PDA

View Full Version : Apple the Loser in ThinkSecret Settlement?




MacRumors
Dec 20, 2007, 02:57 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A Computerworld article (http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=intellectual_property_and_drm&articleId=9053798&taxonomyId=144&intsrc=kc_top) provides reaction from ThinkSecret's lawyer on today's announcement that ThinkSecret had settled with Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/thinksecret-shuts-down-settles-apple-lawsuit/) and would no longer be published.

Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP told Computerworld, "The First Amendment has prevailed and every Internet journalist should feel some strength from what's happened", claiming that it was clear that Apple was going to lose if they continued to pursue the case. Gross goes on to state that it was settled because Nick Ciarelli was ready to move on to other projects after running ThinkSecret for the past 9 years, since age 13.

Gross challenges that he "would have loved for Apple to go forward on this" and that "Apple would have caved."

In an earlier statement to MacRumors, Ciarelli had said "I'm very satisfied with the settlement".

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/apple-the-loser-in-thinksecret-settlement/)



Eidorian
Dec 20, 2007, 03:00 PM
It's nice to know more about this.

I'm a fan of ThinkSecret. They'll be missed.

ppc_michael
Dec 20, 2007, 03:01 PM
Since 13, eh? That's pretty cool. I had my own domain when I was 13 (Gross and I are the same age), but all I remember is a bunch of scrolling marquis and image maps. :eek::o

WhySoSerious
Dec 20, 2007, 03:02 PM
sounds to me like the kid got PAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIID!!! $$$$$$$$

p0intblank
Dec 20, 2007, 03:04 PM
Since age 13? Damn, now that's an accomplishment!

Adokimus
Dec 20, 2007, 03:06 PM
Unless I read this wrong, either the lawyer wants to make himself look good when Nick Ciarelli gave up or Apple saw they were going to lose and chose instead to pay off Nick to shut down his site. People don't conveniently give up a passion of theirs at the young age of 22 when there is a lawsuit, especially something they have done successfully since age 13. This only happens when money is thrown at them. Lots of it.

-Ado

Sun Baked
Dec 20, 2007, 03:07 PM
That still plugged the leak, and drops off one source for news on the web.

But we shall see how it affects first run stories based on leaks in the future.

Edit: Still a tough price to pay ... wear you down in court, or take you off the air.

lil'homunculus
Dec 20, 2007, 03:07 PM
Now this is just a rumor (that i am creating), but the kid had no choice... The judge threatened to condemn him exclusively to using 'microsoft products' for the rest of his days!!! Of course he relented, wouldn't you?:eek:

killerwhack
Dec 20, 2007, 03:09 PM
The reason the attorney would love it if Apple had pursued is that the attorney gains two things:

1. Billable hours (which may be provided pro-bono and offset against other income for tax purposes)

2. Publicity (something no attorney can resist)

MacsRgr8
Dec 20, 2007, 03:10 PM
I wouldn't call that Apple losing.

Apple settled it. I am sure the lawyers knew what they were doing, and this seemed to the quickest and most satisfying solution.

Stuff all the conspiracy theorists.

Small White Car
Dec 20, 2007, 03:12 PM
The reason the attorney would love it if Apple had pursued is that the attorney gains two things:

1. Billable hours (which may be provided pro-bono and offset against other income for tax purposes)

2. Publicity (something no attorney can resist)


Yeah. Nick made a statement saying he's fine with how things turned out.

For the lawyer to then come out and trash-talk seems to be in poor taste at that point. It really looks like he's trying to beef up his own reputation and this has nothing to do at all with his client.

Sun Baked
Dec 20, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yeah. Nick made a statement saying he's fine with how things turned out.

For the lawyer to then come out and trash-talk seems to be in poor taste at that point. It really looks like he's trying to beef up his own reputation and this has nothing to do at all with his client.

But lawyers always do that, especially when they are in the hunt for the next case.

Even if your client just died after a lethal injection, you are in front of the camera being a spin doctor.

MrT8064
Dec 20, 2007, 03:15 PM
A lot of my respect for apple has gone; What was is that think secret actually did?

MongoTheGeek
Dec 20, 2007, 03:17 PM
Yeah. Nick made a statement saying he's fine with how things turned out.

For the lawyer to then come out and trash-talk seems to be in poor taste at that point. It really looks like he's trying to beef up his own reputation and this has nothing to do at all with his client.

Yes.

I figure Nick got paid, at least a little. I figure Apple covered his lawyer fees. They say the mole wasn't sacrificed and I tend to believe that. The mole may have been caught through other means though.

GFLPraxis
Dec 20, 2007, 03:18 PM
As a young internet journalist running a website with my own sources and contacts, I like the sound of this :)

I figure Apple paid Nick a very, very large figure in exchange for him closing down the website; enough money that it probably dwarfed anything he would ever make off of ad revenue.

Good for Nick. He's got a bright future ahead.

Anyone know how old he is now?

Small White Car
Dec 20, 2007, 03:18 PM
A lot of my respect for apple has gone; What was is that think secret actually did?

Someone inside Apple told Thinksecret details about products that hadn't been announced yet. There were many, but the most notable was the Mac Mini's original announcement.

Whereas most rumor sites piece stuff together, Thinksecret had an honest-to-goodness mole within Apple. This is why Apple went after them much harder than everyone else. They really wanted to know WHO it was that was doing that. Almost 3 years later now (and the case is over) and they never did find that out.

And to make this clear, that person could go to jail if found out. This is not like other sites who look at patents and make guesses. This was outright theft. Nick argued that HE didn't steal it so he shouldn't be held accountable. To a certain extent, he won that argument. Yes, his site is gone, but he didn't get in trouble with the law.

GFLPraxis
Dec 20, 2007, 03:19 PM
I figure Nick got paid, at least a little. I figure Apple covered his lawyer fees.

Then why would Nick close down the site? He's losing a source of revenue, he's essentially giving up the case.

No, if Nick is very satisfied with the settlement and the lawyer believes Apple would have lost, I would suspect Apple paid him off pretty well.

topgunn
Dec 20, 2007, 03:20 PM
In other news, Apple's 15 billion dollar bank roll is now down to 14.998 billion.

mdntcallr
Dec 20, 2007, 03:24 PM
Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

this is bad for Apple.

They are getting as arrogant as Microsoft.

longofest
Dec 20, 2007, 03:25 PM
Whereas most rumor sites piece stuff together, Thinksecret had an honest-to-goodness mole within Apple. This is why Apple went after them much harder than everyone else. They really wanted to know WHO it was that was doing that. Almost 3 years later now (and the case is over) and they never did find that out.

Not really. Note that there were two cases that Apple brought against rumor sites. The first case to be dismissed was against PowerPage, AppleInsider, and some others regarding Asteroid.

The second one, which just got settled, was against ThinkSecret, but Apple claimed that ThinkSecret encouraged and induced individuals to divulge trade secrets. That was not part of the complaint against the other sites, and probably why Apple went against ThinkSecret more. Apple simply had a stronger case against ThinkSecret.

gwangung
Dec 20, 2007, 03:25 PM
And to make this clear, that person could go to jail if found out. This is not like other sites who look at patents and make guesses. This was outright theft. Nick argued that HE didn't steal it so he shouldn't be held accountable. To a certain extent, he won that argument. Yes, his site is gone, but he didn't get in trouble with the law.


That makes me wonder. California's trade secret law clearly states that its applicable to folks who knew the material was a trade secret, or should have known. The insider clearly knew...shouldn't Think Secret have known?

Sun Baked
Dec 20, 2007, 03:31 PM
That makes me wonder. California's trade secret law clearly states that its applicable to folks who knew the material was a trade secret, or should have known. The insider clearly knew...shouldn't Think Secret have known?

Apple has filed locally to pursue criminal cases in the past, did in one past leak case.

Think Secret basically protected their source to prevent it in this case.

jasonklee
Dec 20, 2007, 03:31 PM
"gossip is the opiate of the oppressed"

Small White Car
Dec 20, 2007, 03:31 PM
Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

Ah, yes. And back in 2003, when Thinksecret said the iPod Mini was going to cost $100 and then it came out and was actually $249...and everyone complained that it was "supposed" to cost less...that was real great for Apple, wasn't it?

Peace
Dec 20, 2007, 03:40 PM
Unless I read this wrong, either the lawyer wants to make himself look good when Nick Ciarelli gave up or Apple saw they were going to lose and chose instead to pay off Nick to shut down his site. People don't conveniently give up a passion of theirs at the young age of 22 when there is a lawsuit, especially something they have done successfully since age 13. This only happens when money is thrown at them. Lots of it.

-Ado


The reason the attorney would love it if Apple had pursued is that the attorney gains two things:

1. Billable hours (which may be provided pro-bono and offset against other income for tax purposes)

2. Publicity (something no attorney can resist)

The lawyer in question was working the case as a rep for EFF..A lot of those lawyers volunteer.I'm not sure if this one was.


Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

this is bad for Apple.

They are getting as arrogant as Microsoft.

All companies need secrets. Especially in the computer market. It allows them to keep ahead of the competition.




All in all I'm guessing Nick got some kind of stipend but since he did this since the age of 13 he may well have gotten burned out on thinksecret and truly wanted to move on. This sort of thing happens as kids grow up.

Cheffy Dave
Dec 20, 2007, 03:43 PM
Then why would Nick close down the site? He's losing a source of revenue, he's essentially giving up the case.

No, if Nick is very satisfied with the settlement and the lawyer believes Apple would have lost, I would suspect Apple paid him off pretty well.

$16.5:apple::eek:

mklos
Dec 20, 2007, 03:47 PM
Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

this is bad for Apple.

They are getting as arrogant as Microsoft.

How is this bad for Apple? Think Secret did a no-no and got caught. So Apple is the bad guy? If a site is telling trade secrets from another company to the world, thats not fair to Apple. How would you like it if you worked your butt off for 2 years on a brand new product and then a mole in your company told the world about it before it was ready to be released? Think about that!

