are competing rights the lines of what is acceptable will be a moving target. I also think that when First Amendment concerns are at risk, those that value them had better fight for them or we lose them.

I would like some of the more knowledgeable among us to explain such rulings as Ford Motor Co. v. Lane (http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/99/november/nw1105-5.htm). Does anyone know if this judgment was overturned? To my untrained eye it would seem to help ThinkSecret.

Ford Motor Co. v. Lane is a different case. In that case Ford sought prior restraint in the publishing of trade secrets; in Apple's case they are seeking the name of an informant. Notice that Lane may still be responsible for damages and that his informant's identity was not germane to the case. The case may be relevant in determining if Think Secret is actually a journalistic outlet, but I doubt that will protect Think Secret from paying penalties and damages.

I am also unsure whether determining that Think Secret is a legitimate news source will shield them from divulging their source. Journalistic privilege is not a shield for illegal activity and journalists are compelled to testify as any other citizen.

[Doctor Q]

From an article (http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-apple9mar09,1,3125047.story?coll=la-headlines-technology) bu Terril Yue Jones in today's Los Angeles Times (free viewing temporarily):

Apple's Lawsuits to Guard Its Secrets Leave Mac Faithful With Bitter Taste

Rumormongering about the latest creations from Apple Computer Inc. is as much a part of the Apple experience as the one-button mouse.

The notoriously secretive company is trying to change that by suing website operators that publish confidential details about unreleased products — and that may spur a backlash among techies who have admired Apple's unconventional style.

...

Apple is cherished by loyalists as a feisty, iconoclastic company with a nonconformist philosophy and imaginative products. Some now view Apple like a star turning on his fans, as if, say, U2 or Tom Cruise tried to shut down their fan clubs.

...

And enthusiast sites should be distinguished from rumor mongering sites, whose main purpose is to expose unpublicized news about Apple, said Jason Snell, executive director of MacWorld magazine.

The latter "don't exist for people to share their warm feelings about the Mac," Snell said. "These sites exist to do the equivalent of peeking under the wrapping of a Christmas present."

[Sayhey]

Ford Motor Co. v. Lane is a different case. In that case Ford sought prior restraint in the publishing of trade secrets; in Apple's case they are seeking the name of an informant. Notice that Lane may still be responsible for damages and that his informant's identity was not germane to the case. The case may be relevant in determining if Think Secret is actually a journalistic outlet, but I doubt that will protect Think Secret from paying penalties and damages.

I am also unsure whether determining that Think Secret is a legitimate news source will shield them from divulging their source. Journalistic privilege is not a shield for illegal activity and journalists are compelled to testify as any other citizen.

I'm not so concerned about ThinkSecret paying fines as I am about their being deemed unworthy of First Amendment and Press Shield protection. That is what I found interesting about the Ford Case. I understand there are limits to the protection of journalistic sources and journalists who protect them, but usually that means a burden on the part of the plaintiff or the prosecutors to show they can't get the information in any other way. Apple isn't even close to showing that.

[Sun Baked]

I am also unsure whether determining that Think Secret is a legitimate news source will shield them from divulging their source. Journalistic privilege is not a shield for illegal activity and journalists are compelled to testify as any other citizen.The Michigan case won't up in California anyway, the DVD v. Bunner case proves that California will uphold the protection of a Trade Secrets over free speech.

But the ultimate loss by DVD-CCA (due to the TS being blown already and Bunner being simply a rebroadcaster) also says they will eventually look at the merits of the case in full.

If ThinkSecret is the original publisher of the information and his sources were Apple employees/contractors -- Nick is going to have a much more difficult time than Bunner proving it wasn't a Trade Secret.

---

Of course this is "supposed" to be a simple tortious interference case. ;)

[Sayhey]

Picked this up via a link over at MacSurfer's Headline News (http://www.macsurfer.com/).

Apple v. ThinkSecret*: confidentiality of sources must be respected

Reacting to US computer industry giant Apple's attempts to find out the identity of the sources used by three online publications for some of their articles about Apple, Reporters Without Borders today called for online journalists, as well as those website operators and bloggers whose work constitutes real journalism, to be accorded the same legal protections as journalists with the traditional press.

"We believe that the principle of the confidentiality of sources is essential to journalism," the press freedom organization said. "Depriving online editors of this protection would set a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression. We call for the three websites involved in these cases to be treated exactly as news media and as therefore enjoying the same rights...."

Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=12792)

[gwangung]

I've never said this case was "cut and dried." I don't pretend to be a lawyer, though obviously many of us pretend to be one on the internet, and I don't know how the judge will rule. I believe in any area where their are competing rights the lines of what is acceptable will be a moving target. I also think that when First Amendment concerns are at risk, those that value them had better fight for them or we lose them.

I would like some of the more knowledgeable among us to explain such rulings as Ford Motor Co. v. Lane (http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/99/november/nw1105-5.htm). Does anyone know if this judgment was overturned? To my untrained eye it would seem to help ThinkSecret.

I'm probably conflating your stand with others, who DO think the First Amendment is absolute (and think there's no problem with being called a pedophile or having their credit card number passed around; don't think they thought it through). Sorry about that...but I was concentrating more on outlining my position than in trying to be argumentative. I think it's important to realize that there ARE competing interests here, and it's a bit thornier than the standard kneejerk reaction on either side.

[gwangung]

I'm not so concerned about ThinkSecret paying fines as I am about their being deemed unworthy of First Amendment and Press Shield protection. That is what I found interesting about the Ford Case. I understand there are limits to the protection of journalistic sources and journalists who protect them, but usually that means a burden on the part of the plaintiff or the prosecutors to show they can't get the information in any other way. Apple isn't even close to showing that.

Hrm. My understanding was that Apple COULD go after Think Secret directly...and it would go a whole lot worse for Think Secret. Suing for damages for the premature release of specifications for Asteroid would be a case that Apple would have a good chance of winning, since an unreleased product would fall quite neatly into trade secret territory. And a judgement there would impact Nick much more directly.

[chevyorange]

Whenever a debate like this starts, the people defending it seem to forget what they are defending. This was not just a product announcement, it was a breech of NDA. Then they want to hide behind the first amendment (which is irrelevent in this case) because it's their only recluse. And no offense martman, but your argument seems very uneducated. Not just because you can't properly spell Steve Jobs or you think the 23-inch Cinema Display is a CRT, but also because you think that Steve is just going after this guy for childish revenge, when there's really a bigger picture that you're missing. There's an underlying principle that Apple is defending, and that's the principle of corporate confidentiality. I'll give you an example: If Chevrolet releases the 2005 Corvette, and as this product is being released, an employee leaks that in approximately six months, Chevrolet will unveil the 2006 Corvette with a more sleek, futuristic looking body, more powerful engine, and a bunch of new features and options. You're trying to just say "All he did was spoil the surprise, boo hoo" but it's much more detrimental than that. In the above scenario, this secret getting leaked would most likely cost Chevrolet millions of dollars in worldwide sales. This situation with Apple is no different. Someone leaked a trade secret that was, as all upcoming products are, protected by an NDA. Breeching it has to have consequenses or this sort of thing could bring an end to the Apple products that we use and enjoy.

That is an excellent post - exactly what I was about to pipe in with, using the very same item. I know I held off on buying my 1st iPod because there was a rumor of one being released with Sirius Satellite Radio and that would have been really cool in my book.

Whether or not the rumor turns out to be true 12 months from now, hearing the denial that one was on the drawing boards opened my wallet. I imagine the same thing would go for other Apple goods in my book.

[scubus]

I'm not so concerned about ThinkSecret paying fines as I am about their being deemed unworthy of First Amendment and Press Shield protection. That is what I found interesting about the Ford Case. I understand there are limits to the protection of journalistic sources and journalists who protect them, but usually that means a burden on the part of the plaintiff or the prosecutors to show they can't get the information in any other way. Apple isn't even close to showing that.

The First Amendment does not guarantee, or even mention, Press Shield protection. Supreme Court rulings have determined that the First Amendment does not offer special protection to anyone, and that journalists are required to testify in legal proceedings as any other citizen would be required to testify.

Aside from making the argument that ThinkSecret is, in fact, engaged in journalism, I don't see how the Ford case would apply to ThinkSecret. The Ford case really makes no mention of journalistic privilege.

Remember, the first part of the Apple case is not about whether anyone is deserving of First Amendment protection (everyone is), but whether they are journalists. If they are, then Apple will argue that they are not protected by journalistic privilege in this case. I think Apple will win that argument, but if they are deemed not to be journalists then the argument does not have to be made.

