Apple Sues Think Secret

[Sun Baked]

Uh, here is the thing, the article is talking about TS being sued to divulge their source. It boils down to: Apple isn't attempting to shut down TS, they are pushing to force TS to tell them who the leak is so Apple can plug it. Simply, TS could let Apple tear into the leak, and come out of this pretty much untouched.

The bigger question is: does Nick DePlume want to protect his source?

If this section of the article is accurate...

Apple seeks an injunction stopping further disclosure of trade secrets as well as unspecified damages from dePlume and those who aided in the publishing. It also seeks damages from the unnamed individuals who breached Apple's confidentiality agreement.

Isn't asking TS to stop further disclosure and to cough up money a bit more than just divulging the leak?

Sort of kills TS's ability to report any leaks it gets, and the legal expenses and damages could basically shut TS down.

Apple want the leak plugged, for good. And TS has been a thorn in Apple's side for years.

 

[absolut_mac]

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

I'm not a lawyer, but I can see what a hard time the government is having trying to find out who outed that FBI agent, Valerie Plume, while she was still undercover by supplying her name to Novak.

As I mentioned earlier, that is a very serious federal felony offense, which seems to me much worse than someone passing along trade secrets. As far as I know, nothing has been done to Novak and it doesn't appear as if the government intends to do anything to him either, even although he willingly outed an FBI agent knowing that what he was doing would endanger her life.

Keeping the above in mind, I have a hard time seeing that Apple will be more successful against TS than the government has been against Novak and his informer.

My own personal feeling is that it will be settled out of court. Most people will see Apple coming across as the 1000lb gorilla, regardless of whether Apple is morally right in doing so, and so would prefer not to generate too much negative publicity on such a potentially small return even if they were to win.

 

[Rower_CPU]

I didn't know they were getting sued because they had paid someone to break their NDA. I'll rethink jumping to their defense so quickly. Not sure how well that sits with me morally.

Let me clarify something before we get another bit of gossip going: there's nothing out there right now that says they were paying anyone. The term I've seen used in relation to the claim of tortious interference is that TS was soliciting information. This can be taken many ways. I said "ask/tempt/pay/etc" because it's unclear what TS was doing.

Just want to be clear here.

 

[Hieronymus]

But what we have here is fussing over a leak of info about a completed, set-to-sell product.

Unless you have inside info, you're just guessing about that. What if the leak accurately describes a product to be announced but the release date and/or the price are wrong? (Remember TS and the iPod mini? Where's your $99 striped one?) What if there is/was a possibility of the announcement being delayed or cancelled?

No company could get wind of this now and beat Apple to market with a similiar idea before Jobs announces it next week!

Obviously nobody will have a completed product, but as several people have pointed out, it provides an opportunity for competitors to come up with announcements that can steal Apple's thunder. No leak, no opportunity. Vague rumor with questionable credibility, slim-to-no opportunity. In this case, credibility was high enough to raise expectations well beyond the usual close-knit rumor mill.

Does anyone really care other then Jobs that this info leaked out a week before he spews it out?

Shareholders, regulators, directors, consumers, competitors.

As for the whole question of hypocrisy, I agree there's a grain of truth to it but the brush is a bit broad. I like the rumor sites for the news (Macrumors is a one-stop shop for actual news, after all), speculation, and some of the wilder fantasies that crop up. I draw the line at what amounts to corporate espionage, if that is in fact what TS has been up to. Given their recent track record, I expect there's a high probability that their scoops are on the dirty side.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can see what a hard time the government is having trying to find out who outed that FBI agent, Valerie Plume, while she was still undercover by supplying her name to Novak.

As I mentioned earlier, that is a very serious federal felony offense, which seems to me much worse than someone passing along trade secrets. As far as I know, nothing has been done to Novak and it doesn't appear as if the government intends to do anything to him either, even although he willingly outed an FBI agent knowing that what he was doing would endanger her life.

