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!"
community.
