PDA

View Full Version : Think Belligerent: Steve Jobs will do anything to protect hi...


MacBytes
May 4, 2005, 03:14 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac Websites
Link: Think Belligerent: Steve Jobs will do anything to protect his precious secrets. So he's suing Apple's biggest fans. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050504041417)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by arn

nagromme
May 4, 2005, 03:32 AM
Minor correction: Apple (not Steve Jobs) is suing ONE of Apple's biggest fans.

Being an Apple fan doesn't give you immunity for illegal actions that you make a profit from.

At first, I didn't see how anything Think Secret did was illegal--only those who broke signed NDA (and who Apple is also going after).

But the more I know, the more I think Apple's in the right:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/29/legal/index.php

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

This article describes Apple habits such as NDAs as being "paranoid" :rolleyes:

Somehow the "Mac zealots" seem to be surviving Apple's suit against Think Secret/Nick Ciarelli, and not suddenly falling in love with Windows XP.

But beating that question to death again is as good a way as any to generate hits, I guess. Who wants to read an article called "Apple's trade secrets can be a two-edged sword" when you can have one about Steve Jobs, "intimidation," and "zealots"?

He closes by suggesting that the iPod Shuffle "Life is Random" slogan, and the slogan "Enjoy Uncertainty" (did he make that one up?) are hypocritical unless Apple embraces being "out of control" by no longer trying to keep secrets from competitors.

No more NDAs. No more lawsuits. No other company protects its secrets, right? :rolleyes:

angelneo
May 4, 2005, 04:32 AM
I think the article is bias as it did not bring to light on how ThinkSecret managed to get their information on Apple product. Perhaps the writer just wanted to take a swipe at Apple as well, quite sloppy as he did not present both sides of the case and prefer to refer to Apple lawsuit as a publicity stunt.

macnulty
May 4, 2005, 07:46 AM
What I don't get is why some journalists (writers, posters) seem to think it is OK to publish trade secrets or actually use trade secrets to generate site traffic to generate revenue.

It really is a very simple concept.

jholzner
May 4, 2005, 08:11 AM
I think this topic has been beaten to death. How many more articles are going to be written?

iGary
May 4, 2005, 08:15 AM
I think this topic has been beaten to death. How many more articles are going to be written?

Ditto. :rolleyes:

Raiden
May 4, 2005, 09:14 AM
I completely agree with the article.

There is something wrong with the fact that any reporter who stumbles apon a secret for ANY other company can report it and make it headline news (theres this thing in the constitution called FREEDOM OF PRESS), yet when a reporter gets an anonymous tip about apple, he is in danger of getting sued if he reports it. Who the hell gave steve jobs and apple the right to be better than the law of this great country?

And whats worse is you people follow apple's legal whims like sheep. You people ate up thinksecret and loved it and the news it reported, untill it got sued by apple, then suddenly you turnfaced and made talk about how horrible thinksecret is.

iGary
May 4, 2005, 09:17 AM
I completely agree with the article.

There is something wrong with the fact that any reporter who stumbles apon a secret for ANY other company can report it and make it headline news (theres this thing in the constitution called FREEDOM OF PRESS), yet when a reporter gets an anonymous tip about apple, he is in danger of getting sued if he reports it. Who the hell gave steve jobs and apple the right to be better than the law of this great country?

And whats worse is you people follow apple's legal whims like sheep. You people ate up thinksecret and loved it and the news it reported, untill it got sued by apple, then suddenly you turnfaced and made talk about how horrible thinksecret is.

You are free to write/speak whatever you want in this country until it causes damages. Plain and simple.

angelneo
May 4, 2005, 09:29 AM
I completely agree with the article.

There is something wrong with the fact that any reporter who stumbles apon a secret for ANY other company can report it and make it headline news (theres this thing in the constitution called FREEDOM OF PRESS), yet when a reporter gets an anonymous tip about apple, he is in danger of getting sued if he reports it. Who the hell gave steve jobs and apple the right to be better than the law of this great country?

And whats worse is you people follow apple's legal whims like sheep. You people ate up thinksecret and loved it and the news it reported, untill it got sued by apple, then suddenly you turnfaced and made talk about how horrible thinksecret is.
"stumbles upon a secret"? you got to be joking. There's a difference between exposing a secret in the tabacco industry to exposing a new product in a tech company (assuming that product doesn't start spewing toxic waste and mutate everyone in sight into a brand new macintosh). Well, here's a few thread to get you started

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=114219
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=103526
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=106024

gerardrj
May 4, 2005, 09:33 AM
You are free to write/speak whatever you want in this country until it causes damages. Plain and simple.

To expand on (and correct) that statement: You are free to do anything you want to do in the U.S., as long as you are willing to accept the consequences that society may impose.

nagromme
May 4, 2005, 10:10 AM
There is something wrong with the fact that any reporter who stumbles apon a secret for ANY other company can report it and make it headline news (theres this thing in the constitution called FREEDOM OF PRESS), yet when a reporter gets an anonymous tip about apple, he is in danger of getting sued if he reports it. Who the hell gave steve jobs and apple the right to be better than the law of this great country?