I also do not believe that the plaintiff is burdened with showing that they cannot uncover the information in any other way, nor do I know that Apple is not even close to showing that, and I suspect neither is anyone else posting here; we simply are not privy to the reams of court documents and findings of fact that I am sure have been filed to date.

[Sun Baked]

I also do not believe that the plaintiff is burdened with showing that they cannot uncover the information in any other way, nor do I know that Apple is not even close to showing that, and I suspect neither is anyone else posting here; we simply are not privy to the reams of court documents and findings of fact that I am sure have been filed to date.It's still in the preliminary stages where Apple is trying to keep the case moving forward and the EFF is trying to kill it.

The tree killing hasn't even really started yet.

[gwangung]

The First Amendment does not guarantee, or even mention, Press Shield protection. Supreme Court rulings have determined that the First Amendment does not offer special protection to anyone, and that journalists are required to testify in legal proceedings as any other citizen would be required to testify.


Remember, the first part of the Apple case is not about whether anyone is deserving of First Amendment protection (everyone is), but whether they are journalists. If they are, then Apple will argue that they are not protected by journalistic privilege in this case. I think Apple will win that argument, but if they are deemed not to be journalists then the argument does not have to be made.


I'm not so sure of that. Journalism isn't a matter of established organizations. It will, I'm sure, be decided on function. I believe that Think Secret would pass that test (it's published, it reports, etc.). First Amendment rights apply to everyone, as pointed out, and when you publish regularly (not necessarily periodically), you have a publication. Think Secret would pass that test easily.

The ONLY reason that Apple would argue that Think Secret isn;t a journalistic entity is to avoid a test of the limits of the press shield law (it makes jurisprudence a lot easier if you don't have to get into the case of conflicting laws). It's a forlorn hope, I think; they're going to have to argue the conflicting intents of the trade secret law vs. the journalistic shield law (and it's going to be a messier case here).


I also do not believe that the plaintiff is burdened with showing that they cannot uncover the information in any other way, nor do I know that Apple is not even close to showing that, and I suspect neither is anyone else posting here; we simply are not privy to the reams of court documents and findings of fact that I am sure have been filed to date.

Well, yeah. That would be part of the finding of law, and would be presented in court, in that case (which people seem to be forgetting)

[scubus]

I'm not so sure of that. Journalism isn't a matter of established organizations. It will, I'm sure, be decided on function. I believe that Think Secret would pass that test (it's published, it reports, etc.). First Amendment rights apply to everyone, as pointed out, and when you publish regularly (not necessarily periodically), you have a publication. Think Secret would pass that test easily.

The ONLY reason that Apple would argue that Think Secret isn;t a journalistic entity is to avoid a test of the limits of the press shield law (it makes jurisprudence a lot easier if you don't have to get into the case of conflicting laws). It's a forlorn hope, I think; they're going to have to argue the conflicting intents of the trade secret law vs. the journalistic shield law (and it's going to be a messier case here).




I think we are basically saying the same thing. Perhaps I was just unclear.

I was trying to say that Apple is making the argument that ThinkSecret is not a journalistic entity so they don't have to get into the Press Shield issues, but if they do get into those issues, I think they will win that argument. But then again, I'm just an armchair attorney, so who knows :)

[Maestro64]

Guess what everyone here opinions is nice but the courts have decided in favor of Apple.

http://news.com.com/Apple+wins+round+in+lawsuit+against+fan+sites/2100-1047_3-5611285.html?tag=nefd.top

You can argue about 1st amendment rights but the judge clearly called it out it as have nothing to do with protecting a reporter's sources.

Unless this gets over turned, i predict some firing in the very near future, I think those people better find a new job fast before apple finds out who they are.

[scubus]

Guess what everyone here opinions is nice but the courts have decided in favor of Apple.

http://news.com.com/Apple+wins+round+in+lawsuit+against+fan+sites/2100-1047_3-5611285.html?tag=nefd.top

You can argue about 1st amendment rights but the judge clearly called it out it as have nothing to do with protecting a reporter's sources.

Unless this gets over turned, i predict some firing in the very near future, I think those people better find a new job fast before apple finds out who they are.

I suspect if Apple finds out who they are, new jobs will be the least of their worries...

I am glad the judge avoided the whole question of trying to define who is and who isn't a journalist.

