PDA

View Full Version : ThinkSecret Cash Settlement?




MacRumors
Dec 23, 2007, 11:30 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The L.A. Times cites (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple21dec21,1,5715323.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true) sources in-the-know that claim that ThinkSecret's Nick Ciarelli did indeed receive some amount of monetary compensation from Apple as part of their final settlement.
[Ciarelli] also received a payment from Apple, according to a person familiar with the case. Both sides declined to discuss details of the agreement.
There has been a tremendous amount of speculation that this may have been the case, but no real confirmation.

ThinkSecret issued a statement (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/thinksecret-shuts-down-settles-apple-lawsuit/) late last week that they had reached an amicable settlement with Apple over an almost 3 year old lawsuit accusing ThinkSecret of illegally obtaining and disseminating Apple trade secrets.. The only details of the settlement revealed were that ThinkSecret would not reveal their sources, and would no longer be published. Later comments from Ciarelli's lawyer (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/20/apple-the-loser-in-thinksecret-settlement/) suggested that Apple settled to avoid potentially losing the case if it were pursued. Apple, however, has made no public comments settlement.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/24/thinksecret-cash-settlement/)



MacNut
Dec 23, 2007, 11:32 PM
Does anyone know how much money? Stock options maybe.

zap2
Dec 23, 2007, 11:37 PM
Duhhhh!!!

This is the only way that shutting the site down would have been a "win"

Interested in how much though...although I'd bet Apple made he promise not to tell(or he's lose the $$)

gugy
Dec 23, 2007, 11:42 PM
what's the big deal about this.
lack of any news is a bad thing.
Let's move on. TS was dead long time ago anyway. So it doesn't matter.

Update the damn MacPro at MWSF! :eek::D

synth3tik
Dec 23, 2007, 11:46 PM
You know a confidentiality claus is tied to every single one of those dollars.

JPT
Dec 23, 2007, 11:46 PM
what's the big deal about this.
lack of any news is a bad thing.
Let's move on. TS was dead long time ago anyway. So it doesn't matter.

Update the damn MacPro at MWSF! :eek::D

Nope sorry, the Mac Pro Update funds were given to Nick. So no updates for another year :(


:p

DiamondMac
Dec 23, 2007, 11:49 PM
Not a shocker. This is how a high majority of cases like this get dealt with.

I don't blame the guy either though I can see a lot don't understand why he did it. Money talks and it is very easy for many to say they would/wouldn't do something when the actual money isn't there

ventro
Dec 23, 2007, 11:57 PM
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.

4God
Dec 24, 2007, 12:06 AM
what's the big deal about this.
lack of any news is a bad thing.
Let's move on. TS was dead long time ago anyway. So it doesn't matter.

Update the damn MacPro at MWSF! :eek::D

I'm actually a little indifferent about the whole ThinkSecret thing, but wouldn't it be a great Christmas present to have MacPros released on Tuesday the 25th? ;)

notjustjay
Dec 24, 2007, 12:15 AM
Let the man have his space. If he got money, good for him. If not, oh well.

Slow news day? Really, I think this one's been laid to rest already.

33scottie33
Dec 24, 2007, 12:22 AM
Maybe he just settled for a new UP MacBook Pro! :D

twoodcc
Dec 24, 2007, 12:30 AM
i'm sure he did receive money.

andy721
Dec 24, 2007, 12:36 AM
I'm actually a little indifferent about the whole ThinkSecret thing, but wouldn't it be a great Christmas present to have MacPros released on Tuesday the 25th? ;)

Im with you on this one, I been wanting a new comp but god for bid if steve doesn't release the macpro before christmas has to be in jan 2000 of 8 which sucks because that means I have to wait.:mad: ******!

JNB
Dec 24, 2007, 12:48 AM
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.

You've never read the annual, have you?

sord
Dec 24, 2007, 12:56 AM
<sarcasm>Oh well, no one needs TS, we all know there will be new Powerbook G5s on Tuesday (Christmas day)!</sarcasm> (which would be so absurd if it actually happened, I can't even fathom the reactions

:( we'll miss ya TS!

timdorr
Dec 24, 2007, 12:58 AM
A rumor about a rumor site. The mind boggles!

Sayer
Dec 24, 2007, 01:10 AM
I would imagine Apple merely paid some "fair" amount of future earnings Nick would have received had he kept his web site in operation.

