Apple Sues Think Secret

[sunilraman]

then why couldn't it have waited a week?

maybe everyone has just got over their christmas/new year hangovers and are like .... sh*****t what the heck is going on ?!!

me guess is somehow they want to get the ball rolling ASAP so they can focus on MacWorld

hmmm i admit i am confused too not sure how the suit relates to what is revealed at MacWorld... we will only know when we see keynote at MW... Steve will look pissed ... he'll be needing lots of yoga and organic food to stay in the zone

 

[adamjay]

hmmm i admit i am confused too not sure how the suit relates to what is revealed at MacWorld... we will only know when we see keynote at MW... Steve will look pissed ... he'll be needing lots of yoga and organic food to stay in the zone

now that i think of it in the context of Macworld, and more specifically Steve's Keynote... it does make a little more sense.

I'm sure he'll say something like... "so some of you may have heard...." long pause, plenty of laughter "that we figured we'd take the head off the imac" long pause, plenty of laughter.....
It gives it that "inside joke" feel that his keynotes usually have. And in that context it does make sense. The lawsuit is his opening act, so to speak.

 

[sigamy]

Man, we are a long way from 2001's "Beyond the Rumor Sites...Way Beyond." Remember that?

Apple helped to grow the "rumor industry" thru some of its own stunts like above. Now they want to sue? Nuts.

 

[Mechcozmo]

Hell, I've sold 2 people so far on the new headless Mac who would have otherwise bought new PCs. It would suck if I couldn't do this anymore... yknow, convert people...

 

[Armsreach]

Gruber has a very well reasoned take on this whole thing over at daringfireball.net that explains very precisely his thoughts on the rationality of such a lawsuit. Definitely enjoyed the read and agree with most of what was said.

 

[TrenchcoatJedi]

What percentage of Mac users even read rumor sites? 5%? 10% tops? They want to protect their trade secrets from Asian companies just itching to start designing "Apple Killer" products.

 

[fenton]

Oh right, thanks.

And it better come with a 38-buttons mouse with scroll wheels on all sides (yes, even under it).

OH come ON! Now who would seriously a scroll wheel driven mouse? That's even worse than a ball mouse. But if we're on feature wish lists, can I get mine gold plated?

 

[adam1185]

haha doesn't look like this lawsuit has slowed TS down

http://thinksecret.com/news/0501expo4.html

 

[bree]

Look I am not questioning your knowledge of the law. What I don't understand is the essential difference between TS and any other news organization. They gather information the same way,
they cultivate sources with in the corp. (or gov't etc.) they collect revenue the same way, and they report their findings the same way. So far there is no difference noted. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck.
An example: A company that makes widgets has a core that is toxic. Only by reverse engineering the product can the problem be found. They know about it and to ensure no one else knows about it or the press can't report on it is to declare it a trade secret.

This seems to be like the speculation and rumor mongering, obtained photos etc, that went on in the 80's over the B2 bomber. Here we are talking about issues of nat'l security and as far as I know, no law suits were pressed. (though men in black were commonly spotted)

As I said before, this seems more like a case of an NDA breach and Apple wants TS to do all the leg work for them.

False. Just because somebody has a website does not mean he is acting in a matter that befits the title of journalism. The essential difference is that journalism has a system of behaviors that determines how journalists are supposed to act in neutral, informative and ethical ways.
For example, it is standard practice to have at least two sources of information, which in almost all cases are publicly identified. It is also standard practice to get quotes from the person or company concerned. Has ThinkSecret *EVER* contacted Apple corporate offices to officially to confirm a story?

Why not? They publicly identify themselves as providing 'insider news'. In other words, publishing trade secrets; an act that is comparable to corporate espionage. Trade secrets are EVERYTHING to corporations. Without their 'secret formula', Coca-cola wouldn't be worth billions. By publishing Apple's trade secrets to all and sundry, ThinkSecret is essentially giving away the formula.

Something that is in the 'public interest', like your example, can get around trade secret restrictions. But the legal hurdle is usually one of safety. Not knowing about a new mac does not endanger your life.
As for national security issues, finding out about a new plane simply means spotting it when it flies overhead. On the other hand, leaking the name of a CIA operative has gotten several reporters and government employees in a large amount of trouble.

Reporting something in a publicly verifiable manner is what news is about. Reporting something that is from 'sources' which can not be verified is not journalism. Neither is publishing information which is obviously received from unethical means.

Apple has sued ThinkSecret for "tortious interference", which as far as i can tell, means that they have assisted in the breaking of trade secrets. The fact that they have a graphic saying 'got dirt?' with anonymous contact links does not detract from that accusation.

 

[hal9000]

Sorry, Apple - I don't think you will win an injunction against TS. That's asking for prior restraint against a news publisher - so it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Sun Baked]

Apple has sued ThinkSecret for "tortious interference", which as far as i can tell, means that they have assisted in the breaking of trade secrets. The fact that they have a graphic saying 'got dirt?' with anonymous contact links does not detract from that accusation.