Keeping the above in mind, I have a hard time seeing that Apple will be more successful against TS than the government has been against Novak and his informer.

My own personal feeling is that it will be settled out of court. Most people will see Apple coming across as the 1000lb gorilla, regardless of whether Apple is morally right in doing so, and so would prefer not to generate too much negative publicity on such a potentially small return even if they were to win.

I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm not terribly familiar with the Plame case (I do remember she was a CIA agent, though). However, what I do know is that these are very different cases. If the government can't or won't find one leak, it has no bearing on a corporation finding an entirely different leak. At least not as far as I can see...YMMV. (For one thing, you'd think someone committing a serious felony like the Plame outing would take exceptional care to cover their tracks.)

 

[absolut_mac]

I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm not terribly familiar with the Plame case (I do remember she was a CIA agent, though). However, what I do know is that these are very different cases. If the government can't or won't find one leak, it has no bearing on a corporation finding an entirely different leak. At least not as far as I can see...YMMV. (For one thing, you'd think someone committing a serious felony like the Plame outing would take exceptional care to cover their tracks.)

Thanks for the corrections - yes she was/is a CIA agent and her name is Plame, not Plume. I guess I had Plume on my mind from TS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29782-2003Dec2?language=printer

As for covering their tracks, everyone knows that it was Novak who outed her, even if they don't know who supplied him with the info. If it's such a major crime to out an undercover CIA agent, why isn't the government going after him? Surely he should be tried for endangering her life, because he wasn't obligated to make this info public.

As for Apple, we have all speculated the subject to death, so we'll have to wait and see.

In a different vein, has anyone else noticed how many newbies have posted to this thread lately? I wonder if most of them signed up for the sole purpose of expressing their opinion on this touchy subject?

 

[Stevie_nottm]

First Amendment

For those 'out-of-town' guys like me in the UK, and to give us a brief
rundown of things, can someone give a quick brief description on the
first amemdment...

What can and cant you get away with?

 

[rdowns]

For those 'out-of-town' guys like me in the UK, and to give us a brief
rundown of things, can someone give a quick brief description on the
first amemdment...

What can and cant you get away with?

Here's my simplistic answer with the caffeine not yet flowing through the blood stream.

Here is the text of the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Apple-TS issue is not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech simply says that the government cannot enact laws that prohibit it. That being said, we do have the freedom to say or print what we want as long as what we say or print does not infringe upon the rights of others. (The most often cited example, you can't walk into a crowded theater and yell fire if there isn't one.) These are issues of slander, libel or in this case, protection of trade secrets.

Hope this helps clear things up.

 

[xsedrinam]

As we continue to beat this poor horse on both ends, what are the parameters and reciprocal rights of protection granted a web site which posts a disclaimer such as TS has on their site?
http://www.thinksecret.com/legal/tos.html

Among various terms which induce instant nausea, "assumed privilege" would be one of mine. It would appear both parties at odds with one another have assumed certain privileges. It's not unlike the intermittent patronizing commentary in here by a few affected posts which arbitrarily cast dispersion on "newbies" as if we had just come in on the last wagon of thought with our Commodore64 readily at hand. "Assumed omniscience" can be lethal albeit legal.
X

 

[oilhistorian]

Apple, TS, & the Courts

originally posted by hal9000:

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.

Lane has a number of caveats, even in Michigan. In it, the Court expressly noted that Lane was required to identify the source and provenance of all the Ford documents that Lane had in his possession, including how Lane obtained said documents. Apple would be very happy with such a ruling, don't you think?

Note that I never said TS could be entirely enjoined from publishing -- I simply stated that Apple was on strong legal ground. And when it comes to finding out who leaked this information, the courts are on Apple's side. Even the Lane ruling (which has no real power in CA, btw) admitted that the MI law under which Ford filed suit enabled "an injunction ... against one who plans to reveal a trade secret in violation of an employment contract or in breach of a fiduciary duty. Use of trade secrets in violation of a confidentiality agreement or in breach of a fiduciary duty is not protected by the First Amendment."