I am mystified why Apple would choose to settle when Nick wasn't accused of merely publishing "trade secrets" someone gave him, he was charged with coercing someone at Apple to violate their NDA/employment contract and give all manner of info to Nick to publish on his website.

Nick always seemed to get "hooked up" with the latest seeds of OS X and other apps, and some hardware info, so someone in the range of middle-management must have gotten a thrill in spilling the beans for so long and never getting caught.

The real winner in all this mess is the leaker(s) at Apple that was, apparently, never found out.

jwkicks
Dec 24, 2007, 01:11 AM
I'm sure tight non-disclosure statements were signed. We'll probably never find out.

MacFly123
Dec 24, 2007, 01:58 AM
WHOOOOOOOO CAAAAAAAARES!!!!!!!!!! No **** he got money! Duh! Now for some REAL news please!!!!!!!

GoodWatch
Dec 24, 2007, 02:41 AM
I care. Even Apple are using the tactics that belong to major corporations now. Pay shut-up money if someone gets to big of a pain in the, ehhh, behind.

mad jew
Dec 24, 2007, 02:42 AM
...But Apple is a major corporation.

GoodWatch
Dec 24, 2007, 02:44 AM
...But Apple is a major corporation.

You've got that right! That's exactly my point. Think Different? I think not :mad:

Stridder44
Dec 24, 2007, 02:55 AM
You've got that right! That's exactly my point. Think Different? I think not :mad:

If they guy didn't wanna do it he wouldn't have taken the money. Just because a apple rumors site went down doesn't mean apple rumors is ending as we know it. Torrent sites go down all the time, and new ones start up the same day.

There are a lot of people out there that are interested in apple rumors. The "leaked info from someone close to apple" isn't gonna disappear anytime soon.

GoodWatch
Dec 24, 2007, 03:03 AM
If they guy didn't wanna do it he wouldn't have taken the money.

Do you want a million dollar?

xappeal
Dec 24, 2007, 03:39 AM
Funny, I bet Apple are happy that all their money is linked to the guy from Think Secret actually keeping a secret!

Sweet payback... It'd be killing him if he wasn't swimming in a pool of $100 notes...

GeekLawyer
Dec 24, 2007, 04:17 AM
I imagine a low six-figure settlement as a firewall to prevent/contain future entrepreneurs from inducing those at Cupertino to spill the beans.

While an in-court loss by Apple in this case (and yes, I think they would have eventually lost) would not have created binding legal precedent, it would have declared a sort of open season on Apple's trade and other secrets and could have encouraged others to copycat the methods used by ThinkSecret.

It makes some financial sense for Apple to see this go away. And that's a privilege you pay for.

chatin
Dec 24, 2007, 04:40 AM
We Apple customers, ultimately pay. In the case of IBM vs. SCO, big blue never caved. It may go to corporate culture. Watson Sr., in the 50's, rented computers; so if the customer got out of line, he would just take back the machine! ;)

igazza
Dec 24, 2007, 04:55 AM
now i feel better

600 thousand odd my guess

fewgraphik
Dec 24, 2007, 05:14 AM
1 - build up a website full of sarcasm-2nd degree-news-talk about apple inc.
2 - wait a bit
3 - take the money

thx steve

juanm
Dec 24, 2007, 05:22 AM
In other news, John Doe, an assistant product manager at Apple is still missing. An Apple employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, told us that he didn't come to work on Friday

In other news the body of a man in his mid-thirties was found floating in the Bay. Forensic doctors believe his death occured as a result of being strangled with a thin cable, similar to the earbuds cable of the iPod he was found with.

Arcady
Dec 24, 2007, 06:05 AM
He only started that site because the old MacOSrumors.com was such a POS site. He should thank that guy.

azentropy
Dec 24, 2007, 07:01 AM
So now we know how Apple plans on spending their 15bil in cash reserves...

Arcus
Dec 24, 2007, 07:27 AM
WHOOOOOOOO CAAAAAAAARES!!!!!!!!!! No **** he got money! Duh! Now for some REAL news please!!!!!!!

QFT. No moar plz

EagerDragon
Dec 24, 2007, 08:29 AM
I am not sure if he is just looking for more attention, but the fake Steve Blog is stating that Apple offered him 500,000 to shutdown also.

This would not be the first time he tries to get more traffic by claiming stuff that is not true, so I can not be sure.

