Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ThinkSecret Shuts Down, Settles Apple Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sometimes you get tired and don't want to do the task anymore. It happens with websites and blogs all the time.
I don't see why people think Apple paid off Thinksecret. Why would Apple pay off someone they were suing? They're suing him to find out his source and instead they give him money and drop the suit? What sense does that make?
And with all the lawyers on the boards, some comparing this to "Deep Throat," I will point to the BALCo case where Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams were threatened with imprisonment unless they revealed their source for their leaked Grand Jury testimony. When the leak came forward, though the authors were willing to go to prison, the charges against the authors were dropped.
Now this case doesn't involve the federal government but the leak did sign an NDA. And judges can compel a journalist to reveal his source, the journalist then has a choice to comply or not. Also the government, as far as I know, didn't bother to sue the Washington Post to find out who the source was.
Before you say TS did nothing illegal we don't know who the NDA breaker is or why he broke his NDA.
You have to be careful what you say.
I like rumor sites. A rumor, or an analyst's guesses obtained from manufacturing estimates, is different than revealing confidential information--that'll put you in jail sometimes. It almost put Nick in jail, or bankrupted him.
IMO, EFF didn't have that strong of case, and that's why it didn't go to court. And regardless of what the press release says, he may have had to reveal sources; PR is PR and not to be taken seriously.
It's one thing, for instance, to say that a certain raw material supplier has increased orders for a certain material which may indicate a certain product in a certain time-frame. It's quite another to post pictures or post confidential details of the material or component. There is huge money invested in products, so much is at stake. You can't libel, steal or cause harm with your speech, or you may have to pay the price.
Another issue is whether a blogger is a journalist, with a journalist's attendant rights, privileges and responsibilities. That remains to be seen. If EFF was THAT confident, they would have made this a showcase trial to prove that point.
I like rumor sites. A rumor, or an analyst's guesses obtained from manufacturing estimates, is different than revealing confidential information--that'll put you in jail sometimes. It almost put Nick in jail, or bankrupted him.
IMO, EFF didn't have that strong of case, and that's why it didn't go to court. And regardless of what the press release says, he may have had to reveal sources; PR is PR and not to be taken seriously.
It's one thing, for instance, to say that a certain raw material supplier has increased orders for a certain material which may indicate a certain product in a certain time-frame. It's quite another to post pictures or post confidential details of the material or component. There is huge money invested in products, so much is at stake. You can't libel, steal or cause harm with your speech, or you may have to pay the price.
Another issue is whether a blogger is a journalist, with a journalist's attendant rights, privileges and responsibilities. That remains to be seen. If EFF was THAT confident, they would have made this a showcase trial to prove that point.
Amicable. . .
An amicable solution forces the site to shut down?!?!
What would a nasty resolution be? Lashes? Caning?
Frankly, I think all of the "rumor" sites are too commercial and polished to be credible. A real rumors site would be like an old-fashioned listserv with plain text and no commercials. Real crude, cloak-and-dagger stuff, y'know.
An amicable solution forces the site to shut down?!?!
What would a nasty resolution be? Lashes? Caning?
Frankly, I think all of the "rumor" sites are too commercial and polished to be credible. A real rumors site would be like an old-fashioned listserv with plain text and no commercials. Real crude, cloak-and-dagger stuff, y'know.
At least TS shutting down disproves the theory I have read here before that Apple likes the rumor sites and purposely leaks info to them to generate excitement about upcoming products. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will say shutting down TS is part of the master plan to generate MORE excitement 
Years ago TS was sort of hit and miss. Then about 2-3 years ago they were DEAD ON with the specs, which certainly led to where we are today. Hey, I'd sell you all out too if someone offered me a butt load of money.
Years ago TS was sort of hit and miss. Then about 2-3 years ago they were DEAD ON with the specs, which certainly led to where we are today. Hey, I'd sell you all out too if someone offered me a butt load of money.
Wasn't this was taken to court a year or so ago, and it was determined that ThinkSecret was an actual news outlet? The whole point of that case, which made national news, was that blogs had the protection given to the rest of the press, provided the blogger spends X amount of time on it (or got Y amount of revenue, or something).
So while regular citizens can be compelled to divulge their sources of trade secrets (and of course anyone who signed an NDA can), journalists cannot, no matter what the alleged damage to the company whose secrets they are divulging. That's standard freedom-of-the-press. The interesting part was that ThinkSecret was ruled part of the press in this case. The question then is what Apple had after that ruling -- they must of had some other stuff, or a threat to keep litigating, that prompted Nick DePlume to settle with gag rather than keep fighting. That's probably best for him, but I wish he had gone to bat for the rest of blogdom.
So while regular citizens can be compelled to divulge their sources of trade secrets (and of course anyone who signed an NDA can), journalists cannot, no matter what the alleged damage to the company whose secrets they are divulging. That's standard freedom-of-the-press. The interesting part was that ThinkSecret was ruled part of the press in this case. The question then is what Apple had after that ruling -- they must of had some other stuff, or a threat to keep litigating, that prompted Nick DePlume to settle with gag rather than keep fighting. That's probably best for him, but I wish he had gone to bat for the rest of blogdom.
Let mew restate that more accurately for you.
"The site that requested people to break NDAs and other contracts, and then posted specific information."
The site's behavior was legal and journalistic.
The "people" were subject to termination and civil damages, but were not criminals.
At least get the thing straight.
Rocketman
Boo Apple.
I call for a day (or week) of no Apple coverage. Turn off your browsers folks -- better yet, do it during Macworld. I'm getting very close to fed up with Apple. Their higher ed. sales force is completely incompetent, and they're turning into the very entity that they mocked on Super Bowl Sunday back in 1984.
Boo Apple. Boo.
