ACED said:
The fact is, none of us are supossed to have a "story" on anything unless we signed a NDA. Apple is right in what they're doing.
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.
Apple Sues Think Secret
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The fact is, none of us are supossed to have a "story" on anything unless we signed a NDA. Apple is right in what they're doing.
It *IS* unbelievable
It *IS* unbelievable because in the past Apple all but encouraged its employees to tweak the rumor sites....as long as what you said was positive.edesignuk said:
The Los Angeles Times recently did a series of articles exposing the terrible management and care at a Los Angeles hospital. The reporters studied public records, interviewed dozens of people, including talking to employees about their bosses, and named names, claiming certain doctors were incompetent, filing false reports, and giving bad care. It was direct - not in the least subtle or couched in "may have been" or "according to some sources" language.
There were no trademark issues involved, but doing that story's investigation without (presumably) violating any laws might have been tricky. Apple's case against Think Secret may be in murky water too - when is talking to employees allowed? Are Apple employees under stricter contracts than most employers use? If an employee speaks in violation of contract, is it also the recipient's fault? What constitutes illegal coercion to spill the beans? Does it have to involve a monetary reward?
There were no trademark issues involved, but doing that story's investigation without (presumably) violating any laws might have been tricky. Apple's case against Think Secret may be in murky water too - when is talking to employees allowed? Are Apple employees under stricter contracts than most employers use? If an employee speaks in violation of contract, is it also the recipient's fault? What constitutes illegal coercion to spill the beans? Does it have to involve a monetary reward?
Apple stock was up on $499 Imac news...
so if the rumor turns out to not to be true it does put the company under pressure. On the other hand I think rumors sites are great and serve a purpose of building hype and opinion. All said I would not want Apple's legal and its team of lawyers after me! 😱 One more think I heard a rumor Apple is going to sell a new Emac for 19.99 at Walmart !!!! JK
so if the rumor turns out to not to be true it does put the company under pressure. On the other hand I think rumors sites are great and serve a purpose of building hype and opinion. All said I would not want Apple's legal and its team of lawyers after me! 😱 One more think I heard a rumor Apple is going to sell a new Emac for 19.99 at Walmart !!!! JK
Mainyehc
macrumors 6502a
Avicdar said:
Hum, let me tell you something... Everyone knew a new iMac was in the works, and everyone was almost sure it would have a G5 in it. And this happened months in advance... A few weeks before, it was official, it would sport a G5 processor. So, it wasn't a surprise, big deal. It did cause some shock and awe, and the traditional mixed reactions (some from those people that hate products until they see them in person). A few months later, the iMac G5 is still getting great reviews... So, did Apple lose anything because of telling people in advance about a new product? One cannont tell, since they weren't producing the iMac G4 anymore. If they kept producing it and selling at that pricepoint, they probably would end up with them inside some warehouse gathering dust...
But we're talking about rumours here, people! And as it has been pointed out, most of them surface just a bit before the actual products are introduced. EXCEPT for these rumours reported by ThinkSecret. Think about Asteroid... Apple is right, especially on that one. Their competitors had a lot of time in advance to try develop something similarly spec'ed or priced, or at least to get ready for doing so...
Having said this, even though I think Apple is right, I wouldn't like to see TS disappear. I'm divided on this one... Let's see how this evolves... Anyway, rigth now I'm looking forward to see whether those rumours were true or not 😉
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
rdowns said:
Apple isn't sueing TS for reporting rumors. They are sueing TS for, among other things, the suspected criminal manor they engaged in to get their info. Big difference.
TS knew they were on thin ice and ignored repeated warnings from Apple legal. It's not like Apple sued them out of the blue. TS clearly knew the danger and ignored it.
Lethal
This sucks.
I dont like the idea of them suing rumor mills and fan sites. I dont like them suing college kids who shared tiger.
This is totally not the counterculture feel that i want my fav company to have
I dont like the idea of them suing rumor mills and fan sites. I dont like them suing college kids who shared tiger.