[Sayhey]

Guess what everyone here opinions is nice but the courts have decided in favor of Apple.

http://news.com.com/Apple+wins+round+in+lawsuit+against+fan+sites/2100-1047_3-5611285.html?tag=nefd.top

You can argue about 1st amendment rights but the judge clearly called it out it as have nothing to do with protecting a reporter's sources.

Unless this gets over turned, i predict some firing in the very near future, I think those people better find a new job fast before apple finds out who they are.

I just hope there are some wiser judges on appeal.

[scubus]

I just hope there are some wiser judges on appeal.

What was unwise about this judge's decision?

[Sayhey]

What was unwise about this judge's decision?

Read the Reporters without Borders statement in post #106 above.

In fact, the judge's opinion looks to be even worse than originally feared, in that it calls into question the right of reporters in all media to protect their sources if a company calls the information a "trade secret."

[scubus]

Read the Reporters without Borders statement in post #106 above.

In fact, the judge's opinion looks to be even worse than originally feared, in that it calls into question the right of reporters in all media to protect their sources if a company calls the information a "trade secret."

Reporters without Borders argues that it is unwise to deny online journalists with the same rights as traditional journalists. That has not happened in this case. Any reporter would be subject to the same actions in this situation.

There has never been a right for reporters to report trade secrets or to protect sources who are guilty of illegal activity unless they are able to demonstrate that the report and its sources are in the greater public interest.

The only thing new in this case is the question of whether or not bloggers are legitimate news sources. The judge wisely didn't rule on that issue - mostly because even if they are legit they are still bound to reveal the source in this case.

Why would anyone wish it to be any other way?

[Sayhey]

Reporters without Borders argues that it is unwise to deny online journalists with the same rights as traditional journalists. That has not happened in this case. Any reporter would be subject to the same actions in this situation.

There has never been a right for reporters to report trade secrets or to protect sources who are guilty of illegal activity unless they are able to demonstrate that the report and its sources are in the greater public interest.

The only thing new in this case is the question of whether or not bloggers are legitimate news sources. The judge wisely didn't rule on that issue - mostly because even if they are legit they are still bound to reveal the source in this case.

Why would anyone wish it to be any other way?

"We believe that the principle of the confidentiality of sources is essential to journalism," the press freedom organization said.

Did you read the statement? Yes, as I said in my previous post, the judge goes farther in his ruling and imperils all reporters' rights to protect sources in cases that involve a company's claim to "trade secrets." That's not something I wish to celebrate.

[scubus]

Did you read the statement? Yes, as I said in my previous post, the judge goes farther in his ruling and imperils all reporters' rights to protect sources in cases that involve a company's claim to "trade secrets." That's not something I wish to celebrate.

Yes, I read the statement. Did you read the entire article? It is likely that Reporters Without Borders has a slant; life would be much easier for reporters if they did not have to justify their actions. That is what the article is trying to justify. I am not ready to give reporters that freedom.

Reporters have no rights that you and I do not. Journalistic protection of sources is not a Constitutional right. So to say reporters have the right to protect sources is incorrect. The judge did not introduce anything new. Reporters in all media have had to protect trade secrets unless revealing them is in the public interest, specifically for at least twenty years, and broadly for years prior to that. In addition, journalistic privilege has never been a shield for illegal activity.

Trade secrets are not public information, nor should they be. Individuals and corporations do have an expectation of privacy unless revealing information is in the public interest.

[~loserman~]

It's still in the preliminary stages where Apple is trying to keep the case moving forward and the EFF is trying to kill it.

The tree killing hasn't even really started yet.

Its ok we can always plant more..... :)

[Sun Baked]

Did you read the Nick Ciarelli declaration?

Anybody reading Page 3 Paragraphs 6-8 think that Nick knows exactly who leaked the information?

[Sayhey]

Did you read the Nick Ciarelli declaration?

Anybody reading Page 3 Paragraphs 6-8 think that Nick knows exactly who leaked the information?

Yes, I've read it and think he upfront says in this case he knows who gave him the information. If that is the same as who leaked the information from Apple, then, yes, he knows the leaker.

I would remind everyone else, however, just as you did earlier, that this is a different case than the one in which Judge Kleinberg ruled. Who knows if this is the same individual who leaked the information to AppleInsider, PowerPage, etc.?

[Sayhey]

Yes, I read the statement. Did you read the entire article? It is likely that Reporters Without Borders has a slant; life would be much easier for reporters if they did not have to justify their actions. That is what the article is trying to justify. I am not ready to give reporters that freedom.