But if it were to be true, I wonder what is going on at Apple.

daveschroeder
Dec 24, 2007, 08:37 AM
I am not sure if he is just looking for more attention, but the fake Steve Blog is stating that Apple offered him 500,000 to shutdown also.

This would not be the first time he tries to get more traffic by claiming stuff that is not true, so I can not be sure.

But if it were to be true, I wonder what is going on at Apple.

That is NOT REAL. It's a satiric commentary on the Think Secret situation.

Jeez, people, can't you recognize a joke when you see one?

http://www.applegazette.com/other/fake-steve-jobs-getting-sued-by-apple-is-a-hoax/

http://mariosundar.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/fake-steve-jobs-hoax-clifford-irving-style/

http://valleywag.com/337211/fake-steve-shutdown-drama-explained

http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=1177432&t=5

Moe
Dec 24, 2007, 08:45 AM
His lawyer probably got most if not all of the money.

EagerDragon
Dec 24, 2007, 08:47 AM
That is NOT REAL. It's a satiric commentary on the Think Secret situation.

Jeez, people, can't you recognize a joke when you see one?

http://www.applegazette.com/other/fake-steve-jobs-getting-sued-by-apple-is-a-hoax/

http://mariosundar.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/fake-steve-jobs-hoax-clifford-irving-style/

http://valleywag.com/337211/fake-steve-shutdown-drama-explained

http://www.blogowogo.com/blog_article.php?aid=1177432&t=5

I figured as much as you can see by my post. Yet there was the possibility that there was a grain of truth. 99.9 it is a hoax to get more readership or he is just getting ready to shutdown because he is running out of material.

Darkroom
Dec 24, 2007, 09:09 AM
after seeing this thread i'm now a firm believer that "page 1" and "page 2" rumors should just be merged

pl,okm
Dec 24, 2007, 09:12 AM
Don't forget het got dollars, not a real currency! So unless he runs to a store to buy lots of gold, euro's or yens, it is all toiletpaper!

lazyrighteye
Dec 24, 2007, 09:49 AM
The source was Steve and the reason Apple settled. :p

Steve W
Dec 24, 2007, 09:50 AM
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.If Apple gave him anything, it was some backdated options....

lazyrighteye
Dec 24, 2007, 09:53 AM
His lawyer probably got most if not all of the money.

Nah. Apple paid all of his legal fees and he made out like a bandit.
I'd guess it is closer to $1M than $500k.

Virgil-TB2
Dec 24, 2007, 10:34 AM
I care. Even Apple are using the tactics that belong to major corporations now. (they) Pay shut-up money ...Just because this kind of made-up talk is exactly the kind of thing that people pass around the "whisper-net" and causes all kinds of trouble ...

It's actually not true.

If this crappy "meme" (OMG I actually used that dumb-ass meaningless word! :eek:), were really true, then Apple would be going around paying "hush-money" to all the blogs and rumour sites (they aren't). The promulgation of this myth is exactly what Daniel Lyons (as FSJ) is attempting with his recent attack piece on Apple and you have not only fallen for it, you're now freely passing it around on your own time.

The kid that ran ThinkSecret was possibly in deep trouble because he attempted to pay for secrets, and entice employees to violate their NDA's. As technical as that violation was and as unlikely as it was to succeed, Apple still had a duty to move forward on this. If there are leakers who violate their NDA's then Apple of course must try to find out who they were. Once they found evidence of enticement, Apple was duty-bound to at least try and stop the kid.

Apple was being nice here, by *not* taking the kid to court (admittedly it's not certain who will win when you do that), and by *not* outing whomever it was that was violating the NDA agreements. The mainstream media and FSJ (true to his Apple hating form), are promoting this as Apple being the big mean company beating up on random bloggers.

Personally, I got the distinct impression that Apple actually likes most of the rumour sites and likes this kid in particular. They bent over backwards not to ruin his life and everything worked out fairly nicely for him.

It's only shills like FSJ that would do their best to make this look like a "bad day for bloggers."

Note:

- The blogger is actually winning here in that he does not have to reveal his source and gets a big check. He shuts down his site, but he was going to do that anyway.

- The real "bad guys" here (the NDA violators if any) are also winning big time in that they get to keep their jobs and money and don't go to jail.

- The biggest loser is Apple in that they never find the leaks and have no precedents to do anything in the future.

EagerDragon
Dec 24, 2007, 10:38 AM
The source was Steve and the reason Apple settled. :p

I am sure that Apple does that from time to time to keep up the hipe on some of the products and to see how people feel about some product concepts.