I also don't think this Nick kid got paid. He has no reason to get paid. Apple basically slapped him on the wrist and most likely part of the slapping on the wrist was maybe you should shut down your site so more trouble doesn't come for you.

arn
Dec 20, 2007, 03:51 PM
Then why would Nick close down the site? He's losing a source of revenue, he's essentially giving up the case

Nick is a senior at Harvard. It's possible he doesn't see himself running ThinkSecret for the rest of his life. :)

arn

GQB
Dec 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
A lot of my respect for apple has gone; What was is that think secret actually did?

How can you lose respect for Apple if you don't know what it is they did?

gwangung
Dec 20, 2007, 03:56 PM
Nick is a senior at Harvard. It's possible he doesn't see himself running ThinkSecret for the rest of his life. :)

arn

Oh...you mean he kept it long enough to GET THROUGH Harvard, hm? :D

aWannabeMacUser
Dec 20, 2007, 03:59 PM
He meant to say "I'm very $atisfied with the $ettlement"

Butthead
Dec 20, 2007, 04:17 PM
Nick is a senior at Harvard. It's possible he doesn't see himself running ThinkSecret for the rest of his life. :)

arn

Lawsuits are stressful and very time consuming (unless you're an attorney and you are used to this kind of stuff, you get paid for a living to litigate/settle claims/defend against claims...all the massive amount of paper work and time spent behind the scenes with the discovery process, demands for documents, your entire personal life under scrutiny, videotaped depositions that go on for hours/days- that movies never even come close to representing in proper scope), in as much as TS was being represented for 'free' there wasn't the financial burden there, and Apple would not likely go after him in any monetary judgment they might have won against him, but then there's the all consuming time burden of having to go through lengthy litigation. This case would likely have been going back and forth on appeals for another year or two, or three, disrupting Nick's entire life!

Yeah, his arrogant lawyer makes silly claims about free speech and internet...blah, blah, blah...as of right now, the law in this area cannot be said to be "it is well settled that..." in typical legal jargon. Without definitive Appellate written opinions, no case law is established. Apple definitely won in the long run for now---MR should contact Apple's legal team for a comment as to their opinion of whether or not this case set any legal precedents...which it clearly did NOT, lol. With no established case law for defense attorneys to get out of this case to rely on referencing in future cases, they simply are left with prior case law for future cases that Apple will bring.

Oh yeah, Apple made the right decisions, no doubt about it. And how does anyone know how much Nick got in the settlement? Perhaps his attorney's billable hours were applied to all settlement payments and Nick ended up with a net zero, for all any of you know?...unless you're seeing him driving a Ferrari in the next few months :p.

gnasher729
Dec 20, 2007, 04:17 PM
In other news, Apple's 15 billion dollar bank roll is now down to 14.998 billion.

Please give me one good reason why Apple would give money to ThinkSecret.

Darkroom
Dec 20, 2007, 04:17 PM
who needs journalistic integrity, upholding the constitution and saying no to multi billion dollar business bullies when there's money settlements to be won... :rolleyes:

psychofreak
Dec 20, 2007, 04:19 PM
who needs journalistic integrity, upholding the constitution and saying no to multi billion dollar business bullies when there's money involved... :rolleyes:

Don't judge until you've turned down $$$ to quit from a company you know won't stop bugging you...

lkrupp
Dec 20, 2007, 04:21 PM
Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

this is bad for Apple.

They are getting as arrogant as Microsoft.

If that's your opinion then I want a straight answer from you. Why are you still an Apple customer? If they are the new Microsoft, if they attack people who support their products, then for God's sake why do you still use the product? I don't understand people like you. You declare Apple to be the source of all evil in the world yet you're still around. Why is that?

LethalWolfe
Dec 20, 2007, 04:23 PM
who needs journalistic integrity, upholding the constitution and saying no to multi billion dollar business bullies when there's money settlements to be won... :rolleyes:
What website do you own? How many lawsuits have you weathered? How much money have you turned down?


Lethal

TurboSC
Dec 20, 2007, 04:32 PM
Apple is nutz to think of attacking people who are supportive of their products.

this is bad for Apple.

They are getting as arrogant as Microsoft.

I'm sure you don't know all the details in which you are speaking. You only have the perspective of the consumer, not the corporation. I'm sure Apple is more than intelligent enough to weigh their options and make the right decisions.

FreeState
Dec 20, 2007, 04:33 PM
Im not sure Nick got any money for the settlement of the case - however he may have received some monies for the domain name (no evidence of this yet but it would not surprise me to see the domain name be signed over to Apple - the current registration expires in march http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=thinksecret.com).

mrkramer
Dec 20, 2007, 04:35 PM
Please give me one good reason why Apple would give money to ThinkSecret.

Their lawyers may have decided that they couldn't win the case, so they decided to pay him off to shut down the site, and then dropped the case, maybe.

BornAgainMac
Dec 20, 2007, 04:37 PM
A lot of my respect for apple has gone; What was is that think secret actually did?

I thought it was related to the Asteroid Rumor. Some hardware product to use with Garageband. Something that never happened. It could have just been fake info to setup a trap.

gnasher729
Dec 20, 2007, 04:44 PM
Their lawyers may have decided that they couldn't win the case, so they decided to pay him off to shut down the site, and then dropped the case, maybe.

If Apple wanted to drop the case, they would have just dropped the case. If Apple wanted to have ThinkSecret gone - why would they pay for that? ThinkSecret was dead anyway. No Apple employee would ever again have dared to leak information to them.

Cloudane
Dec 20, 2007, 04:44 PM
I'm trying to figure out how succeeding in getting the site shut down constitutes "losing". Whatever. Nick is seemingly happy, so it's all good I guess.

gnasher729
Dec 20, 2007, 04:47 PM
I thought it was related to the Asteroid Rumor. Some hardware product to use with Garageband. Something that never happened. It could have just been fake info to setup a trap.

It couldn't be fake info. A company suing for revealing a trade secret would be in deep **** with the law if it turned out that they were lying and there was no trade secret. Giving fake information to employees and checking what leaks out might be a way to find unreliable employees, but you couldn't sue them for leaking trade secrets.

arn
Dec 20, 2007, 04:49 PM
I thought it was related to the Asteroid Rumor. Some hardware product to use with Garageband. Something that never happened. It could have just been fake info to setup a trap.

This was not related to Asteroid. There were two legal actions Apple took around the same time.

#1. Subpoenaed Appleinsider, thinksecret, ogrady for information surrounding the Asteroid leak.

#2. Apple sued ThinkSecret for disseminating trade secrets.

Apple lost #1.
#2 was settled today.

arn

numbsafari
Dec 20, 2007, 05:04 PM
Someone inside Apple told Thinksecret details about products that hadn't been announced yet. There were many, but the most notable was the Mac Mini's original announcement.

Whereas most rumor sites piece stuff together, Thinksecret had an honest-to-goodness mole within Apple. This is why Apple went after them much harder than everyone else. They really wanted to know WHO it was that was doing that. Almost 3 years later now (and the case is over) and they never did find that out.

And to make this clear, that person could go to jail if found out. This is not like other sites who look at patents and make guesses. This was outright theft. Nick argued that HE didn't steal it so he shouldn't be held accountable. To a certain extent, he won that argument. Yes, his site is gone, but he didn't get in trouble with the law.


Who's to say that Nick really put this site together? If there was an inside source who saw that they could make $$$ from ad traffic if they sent it little tid-bits why not set up some 13-year-old kid to handle the day-to-day maintenance and feed him information (perhaps even write the stories and just have him post them). He gets a cut and you get a cut and he can be the "face" of the site. It sounds so warm and happy, might even attract some stupid VC money.

rdowns
Dec 20, 2007, 05:04 PM
Nick is a senior at Harvard. It's possible he doesn't see himself running ThinkSecret for the rest of his life. :)

arn

And that running TS wouldn't pay his bills. Even Arn, with a bigger and more trafficked site had to take a second job as a doctor. :p

robertmorris2
Dec 20, 2007, 05:17 PM
Apple, like other large corporations, is very secretive about their R&D, for good reason. Because Apple is seen as some sort of other entity by its devotees,it is after all, a corporation fired by profit. If an article under development is leaked, and copied by another company, then this undermines years of research by the company. The information was apparently supplied by a 'mole' in the Apple corporation. Which in itself is a criminal activity, that is punishable by the court system. Without disclosure of the 'mole', Apple had no other choice but to close down the public leaks of the products. It's a shame that it resulted in closing down the site, because ThinkSecret was a great site.
But, wrong is wrong.

Eriamjh1138@DAN
Dec 20, 2007, 05:19 PM
Apple: "You shut down your site or else we'll sue you into oblivion!"

Nick: (Hmmm. I was going to get a life.): "OK"

Apple: "Ha! We win!"

Nick: (Heh, heh. Suckers....) ;)

ChrisA
Dec 20, 2007, 05:20 PM
...Thinksecret said the iPod Mini was going to cost $100 and then it came out and was actually $249...

Odd how Apple was able to more than double the price of the Mini. One would expect the price of a computer to fall with time. Same with their desktop tower, the price has doubled. It used to be you could buy a Power mac for $1500

ChrisA
Dec 20, 2007, 05:26 PM
I'm trying to figure out how succeeding in getting the site shut down constitutes "losing".

In effect Apple bought the web site.

SiliconAddict
Dec 20, 2007, 05:28 PM
*Shrugs* I lost any and all respect for Apple when they used the DMCA. As far as I'm concerned they are up there with every scummy company on the planet for that...this just reinforces my impression. Apple is the new IBM. Its a bitter pill for some, and every zealot will come out the woodworks defending them but it doesn't change the fact that Apple's corp culture has changed to the point that they look more like IBM of the 80's then the Apple of the same time period. Jobs as destroyed the company when it comes to their "soul" all in the name of sales.
And my prior theory still stands until someone comes out with a better one. This all started just after Jobs's bout with cancer. He's trying to put the company in a position where they can do without him...which is all well and fine..but at what cost?

GFLPraxis
Dec 20, 2007, 05:28 PM
Please give me one good reason why Apple would give money to ThinkSecret.