This is totally not the counterculture feel that i want my fav company to have
rainman::|:|
macrumors 603
You know, this all started when cnet and slashdot started carrying Thinksecret rumors... That's when it went from a few thousand people quietly geeking around the internet to AP reporters having sketches of PowerMacs before they're released. And that's the real problem here... the detail involved with the rumors. The wall street journal, investor speculation is limited to fuzzy details of things the company might do sometime. The rumors that Apple has been dealing with often involve leaked specs, drawings, etc. That gives the competition an unfair edge, I'm sorry. And when you consider the fast-paced world of computers, little pissant companies can create a product knockoff within a month or two. Apple needs that time to establish the brand identity, I mean what if eMachines released a copycat iMac G5 that ran windows, but looked exactly the same, on the same day? The same people that happily passed on the leaked information now decry eMachines for patent infringement. Apple sues, but it takes a while to get a ruling. As a Mac person, I'd rather that not happen.
Apple does indeed have a suit against them, if they can hold up their version of events and get an Apple employee to say Thinksecret pressured them (and what employee wouldn't squeal to avoid an NDA suit?), they would easily have conspiracy to defraud. I feel bad for the guy, but I'm not surprised by this, nor should he be.
paul
Apple does indeed have a suit against them, if they can hold up their version of events and get an Apple employee to say Thinksecret pressured them (and what employee wouldn't squeal to avoid an NDA suit?), they would easily have conspiracy to defraud. I feel bad for the guy, but I'm not surprised by this, nor should he be.
paul
LethalWolfe said:
Yep, tis true.
But, the rumor sports are so much fun 🙁
Pink Floyd warned us about skating on the thin edge of modern life. Ah well ..
Suing the rumor sites may be a way for Apple to save face if these rumors are not true. Think about it, the main stream press has picked up on this story and Wall Street is even giving stock advice based on it. If these rumors aren't true or even if the products are accurate but weren't to be released at MWSF (some later date), Apple is going to take a beating in the press, HARD.
So if Steve gets on stage and gives a 1.5 hour keynote on how great iPod and iTMS is doing, they need a public relations kit to calm the media-Sh*tstorm that is coming their way about the un-mentioned rumored products.
Blame it on the rumor mills and Apple saves face, especially if the products are true but they weren't to be released at MWSF.
Steve can then announce 2004 & 2005 the year of the iPod.
And the "one more thing" can be Steve unveiling three amazing new colors of iPod socks.
So if Steve gets on stage and gives a 1.5 hour keynote on how great iPod and iTMS is doing, they need a public relations kit to calm the media-Sh*tstorm that is coming their way about the un-mentioned rumored products.
Blame it on the rumor mills and Apple saves face, especially if the products are true but they weren't to be released at MWSF.
Steve can then announce 2004 & 2005 the year of the iPod.
And the "one more thing" can be Steve unveiling three amazing new colors of iPod socks.
Rumor sites may be fun, but Apple employees sign NDAs and Apple has every right to protect their secrets, despite its fans' wishes.
Face it -- Apple is in the business to make money. If they feel these rumor sites somehow hurt them, they have a right to sue. And people do violate NDAs to get the rumor sites the info. That's a breach of contract, and, again, Apple has every right to sue.
Plus, if certain trusted rumor sites start circulating rumors of a new product that doesn't actually exist, and investors and news sites get all riled up, then Apple doesn't introduce it, you have a lot of disappointed people (and shareholders), which could hurt stock value.
It's business. Nothing more.
Face it -- Apple is in the business to make money. If they feel these rumor sites somehow hurt them, they have a right to sue. And people do violate NDAs to get the rumor sites the info. That's a breach of contract, and, again, Apple has every right to sue.
Plus, if certain trusted rumor sites start circulating rumors of a new product that doesn't actually exist, and investors and news sites get all riled up, then Apple doesn't introduce it, you have a lot of disappointed people (and shareholders), which could hurt stock value.