And, come on Apple. Surely you realize AAPL is in the stratosphere precisely *because* of the strong rumor community!
I call for a day (or week) of no Apple coverage. Turn off your browsers folks -- better yet, do it during Macworld. I'm getting very close to fed up with Apple. Their higher ed. sales force is completely incompetent, and they're turning into the very entity that they mocked on Super Bowl Sunday back in 1984.
Boo Apple. Boo.
And, come on Apple. Surely you realize AAPL is in the stratosphere precisely *because* of the strong rumor community!
That's incorrect. It's basic intellectual property law (you get taught this in basic communication law). Trade secret protection is at the state level--most states have adopted/adapted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
No, it's not standard freedom-of-the-press stuff; it's more complicated than that. Trade secret law varies from state to state. California has a fairly strong journalistic shield law that probably trumps trade secret law. YMMV for other states.
Apple had little choice but to pay the guy to shut down the site.
Their lawsuit doubled traffic at his site - even if you feel the quality of the site dropped off the radar, he was generating plenty of hits.
There's no indication he ever faced the possibility of any criminal charges, despite other posters' blowing smoke over "trade secrets"
Nor would a civil judgement have had any significant impact - as a student with limited assets he could easily have discharged *any* amount of civil damages awarded to Apple via chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Their lawsuit doubled traffic at his site - even if you feel the quality of the site dropped off the radar, he was generating plenty of hits.
There's no indication he ever faced the possibility of any criminal charges, despite other posters' blowing smoke over "trade secrets"
Nor would a civil judgement have had any significant impact - as a student with limited assets he could easily have discharged *any* amount of civil damages awarded to Apple via chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Given that remedies for trade secret violations are civil in nature, yeah, he never did face criminal charges.
(Oh, by the way...if your argument is what TS published are not trade secrets, then I might not disagree. It's a different argument, and one with more areas of discussion, than whether or not trade secret law applies to journalists, which it does---that's one of the things they teach in journalism school.)
Sorry, I did recall that it was specific to California, but failed to mention that.
In any case, it should be standard freedom-of-the-press stuff...
Among other things, CNET says:
The news is certainly a big hit to other large Apple rumor sites including 9to5Mac, Mac Rumors and AppleInsider. Sites like these encourage news tips and leaks about upcoming or unannounced Apple products, which is what got Think Secret into trouble in the first place.
The author seems to think all rumors sites operate the same way. He didn't note that TS actively solicited insider leaks or that the legal confrontation was over a very specific story and source.
Boo Apple.
I call for a day (or week) of no Apple coverage. Turn off your browsers folks -- better yet, do it during Macworld. I'm getting very close to fed up with Apple. Their higher ed. sales force is completely incompetent, and they're turning into the very entity that they mocked on Super Bowl Sunday back in 1984.
Boo Apple. Boo.
And, come on Apple. Surely you realize AAPL is in the stratosphere precisely *because* of the strong rumor community!
lol you have fun with that. You'll be a part of the minority that doesn't see this from a bigger point of view.
I'll be enjoying my MacWorld coverage and buying my Apple products.
Depends, I say.
Publish Apple's marketing plan for 2008-09? I think you'll get slapped down hard.
Publish source code for OS X? I KNOW you'll get slapped down hard.
Publish what Apple might be considering for products? Ehh....I think the courts will ignore it without a burp...
Good Riddance
to bad garbage. Next pile of worthless **** to pack up and go home: IDG's rags (a man can dream).
to bad garbage.
Next pile of worthless **** to pack up and go home: IDG's rags (a man can dream).
"In May 2006, a California state appeals court ruled that online journalists enjoy the same rights as traditional media reporters to protect the confidentiality of their sources"
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9053798&pageNumber=2
To go back to the differences, if any, between Wall Street analysts making predictions on future Apple products and what ThinkSecret was posting, it seems to me that at the very least, what Apple deemed a "trade secret" was at the least rather arbitrary. If I recall correctly, the article that got ThinkSecret into trouble was about an unreleased product that was a Firewire breakout box that could hook up multiple musical instruments to be plugged into a Mac for multi-track recording.
On the other hand, various Wall Street analysts have published articles regarding the possibility of these unreleased products:
Clearly, any of these products and/or upgrades could be deemed by Apple to carry the same level of secrecy as that Firewire mixer box. Apple just chooses not to. This is the arbitrary aspect of the ThinkSecret lawsuit.
On the other hand, various Wall Street analysts have published articles regarding the possibility of these unreleased products:
- iTunes movie rentals
- "ultra-portable" MacBook, including specs and price
- 3G iPhone
- adding an LCD display to Apple TV
- Penryn-based Xeon processor upgrade to Mac Pro
- new games for the iPod Touch
Clearly, any of these products and/or upgrades could be deemed by Apple to carry the same level of secrecy as that Firewire mixer box. Apple just chooses not to. This is the arbitrary aspect of the ThinkSecret lawsuit.
Source!
To people saying TS got paid off:
SOURCE PLEASE!
Did Nick say something or put something on his blog etc saying he got paid off? Why are you all so adamant that you know TS got paid off? Where does that knowledge come from?
If you have no direct source, then you're just speculating. Which is fine, but hey, there's a difference.
To people saying TS got paid off:
SOURCE PLEASE!
Did Nick say something or put something on his blog etc saying he got paid off? Why are you all so adamant that you know TS got paid off? Where does that knowledge come from?
If you have no direct source, then you're just speculating. Which is fine, but hey, there's a difference.
Not such a "brilliant point" if you ask me...
I'm fairly certain AAPL is fast closing in on $200/share because over the past several years they have demonstrated an ability to accurately gauge the tech marketplace and release innovative, exciting products that people get passionate about. I really don't think rumor blogs have factored into their corporate bottomline all that heavily.