GoodWatch
Dec 24, 2007, 11:10 AM
Just because this kind of made-up talk is exactly the kind of thing that people pass around the "whisper-net" and causes all kinds of trouble ...

It's actually not true.

How do you know? Were you there? Are you a legal representative of either party? No, I guess not, because you wouldn't post what you did here. You're guessing like we all are. There is just the result, the site is permanently 'off line'. But as it looks now, this was an incident. Let's hope it will stay that way.

DIXIE
Dec 24, 2007, 11:21 AM
A) Nick is crying all the way to the Bank. :D

B) Apple has put a "truth potion" in the Office drinking water. ;)

C) MacPro will NOT appear until the Moorestown platform is available in 2008-2009 ..... no more cooling tanks ;)


DIXIE :)

farmboy
Dec 24, 2007, 11:28 AM
I imagine a low six-figure settlement as a firewall to prevent/contain future entrepreneurs from inducing those at Cupertino to spill the beans.

While an in-court loss by Apple in this case (and yes, I think they would have eventually lost) would not have created binding legal precedent, it would have declared a sort of open season on Apple's trade and other secrets and could have encouraged others to copycat the methods used by ThinkSecret.

It makes some financial sense for Apple to see this go away. And that's a privilege you pay for.

I think Apple would have won, as far up the ladder as the case would go, which isn't far. My legal background is not in that area, but that's my assessment. But you think paying someone (IF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED---Lawyers and PR firms have made lying and strategic misdirection an art form) a settlement prevents someone else from publishing confidential information? What? More like an inducement for easy cash.

hscottm
Dec 24, 2007, 11:35 AM
1 - build up a website full of sarcasm-2nd degree-news-talk about apple inc.
2 - wait a bit
3 - take the money

thx steve

beat me to the punch. this is why I am really surprised about a cash settlement. it just gives that more incentive for someone else to pick up where he left off.

stupid thing is, as many have noted, TS didnt have good rumors lately anyway.

btw my list that was going to be similar to few's above was going to add "1b) wait until one random prediction/rumor was correct".

Doctor Q
Dec 24, 2007, 11:40 AM
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.Do they normally itemize the costs of legal settlements? If they do, will we be able to distinguish the lawyer fees from the settlement payment?

lazyrighteye
Dec 24, 2007, 11:43 AM
The source was Steve and the reason Apple settled. :p

I am sure that Apple does that from time to time to keep up the hipe on some of the products and to see how people feel about some product concepts.

No doubt. ;)

GeekLawyer
Dec 24, 2007, 12:02 PM
I think Apple would have won, as far up the ladder as the case would go, which isn't far. My legal background is not in that area, but that's my assessment. But you think paying someone (IF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED---Lawyers and PR firms have made lying and strategic misdirection an art form) a settlement prevents someone else from publishing confidential information? What? More like an inducement for easy cash.

No, I don't think that paying a settlement will necessarily prevent copycats. What I think it will do is keep the whole situation much more quiet than either a victory or loss in court. Sure, we're talking about it here, but we can only speculate as to the terms. So, maybe Apple was on the road to winning, but they were more interested in making this go away -- hence the settlement. (And for the record, I still don't think they would have prevailed. But now we may never know for sure.)

DiamondMac
Dec 24, 2007, 12:07 PM
I think Apple would have won, as far up the ladder as the case would go, which isn't far. My legal background is not in that area, but that's my assessment. But you think paying someone (IF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED---Lawyers and PR firms have made lying and strategic misdirection an art form) a settlement prevents someone else from publishing confidential information? What? More like an inducement for easy cash.

No but Apple probably wasn't looking for a long-term solution with this money settlement nor are a high-majority of major companies when dealing with a thorn-in-their-side type case such as this.

Apple wanted to make this go away and go away quickly. Though it wasn't as quickly or quietly as they wanted, it will in fact go away now.

Sometimes people over-think legal tactics.

Been doing this type of thing for years now. :)

Timothy Flint
Dec 24, 2007, 12:22 PM
Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.

GeekLawyer
Dec 24, 2007, 12:28 PM
Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.