It's business. Nothing more.
Diatribe said:
There's another possibility... maybe the leaks were plants designed to ferret out the sources who were providing all of the info to TS. You know, spread some different info to a few people and see which ones got posted on TS.
This would mean that some of the rumors could be wrong... who knows??
While I think going after employees that violated NDAs is morally justified, I don't really see the justification of going after TS, even if there was "interference". Freedom of the press is a rather important foundation of a free society. Media shows stuff all the time that certain people would rather keep private, gleaned from people who weren't supposed to divulge the info. I guess TS is just small enough to pick on, they wouldn't be suing CNN or NBC I'm sure.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
salmon said:
Then do what, terminate employees for sharing information on products that don't exist?
I do like your idea though. Seems like it would be awfully hard to manage, but could be effective.
BTW, most respected media sources never print anything as fact until it is verified by another source and fact-checked for accuracy. They do that to prevent lawsuits, freedom of the press does not give them the right to print anything they want.
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
I wish everyone would stop having knee jerk reactions to "Apple sues rumor site" (site, not sites[/bs]) and pay attention to whom they are sueing and what they are being sued for.
There can still be rumor sports, but just no more "cheating" (i.e. engaging in illegal activity). Rumors are fun because of speculation, not facts.
It's like the difference between trying to guess what you are getting for Xmas as opposed to just going down and unwrapping your presents before Xmas.
Lethal
ThomasJefferson said:
There can still be rumor sports, but just no more "cheating" (i.e. engaging in illegal activity). Rumors are fun because of speculation, not facts.
It's like the difference between trying to guess what you are getting for Xmas as opposed to just going down and unwrapping your presents before Xmas.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
Or be more blatant with your disregard to law, open your parents credit card statements and see what you are getting for X-mas
SiliconAddict said:
Yeah? So what?
If you pass along trade secrets knowingly, you're sued for damages. That's established law.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
billystlyes said:
Not if Apple had come out and said that these rumor sites were full of it. The rumors outside of typical Mac rumor sites started flying a day or two after the initial $499 iMac rumor happened. You act as if Apple is the first company who has had to deal with a media frenzy when it comes to rumors.
Take Palm. There were rumors flying that their latest PDA that came out a couple months back was going to ship with Palm OS 6. So many rumors in fact that Palm came out and said that the device was not going to ship with it. Problem defused before it got blown out of proportion.
wordmunger said:
I agree. However, I suspect there are enough lawyers who are mac addicts that would love to defend TS against the big corp. Apple.
Apple is ticked because they are leaking all over the place and can't stop it.
I doubt they can truly clamp down on this and find out who is leaking.
If the Iraqi terrorists can publish videos on the web of their attacks and the CIA can't track them down, then I don't think Apple will have much success finding out who is behind some new rumor website that will take over TS.
dongmin
macrumors 68000
As you say, if all else being equal, yes you'd be crazy not to make your decision based on the milege (or megahertz). But clearly it's not the case of all else being equal. The OS is different. The applications are different. The industrial design is different. The iPod, as is plainly obvious, generally has inferior specs compared to the competition. But lesser specs is outweighed by the UI, iTunes syncing, packaging, and marketing.aldo said:
With the $499 headlessMac, Apple is just trying to tip the scales more in their favor. Yes, apple will still lag in specs (until the 970s come in 3.5 ghz, and for $5 a pop) and in prices, but the price factor will become less of an issue. Also, it's not simply about Macs vs. PCs, it's about the 'barrier to entry.' People will now be much more willing to give Macs a shot, not necessarily as a replacement for their PCs but as an 'addition' to it. For $500 it becomes much less of an either/or thing. From my limited experience, I know a ton of PC geeks who wouldn't mind having a $500 OX X (and UNIX) box to play around with now and then to use iLife or FC Express; for sure, they have a plenty of extra monitors running around.