Simple. To get rid of them.

If ThinkSecret is costing Apple more money to ignore than it would to pay them to shut down, Apple will pay them.

who needs journalistic integrity, upholding the constitution and saying no to multi billion dollar business bullies when there's money settlements to be won... :rolleyes:

Journalism is employment. This isn't a case of printing a lie. If someone offered to pay you 10x more than you make in one year to simply quit your job, you would in all likelyhood take it, especially if it's a job that's already at its peak (ThinkSecret) and you're burned out at.

GFLPraxis
Dec 20, 2007, 05:31 PM
I'm trying to figure out how succeeding in getting the site shut down constitutes "losing". Whatever. Nick is seemingly happy, so it's all good I guess.

Simple; Nick won. Apple was going to lose the court case, so they offered to pay Nick a lot of money in exchange for him shutting down the site.

Apple didn't really lose, but Nick won overall.

At least that's my take. I could be completely wrong. Who knows :)

ariza910
Dec 20, 2007, 05:32 PM
I'm trying to figure out how succeeding in getting the site shut down constitutes "losing". Whatever. Nick is seemingly happy, so it's all good I guess.

The real losers are all of us that visited Think Secret - too bad it was shut down. I'm guessing a settlement would be based on revenue Nick projected to receive in the future based on what ad revenue was presently generated by TS.

Not a bad deal to get a pay out like that - I wonder if he will be bared from starting a new site.

Hemingray
Dec 20, 2007, 05:32 PM
sounds to me like the kid got PAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIID!!! $$$$$$$$

My thoughts exactly! And I say more power to him. :) I'll miss ThinkSecret, but I can respect someone wanting to move on to other projects.

Di9it8
Dec 20, 2007, 05:35 PM
In other news, Apple's 15 billion dollar bank roll is now down to 14.998 billion.

Please give me one good reason why Apple would give money to ThinkSecret.

Two things come to mind, first it has cost Apple a lot of their cash mountain to buy the ThinkSecret brand and website and second their lawyers will have told them their brand will be kept cleaner this way.
In reality they are using their financial and legal muscle to stifle criticism, as they see it, it will appear somewhere else.
The ThinkSecret site will soon be replaced, that is the nature of the internet.

lazyrighteye
Dec 20, 2007, 05:40 PM
From what relatively little I know about such things, this seems good for journalists as a whole.

And let's hear it for Nick being a legit player in the game since age 13.
I mean, when I was 13...

CV4
Dec 20, 2007, 05:42 PM
Odd how Apple was able to more than double the price of the Mini. One would expect the price of a computer to fall with time. Same with their desktop tower, the price has doubled. It used to be you could buy a Power mac for $1500

that says iPod Mini.

MacsAttack
Dec 20, 2007, 05:44 PM
I've signed a few NDAs in my time. Part of the blurb always notes that a breach will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Effectively that is what happened. Somebody broke their NDA, and Apple pursued the matter as far as they could. Even if no actual prosecution of the guilty party was achieved, Apple could not let it slide - else its NDAs would be essentially worthless.

Apple took things "to the full extent of the law" - just like their NDA probably said they would. End of story.

TechHistorian
Dec 20, 2007, 06:03 PM
*Shrugs* I lost any and all respect for Apple when they used the DMCA. As far as I'm concerned they are up there with every scummy company on the planet for that...this just reinforces my impression. Apple is the new IBM. Its a bitter pill for some, and every zealot will come out the woodworks defending them but it doesn't change the fact that Apple's corp culture has changed to the point that they look more like IBM of the 80's then the Apple of the same time period. Jobs as destroyed the company when it comes to their "soul" all in the name of sales.
And my prior theory still stands until someone comes out with a better one. This all started just after Jobs's bout with cancer. He's trying to put the company in a position where they can do without him...which is all well and fine..but at what cost?

I'm going to guess you weren't an adult in the '70s and '80s. Apple has been very aggressive in litigation throughout its history. It sued those who reverse-engineered the Apple ][ and tried (unsuccessfully) to sue MS for copying the Mac OS (the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit). BTW, this was back when Jobs was the CEO and well before his bout with cancer.

The lawsuit here is very much in keeping with Apple's corporate history.

Maldini
Dec 20, 2007, 06:03 PM
Now I believe Apple is Evil

valdore
Dec 20, 2007, 06:23 PM
Wikipedia article obviously updated today mentions MacRumors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_dePlume

MattInOz
Dec 20, 2007, 06:46 PM
Simple; Nick won. Apple was going to lose the court case, so they offered to pay Nick a lot of money in exchange for him shutting down the site.

Apple didn't really lose, but Nick won overall.

At least that's my take. I could be completely wrong. Who knows :)

Who's to say Apple was going to lose.
It seems pretty clear under law that he made money out of a trade secret/s, and he know. He was toast.
Of course pushing it further might have moved the story from Geek news to real news, so while pushing it further may have been a legal win it would have been a really bad PR move. As all the incorrect gasbagging of first amendment would of hit mainstream media.

It was a good time to for Apple settle.

Just because something is of interest to the public that doesn't make it "Public Interest", one was going to get hurt from this news not getting out.
It's not like he broke the Sony battery story.

Some people may have brought a product only to find out it was updated shortly after, but if that some how results in a lose then they shouldn't have brought it in the first place. After all the product they brought still as good as advertised.

Nick moves on like he was probably going to do anyway.
He gets to keep his life, and doesn't do time.

At best call it a draw for the parties, and as always a win for lawyers bank balances.

theBB
Dec 20, 2007, 06:49 PM
As far as I'm concerned they are up there with every scummy company on the planet for that...this just reinforces my impression. Apple is the new IBM. Its a bitter pill for some, and every zealot will come out the woodworks defending them but it doesn't change the fact that Apple's corp culture has changed to the point that they look more like IBM of the 80's then the Apple of the same time period. Jobs as destroyed the company when it comes to their "soul" all in the name of sales.
I must have missed the period when Apple was not trying to make money and let everybody know about what they were working on for the next couple of years. It is more likely you were delusional then and now facing the reality hurts.

I don't get why you call IBM scummy. It was slow to react to the shift in the marketplace, did not realize the significance of PCs, so they outsourced the operating system to Microsoft, but what make them so evil? I mean, yeah Lotus was a horrible office suite, but I don't hate IBM for it, it is more like a pity.

Scottgfx
Dec 20, 2007, 06:51 PM
Now I believe Apple is Evil

No more evil than any other corporation.

Being that I own stock in the company, I guess I am the embodiment of evil. What fun!

seedster2
Dec 20, 2007, 07:12 PM
Simple; Nick won. Apple was going to lose the court case, so they offered to pay Nick a lot of money in exchange for him shutting down the site.

Apple didn't really lose, but Nick won overall.

At least that's my take. I could be completely wrong. Who knows :)

I see it this way also. Nick doesn't appear to have any attention to reveal his source(s). Although Apple has the resources to keep harrassing him, if nothing amounts from it that approach was a waste of time and money. Also they would be subjected themself to the court of public opinion which would undoubtedly side with a college kid. It's likely more cost effective to buy this kid's site and remove him from the mix entirely than to continue paying counsel to pursue the matter.

So yes Nick is the winner, he was making money from advertisers but there must have been a figure large enough where he would foresake future monies. Plus if you're in college I am sure you'd rather focus on school as opposed to fighting big corporations.

megfilmworks
Dec 20, 2007, 07:32 PM
Does anyone have a guess (or better) as to the settlement amount, if there was one??

That-Is-Bull
Dec 20, 2007, 08:34 PM
In other news, Apple's 15 billion dollar bank roll is now down to 14.998 billion.

Wait for it... Wait... Okay, back up to 15.

numbsafari
Dec 20, 2007, 08:36 PM
I don't get why you call IBM scummy. It was slow to react to the shift in the marketplace, did not realize the significance of PCs, so they outsourced the operating system to Microsoft, but what make them so evil? I mean, yeah Lotus was a horrible office suite, but I don't hate IBM for it, it is more like a pity.

You clearly never had to use Lotus Notes.

THAT is not only scummy, it's downright EVIL.

twoodcc
Dec 20, 2007, 08:40 PM
yeah i'm gonna miss thinksecret.

numbsafari
Dec 20, 2007, 08:43 PM
Does anyone have a guess (or better) as to the settlement amount, if there was one??

I'd tell you but then... well... you remember what happened to ThinkSecret, right?

Bob Knob
Dec 20, 2007, 08:54 PM
I've signed a few NDAs in my time. Part of the blurb always notes that a breach will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Effectively that is what happened. Somebody broke their NDA, and Apple pursued the matter as far as they could. Even if no actual prosecution of the guilty party was achieved, Apple could not let it slide - else its NDAs would be essentially worthless.

Apple took things "to the full extent of the law" - just like their NDA probably said they would. End of story.

You hit the nail on the head. My favorite part about a few NDAs I've had is that I can't even disclose that I have an NDA with that company.

swingerofbirch
Dec 20, 2007, 08:58 PM
I'll tell you who the biggest loser is: me, the American public.

notjustjay
Dec 20, 2007, 09:00 PM
...Thinksecret said the iPod Mini was going to cost $100 and then it came out and was actually $249...
Odd how Apple was able to more than double the price of the Mini.

Aha! See, this is EXACTLY how Apple can be harmed by rumour sites! You're saying that the $249 was "more than double" the price you expected it to be... but that expected $100 price was plucked out of thin air, made up by a rumour site! That kind of disappointment and lost sales directly harms Apple, and I can see why they would be very unhappy about a rogue rumour site..

I see it EVERY TIME a new Apple product is (about to be) released. The threads on the forums, hundreds of posts speculating and speculating, each building up on the expectations of the previous, and then when Apple finally releases the product.... "But... but... It was supposed to... where's the ...." And suddenly everybody's mad at Apple FOR NO REASON other than they inflated their own expectations and were disappointed by the result.

law guy
Dec 20, 2007, 09:08 PM
How is this bad for Apple? Think Secret did a no-no and got caught. So Apple is the bad guy? If a site is telling trade secrets from another company to the world, thats not fair to Apple. How would you like it if you worked your butt off for 2 years on a brand new product and then a mole in your company told the world about it before it was ready to be released? Think about that!