It also doesn't help that the forum button on Think Secret's front page links to a forum where somebody is constantly leaking information.

Many times you'll find this member announcing stuff the day before the news hits the streets -- along with facts that appear months before it makes it into an Apple Store.

This person has also dropped pictures, information, product names and contents of NDA protected documents.

If this guy isn't a Think Secrect source and a target of Apple's witch hunt, I'd be surprised.

 

[AliensAreFuzzy]

I kinda like rumors, they're fun to speculate about and fun to see whether or not we were right. I also love the suprising announcments. (Remember how unexpected Airport Express was?) Think Secret is taking out the fun by posting the exact specs and taking away most of the speculation. I hope Apple wins this one so that we can get back to RUMORS instead of LEAKS

 

[unage85]

Don't knock it

Hey, stop bashing MacRumors about not having rumors of its own anymore... Sure u have a point but this site provides the best collection of info from the other rumor sites and has a better forum. Meh, i'm just too lazy to go to other sites.

Oh yea, BLA to Apple on this one! In a way its a good thing that ThinkSecret released the info... It gives me time to save money so I can buy it the first week it comes to the store. But yea... I guess posting very very specific details was bound to draw some attention.

Like a previous poster said, ThinkSecret should tone down the rumor by just saying "$499 headless mac on the way?"

Either way, a couple more sleeps. I don't care much for MWSF, more looking forward to Apple's press conference here in Australia... iTunes AUS on its way? Hope so...

 

[absolut_mac]

Guys, you need to realize that in reality, Apple cannot expect to win any lawsuit directly suing ThinkSecret. Since ThinkSecret is a member of the Press, they have the right to their freedom to publish what they want (as long as it isn't a direction to kill someone or whatever, which is clearly not the case). Nick (the editor and chief at TS) can make this kind of defense without the need for expensive lawyers and win.

However, Apple CAN intimidate its employees and perhaps get the name of ThinkSecret's source. This would be a major blow to rumors in general, as insiders would be less forthcoming.

I put my money 100% on TS to win this case.

Remember the FBI agent who was outed by Novak? That endangered her life, and is a felony to out an under cover FBI agent. So far the government hasn't leaned or achieved anything. Although they are trying very hard to find out who gave the info to Novak.

The only way that TS could be found guilty of anything was if they kidnapped an Apple employee and tortured him to get inside info. Something which seems highly unlikely to me.

As for TS publishing info that's harmful to Apple. Heck, virtually every newspaper publishers both stories and rumors that are harmful to some company some where. And yes, they do get sued on occasion, but very rarely do they lose, if ever.

Lastly, I remember the incident many years ago when Soldier of Fortune magazine was sued because they published an ad by a potential hit man looking to earn some money. A guy bought his services and had his wife bumped off. Almost every news organization came to the defense of SOF citing the First Amendment and because the ad was reasonably ambiguous, even although anyone reading it would know exactly what the seller was implying. Obviously SOF won the case otherwise anyone would be able to sue any magazine or newspaper for selling ads that result in someone being hurt i.e. a defective used car that results in severe injury or death.

The bottom line IMHO is that Apple has ZERO chance of winning this case. All they might *win* is the ability to intimidate a few of their employees. Big deal

 

[Sun Baked]

I put my money 100% on TS to win this case.

...The only way that TS could be found guilty of anything was if they kidnapped an Apple employee and tortured him to get inside info. Something which seems highly unlikely to me.

As for TS publishing info that's harmful to Apple. Heck, virtually every newspaper publishers both stories and rumors that are harmful to some company some where. And yes, they do get sued on occasion, but very rarely do they lose, if ever.

Lastly, I remember the incident many years ago when Soldier of Fortune magazine was sued because they published an ad by a potential hit man looking to earn some money. A guy bought his services and had his wife bumped off. Almost every news organization came to the defense of SOF citing the First Amendment and because the ad was reasonably ambiguous, even although anyone reading it would know exactly what the seller was implying. Obviously SOF won the case otherwise anyone would be able to sue any magazine or newspaper for selling ads that result in someone being hurt i.e. a defective used car that results in severe injury or death.

The bottom line IMHO is that Apple has ZERO chance of winning this case. All they might *win* is the ability to intimidate a few of their employees. Big deal

Really, seems the recent developments in Trade Secrets Law, and findings in the California Supreme Court may sink your aguments and potentially land TS in criminal court is Apple tries pushing it.

Today we resolve an apparent conflict between California's trade secret law (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.)1 and the free speech clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. In this case, a Web site operator posted trade secrets owned by another on his Internet Web site despite knowing or having reason to know that the secrets were acquired by improper means. The trial court found that the operator misappropriated these trade secrets in violation of section 3426.1 and issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to section 3426.2, subdivision (a), prohibiting the operator from disclosing these secrets. Accepting as true the trial court's findings, we now consider whether this preliminary injunction violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. We conclude it does not.

The above would sound alot like it "may" apply to Apple v. Think Secret.

