Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Sues Think Secret

I love reading all the rumours, but it does deminish the Buzz when you already know what's going to be announced. At the keynote launch of the 30inch Alu screen there wasn't a murmur from the crowd, It was yes yes 20in-23in show us the 30ins. It seems a battle of wits. Most of these products must take a year+ to develop and that's a long time to keep a secret.
 
Frobozz said:
Unless they can prove tangible damage they will loose the suit. Good job at being ******s, Apple.
Click to expand...

Listen. You don't need to "prove" damage to be awarded a breach of contract judgement. To get punative damages ("punative" == punishment) you also don' need proof of damage. To get reccompense, you need to offer some level (fairly low) of proof of damage, but a couple of market analysts or economists should be able to offer that up quickly enough.

That's against the leaker. Against TS, Apple has charged incitement, which means the leaker may not have leaked had TS not been there. The burden of proof here is a bit higher, but having looke at TS's public pleas for information I think the evidence is pretty solid there.

TS may be a member of the "press", but any member of the press which explicitly appeals for people to violate contracts is fair play as an inciter.

From Apple's perspective, the most likely damage arguments will center around shareholder value.
 
Yvan256 said:
My guess is that I think Apple are seriously starting to care about marketshare. After all, if developpers see a 2% marketshare, will they make software for your system? Sure, a few still do (Blizzard is a good example), but most don't. The two main negative comments I hear about Macs is "they're too expensive and they can't run 99% of the softwares out there."
Click to expand...

And add to that Apple replacing the need for some apps with their own (like Konfabulator with the new widgets in Tiger).
 
bree said:
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.
Click to expand...

While what your saying is true, I don't think it applies in this case. I think the rumor sites are just that, rumor sites. They are just as often wrong as right. Often, they are wildly off the mark. Therefore, your criteria for journalistic integrity should not apply, though ThinkSecret should acknowledge that its information may not be factual, and should not represent itself as a "hard" news site.

I don't think the case has merit. I'm no legal expert, but as far as I can tell, ThinkSecret is merely reporting information passed on to them by others. They are not breaking in and stealing information. They are not (afaik) paying for information. They are also not a direct competitor, seeking to use the information for direct competitive advantage. Again, afaik, they are just passing on rumors. It seems that the problem is with Apple employees, affiliates or others with inside knowledge leaking the information. Of course, assuming they signed nda's (which Apple is religious about making people sign, at least they always made me sign :rolleyes: ), or are otherwise contractually obligated to keep this information secret, Apple has very good reasons(which you touched upon in your post) to go after them. Unfortunately for Apple, I don't think ThinkSecret signed any nda's.

Frankly, I think that Apple is fishing for names. Or looking to scare ThinkSecret. Or its a publicity stunt. For example, the flash ipod story was, if I remember correctly, broken by a Wall St. stock analyst some months ago. Does that mean that they(the brokerage) should be the subject of a lawsuit? Seems doubtful. I also think that this attention is partly due to "legitimate" news services like Reuters and AP picking up the rumor stories. Which happens to be a result of Apple actually becoming relevant to the mainstream press again. The iPod was the Tickle Me Elmo this past Christmas and Apple controls the entire segment. Everyone is scrutinizing Apple.

Having said that, I will say that the rumor reporting this time has been unusual. One, there has been a whole slew of rumors. I can't remember the last time there were so many major announcements being reported. Monitor price drops, iWork, Pages, flash iPod, headless imac, new server products...used to be everyone got excited if Apple announced a speed bump for the iMac. And second, the information ThinkSecret and others are getting is pretty damn good. Whoever the source is, he is definitely in the know.
 
xsnightclub said:
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.
Click to expand...

The "us" that I was referring to is the public in general, not just rumor site readership. You have to remember that these rumors have gone well beyond rumor websites and hit CNN, Forbes, Business Week etc. The poor bastards that bought stock based on rumors deserve what they get because they invested at risk. Apple's policy on not commenting on the truth of rumors is still in place as I have not seen where they stated that the headless iMac, flash iPod, iWork is real. Are they real? Most likely. Just because they are real, will they be available in the near term? Possibly not. And you know what, if I was a major shareholder and I thought that the leaks were damaging my profits, then I would be more than happy to go on a mole hunt.