I also don't think this Nick kid got paid. He has no reason to get paid. Apple basically slapped him on the wrist and most likely part of the slapping on the wrist was maybe you should shut down your site so more trouble doesn't come for you.

Hard to say that TS did a no-no. It's not an employee, agent, contractor, etc. of Apple and I'm guessing didn't have any sort of obligation to Apple to keep anything it learned about Apple to itself. Apple's case on TS's activity seemed weak at best. The sound bite disseminating trade secrets is over simplified and there really isn't a cause of action there, so there must have been an argument that TS took some action that violated a statute, which may have been a tortured theory. TS likely counter sued Apple. In any event, discovery and depositions against Apple would have been a significant downside, as would the risk of Apple looking a bit like a paper tiger.

There were plenty of reasons for Nick to get paid. If you want the save face and effect of getting the site shut down, that's certainly worth something for a site like TS, which has plenty of advertising and hit traffic. To make that happen, you have Apple siting on $15 billion in cash right now - the kind of money that generates over $2 million in just interest in a single day. Not hard to come up with something attractive that shuts the site down in return.

It's likely that Apple was the side that cared about a confidential term for the settlement. They want the site to go away but the details to be a mystery. It sort of looks like a victory - except to the relatively few techno folks who read on-line sites about Apple.

clevin
Dec 20, 2007, 09:11 PM
like we need more secrecy in a computer company, lol, apple the bully. pointless. M$ push me away with its monopoly, apple push me away with its secrecy. both are strangely ugly in this open world. Glad I still have linux as an option.

psychofreak
Dec 20, 2007, 09:13 PM
I'll tell you who the biggest loser is: me, the American public.

Corrected :)

MacNut
Dec 20, 2007, 09:17 PM
So is this good or bad news for MacRumors, free to go after rumors or bad that they will be harder to get. Or are we the next big fish in Steve's eyes.

john7jr
Dec 20, 2007, 09:24 PM
For those who haven't followed the issue in detail, ThinkSecret in June pulled the Dec 28, 2004 article that Apple later sued them over, but luckily for us the internet never forgets (http://web.archive.org/web/20050102090306/http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo2.html) even if the page is deleted. ;)

So go read for yourself. Did ThinkSecret break the law when they knowingly published trade secrets from an Apple employee? Should Apple have a right to know who broke the law inside their company by revealing the info?

=)

MacNut
Dec 20, 2007, 09:27 PM
Apple has a right to find the mole, the question is how can they do that legally. They can't just go on a witch hunt. They need to do it from within the company.

Had ThinkSecret found the trade secrets on their own then they would be in trouble. Having a 3rd party tell them makes them reporters not stealers.

gwangung
Dec 20, 2007, 09:37 PM
The sound bite disseminating trade secrets is over simplified and there really isn't a cause of action there.

Why? Granted, my training in trade secret law is fairly old, but the underpinnings of trade secret law isn't based on contract law like NDAs; it's based on common law, and the right of companies to keep certain information legitimately away from the public. As far as I knew, First Amendment law still recognizes trade secret protections, and can still be applied to journalistic activity.

aeaglex07
Dec 20, 2007, 09:58 PM
Firstly, it is funny that Apple went after someone who was only advertising their "future" products(for free)
and Secondly, good for Nick. For years he has shed some insight onto Apple's oh-so-famous top secret stuff, but he also proved a point which is that Apple makes some kick-a$$ stuff that everyone will probably be excited about.
Was it a bad idea to shut him down? Probably, considering their probable future income, but then again isnt the secrecy more important?;)

Stella
Dec 20, 2007, 10:05 PM
Those who think that Apple are in the wrong:

Imagine *you* owned a company, developing a potentially ground breaking product. A mole in YOUR company leaks out to an internet news site who publishes the information and , destroying your competitive advantage.

Would you be pisssed? Would you sue the website publishing company? Yes, probably. So, you still think Apple are in the wrong to sue?

numbsafari
Dec 20, 2007, 10:17 PM
Why? Granted, my training in trade secret law is fairly old, but the underpinnings of trade secret law isn't based on contract law like NDAs; it's based on common law, and the right of companies to keep certain information legitimately away from the public. As far as I knew, First Amendment law still recognizes trade secret protections, and can still be applied to journalistic activity.

People keep talking about this guy doing jail time... If this was a criminal issue it wouldn't be in civil court and the case would be Apple vs. ... it would be US vs. ... and there would have been an investigation by the authorities and Nick would have spent time in jail at least initially while they tried to pressure him to reveal his sources.

None of that happened, which leads me to believe you are simply wrong.

zioxide
Dec 20, 2007, 10:22 PM
Those who think that Apple are in the wrong:

Imagine *you* owned a company, developing a potentially ground breaking product. A mole in YOUR company leaks out to an internet news site who publishes the information and , destroying your competitive advantage.

Would you be pisssed? Would you sue the website publishing company? Yes, probably. So, you still think Apple are in the wrong to sue?

I'd be pissed and fire/sue the guy who leaked it to the media.

john7jr
Dec 20, 2007, 10:27 PM
I'd be pissed and fire/sue the guy who leaked it to the media.

But you don't know who the guy (or girl) is? However, the site that published your secret does, and surely knew he broke trade secret laws too. Do you pursue it? Or just let this one go?

It's not hard to see why Apple fought it, even though it was a stretch from the start that they'd get anywhere.

dougrobnyc
Dec 20, 2007, 10:34 PM
The loss of THink Secret is major. We need this site in our :apple: community.

vics43
Dec 20, 2007, 10:45 PM
Right up front, I'm an Apple Fan Boy, but...
Apple, like ANY other manufacturer of any product, not only has the RIGHT to protect their intellectual property, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to their stockholders to do so as well. How is Apple to continue to research, develop, and deliver new cutting edge products and software if they can't expect to keep what they are developing a trade secret? Have you seen any other company as successful as Apple go out and broadcast what they are doing ahead of product launches? Apple has ALWAYS kept their work close to the vest, and every time someone 'leaks' information like MacRumors did (and I enjoyed reading those leaks as much as the next guy) the competition got advance warning of what was afoot which could have jeopardized the work and investment Apple had made to that point. If the complainers out there want Apple to continue to be the cutting edge innovator they are, they MUST be able to keep their work 'under wraps'. And for those that do NOT want Apple to be successful? Well, good luck to you. Just continue to buy and support mediocre companies like Microsoft who can't even spell innovate!!

Sun Baked
Dec 20, 2007, 10:55 PM
So is this good or bad news for MacRumors, free to go after rumors or bad that they will be harder to get. Or are we the next big fish in Steve's eyes.

Likely not.

As long as MacRumors isn't an "information content provider" on a story, they can re-report it as news and info without fear. Immunity to an extent was granted by Congress.

Stepping up an being the "content provider" strips the immunity, and someone posting the info first has to balance the chance of getting sued vs. the merits of the story.

MattInOz
Dec 20, 2007, 11:14 PM
People keep talking about this guy doing jail time... If this was a criminal issue it wouldn't be in civil court and the case would be Apple vs. ... it would be US vs. ... and there would have been an investigation by the authorities and Nick would have spent time in jail at least initially while they tried to pressure him to reveal his sources.

None of that happened, which leads me to believe you are simply wrong.

A Victim has to file charges before Police would be knocking on the door. Just because none if it happened doesn't mean it wasn't a possibility.

Wouldn't pursing the criminal route be massively bad and mainstream PR.
It's a card apple had, but you can understand why they would hold off playing.

This would be likely be part of the settlement, not to press charges, which is a secret now, so we'll never know.

wnurse
Dec 20, 2007, 11:18 PM
Please give me one good reason why Apple would give money to ThinkSecret.

Because they wanted to shut thinksecret down. I don't know if you were paying attention but nick was being represented by the EFF.. the EFF has infinite time. Apple could sue nick until the next 100 years, the EFF is not going anywhere and any lawyer can volunteer his time indefinitely. This is one guy apple could not threaten to sue forever. Nick said he was very satisfied.. why would he be satisfied?.. how would shutting down a site satisfy him?.. why would settling a lawsuit that was costing him $0 to defend satisfy him?. If it was me, the only thing that would satisfy me was if apple paid me so much money, that it would take me years to make it with a website. I'd rather take the money, shut the website down and start some other business.

Is that a good enough reason for you?.. seems you were having a difficult time reading between the lines when nick said "i'm very satisfied with the settlement".. he didn't just say satisfied, he said very satisfied.

gobble, gobble.. i hope nick buys a big house and a boat with the money.
I wish i had thought of the website.

gwangung
Dec 20, 2007, 11:51 PM
People keep talking about this guy doing jail time... If this was a criminal issue it wouldn't be in civil court and the case would be Apple vs. ... it would be US vs. ... and there would have been an investigation by the authorities and Nick would have spent time in jail at least initially while they tried to pressure him to reveal his sources.

None of that happened, which leads me to believe you are simply wrong.

Well, given that IP cases (trade secrets, copyright, etc.) are generally CIVIL cases anyway, I think you should do a little more background research (particularly since I didn't mention anything at all about jail time). You seem more than a little confused to me.

Sun Baked
Dec 21, 2007, 12:08 AM
Well, given that IP cases (trade secrets, copyright, etc.) are generally CIVIL cases anyway, I think you should do a little more background research (particularly since I didn't mention anything at all about jail time). You seem more than a little confused to me.

But they occasionally fall into criminal arena also...The criminal case against (Jose) Lopez filed by the district attorney says that the "defendant did knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to appropriate a trade secret to his own use and the use of another, steal, take and carry away and use without authorization a trade secret, to wit: schematic drawings and engineering details of the Power Mac G4, belonging to Apple Computer Inc."

Which is where some of us thought the TS leaker would likely end up.