You make a good point here and it's exactly why I think that Apple was on the road to defeat in the trial court. Bloggers, especially the more "professional" bloggers, have been treated increasingly as legitimate members of the press. Unless we're talking about TS paying cash for Apple's trade secrets, anonymous tips and stories fit the realm of protected journalism. Apple's real problem here was with their leaking employee(s) and this lawsuit was their attempt to plug that leak. It wasn't going that way and Apple settled. Even in the settlement the sources were protected.

rockosmodurnlif
Dec 24, 2007, 12:31 PM
I am not sure who to be happy for here.

I honestly didn't think that Apple gave away any cash but to hear that they did and they didn't have him reveal his sources, I mean if this is how Apple works, what kind of company is this? It sounds like they climbed to the diving board, jumped off and then realized the pool had been drained.

Isn't this company getting sued by a myriad of companies and persons? I thought they had good lawyers, this makes them seem like rank amateurs.

And Nick, if the case was so strong and Apple was against the ropes, why not go ahead and make news instead of reporting it? Here's a chance to set precedent and instead he sells out, literally. I get being tired of doing ThinkSecret, but not doing ThinkSecret and pursuing this case are two different things. There really isn't a reason to tie them together. He could stop doing ThinkSecret at any time for free, now it looks like he was paid off. I wouldn't really care except this guy wants to be journalist. Is he the future of journalism? I'll report the news right up until I get paid not to do it?

And all this breaks during this hyper-commercialized time of the year too. This whole thing stinks, if I hadn't lost my faith in Apple and objective journalism already, this would have done it.

arn
Dec 24, 2007, 12:42 PM
And Nick, if the case was so strong and Apple was against the ropes, why not go ahead and make news instead of reporting it.

How many years of your life would you want to spend on ongoing lawsuit? It was 3 so far for Nick. Also, I believe Nick was paying for a private lawyer. The EFF wasn't directly representing him, so he may have had mounting legal bills.

link (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12/apple-and-think-secret-settle-lawsuit)
EFF helped Think Secret find legal counsel, and, with the able assistance of attorney Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky

arn

Maldini
Dec 24, 2007, 12:43 PM
I think he settled for a big amount of cash, since he would win the case anyway..

but IMO these rumor sites help promote future products from Apple,which is not bad, right?

RoadieJodie
Dec 24, 2007, 12:48 PM
The question shouldn't be about the money, or even how much money.

It should be about Apple's ethics and personally I think the company is going down hill in that deparment.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter . . . as long as their quartley profit's are up, they'll be happy.

I had come to expect a little bit more out of Apple, which was obvouisly unwarranted.

Shame on me.


Note:

I will still buy Apple product's, but have lost my respect for them in the very matter of ethics . . .

Like I said, it really doesn't matter.

nickane
Dec 24, 2007, 12:48 PM
I would imagine Apple merely paid some "fair" amount of future earnings Nick would have received had he kept his web site in operation.

I am mystified why Apple would choose to settle when Nick wasn't accused of merely publishing "trade secrets" someone gave him, he was charged with coercing someone at Apple to violate their NDA/employment contract and give all manner of info to Nick to publish on his website.

Nick always seemed to get "hooked up" with the latest seeds of OS X and other apps, and some hardware info, so someone in the range of middle-management must have gotten a thrill in spilling the beans for so long and never getting caught.

The real winner in all this mess is the leaker(s) at Apple that was, apparently, never found out.

Perhaps not as part of the settlement, but TS has been way off base for well over a year on most rumours, so either the leak got plugged or Nick and the leak fell out. Of course, the leak might simply have switched allegiances to 9to5mac.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever the payoff was, the guy deserves it. At the end of the day, anybody who sets up that kind of site at 13 is a pretty dedicated Apple fan and whilst ppl can argue the ethics of it as much as they want, Apple thrives off its cult following that Nick helped to promote. Rumour sites add to the mystique of a company that likes to keep its customers guessing by trying to break down that mystique, making it apparent to whoever bothers to search for when the <insert apple product here> will next get updated. Nick's connections facilitated his doing so too successfully for Apple's liking and in the end, the company he loved enough to start a website devoted to, paid him off (probably not as handsomely as most of you think, but just a few years' worth of ad revenue, and I mean if rumour sites make so much money how come MR asks donations of its members to get better user statuses?). The payout came long after TS's accuracy went down the pan (probably because the lawsuit put the squeeze on the leak) so the site was no longer big news anyways.

I say good luck to him. Apple knows they need sites like TS to keep the dedicated fans informed, but that they need to bring down sites as accurate as TS so as to keep their brand mystique alive.

stealthman1
Dec 24, 2007, 12:53 PM
Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.