Hickman
 
macrumors is great as is

I find all the complaining about macrumors not breaking its own stories kind of funny. For me, here in one place are all the relevant rumors (and not so relevant ones on page 2) gathered from across the mac web. I like the digest format, rely on the buyers guide. I dunno. I like the format and would rather they report on rumors that have legs than report on every stupid bait some prankster throws at you (a la MOSR).

anyway, MR rocks. keep up the good work!
 
Unfortunately the California Supreme Court has already decided Trade Secrets trump the First Amendment, so the chances of Apple getting their injunction are rather high -- at least through the term of the legal battle, which can take years.

And since the US Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal, Apple doesn't have to worry about it being overturned soon.

However, if Apple decides to be nasty -- having the company and several key employees arrested also works.

Edit: Unless TS can get the case kicked out of the California Court System rather quick to get the injuction squashed, and under another State's Trade Secrects Laws...
 
Sun Baked said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not a legal expert by any means (as my previous posts show) but I would think that the burden of proof is much higher for Apple than would be a civil suit. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Originally Posted by hal9000

Here's a news flash, doofus: Constitutional law trumps business law.

Apple's chances of getting an injunction against future Think Secret reports are slim to none due to the rights guaranteed to the press by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Where did you attain your third-rate B-law education, xsnightclub?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is not absolute -- and there is ample case law on this subject. The various iterations of Sedition Acts (from the Federalist era and WWI, for starters) are prime examples. Congress has, in fact, passed several laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the press and the Supreme Court has upheld said acts.

Apple is on very solid legal ground here. TS is not.
 
Zaty said:
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.
Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting point: If TS is looking to maintain the 'scoop' then the person leaking the info is probably not just leaking that info to TS but to a wider audience like /. or other forums. If thats the case, wouldn't that materiall weaken Apple's suit against TS? They are just reporting what they heard. It really doesn't matter the detailedness of the rumor because they are only reporting what they hear from others.
Someone also brought up how news orgs. gather their info. By use of 2 or more sources, fact checking, and calls to the company itself. How do we know that this info is only coming from 1 source. Do we know that TS has NOT called Apple to confirm the rumors. (A long shot I know.) Besides, I pretty sure the Nat'l Inquirer gets away with much more than this. Not sure how many cases they win though.
 
macidiot said:
While what your saying is true, I don't think it applies in this case. I think the rumor sites are just that, rumor sites. They are just as often wrong as right. Often, they are wildly off the mark. Therefore, your criteria for journalistic integrity should not apply, though ThinkSecret should acknowledge that its information may not be factual, and should not represent itself as a "hard" news site.

I don't think the case has merit. I'm no legal expert, but as far as I can tell, ThinkSecret is merely reporting information passed on to them by others. They are not breaking in and stealing information. They are not (afaik) paying for information. They are also not a direct competitor, seeking to use the information for direct competitive advantage. Again, afaik, they are just passing on rumors. It seems that the problem is with Apple employees, affiliates or others with inside knowledge leaking the information. Of course, assuming they signed nda's (which Apple is religious about making people sign, at least they always made me sign :rolleyes: ), or are otherwise contractually obligated to keep this information secret, Apple has very good reasons(which you touched upon in your post) to go after them. Unfortunately for Apple, I don't think ThinkSecret signed any nda's.

Frankly, I think that Apple is fishing for names. Or looking to scare ThinkSecret. Or its a publicity stunt. For example, the flash ipod story was, if I remember correctly, broken by a Wall St. stock analyst some months ago. Does that mean that they(the brokerage) should be the subject of a lawsuit? Seems doubtful. I also think that this attention is partly due to "legitimate" news services like Reuters and AP picking up the rumor stories. Which happens to be a result of Apple actually becoming relevant to the mainstream press again. The iPod was the Tickle Me Elmo this past Christmas and Apple controls the entire segment. Everyone is scrutinizing Apple.

Having said that, I will say that the rumor reporting this time has been unusual. One, there has been a whole slew of rumors. I can't remember the last time there were so many major announcements being reported. Monitor price drops, iWork, Pages, flash iPod, headless imac, new server products...used to be everyone got excited if Apple announced a speed bump for the iMac. And second, the information ThinkSecret and others are getting is pretty damn good. Whoever the source is, he is definitely in the know.
Click to expand...