Edit: So yes Nick won a round for protecting the source. But is it a real win for rumor sites, and will Apple step up the game next round ... we will see.

illitrate23
Dec 21, 2007, 02:58 AM
i don't see how Apple have lost here
they've removed ThinkSecret - a site which has given their competition early info on Apple's next projects
they've also given a big warning shot to any other rumour site - publish all the rumours you like, but don't give away our trade secrets

as someone earlier said, the laywer is the only loser here and he's smarting because he was looking forward to this case being a juicy cash cow for him and now it's ended early

belovedmonster
Dec 21, 2007, 03:08 AM
Move along people, nothing to see here. This is old news.

When the original story the other day said the kid was really pleased with the outcome did no one else read between the lines and assume that Apple just paid him to walk away.

JFreak
Dec 21, 2007, 03:12 AM
This only happens when money is thrown at them. Lots of it.

Well, good for him. I know I wouldn't mind if someone tried to give me few millions. I could find good use for it :) Anyway, ThinkSecret will be missed.

princigalli
Dec 21, 2007, 03:22 AM
Apple is not the loser. We Apple users are the losers. Many of us believed in the "think different" statement, and now this is a rude awakening as we realize we are dealing with a rude and greedy multinational. Thinksecret case shows us what Apple really is: a control freak and a big brother.

This view is reinforced by Apple's Iphone spam, where they managed to reintroduce two year contracts, the way it used to be done 10 years ago, defeating consumer rights in many countries.

Among Iphone users in Germany, there are growing complains about T-Mobile's behavior and plain rip offs. It's amazing what they do with their customers. And Apple is the only one responsible for locking up their fans and supporters with a horrible company that would be losing business every day without the IPhone.

As someone that loves Apple products, I am angry. I don't have to accept every dirty trick that Apple decides to pull on us.

gnasher729
Dec 21, 2007, 03:55 AM
Because they wanted to shut thinksecret down. I don't know if you were paying attention but nick was being represented by the EFF.. the EFF has infinite time. Apple could sue nick until the next 100 years, the EFF is not going anywhere and any lawyer can volunteer his time indefinitely. This is one guy apple could not threaten to sue forever. Nick said he was very satisfied.. why would he be satisfied?.. how would shutting down a site satisfy him?.. why would settling a lawsuit that was costing him $0 to defend satisfy him?. If it was me, the only thing that would satisfy me was if apple paid me so much money, that it would take me years to make it with a website. I'd rather take the money, shut the website down and start some other business.

Is that a good enough reason for you?.. seems you were having a difficult time reading between the lines when nick said "i'm very satisfied with the settlement".. he didn't just say satisfied, he said very satisfied.

gobble, gobble.. i hope nick buys a big house and a boat with the money.
I wish i had thought of the website.

You are so completely wrong about Apple's motivation, it's not even funny.

Apple isn't interested at all in closing ThinkSecret down. Apple isn't even interested in finding the leaker. The story about Asteroid was long out, the damage is done, and neither ThinkSecret nor the employee have the money to pay for the damage. What Apple wants is to prevent future leaks.

And Apple has one hundred percent succeeded in that. How did they do that? In two ways: First, Apple sent the message out to all employees that they are serious about keeping secret things secret. It hasn't been that way all the time, so some employees might have had the wrong impression that sending information to a rumours page is Ok. Apple has now given everyone a very, very clear message that this is not true. That alone will keep many leaks from happening.

Secondly, although Apple didn't get the name of this leaker, they will most definitely get the name of the next one. When a request for a subpoena was decided against Apple, the judge didn't just say "No, you can't get the name". The judge wrote "In order to get the name, Apple has to take the following steps first:". This included things like lining up all the employees who could have leaked the information, and tell them either to declare under oath whether they leaked the information or not, or be fired. A very unpleasant thing to do. However, everyone at Apple knows that the next time there is a leak, this is exactly what will happen. And then Apple will go to the court, ask for a subpoena, tell the judge "Look, the last time you gave us a list of things to do before we can get a subpoena, and we did each one of these things". Apple gets subpoena, and then they either get the name, or things get very very costly for the rumours site.

If you read the article itself, Mr. Gross claims that Apple wasn't interested in the court case anymore. That is exactly what I would have expected. The important thing for Apple, and they got that, was the judge's instructions what to do when another leak happens. Apple could have closed the case right then. They kept it open a little bit longer, at minimum cost for Apple, just to annoy ThinkSecret and its owner. They could have kept that case open, as you say, for another hundred years, at minimal cost. You think Apple asked to settle this. Why would they? There was nothing to settle for Apple. It wasn't Apple who was suffering, it was ThinkSecret.

In the article, Mr. Gross claims "It's clear that Apple filed the lawsuit with such fanfare, but then stopped the entire litigation because they thought they were going to lose, and that they'd end up paying [Nick] a lot of money for it". That is utter nonsense. That is not how the law works in the USA. In a civil case like this one, you sue somebody, you pay your lawyers, they pay their lawyers, and the court decides about damages. In the worst case for the plaintiff, damages are zero. There is no way Apple could end up paying money to ThinkSecret. In other countries, Apple could end up paying the defendant's lawyers, but not in the USA.

Mr. Gross reminds me of an old joke: A rabbit lies between the railroad tracks. A train comes. The rabbit cowers down, and the train passes over its head. When the train is gone, the rabbit gets up, shakes its fist and shouts: "Come back, you coward, and fight!"

igazza
Dec 21, 2007, 05:35 AM
apple gonna get bad press for this and they deserve it .

krye
Dec 21, 2007, 07:34 AM
Unless I read this wrong, either the lawyer wants to make himself look good when Nick Ciarelli gave up or Apple saw they were going to lose and chose instead to pay off Nick to shut down his site. People don't conveniently give up a passion of theirs at the young age of 22 when there is a lawsuit, especially something they have done successfully since age 13. This only happens when money is thrown at them. Lots of it.

-Ado

You're damn right they would! I have an Apple site. If Apple called me and told me that they are going to sue me for a million dollars unless I shut down the site, it'd be down before the phone was back on the hook!

law guy
Dec 21, 2007, 08:10 AM
Why? Granted, my training in trade secret law is fairly old, but the underpinnings of trade secret law isn't based on contract law like NDAs; it's based on common law, and the right of companies to keep certain information legitimately away from the public. As far as I knew, First Amendment law still recognizes trade secret protections, and can still be applied to journalistic activity.

Goodness, if that was the case Arn should close up shop now. If someone tells me the KFC's 11 secret herbs and spices I have no duty or obligation to keep that information to myself. Can Arn get hired at Apple and start reporting on his new "secret source" blog page - probably not. Can Arn post tips left for him anon. on his get info page - I'm hard pressed to see why not.

asphalt-proof
Dec 21, 2007, 08:31 AM
Ah, yes. And back in 2003, when Thinksecret said the iPod Mini was going to cost $100 and then it came out and was actually $249...and everyone complained that it was "supposed" to cost less...that was real great for Apple, wasn't it?

And yet it still turned out to be one of the most successful iPods. :rolleyes:

Don't believe the FUD that rumor sites have, in any way, hurt Apple, their trade secrets, or their bottom liine.

Stella
Dec 21, 2007, 08:58 AM
And yet it still turned out to be one of the most successful iPods. :rolleyes:

Don't believe the FUD that rumor sites have, in any way, hurt Apple, their trade secrets, or their bottom liine.

Its not FUD, its reality.

It amazes me that people think its OK to freely publish confidential information on the web - especially if that information was given to them ( thus no NDA signed ).

WildPalms
Dec 21, 2007, 09:05 AM
Apple: "You shut down your site or else we'll sue you into oblivion!"

Nick: (Hmmm. I was going to get a life.): "OK"

Apple: "Ha! We win!"

Nick: (Heh, heh. Suckers....) ;)

....yuh. Nice fantasy vision of reality. Apple are clearly the winner in this joust. Get corp. savvy and you'll see it.

None Such
Dec 21, 2007, 09:28 AM
So, what was the motivation of the mole? Why risk what I'm guessing is a nice job and go through all the stress of getting caught etc just to give away this info for free to Nick and Think Secret? Or was he being paid by Thinksecret?

eastcoastsurfer
Dec 21, 2007, 09:36 AM
Those who think that Apple are in the wrong:

Imagine *you* owned a company, developing a potentially ground breaking product. A mole in YOUR company leaks out to an internet news site who publishes the information and , destroying your competitive advantage.

Would you be pisssed? Would you sue the website publishing company? Yes, probably. So, you still think Apple are in the wrong to sue?

Unless the publishing company broke in and found the information out on their own, there is nothing I can do to them. I would need to find out who the mole is and fire them. Next I would then do better with my hiring process to only bring on trustworthy people.

On a side note, nothing is developed in a vacuum. Apple has benefitted from all the research and inventions before them (even though they like to act like everything has originated with them) and other companies will benefit from what they do also. It's the nature of technology.

RedTomato
Dec 21, 2007, 09:43 AM
This is one guy apple could not threaten to sue forever. Nick said he was very satisfied.. why would he be satisfied?.. how would shutting down a site satisfy him?.. why would settling a lawsuit that was costing him $0 to defend satisfy him?. If it was me, the only thing that would satisfy me was if apple paid me so much money, that it would take me years to make it with a website. I'd rather take the money, shut the website down and start some other business.

Is that a good enough reason for you?.. seems you were having a difficult time reading between the lines when nick said "i'm very satisfied with the settlement".. he didn't just say satisfied, he said very satisfied.

gobble, gobble.. i hope nick buys a big house and a boat with the money.

If you were 22, and had Apple dragging you through the courts for 3 or 4 years, (20% of your entire life!), with papers to be filed, legal documents to be responded to, solicitors to be met, uncertainty as to future progress, 4 month adjournments at crucial moments, interfering with your studies, interfering with your peace of mind, worrying as to just what wierd stuff the magistrate's gonna say next etc etc, in the end you'd be happy just to come out alive.