Reporters have no rights that you and I do not. Journalistic protection of sources is not a Constitutional right. So to say reporters have the right to protect sources is incorrect. The judge did not introduce anything new. Reporters in all media have had to protect trade secrets unless revealing them is in the public interest, specifically for at least twenty years, and broadly for years prior to that. In addition, journalistic privilege has never been a shield for illegal activity.

Trade secrets are not public information, nor should they be. Individuals and corporations do have an expectation of privacy unless revealing information is in the public interest.

Yes .... they have a slant. It is an advocacy organization for journalistic freedom. One would expect a slant from such a body. Because they have a slant does not mean they are wrong or what they say is not worthy to be heard.

Perhaps you should consider that Apple's claim that the information is a "trade secret" might not make it so just because Apple says it is. Perhaps you should consider that when competing rights are in conflict what it means for all of us when the First Amendment protections lose out to those of private corporations. A judge should understand the need to balance those competing rights; this one didn't even consider them.

I guess my point in originally posting the link in question was to remind people of the need for a free press. Not a unimportant concept in free society. If the press gets turned into an adjunct of the judicial system then we have lost something very critical for its functioning.

[scubus]

Yes .... they have a slant. It is an advocacy organization for journalistic freedom. One would expect a slant from such a body. Because they have a slant does not mean they are wrong or what they say is not worthy to be heard.

Perhaps you should consider that Apple's claim that the information is a "trade secret" might not make it so just because Apple says it is. Perhaps you should consider that when competing rights are in conflict what it means for all of us when the First Amendment protections lose out to those of private corporations. A judge should understand the need to balance those competing rights; this one didn't even consider them.

I guess my point in originally posting the link in question was to remind people of the need for a free press. Not a unimportant concept in free society. If the press gets turned into an adjunct of the judicial system then we have lost something very critical for its functioning.

The press is still free. What First Amendment rights have been trod upon?

The judge did balance those rights you mention, and appropriately in my opinion. How can you say the judge didn't consider them? He actually addressed them in his decision.

Sure, perhaps the leaked information wasn't a trade secret. I fail to see how it wasn't, but regardless of my opinion Apple had to demonstrate to a judge that it was, and that it was covered by NDAs. The defendants in this case had the opportunity to demonstrate that it wasn't - they never even tried to make that argument.

Just because Reporters Without Borders tells you that this is an affront to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press doesn't make it so. It is simply their opinion, one I do not share in this case.

[Sayhey]

The judge did balance those rights you mention, and appropriately in my opinion. How can you say the judge didn't consider them? He actually addressed them in his decision.

He dismissed them. That is not the same thing.

[~loserman~]

He dismissed them. That is not the same thing.

Sayhey,

I really think it comes down to this.

1.Apple can do no wrong. Everything they say or do is the way things should always be.
2.Any rights that others might posses should always be modified and interpreted in respect to rule 1.
3. Any party that violates either of the above rules will be prosecuted found guilty and punished accordingly

Since I'm sure a JUDGE would understand the rules, how could he rule otherwise.

[scubus]

He dismissed them. That is not the same thing.

In what way did the judge "dismiss" them?

Because the judge did not rule in the manner you would like does not mean that he did not consider the rights of all parties involved.

[scubus]

Sayhey,

I really think it comes down to this.

1.Apple can do no wrong. Everything they say or do is the way things should always be.
2.Any rights that others might posses should always be modified and interpreted in respect to rule 1.
3. Any party that violates either of the above rules will be prosecuted found guilty and punished accordingly

Since I'm sure a JUDGE would understand the rules, how could he rule otherwise.

Sayhey makes valid points and justifies them with reasoned responses.

This, on the other hand...

Perhaps you could add something of value to the comments made.

[~loserman~]

Sayhey makes valid points and justifies them with reasoned responses.

This, on the other hand...

Perhaps you could add something of value to the comments made.

Lighten up... It's a joke

[scubus]

Lighten up... It's a joke

Fair enough.

[gwangung]

Perhaps you should consider that Apple's claim that the information is a "trade secret" might not make it so just because Apple says it is.

For an unreleased product that is under development (Asteroid)?

Um. I think a judge or jury is going to have a hard time digesting that. There's a prima facie case here that puts the onus on the defendant to demonstrate that information on an unreleased product, undergoing development with specific specs [which implies certain suppliers and such] would protected information. Much stronger argument for the release of info on the Shuffle.