That brings to mind something: These rumors are coming from different departments within Apple. I don't think 1 person would be in a position to know all of these releases. Either this came from fairly high up, or it came from several different sources, or it came from somebody who is helping put the Keynote together.
 
A few divisions of Apple have relative broad visibility.

Marketing, ops, finance, testing.

Obviously I'm not saying everyone in those departments see everything, but it is less compartmentalized than development where you work on one or two products.

I suspect the leaks come from someone relatively junior, maybe mid level. Think Secret gets enough wrong, usually around dates & exact pricing, which leads me to someone mid level with pretty broad visibility, but not enough seniority to know exact dates and prices.
 
ok well I read the first few pages so some this might have been said already but here's my take on it. It's a possibility this isn't personal on Apple's part in going after TS. I see it as a way in finding their leak within Apple by intimidating TS with a lawsuit. Hell they just might drop this if TS gives up their source but then I guess TS would be shooting themselves in the foot in that case. As far as who's right in this matter I'm not sure nor do I really care.
 
AndreMA said:
Pondering cancelling my Powerbook order...

...in anticipation of contributing a portion of the funds earmarked for it to a Think Secret legal defense fund, should they set one up. Apple is merely shooting the messenger here. Poor form; I thought they had more class.
Click to expand...

Surely no self-respecting Mac-fan would have an order placed for a new Apple product a week before MacWorld...?

That's rule #1!
 
oilhistorian said:
The First Amendment is not absolute -- and there is ample case law on this subject. The various iterations of Sedition Acts (from the Federalist era and WWI, for starters) are prime examples. Congress has, in fact, passed several laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the press and the Supreme Court has upheld said acts.

Apple is on very solid legal ground here. TS is not.
Click to expand...

You had it right until the second paragraph.

Perhaps you should study the Ford Motor Co. v. Lane case - then you may understand why the court will NOT grant Apple's motion for prior restraint on future reports from Think Secret.
 
Said in one form or another by various people:

Unfortunately for Apple, I don't think ThinkSecret signed any nda's.
Click to expand...

When I see stuff like this (and there's a lot of it) I get the impression that people aren't even reading the posts by the people with actual knowledge of trade secret law.

To summarize those posts: if you receive a trade secret and pass it along, you're in the wrong legally. Civilly, possibly criminally.

Therefore the question here seems to be "what is a trade secret?" Not "did Think Secret sign a NDA?"

Are the kinds of details published by TS trade secrets? From my limited knowledge of the subject, I'd put my money on "yes".

Also: if you think TS is just a plain ol' fan site that sits there and waits for info to drop from the sky, I suggest you read some of its pages other than the news pages. Specifically the contribution guidelines, where "insiders" are encouraged to become "contributing editors", which to me implies that there is some kind of remuneration involved.

Contributing Editors (Insider News). Do you have quality sources? Exclusive insider information or software sneak-peeks that we won't be able to get anywhere else? Whether you continually have the latest dirt or if you've just stumbled across something truly great, we're interested in talking. If you're interested in becoming a regular contributor, please provide us with some information as to the quality and quantity of your sources, and any experience you may have.
Click to expand...

http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/contribute.html

Conclusions:

1. I'm swayed by the experts posting here who say TS is on very shaky ground.

2. IMO Apple is right to go after TS because its activities are potentially very helpful to Apple's competitors. End of story.
 
So, who's covering the keynote address with "live" text updates if there's no "live" streaming from Apple. No photo leaks from the expo halls too.
 
Hieronymus said:
To summarize those posts: if you receive a trade secret and pass it along, you're in the wrong legally. Civilly, possibly criminally.
Click to expand...

Couldn't one make a case that once it's leaked into the public domain, it's no longer a trade secret? I.e. the only person people breaking a law are those people entitled to know these secrets who pass them on to one or more people who aren't covered by an NDA or any other contract.

Otherwise, wouldn't all Mac rumour websites (including Macrumors and many of the posters here in the forums) be equally in danger as we've passed on the 'trade secret' too?
 
hal9000 said:
You had it right until the second paragraph.