I was involved in some multi-year legal cases with the police, when I was around 23, and believe me, it just it ain't pretty. It really does impact your life. In the end, with my police cases, it all squizzled out, and nobody won anything, but I was pretty relieved it was all over.

pounce
Dec 21, 2007, 09:43 AM
Apple has filed locally to pursue criminal cases in the past, did in one past leak case.

Think Secret basically protected their source to prevent it in this case.

i don't like this at all.


this wasn't about gossip or oppression as some early posts suggests. they got ahold of some trade secrets from someone who should not have been passing that info on and then published said info. that is wrong. i hate to see it rewarded with a payday, and i'd hate to see the price of apple products go up because of lawsuits like this.

i still think that what the site did was wrong both legally and in spirit. and while some cheer for that guy to get a payday out of it, the situation smacks of what i think is wrong with american culture in general. i think the site did something wrong, and i don't think that the creator of the site deserves a payday. sure, apple probably determined a settlement would settle the matter more quickly and cheaply than any other way, but how sad that they have to pay off someone printing their own trade secrets. that sounds totally unfair and backwards and i won't celebrate that.

GenesisST
Dec 21, 2007, 09:44 AM
If that's your opinion then I want a straight answer from you. Why are you still an Apple customer? If they are the new Microsoft, if they attack people who support their products, then for God's sake why do you still use the product? I don't understand people like you. You declare Apple to be the source of all evil in the world yet you're still around. Why is that?

Liking a product does not mean liking the company that makes it. Hey, I like toilet paper, am I devoted to <insert brand name>? Of course not.

Apple is the same thing. It's a corporation, which makes great products. But it is a corporation and it's aim is "to please the shareholders". Which is sadly the main goal in this day and age...

ncbill
Dec 21, 2007, 09:59 AM
Except in California a judge wouldn't grant that subpoena given that state's shield law.


Secondly, although Apple didn't get the name of this leaker, they will most definitely get the name of the next one. When a request for a subpoena was decided against Apple, the judge didn't just say "No, you can't get the name". The judge wrote "In order to get the name, Apple has to take the following steps first:". This included things like lining up all the employees who could have leaked the information, and tell them either to declare under oath whether they leaked the information or not, or be fired. A very unpleasant thing to do. However, everyone at Apple knows that the next time there is a leak, this is exactly what will happen. And then Apple will go to the court, ask for a subpoena, tell the judge "Look, the last time you gave us a list of things to do before we can get a subpoena, and we did each one of these things". Apple gets subpoena, and then they either get the name, or things get very very costly for the rumours site.

hagjohn
Dec 21, 2007, 10:16 AM
If Apple wanted to drop the case, they would have just dropped the case. If Apple wanted to have ThinkSecret gone - why would they pay for that? ThinkSecret was dead anyway. No Apple employee would ever again have dared to leak information to them.

It's easier and cheaper to settle before going to court.

eastcoastsurfer
Dec 21, 2007, 10:23 AM
If that's your opinion then I want a straight answer from you. Why are you still an Apple customer? If they are the new Microsoft, if they attack people who support their products, then for God's sake why do you still use the product? I don't understand people like you. You declare Apple to be the source of all evil in the world yet you're still around. Why is that?

Actually given all the problems (simple things like making the keyboard work right wtf!) I've had with my SR MBP this will probably be my last mac. I never had any issues with my G4 PB, and from what I can tell Apples quality has dropped steadily since they became more popular. My next machine will most likely be whatever the best laptop hardware wise I can find and I'll just put linux on it.

Swift
Dec 21, 2007, 10:26 AM
ThinkSecret got sued because somebody, obviously within the corporation, was leaking very accurate details about the upcoming Macworld. They sued various sites in order to get them to disclose their source. California law grants "journalists" immunity from disclosing sources, so the essential case was lost years ago. Apple kept the case going, though, because they wanted to make the leaker know, we're watching. To me, the fall-off in accuracy in ThinkSecret and other rumor sites has been palpable since then.

But Apple, like any corporation, demands that its employees not leak the details of what they're bringing out to the press. Corporate secrets are worth moolah, and it's a condition of employment that they not make unauthorized leaks. So Apple shut the guy up, or made him move on; the leak is plugged. This was a payoff to get one more site off the board. They won, but no doubt it cost them money: but not as much as continued leaking from insiders would have.

fixyourthinking
Dec 21, 2007, 10:28 AM
This settlement really only goes to show how little integrity Nick Ciarelli has had from the beginning. Does this mean that blogs and criticism are now for sale? What does this do for blogging as journalism? My recent case which gave precedent for "bloggers as journalists" was set back - way back. The EFF should be ashamed for making this deal.

It's easier and cheaper to settle before going to court.
Not to mention that Federal court procedure DEMANDS that parties have pre trial mediation.

WhySoSerious
Dec 21, 2007, 10:32 AM
My next machine will most likely be whatever the best laptop hardware wise I can find and I'll just put linux on it.

actually, that'll be a Mac. :)

fixyourthinking
Dec 21, 2007, 10:42 AM
If you were 22, and had Apple dragging you through the courts for 3 or 4 years, (20% of your entire life!), with papers to be filed, legal documents to be responded to, solicitors to be met, uncertainty as to future progress, 4 month adjournments at crucial moments, interfering with your studies, interfering with your peace of mind, worrying as to just what wierd stuff the magistrate's gonna say next etc etc, in the end you'd be happy just to come out alive.

I was involved in some multi-year legal cases with the police, when I was around 23, and believe me, it just it ain't pretty. It really does impact your life. In the end, with my police cases, it all squizzled out, and nobody won anything, but I was pretty relieved it was all over.

I second that and I even had some EFF assistance myself. It was a nightmare because the Plaintiff (who lost) had a nearly unlimited bank account to draw from. (For reference; google for Bidzirk vs Smith)

notjustjay
Dec 21, 2007, 11:27 AM
Apple is not the loser. We Apple users are the losers. Many of us believed in the "think different" statement, and now this is a rude awakening as we realize we are dealing with a rude and greedy multinational. Thinksecret case shows us what Apple really is: a control freak and a big brother.

Oh yes? So what would you have them do? Just say "Aww, those cute Apple fans... we love them so... Here, in fact, let us help you out, here is a list of all the top-secret products we're working on for the next 3 years! Have fun discussing these at MacRumors! We love you guys! Whee!"

... meanwhile, Microsoft works their usual muscle and the week before the iPhone launch, Steve Ballmer announces a brand new revolutionary ZunePhone! And it'll be 1/2 the price of Apple's! And suddenly they've got the 95% market share all over again.

That's what you want?

People. STOP THINKING LIKE A FANBOY AND START THINKING LIKE A BUSINESSMAN. Or a stockholder.

gnasher729
Dec 21, 2007, 11:27 AM
Except in California a judge wouldn't grant that subpoena given that state's shield law.

You are wrong. The judgement against Apple said very clearly that Apple cannot _first_ ask a publisher, they have to exhaust other means first (which Apple didn't). However, if there is no other way to find the leak, and Apple has tried every other way, then they _can_ get a subpoena.

edoates
Dec 21, 2007, 11:37 AM
A lot of my respect for apple has gone; What was is that think secret actually did?

What ThinkSecret did was to use trade secret information obtained from people who signed non-disclosure agreements to further ThinkSecrets own agenda. Then TS refused to give up the names of the informants.

The press does this all the time using shield laws or policies to protect their sources. Whistle blowers and other sources frequently feel that if their names were known, they would be subject to retribution, usually by governmental authorities. Sometimes the informants have real fears, such as when a government or private organization uses secrecy laws or contractual obligations to cover up illegal or unethical conduct.

But it is also true that many times these shield laws are used to protect sources who have unethically disclosed information themselves for personal gain, revenge, or just notoriety (albeit secret bragging rights).

That's why these suits get filed after many disclosures: by companies and by law enforcement agencies. It's up to a judge to determine if the shield privilege should be waived on a case by case basis. And that's the way it should be. In order for the press to be a window into sometimes secretive behavior and enforce transparency where none is desired, they sometimes need inside sources. If the privilege gets abused from time to time (unnamed sources with false, misleading, or agenda-laced information), so be it. Press and free speech freedom are more important.

But it is also reasonable for Apple and others to enforce their contracts with employees and vendors, and in some of these cases, they will prevail if actual monetary damage occurred or illegal/unethical conduct is involved. I think in this case, it was going to be hard for Apple to demonstrate that a two week lead about the MacMini harmed anyone, or provided information to competitors which they didn't already have.

Oh, and yes, the lawyers comments seemed self-serving, indeed.

Eddie O.

blindzero
Dec 21, 2007, 11:45 AM
While I understand keeping trade secrets tight, isn't it more the fault of the betrayer...the one inside Apple than the news organization.

What bugs me more (off topic kinda) is when fake rumors get announced and spread in the market (Say from Cramer's site The Street announcing poor IPhone sales), manipulating a stock price down.

Things like that (which is clear manipulation of market and should be illegal) go unpunished even though it has way more of an affect on market share and market price than getting the scoop on a friggin mac mini. But hey everyone who's anyone can buy low and ride the wave up again.

jettredmont
Dec 21, 2007, 12:52 PM
Someone inside Apple told Thinksecret details about products that hadn't been announced yet. There were many, but the most notable was the Mac Mini's original announcement.

Whereas most rumor sites piece stuff together, Thinksecret had an honest-to-goodness mole within Apple. This is why Apple went after them much harder than everyone else. They really wanted to know WHO it was that was doing that. Almost 3 years later now (and the case is over) and they never did find that out.


Actually, he had several moles. For one, he had a mole inside the PowerSchool organization up to just after the PSE shutdown in 2003-2004, which I can absolutely guarantee was not the same person giving information about Apple proper. For another, I'd doubt that leaks like the Asteroid came from the same source as leaks about the OS or iLife or iWorks or the Mac mini.

But saying "he had a mole" is a bit of an exaggeration; he had an open line that people inside of Apple and its divisions chose to call. I seriously doubt he had a paid mole anywhere.

edoates
Dec 21, 2007, 01:36 PM
While I understand keeping trade secrets tight, isn't it more the fault of the betrayer...the one inside Apple than the news organization.