 

[Hieronymus]

As for covering their tracks, everyone knows that it was Novak who outed her, even if they don't know who supplied him with the info. If it's such a major crime to out an undercover CIA agent, why isn't the government going after him?

I have absolutely no idea. I see your point, but I still think it's not really relevant to Apple/TS, simply because none of the players are the same...which means that there's no grounds for predicting a similar outcome or lack of one. And such is the perversity of our world that it wouldn't be surprising (to me, anyway) for a corporate case to have more serious consequences than a national-security one.

I think I'm also done with this subject for now.

 

[whooleytoo]

I guess if the RIAA can sue it's potential customers, why can't Apple sue people who publicise its products...

 

[absolut_mac]

It's not unlike the intermittent patronizing commentary in here by a few affected posts which arbitrarily cast dispersion on "newbies" as if we had just come in on the last wagon of thought with our Commodore64 readily at hand. "Assumed omniscience" can be lethal albeit legal.
X

I hope that you didn't find my comment on newbies patronizing. I just think that it's a good thing that many new members are signing up to MR, whatever the reason.

Personally, I think that most regular MR members would assume the opposite, i.e. that anyone thinking of getting a Mac is intelligent enough to look at the various alternatives out there, and smart enough to join various forums and make enquiries prior to maing such an important and expensive decision.

Oh, and welcome to MR. Happy reading

 

[xsedrinam]

I hope that you didn't find my comment on newbies patronizing. I just think that it's a good thing that many new members are signing up to MR, whatever the reason.

Thanks, Absolut. No personal innuendoes were intended. I'm probably trying out my "wings" in here since they've been clipped countless times in MacSupport Discussions for alluding to "things speculative". Happened to mention 10.3.7 was being realeased two days prior to. I think it's a good Forum, but pretty rigid and prone to squeltch. So, pardon my "soapboxing" for the moment. I'll get over the initial elation of the absence of censorship, here, and try to stay on theme
X

 

[Sun Baked]

xsedrinam,

Don't worry...

Here we are talking about the merits of the case and the possible directions Apple will attack ThinkSecret.

Some of the other sites are talking about, how wrong Apple is to attack TS -- since TS did nothing wrong.

And how proud they are that TS has yet to take down any articles, and even published more of them.

Don't know which is more interesting, but it is an odd twist on Apple Speculation at the Rumor sites.

Once they out the owner and publisher of TS along with the person leaking the info, should be interesting to see how they attack.

Most likely we will see another arrest of an Apple employee or contractor if they are in the US. (Still can't find out what happened to Jose Lopez though after his arrest.)

 

[wdlove]

If this section of the article is accurate...Isn't asking TS to stop further disclosure and to cough up money a bit more than just divulging the leak?

Sort of kills TS's ability to report any leaks it gets, and the legal expenses and damages could basically shut TS down.

Apple want the leak plugged, for good. And TS has been a thorn in Apple's side for years.

By saying that this could shut TS down, do you mean the website and the forum?

It would seem that a out of court settlement would be best for both concerned. Unless you are a geek to Apple news, most will not even be aware of this. It would also seem that those that gave Nick the information should be under more liability. If he received the news legitimately then he was only doing was is his 1st Amendment rights.

 

[toughboy]

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.

come on... its like you are writing a song and a damn member of "press" writes about the most appealing part a week before your record announcement.. this is total crap.. TS had gone waay long and all those details they gave, if we put the joy of knowledge aside, really hurt the joy of surprise in many MWSFs... it was enough already.

 

[cr2sh]

TS had gone waay long and all those details they gave, if we put the joy of knowledge aside, really hurt the joy of surprise in many MWSFs... it was enough already.