Perhaps you should study the Ford Motor Co. v. Lane case - then you may understand why the court will NOT grant Apple's motion for prior restraint on future reports from Think Secret.
Click to expand...
That's why Apple needs the case to remain in California, because the California Supreme Court and the case DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner in 2003.

Which granted the injunction over First Amendment Rights.

Where Michigan and the California Court of Appeals went the other direction in 2001.
Old 2001 ruling...

Two recent cases may make it more difficult for companies to prevent their trade secrets from being publicly disclosed after they are obtained by third parties. In DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner1 and Ford Motor Company v. Lane,2 a California Court of Appeal and a federal district court in Michigan denied trade secret holders injunctive relief that would have required website operators to remove postings of trade secrets on their websites. In both cases, the courts held that First Amendment interests in avoiding prior restraints on speech outweigh the trade secret holder’s commercial interests in its trade secrets. Trade secret holders may have to seek other remedies once their trade secrets have been published. This update will summarize the two recent cases and discuss some avenues trade secret holders can pursue to remedy lost property rights.
Click to expand...
But the California Supreme Court ruled that the Trade Secrets trump the First Amendment.

One of the reasons TS needs the case kicked out of the California Courts -- in their best interests.

And Apple needs it to remain there to get the injuction.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
I read your post but i dont think i buy it, they said the same thing with Pod and imac 2 years ago but there was never a halo effect for the G4 imac and they stopped making it, same goes for emac it never had the Halo effect from Pod sales so whats the real reason? I think the many letters from people like myself ( yeah i email apple on occasion) asking why they dont make a computer without a monitor could be it plus the problem of Cpus not advancing might have brought them to this decision. Then again maybe your right and they are trying this time just a little harder to get that Pod crowd into the fold why young so they will buy many Macs as they get older. They did pattern G5 iMac after the Pod so who knows.
Click to expand...

You know, you might be right on this one. My sister-in-law bought an iPod and loved it but hated her iTunes/iPod experience on her PC. She decided she need a mac to make for a better experience (with a little help form me) well she ended up buying the new G5 iMac, she loves it. However, all her friend now abuse her for buying an $1500 (she could afford it) iPod accessory Also, there has been a number of analysis articles about iPod driving mac sales. She can take the abuse and she tells people to f-off. However, if the $499 product was available I would have steered her towards it since she really didn't need the power of a G5 Imac.

I think Apple might have realized they converted/switched all the users who were willing to pay a bit more for a better machine. Now it comes down to the everyone else. The main reason you have more PCs in more homes it does not cost as much (i am talking about cost of entry here). People get suckered in with the Sub $500 price tag of the PCs out there and then are sold up to higher end machines, if they still can not be sold up the PC company still makes a sale of the entry level machine. Then there is the turn over, which someone mentioned. The PC industry has conditioned people to realize their 2 to 3 old PC is outdated and they need to buy a new one. On the other hand, Mac owned tend to hang on to theirs for a lot longer, 5 plus years.

It would not surprise me, when those PC people who have an Ipod and that Sub $500 PC are in the market for a new computer, since it been 3 yrs for that PC they would consider a Sub $500 mac, assuming they have a USB keyboard, mouse and working monitor. I think this makes the decision easier for the person.
 
gwangung said:
Well, I've come across stuff from Nolo Press and others that point out that the companies also have rights to control distribution of trade secret. And that applies to non-employees. Again, there is a specific definition of a trade secret...not everything a company does will fall into it.

THINK SECRET would do best if they would argue that what they published was not a trade secret (a general First Amendment argument simply won't cut it). But I'm not sure that would necessarily fly, as an early start of even two weeks in the release of specs would aid competitors substantially.
Click to expand...

As you all might aware, the press is loosing some of their rights to publish what they want when they want and never revealing where they got the information. Our government has file law suites against 150 reports and their publishers to obtain the sources of their information. A few cases have played through and you now have reporters behind bars with big fines. Even with the right to information act, the government has declared some information not for public consumption and the courts are up holding this. This is setting precedence on freedom of speech and publication of non-public information.

Simply put the law landscape is changing here and what we all believe to be true before and whether Think Secret has any liability, may no longer be the case. Apple might be taking this stance because they have new legal ground to stand on these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back