 

[absolut_mac]

Really, seems the recent developments in Trade Secrets Law, and findings in the California Supreme Court may sink your aguments and potentially land TS in criminal court is Apple tries pushing it.The above would sound alot like it "may" apply to Apple v. Think Secret.

Hmm, I doubt that they will lose. I'm sure that it will probably end up going all the way to the Supreme Court, with major news organizations coming to TS's aid, as there is much too much at stake here.

Just look at what a hard time the RIAA is having just trying to get info on people who are already well known file sharers - they have their sneaky underhanded stalking to thank for that one

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/05/riaa/index.php

Edited for additional info; It is the Supreme Court that is the final arbiter of the Fisrt Amendment, and not the California Supreme Court - as much as the latter wished it weren't so

 

[dejo]

It's interesting to note that in this case (pun intended) Apple is suing ThinkSecret directly and not some anonymous parties and then subpoenaing (sp?) TS to reveal their sources.

 

[Sun Baked]

Edited for additional info; It is the Supreme Court that is the final arbiter of the Fisrt Amendment, and not the California Supreme Court - as much as the latter wished it weren't so

And the Supreme Court has already declined to take the issue, so the California Supreme Court ruling stands right now -- basically saying that a company can get an injunction to have the material removed while the case is being tried, and not infringe on the news org. First Amendment rights.

 

[absolut_mac]

And the Supreme Court has already declined to take the issue, so the California Supreme Court ruling stands right now -- basically saying that a company can get an injunction to have the material removed while the case is being tried, and not infringe on the news org. First Amendment rights.

Okay, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

I bet you a decent pair of iPod earphones (your choice up to $50 if TS loses) that TS wins - that's how confident I am

PS This offer is only for Sun Baked!

 

[aldo]

LOL @ new rumor on thinksecret.

Hahaha, I love those guys, publishing more juicy chunks of info for us even when they have Apple legal on the door .

It's sure going to be a nice long keynote, if all these rumors are accurate, which I believe they are. iWork has been all-but confirmed now with them filing the trademark and getting the other company to change it's product naming, and I doubt they'd sue on this scale for just that. I think they'd be crazy not to introduce the headless iMac, even if they have to knock something up out of plastic in the labs a week before MacWorld .

 

[Sun Baked]

Okay, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

I bet you a decent pair of iPod earphones (your choice up to $50 if TS loses) that TS wins - that's how confident I am

PS This offer is only for Sun Baked!

Nah, I don't want to take your money...

Because Apple's hole card if they think they are losing is to toss it into the criminal court -- and let TS defend a Econonic Espionage Act case, or a Uniform Trade Secrects Act case.

I don't think Apple is above winning by being nasty, and it's happened before -- the filing of criminal charges in a trade secrets leak case. ie, Jose Lopez

Edit: Heck a criminal case may be filed soon anyways, Apple has been escalating the legal slaps and denial of access over the last few years -- they may use this case to really step on the rumor site end.

 

[xsnightclub]

...is if all of the rumors that we have seen coming out were all scams and part of an internal mole hunt within Apple. They could have fed certain stories to individuals and just waited to see which stories came out and which ones didn't.

Or they were testing the rumor sites to see how far they would go in order to acquire information. Yes it is entrapment, but if it works....

The joke would be on us when none of these rumored items ever surface.



Hickman

The "joke" would be on the Apple shareholder. Not people who troll the rumor websites. It amazes me that the level of people who think that because they are rumor website regulars, they somehow have a say in the corporate decisions at Apple.
The only people who get to tell Apple what to do are major stockholders, deal with it.

 

[xsnightclub]

don't know if it was mentioned before or not, but here goes.

Isn't it kind of counter productive to sue Think Secret over products whose existence haven't been publicly confirmed by Apple yet? In other words, sueing them in a round-about way confirms and validates the rumor to a certain extent. Where a competitor could be wondering "is it true?" , now they are thinking "it IS true!" And if Apple's stance is that trade secrets were revealed, and it gives competitors time to "plan or adjust" or whatever - then this confirmation by way of lawsuit is really just Apple shooting themselves in the foot if it truley is about trade secrets.

They couldn't have waited 1 week to make the court filing?

Or Apple could work to save it stock price by defending against unfounded rumors. But waiting a week in your opinion is better because it drags out and perpetuates the rumor process.

 

[Platform]

Let's hope they stay away from this site

 

[Zaty]

It all comes down to this:

TS knows the business they were in. They knew the risks. And the iWork and $500 Mac rumor just got out of control and hit Wall Street and the main stream press. Frankly, it was beyond stupid for them to have published that information, especially so far in advance. But like a kid in a candy store, they couldn't help themselves.

And now Apple must respond as a public company is a very, very aggressive way.

Any public company would.

TS simply took it too far, and now they are going to pay dearly.

I guess TS didn't want to wait until the day before the keynote because they wanted to be the first site to break the news. By waiting they would have risked that someone else also got wind of it or was faster to drop the bomb. I agree, it was downright stupid but it will probably teach them a lesson and will be a clear warning to everyone else possessing insider information.