I'm not sure I'd argue about which joys hurt which joys. I see a very strong resemblance between what TS is doing and what a lot of of those serialz and crackz websites do. They're providing information about a product that the vendor doesn't want known, in the end they're taking money out of the companies pocket (although one via consumers and the other via competitors), but I think TS walks a thin line here.

We all know that TS has an insider and that they're publishing trade secrets, we all know Apple has a right to keep those trade secrets private. TS knows which rumors are accurate and so they know when they're doing harm to Apple. When the Apple cinema dsplay was rendered in 3d a week before its release, TS knew what they were doing was wrong... so I think its punishable (even though I dug it).

 

[Sun Baked]

By saying that this could shut TS down, do you mean the website and the forum?

It would seem that a out of court settlement would be best for both concerned. Unless you are a geek to Apple news, most will not even be aware of this. It would also seem that those that gave Nick the information should be under more liability. If he received the news legitimately then he was only doing was is his 1st Amendment rights.

The guy who coughed up the info will definitely be under civil and criminal scrutiny -- Apple is pissed.

The arrest of the guy in 2002 didn't stop anybody from making leaks.

TS is probably going to be stomped, unless they roll over and die quick (no chance of that happening.)

But is also sounds like they've been ignoring the Apple Legal letters, and that could have been bad idea.

When Steve Jobs gets pissed, he's not above flushing several million down the toilet to make an example of somebody.

But even meager legal expenses of $10-20k can kill most websites, and mounting any defense against this Apple assault would probably start at the amazing low price of a $250k retainer -- then start burning money quick.

So yes this could kill the TS empire.

 

[juggleandhope]

Makes me plan on Linux

if Apple is going to be playing Evil Corporation Jr. i am going to be moving towards Linux.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

if Apple is going to be playing Evil Corporation Jr. i am going to be moving towards Linux.

I am sorry, but I see this like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Apple does have a need to protect their intellectual property. If they don not make a good faith effort, then they lose when the stakes are even higher in the eyes of the court.

 

[Maxx Power]

if Apple is going to be playing Evil Corporation Jr. i am going to be moving towards Linux.

I don't know, at 60 some dollars a share, I'd say, it's at least a Evil Corporation Sr.

 

[Diatribe]

Just imagine if the iPod mini would've been known before and all the other companies would've been ready...
Now with the iPod flash, Creative already announced a 1GB player. This will cost Apple market share and money. If I were Apple I'd be more than pissed.
I don't think they are after rumor sites, they want the names from within the company. And IF TS paid them then their butt too.
And I cannot blame Apple, I think they're doing the right thing.

 

[AidenShaw]

Fan-Freaking 'Tastic

Now with the iPod flash, Creative already announced a 1GB player. This will cost Apple market share and money.

http://www.mpex.net/news/archiv/00512.html

"(MPeX.net/DB - 26.12.2004) - Der MuVo Micro N200 ist Creatives Kleinster. Er misst 34 x 66 x 13 mm und wiegt gerade mal 34 g inklusive Batterie. Funktional ist er alles andere als ein Winzling, sondern digitaler Audioplayer, FM-Radio, Diktiergrät und MP3-Rekorder.

Das Gerät ist in den Farben schwarz oder weiss, sowie in drei Speichervarianten mit 256, 512 MB oder 1 GB erhältlich."

Amazing - Creative hears of the leak and rushes a product to market nearly two weeks before the leak is published.

Yes, it's a cut-throat business....

 

[~Shard~]

http://www.mpex.net/news/archiv/00512.html

Amazing - Creative hears of the leak and rushes a product to market nearly two weeks before the leak is published.

Yes, it's a cut-throat business....

... And this is what happens when secrets of Apple's are leaked. Apple will lose money and market share because of this. Now where are all those people who were slamming Apple for taking a hard stance on this? Do you not want to see Apple succeed? Apple must secure, protect and defend its IP or else things like this will happen. It just makes good business sense.