What bugs me more (off topic kinda) is when fake rumors get announced and spread in the market (Say from Cramer's site The Street announcing poor IPhone sales), manipulating a stock price down.

Things like that (which is clear manipulation of market and should be illegal) go unpunished even though it has way more of an affect on market share and market price than getting the scoop on a friggin mac mini. But hey everyone who's anyone can buy low and ride the wave up again.

Actually, market manipulation (pump and dump and similar) is illegal, at least in civil courts (SEC regulations). It is hard to prove that Cramer, for example, tried specifically to drive Apple stock down so that he or his friends could buy it up cheap. If that could be proved, Cramer would be toast.

Eddie O

Madame Defarge
Dec 21, 2007, 03:42 PM
Mr. Ciarelli filed a countermotion against Apple in March 2005 under a California provision that makes litigants vulnerable to financial damages if they sue over what is determined to be constitutionally protected speech. Mr. Ciarelli’s lawyer, Terry Gross, who represented him pro bono, said the motion could have resulted in a financially damaging and embarrassing ruling against Apple, a risk that he said led to this week’s settlement.

Apple lost the two other suits on appeal after a higher court ruled that the Web site operators were journalists and entitled to First Amendment protections. The court forced Apple to pay $700,000 in legal fees to the sites.

Mr. Ciarelli said his agreement with Apple constituted a clear statement about the rights of online journalists: “Speaking more broadly, I think online journalists can feel confident that they can assert their First Amendment rights, even when they run up against large corporations.”

However, some free speech advocates warned that the site’s closing could be viewed as a partial victory for a large company that tried to squelch an independent voice.

“It’s great for the individual critic to be paid to be quiet, but the public is worse off if we lose the ability to get more information in the marketplace of ideas,” said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington.
.....

The outcome could have been better, could have been worse. Apple has deep pockets and a mega legal team. It's good that the AI guy came out OK. But it's probably going to have a chilling effect.

pbrennen
Dec 21, 2007, 04:12 PM
madame defarge talking about first amendment rights has certainly sent a chilling effect through my sydney carton spine!

TechHistorian
Dec 21, 2007, 05:36 PM
madame defarge talking about first amendment rights has certainly sent a chilling effect through my sydney carton spine!

Oh, mind your own knitting! :)

Madame Defarge
Dec 21, 2007, 06:49 PM
madame defarge talking about first amendment rights has certainly sent a chilling effect through my sydney carton spine!

I guess it is unexpected, but I wouldn't loose my head over it. ;)

stealthman1
Dec 21, 2007, 11:53 PM
Including a person who goes by LawGuy???

Notice the term 'Whoever'.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1832Prev | Next
§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

TS broke the law. I doubt he got any money, he probably was lucky to get away with his ass.

TurboSC
Dec 22, 2007, 01:48 AM
Including a person who goes by LawGuy???

Notice the term 'Whoever'.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1832Prev | Next
§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

TS broke the law. I doubt he got any money, he probably was lucky to get away with his ass.

true... I'm sure Apple has the best of the best bearing down on your ass. Not a great situation to be in...

ncbill
Dec 22, 2007, 10:20 AM
Sorry, but you're clearly not familiar enough with the law, as applied.

There was absolutely no way any California judge would grant a subpoena forcing a blogger to reveal their source, whether or not Apple lined up its employees and administered a loyalty oath (or the iron maiden)

EDIT: ok, an individual judge might, but they'd be reversed on appeal

That' s why Apple was forced to settle to get the site offline.

They couldn't press a case for trade secret violations without getting ahold of the source.

You are wrong. The judgement against Apple said very clearly that Apple cannot _first_ ask a publisher, they have to exhaust other means first (which Apple didn't). However, if there is no other way to find the leak, and Apple has tried every other way, then they _can_ get a subpoena.

DisturbedLen
Dec 22, 2007, 10:39 AM
This is a bunch of BS. I am a huge apple fan, however this is an example of how corporations can abuse their power against the small person. Like there was actually any damage done to apple... If anything, rumor sites captivate apple's audience.

Doctor Q
Dec 22, 2007, 01:02 PM
Los Angeles Times article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple21dec21,1,5715323.story):After outing Apple for years, blog shuts down

...

The site's demise prompted outrage from some Apple followers, but in this case ... Nicholas Ciarelli ... got his own happy ending: freedom from having to run the site anymore. Ciarelli, 22, graduates this spring and said he was more than ready to abandon the site he had run since he was a 13-year-old Mac fanatic.

He also received a payment from Apple, according to a person familiar with the case. Both sides declined to discuss details of the agreement.

...

Industry analysts and journalists at mainstream news organizations frequently rely on these sites, including MacRumors.com and AppleInsider.com, for tips leading up to Apple events.

...So the Times apparently has evidence that Apple paid for the settlement.

Mike Teezie
Dec 22, 2007, 01:47 PM
Wow - I realize this is semi-off topic for this thread, but I can't start new threads in this forum. I contacted Arn to give him the heads up.

Apparently, Apple legal has gotten in touch with Fake Steve Jobs, in an attempt to get him to shut down his blog. Which, for those who don't know, is pure satire.

This could be a joke, but the last three posts there sure seem to indicate that it's not.

Check it out. (http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/)

I can't imagine the crap Apple would get if they try to shut this guy down. I can understand ThinkSecret, but a satire blog? This is ridiculous.

CaptainCaveMann
Dec 22, 2007, 02:01 PM
My guess is he's "very satisfied" because he's not going to jail for a "very" long time. ;)

dbassett
Dec 22, 2007, 02:27 PM
Why would bite the hand that feeds you?

Sun Baked
Dec 22, 2007, 03:20 PM
I still don't see where Apple lost, even if they did pay -- I wouldn't read too much in a company paying another company causing them continued grief to exit the business permanently rather than take the time with lawyers.

Likely there is a rather big stick attached to this carrot if he breaches the settlement.

mnugent3
Dec 22, 2007, 06:39 PM
Apple, like other large corporations, is very secretive about their R&D, for good reason. Because Apple is seen as some sort of other entity by its devotees,it is after all, a corporation fired by profit. If an article under development is leaked, and copied by another company, then this undermines years of research by the company. The information was apparently supplied by a 'mole' in the Apple corporation. Which in itself is a criminal activity, that is punishable by the court system. Without disclosure of the 'mole', Apple had no other choice but to close down the public leaks of the products. It's a shame that it resulted in closing down the site, because ThinkSecret was a great site.
But, wrong is wrong.


Although I agree that yes, if a company got hold of Apples trade secrets early enough they could copy it and then Apple would be in trouble.

HOWEVER.... by the time these secrets are leaked these products are well into the developmental processes. PLUS As soon as APPle develops things that they might want to use in the products they patent them. Even if these companies did get hold of what Apple was doing, Apple 99.9% of time would have already filed for a patent.

Apple does not want this information released because they are a design/hype company. They want their consumers to be guessing because it creates a sort of wild fanaticism about their products. This is why you found people sleeping overnight outside of stores to get the iphone. All this lack of information creates product hype, when this happens people start to value a product more than they should ultimately leading to a higher demand, and more profits for Apple.

Apple is not worried about people stealing their technology they are too careful for that, they file patents way early on. They are worried that essentially part of their marketing model will be compromised. They want people to keep guessing, because it makes adults into children who will do anything and pay any price to get their new toy.

It's one of the smartest business models I have ever seen...

law guy
Dec 22, 2007, 08:26 PM
Including a person who goes by LawGuy???

Notice the term 'Whoever'.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1832Prev | Next
§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

TS broke the law. I doubt he got any money, he probably was lucky to get away with his ass.

Yes, and from the definition of trade secret under that act in 1839 to showing the elements of intent and conversion, I think successful action under that statute could be difficult.

Then take into account that, before you even get to a point of trying to build a case that the facts at issue violate a given statute, discovery was effectively blocked by the CA Ct. of App. in the suit where Apple sought records from three sites including TS: Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple), a manufacturer of computer hardware and software, brought this action alleging that persons unknown caused the wrongful publication on the World Wide Web of Apple’s secret plans to release a device that would facilitate the creation of digital live sound recordings on Apple computers. In an effort to identify the source of the disclosures, Apple sought and obtained authority to issue civil subpoenas to the publishers of the Web sites where the information appeared and to the email service provider for one of the publishers. The publishers moved for a protective order to prevent any such discovery. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the publishers had involved themselves in the unlawful misappropriation of a trade secret. We hold that this was error because (1) the subpoena to the email service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712); (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from petitioners would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter’s shield (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd (b); Evid. Code, § 1070); and (3) discovery of petitioners’ sources is also barred on this record by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources (see Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268 (Mitchell)). Accordingly, we will issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the motion for a protective order.

And then TS files an anit-SLAPP motion and Apple faces a weak case with the real possibility of some embarrassment on dismissal and fees and here we are, with what is not such a bad outcome for Apple. They've sent the message that they're willing to at least make your life unpleasant for few years, and they did get the site in question to shut down one way or another through a confidential settlement which has the benefit of leaving some mystery on what terms the owner agreed to cease publication... although the mystery is a little thinner given the public comments about how the site owner feels about the settlement.

play-by-play:http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-05-CV-033341

wnurse
Dec 22, 2007, 08:33 PM
My guess is he's "very satisfied" because he's not going to jail for a "very" long time. ;)

Why would he go to jail?. This was not a criminal matter. Even if by some remote chance apple proved it's case, i know of no civil suit that resulted in jail time. Hey apple fanboi, Apple is not the government, they cannot jail people. Secondly, he did not have to reveal his source, Apple settled with him and he did not have to reveal his source yet there was a threat he would go to prison?. So lets get this. Apple would settle with him and the only terms for him not going to jail is shut down the website?.. not give up the source, but shut down the website?. Does this make sense to you?. I'm guessing you are a first year college student. I hope you get better at applying logic and common sense in the future. Prison was not even an option in this case. Give it up, apple paid him handsomely. I'm thinking of starting a mac blog. Maybe i'd get lucky and get an inside source. If the worse that could happen to me is that apple pays me off to stop blogging.. wow!!

wnurse
Dec 22, 2007, 08:53 PM
If you were 22, and had Apple dragging you through the courts for 3 or 4 years, (20% of your entire life!), with papers to be filed, legal documents to be responded to, solicitors to be met, uncertainty as to future progress, 4 month adjournments at crucial moments, interfering with your studies, interfering with your peace of mind, worrying as to just what wierd stuff the magistrate's gonna say next etc etc, in the end you'd be happy just to come out alive.