This is not a Constitutional issue. This is an example of industrial espionage and it's quite against the law.
http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1832.html

RoadieJodie
Dec 24, 2007, 01:01 PM
For me, the question is why not take care of it soley internally?

There are other sites out there, correct?

If I were to openly talk about patient's, studies, experiments, or anything else related to what goes on in my workplace, I solely would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Not the third party.


Is it really in Apple's rights to go after that third party?
I'm interested in knowing . . .

(Now if there were kick-backs that would be a whole 'nother story.)

jouster
Dec 24, 2007, 01:13 PM
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.

Apple doesn't even break their computer sales down by type, and you think you'll find details of a one-off legal settlement?

stealthman1
Dec 24, 2007, 01:31 PM
For me, the question is why not take care of it soley internally?

There are other sites out there, correct?

If I were to openly talk about patient's, studies, experiments, or anything else related to what goes on in my workplace, I solely would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Not the third party.


Is it really in Apple's rights to go after that third party?
I'm interested in knowing . . .

(Now if there were kick-backs that would be a whole 'nother story.)

I would find it hard to believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that some sites may pursue information more aggressively than others. I would also find it pretty reasonable that someone in their late teens may not know or understand the legal ramifications of their actions or even have the slightest understanding of such terms as trade secrets or industrial espionage and where the lines are drawn. I think you could also make a pretty educated guess that there was a trigger why Apple got aggressive with TS.

Freis968
Dec 24, 2007, 01:33 PM
Why would Apple have to give this guy any money at all? Isn't he the one more or less breaking the law?

Doctor Q
Dec 24, 2007, 01:40 PM
How many years of your life would you want to spend on ongoing lawsuit? It was 3 so far for Nick.And 3 years is a pretty high percentage of your life when you are college age.

rockosmodurnlif
Dec 24, 2007, 01:56 PM
How many years of your life would you want to spend on ongoing lawsuit? It was 3 so far for Nick. Also, I believe Nick was paying for a private lawyer. The EFF wasn't directly representing him, so he may have had mounting legal bills.

link (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12/apple-and-think-secret-settle-lawsuit)


arn

Ahh, I was under the impression EFF was helping in his defense for free. If there is a cost then I certainly understand. Which eases the sting of a payment and such. Thanks arn.

But as for your question, if it weren't costing me anything or if I had the credit, I'd see it all the way through. It's how the legal system works, as far as I know, you set precedent. I mean, someone has to stand up and draw the line and say 'no more'. What if a case like this comes up again and the defense is less aggressive, less vigorous? Then where will we be? But I say that with someone else paying the bill and when it comes to legal counsel you get what you pay for.

But for those who think this isn't a first amendment issue, according to the lawyer (http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=intellectual_property_and_drm&articleId=9053798&taxonomyId=144&intsrc=kc_top), his counter motion, the one that made Apple lose interest, was anti-SLAPP. I had no idea what that was so I looked it up here (http://www.casp.net/). I quote from there.


What are SLAPPs?
SLAPPs Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage.

While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.


And I've decided who I'm happy for. The legal system. One less case to tie up the courts. :D

ImAlwaysRight
Dec 24, 2007, 09:15 PM
Someone just has to leak the amount of $$$ paid by Apple. Can't you see the irony in that?!? :D

Romanesq
Dec 24, 2007, 11:13 PM
Someone just has to leak the amount of $$$ paid by Apple. Can't you see the irony in that?!? :D

This will be the next unconfirmed bit of information. I have it on a good source that the amount is 1.22. :cool:

Not a bad way to wrap up and everyone is happy.:p

Bababasjd
Dec 24, 2007, 11:24 PM
well apple kinda of did violated the first admendment but then again the other party kind of got leaked info. The only reason apple paid this guy was so he can shut down his business. Before apple lost money with thinksecret, however, now no one kinda knowa what is happening, and now we relie on digitimes and the intel road map. :eek:

gwangung
Dec 25, 2007, 12:36 AM
well apple kinda of did violated the first admendment


Every poster who says this oughta be whapped up along side the head with a copy of the first amendment and be made to study some actual first amendment case law.

RoadieJodie
Dec 25, 2007, 03:21 AM
I would find it hard to believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that some sites may pursue information more aggressively than others. I would also find it pretty reasonable that someone in their late teens may not know or understand the legal ramifications of their actions or even have the slightest understanding of such terms as trade secrets or industrial espionage and where the lines are drawn. I think you could also make a pretty educated guess that there was a trigger why Apple got aggressive with TS.