The law of this great country has decided, so far, that Apple is right and Think Secret is wrong.

Read here for insight into why Think Secret letting out Apple's trade secrets is NOT the same as a journalist exposing hidden crimes of a company:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/29/legal/index.php

Note in particular the meaning of "public interest."

OhEsTen
May 4, 2005, 10:22 AM
This is yet another article which has made me remove them from my bookmarks bar. Earlier they posted an article under their "cult of mac" about "all of those viruses" that are finally hitting mac users and how we should all run out and buy anti-virus software. Not only that, but the mystry/pssy writer did not even post his/her name to the article - thats great "journalism"

Since when did they hire thurrot to their "writing" staff?

P.S. While we are on the topic of mac-bashing, is it just me or is it painfully obvious that hewlett packard sponsors the show Project Green Light. I can't beleive that they make them cover all other logo's in the show (including the obvious Powerbooks) and spam us with their incessant hp logo EVERYWHERE. At least when a Mac appears in a scene, it is usually for aesthetic reasons and not because Apple pays them for product placement. That is what the commercials are for.

Kagetenshi
May 4, 2005, 12:18 PM
Think Stupid: Tom McNichol will do anything to generate controversy and interest, so he's spouting falsehoods and incorrect conclusions and just generally making an ass of himself.

~J

gerlitzappel
May 4, 2005, 12:50 PM
I thought it was about time for an update on the lawsuits. Wired magazine is probably my favorite reading material. I thought the article had a good balance from both sides perspectives. If it is a publicity stunt, then I say it's a damn good done!

isus
May 4, 2005, 02:34 PM
wired is a little late on this story, aren't they? geez...

macnulty
May 4, 2005, 05:34 PM
To expand on my original post, there is no journalist integrity involved. It's about getting traffic through their ( TS ) website, not necessarily a bad thing until you are exposing trade secrets to benefits yourself. Get an audience in a legal manner.

latergator116
May 4, 2005, 05:47 PM
I agree with the article. I don't see how exposing the mac-mini (which was already being speculated for a while) one week before introduction could be considered a trade secret.

Kagetenshi
May 4, 2005, 05:48 PM
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Please don't use it.

~J

jimjiminyjim
May 4, 2005, 06:09 PM
Anybody ever think that "Nick DePlume" and Steve Jobs are much like "incrediboy" and "Mr Incredible" in the Incredibles? Hmmm.....

latergator116
May 4, 2005, 07:20 PM
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Please don't use it.

~J

Well that's just a natter of opinion, isn't it? BTW, to clarify, I only agree with him on the point that Apple shouldn't be suing Thinksecret. None of his side comments about Jobs and Apple, etc.

Kagetenshi
May 4, 2005, 07:40 PM
To clarify, I'm not calling you ignorant. Regardless, I hold to my position that that was an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The definition of a trade secret, from the Uniform Trade S

Waitaminute, we've had this discussion before. The definition, as it was back in the Jobs' Bio thread, is still (4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
which fairly clearly applies to the release of the Mac Mini (being that it was more or less entirely unprecedented in Apple history, and that its sudden and unexpected release would have been altogether more significant than what ended up happening). I mean, I suppose I could see you arguing the point of (i), though I think it fairly clearly applies, but to say that you can't see how it could be a trade secret is an argument from ignorance.

~J

nagromme
May 4, 2005, 09:39 PM
It's not as if competitors, like Intel, say, would ever react in any manner to "borrow" the Mac Mini design for their own ends ;)

latergator116
May 5, 2005, 01:30 PM
To clarify, I'm not calling you ignorant. Regardless, I hold to my position that that was an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The definition of a trade secret, from the Uniform Trade S

Waitaminute, we've had this discussion before. The definition, as it was back in the Jobs' Bio thread, is still
which fairly clearly applies to the release of the Mac Mini (being that it was more or less entirely unprecedented in Apple history, and that its sudden and unexpected release would have been altogether more significant than what ended up happening). I mean, I suppose I could see you arguing the point of (i), though I think it fairly clearly applies, but to say that you can't see how it could be a trade secret is an argument from ignorance.

~J

Yes, I know that. When I said "it is a matter of opinion" I was refering to the original argument, not mine.

I don't see how the macmini situation is any different from Macrumors predicting the 17" powerbook before it came out or announcing specs for the new powermac, imac, etc.

Kagetenshi
May 5, 2005, 01:36 PM
I don't know the specifics for the instances you're noting, but my take on it is that there have probably been quite a few trade secrets that have been outed by the Mac rumor community (with ThinkSecret as one of the most egregious offenders), but that Apple was content to grin and bear it right up until the Mac Mini leak.

There's nothing legally obligating Apple to go after violations of trade secrets, it's just good business that they have, until now, been ignoring.

~J