I was involved in some multi-year legal cases with the police, when I was around 23, and believe me, it just it ain't pretty. It really does impact your life. In the end, with my police cases, it all squizzled out, and nobody won anything, but I was pretty relieved it was all over.

And because of all this nick was "very satisfied" to settle with apple?. Really?.. all it takes is for apple to sue someone and then offer to settle to make the person "very satisfied"?. I dunno.. even if apple sued me and made me go to court every day, settling would not make me "very satisfied", espicially if the other company was wrong. Also, he does not have to respond to anything, his lawyer does. He does not have to file any papers.. as to weird stuff the judge was gonna say, is nick so mentally fragile that his life was in shambles wondering what the judge was gonna say?. I'm sorry, buzz!!!!.. wrong!!. I think you are overthinking this.. nick was "very satisfied". I don't know about you but it would take a lot more than making my lawyer file papers and have to prepare for a deposition and worrying about a judge for any company to force me to shut down a website (which was a source of income for him, let me remind you of that and one that he built with sweat and hard work).. naw, apple could threaten me from now to forever, i'm not closing down my site which provides me with revenue all cause they filed suit against me. Lawsuits are not unique. Apple is not the first to file one. People have survived lawsuits before and have not commited suicide or gone bananas. That is a pretty weak excuse for why nick was "very satisfied" (notice my emphasis throughout the reply). I think nick was trying to tip of everyone when he said "very satisfied".. he could have just said "satisfied".

wnurse
Dec 22, 2007, 08:57 PM
You're damn right they would! I have an Apple site. If Apple called me and told me that they are going to sue me for a million dollars unless I shut down the site, it'd be down before the phone was back on the hook!

Then don't ever start a website.. or rather, start one and i will call you and threaten to sue you for a million.. and not only that.. i would demand you pay me 100,000 and shut down (why not be outrageous?.. you are so stupid and weak that you would shut down immediately without determining the legal basis of the suit that i would demand pretty ridiculous terms from you).
Yep, i would demand you pay me to shut down.. after all, you so weak minded, you would mail the check out before the phone was back on the hook.

Now go play with your toys and remember.. start that website.. i need the money.

You are so completely wrong about Apple's motivation, it's not even funny.

Apple isn't interested at all in closing ThinkSecret down. Apple isn't even interested in finding the leaker. The story about Asteroid was long out, the damage is done, and neither ThinkSecret nor the employee have the money to pay for the damage. What Apple wants is to prevent future leaks.

And Apple has one hundred percent succeeded in that. How did they do that? In two ways: First, Apple sent the message out to all employees that they are serious about keeping secret things secret. It hasn't been that way all the time, so some employees might have had the wrong impression that sending information to a rumours page is Ok. Apple has now given everyone a very, very clear message that this is not true. That alone will keep many leaks from happening.

Secondly, although Apple didn't get the name of this leaker, they will most definitely get the name of the next one. When a request for a subpoena was decided against Apple, the judge didn't just say "No, you can't get the name". The judge wrote "In order to get the name, Apple has to take the following steps first:". This included things like lining up all the employees who could have leaked the information, and tell them either to declare under oath whether they leaked the information or not, or be fired. A very unpleasant thing to do. However, everyone at Apple knows that the next time there is a leak, this is exactly what will happen. And then Apple will go to the court, ask for a subpoena, tell the judge "Look, the last time you gave us a list of things to do before we can get a subpoena, and we did each one of these things". Apple gets subpoena, and then they either get the name, or things get very very costly for the rumours site.

If you read the article itself, Mr. Gross claims that Apple wasn't interested in the court case anymore. That is exactly what I would have expected. The important thing for Apple, and they got that, was the judge's instructions what to do when another leak happens. Apple could have closed the case right then. They kept it open a little bit longer, at minimum cost for Apple, just to annoy ThinkSecret and its owner. They could have kept that case open, as you say, for another hundred years, at minimal cost. You think Apple asked to settle this. Why would they? There was nothing to settle for Apple. It wasn't Apple who was suffering, it was ThinkSecret.

In the article, Mr. Gross claims "It's clear that Apple filed the lawsuit with such fanfare, but then stopped the entire litigation because they thought they were going to lose, and that they'd end up paying [Nick] a lot of money for it". That is utter nonsense. That is not how the law works in the USA. In a civil case like this one, you sue somebody, you pay your lawyers, they pay their lawyers, and the court decides about damages. In the worst case for the plaintiff, damages are zero. There is no way Apple could end up paying money to ThinkSecret. In other countries, Apple could end up paying the defendant's lawyers, but not in the USA.

Mr. Gross reminds me of an old joke: A rabbit lies between the railroad tracks. A train comes. The rabbit cowers down, and the train passes over its head. When the train is gone, the rabbit gets up, shakes its fist and shouts: "Come back, you coward, and fight!"

Of course apple was gonna pay nick a lot of money.. while the EFF was representing Nick for free, it was not free for apple if they lost. Every hr billed was gonna be charged to apple if they lost.Technically, apple pays nick, nick pays the lawyers. Kinda like when you see tv commercials that say... come with law firm x, you don't pay unless we win. I assure you, the cost if apple would have lost would not have been insignificant.

RedTomato
Dec 23, 2007, 04:15 AM
And because of all this nick was "very satisfied" to settle with apple?. Really?.. all it takes is for apple to sue someone and then offer to settle to make the person "very satisfied"?. I dunno.. even if apple sued me and made me go to court every day, settling would not make me "very satisfied", espicially if the other company was wrong. Also, he does not have to respond to anything, his lawyer does. He does not have to file any papers.. as to weird stuff the judge was gonna say, is nick so mentally fragile that his life was in shambles wondering what the judge was gonna say?. I'm sorry, buzz!!!!.. wrong!!. I think you are overthinking this.. nick was "very satisfied". I don't know about you but it would take a lot more than making my lawyer file papers and have to prepare for a deposition and worrying about a judge for any company to force me to shut down a website (which was a source of income for him, let me remind you of that and one that he built with sweat and hard work).. naw, apple could threaten me from now to forever, i'm not closing down my site which provides me with revenue all cause they filed suit against me. Lawsuits are not unique. Apple is not the first to file one. People have survived lawsuits before and have not commited suicide or gone bananas. That is a pretty weak excuse for why nick was "very satisfied" (notice my emphasis throughout the reply). I think nick was trying to tip of everyone when he said "very satisfied".. he could have just said "satisfied".

I've been there and stuck it out to the bitter end, and you haven't. Talking big don't mean stuff till you've experienced it. If Nick got a payoff, which now seems to be the case, then good for him. Doesn't change the fact that long court cases can be hell.

wnurse
Dec 23, 2007, 08:43 AM
I've been there and stuck it out to the bitter end, and you haven't. Talking big don't mean stuff till you've experienced it. If Nick got a payoff, which now seems to be the case, then good for him. Doesn't change the fact that long court cases can be hell.

So basically what you are saying is that you with all your experience in court cases was wrong about Nick getting a payoff and me with little experience in court cases but with the basic ability to understand English especially the two words "very satisfied" am right.

Thank you, good night.

GuillaumeB
Dec 23, 2007, 10:46 AM
How can you keep blogging about a company that sues you anyway...

gnasher729
Dec 23, 2007, 10:54 AM
Of course apple was gonna pay nick a lot of money.. while the EFF was representing Nick for free, it was not free for apple if they lost. Every hr billed was gonna be charged to apple if they lost.Technically, apple pays nick, nick pays the lawyers. Kinda like when you see tv commercials that say... come with law firm x, you don't pay unless we win. I assure you, the cost if apple would have lost would not have been insignificant.

Please. In the USA, the ambulance chasers that you talk about are not paid by the losing party. If you use one of these companies, and you win damages, you will pay them out of your rightfully deserved damages. Usually between 30 to 50 percent. That is YOU are paying, not the losing party.

On the other hand, if you are sued, the best case that can happen is that you don't lose and you are only stuck with your lawyers cost and nothing else.

EagerDragon
Dec 23, 2007, 03:05 PM
Check out the the posts on his site, they were offering thim 500,000 to shut down and he turn it down.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/

What is going on with Apple????????

DiamondMac
Dec 23, 2007, 03:19 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you with all your experience in court cases was wrong about Nick getting a payoff and me with little experience in court cases but with the basic ability to understand English especially the two words "very satisfied" am right.

Thank you, good night.

Have you ever been involved in a long-run court case?

If yes, what was the dispute, when was it, and where?

Counter
Dec 24, 2007, 02:20 PM
Of course Apple paid him. Wasn't that blatantly obvious when the story broke? He's very happy his entire operation wont be published anymore and is now in a position to move onto other things.

Dollars, dollars.

Apple certainly lost, but it wont have scratched their bottom line.

Mike Teezie
Dec 24, 2007, 06:45 PM
Check out the the posts on his site, they were offering thim 500,000 to shut down and he turn it down.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/

What is going on with Apple????????

Hey, I posted the same thing further up the page.

So bizarre if it's all true.

Freis968
Dec 25, 2007, 04:29 AM
TS's lawyer could probably have gotten Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson off on involuntary manslaughter, with a 5yr max sentence.....GEEZ!

mac-er
Jan 6, 2008, 11:52 AM
Check out the the posts on his site, they were offering thim 500,000 to shut down and he turn it down.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/

What is going on with Apple????????

Wild guess, but I think that is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. You know, sarcasm. Check it out.