Pure speculation.

The fact remains, that there are very little facts.
APPL has learned how to maintain a positive public veiw/stand point, by saying nothing at all.

Personally:

I could give a **** less about how their finances, legal, and PR departments work.

The thing I'm trying to push is that the Think Different Apple of the 80's - 90's is not the same as the Apple of today.

People need to step back and look at the whole picture that is Apple Inc.


Again, Note:

This is not a personal attack against Apple, my intentions are to convince people to pause before they hit the post button with the "I wonder how much he got?" post's and make this an intelligent conversation.

I still love me some :apple: though ;).

tveric
Dec 25, 2007, 11:07 AM
This will be the next unconfirmed bit of information. I have it on a good source that the amount is 1.22. :cool:

Not a bad way to wrap up and everyone is happy.:p

If you were running a successful website, and a corporation threatened and tried to intimidate you, and then the EFF got some lawyers for you (that told you basically what we all know, that Apple had zero chance of winning any kind of suit against you) - would you take less than a substantial sum to shut down your website?

This was a save-face move by Apple all the way. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the payment was six figures. Once they realized they couldn't intimidate by pushing frivolous lawsuits (thank god the EFF bailed him out on that score), their only choice was a payoff to at least get him to agree to close the site. Huge win for the consumers. Neutral for Apple, could have been really bad PR.

Counter
Dec 25, 2007, 02:44 PM
Whaddya think they paid him in, gummi bears?

FakeWozniak
Dec 26, 2007, 02:46 PM
I would have guessed the settlement was to make things go away with some kind of closure. I would think that the symbology of the website shutting down would be sufficient to satisfy Apple. The lawyers for TS would still want to get paid (I don't believe all of it was pro bono). I suspect Apple would be fine with picking up the tab. TS's legal fees is probably less than 1 commercial run at the SuperBowl. Maybe we can blame TS if we don't see an Apple commercial this year! :D

From TS's standpoint, they are happy to get out the legal fees and like someone said before, TS was dead for some time now. The "journalists" will likely pop up again as some other rumor website, hopefully a little wiser.

FakeWozniak
Dec 26, 2007, 03:35 PM
The real winner in all this mess is the leaker(s) at Apple that was, apparently, never found out.

If I were running Apple these days, I would have monitored email, within the letter of the law, found the leak, and then legally threatened them to cooperate in flushing out the websites that are trying to manipulate Apple employees. You ask, "Why wouldn't Apple just fire the suspect and take them to court?". Sure, they could fire the employee, but who's to say it won't just happen again. That employee might sue and they could potentially take bad publicity for an internal leak.

If they took the road of patience, they could find the aggressive rumor websites and learn their methodology for turning employees against their NDAs. Isn't this what a government would do with a captured spy?

This is what I think they did. It was the Asteroid device, right? I don't think that ever saw the light of day. I always thought that was a phony device anyway. Here's a tagline for you... "Think Bait, Think Secret!".

Now, what happened to the leaker after Apple interrogated him/her? Either assigned to system test, or is now application owner for the smallest most insignificant application released with Mac OS X. Anyone know what that is? Let's check the about box to see who it is! :) Then again, maybe they are cleaning the toilets to the executive suites...;)

Counter
Dec 26, 2007, 07:52 PM
I would have guessed the settlement was to make things go away with some kind of closure. I would think that the symbology of the website shutting down would be sufficient to satisfy Apple. The lawyers for TS would still want to get paid (I don't believe all of it was pro bono). I suspect Apple would be fine with picking up the tab. TS's legal fees is probably less than 1 commercial run at the SuperBowl. Maybe we can blame TS if we don't see an Apple commercial this year! :D

From TS's standpoint, they are happy to get out the legal fees and like someone said before, TS was dead for some time now. The "journalists" will likely pop up again as some other rumor website, hopefully a little wiser.

TS will have got a good deal more than their legal fees paid. They wouldn't have lost the legal battle, they were breaking no laws, so they would have ultimately been covered anyway. This was a cash/stock deal to close ThinkSecret. Apple nor TS are going to say that though but it's the only plausible explanation. If the deal was something different it no doubt could have been told to the public.

trevelyn
Dec 27, 2007, 07:54 PM
I am curious if in addition to money, he got some apple hardware out of the deal, too. :) :apple:

Call42350
Dec 27, 2007, 09:04 PM
TS will have got a good deal more than their legal fees paid. They wouldn't have lost the legal battle, they were breaking no laws, so they would have ultimately been covered anyway. This was a cash/stock deal to close ThinkSecret. Apple nor TS are going to say that though but it's the only plausible explanation. If the deal was something different it no doubt could have been told to the public.

This is total crud. If Apple didn't stand a chance and would surely loose the case, they would just let it dwindle over time into insignificance, NOT settle and stir stuff up again in the media. There was no reverse lawsuit was there? Besides, the case was about coercion of employees to break NDAs, not about 1st Amendment, right?

I have to agree with FakeWoz that it seemed to be a pain in the rear for Apple to keep the lawsuit on the books. They'd want some kind of closure. Basically Ciarelli got money to pay off mounting legal fees and in return retires the site. He's one lucky guy to get off that easy IMO.

If Apple wanted to agonize Ciarelli further, they could let the suite dwindle on and Ciarelli's lawyers would push for payment long before the suite was resolved.

law guy
Dec 27, 2007, 10:17 PM
It's been mentioned here and there, but those posts over on the Secret Diary of Steve Jobs site - http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/ - chronically issues with Apple over the past few weeks are distressing. What is going on with Apple?

If you guys haven't done so, check out the link and read the last few entries on the topic (scroll down the page and you'll see them most recent first, going back in time down the page).

Counter
Dec 28, 2007, 11:48 AM
This is total crud. If Apple didn't stand a chance and would surely loose the case, they would just let it dwindle over time into insignificance, NOT settle and stir stuff up again in the media.

Uhhh?

That's the first I have heard of the new awesome way to win court cases. Just let it dwindle over time into the waiting lawless land that is insignificance! Man, there's so many companies who could use your law expertise right now!


I have to agree with FakeWoz that it seemed to be a pain in the rear for Apple to keep the lawsuit on the books. They'd want some kind of closure. Basically Ciarelli got money to pay off mounting legal fees and in return retires the site. He's one lucky guy to get off that easy IMO.

'If Apple didn't stand a chance and would surely loose the case, they would just let it dwindle over time'

Wouldn't that be a 'pain in the rear for Apple to keep the lawsuit on the books'?

Closure! What a great idea!


If Apple wanted to agonize Ciarelli further, they could let the suite dwindle on and Ciarelli's lawyers would push for payment long before the suite was resolved.

Yes, that would agonize Ciarelli further, and wouldn't be a 'pain in the rear for Apple' all of a sudden because it's a different paragraph.

estrand03
Dec 28, 2007, 01:11 PM
What do you think about putting up a ThinkSecret2.com ?

DiamondMac
Dec 28, 2007, 01:37 PM
If Apple didn't stand a chance and would surely loose the case, they would just let it dwindle over time into insignificance, NOT settle and stir stuff up again in the media.

Many, and I mean many, companies know their chances of winning/losing a lawsuit before it even starts yet still choose to end it right away due to publicity, time, and other factors of dragging it on.

This seems like a pretty straight-forward settlement where Apple was unsure of their chances (or hell, maybe they felt good or bad) yet wanted to end it right now instead of waiting months longer.

People are greatly over-thinking this issue on why, how, or whatever else people are coming up with

tveric
Dec 29, 2007, 01:05 AM
This is total crud. If Apple didn't stand a chance and would surely loose the case,

Yeah, trust legal advice from anyone that spells "lose" wrong.

By the way, he didn't have to pay lawyers, the EFF backed him and provided his legal help.

"Apple was faced with losing the case and having to pay attorney's fees," explained EFF spokesperson Kurt Opsahl, which is likely part of the reason why it decided to settle instead of continuing to pursue it. As for Ciarelli, "We understand that Nick is very satisfied with the outcome of the case," Opsahl said. "We hope that Apple learns a lesson over this."

Would you take a profitable website that you had worked on for 8 or 9 years and shut it down when you knew Apple had no case? Well, maybe YOU would. But someone as smart as Nick Ciarelli wouldn't. Apple would have had to pay attorney's fees anyway once they lost. They decided to cut their losses and at least get one concession - a shutdown of the website, which they could not have made happen without a payoff of many thousands of dollars. And good for Nick. I hope he didn't take less than $100,000.