Apple Sues Think Secret

[Caiwyn]

I dont think Think Secret in any way can be found culpable.
They are completly covered by the First Amendment on this one.
The media constantly reports classified info that they get from leaked sources.
Which brings me to the real reason why IMO that Apple brought this lawsuit.
I think they brought it to try to find out TS's sources of the leaks... So they can sue the leaker.
Second IMO they brought this lawsuit to try to scare rumour/leak sites from publishing leaked info.(No real chance there)
But Sites like TS and MR and all, cant really aford the lawsuits, so Apple wins by breaking their backs financially even though Apple will lose in court.

Actually, it's been said that Think Secret may be guilty under a California law governing the distribution of trade secrets. But yeah, the First Amendment really should have them covered.

As for why Apple brought the suit, yeah, it's a scare tactic, pure and simple. If they just wanted to find out who the leaks were, they'd just send a subpoena for that information, the way they did with Apple Insider. But they're actually suing TS for distribution of trade secrets, and they're doing it either to shut them up or to make an example of them.

 

[Sun Baked]

But Sites like TS and MR and all, cant really aford the lawsuits, so Apple wins by breaking their backs financially even though Apple will lose in court.

Actually that would be called winning.

But since the settlement offers are really commong now since it's easier to settle without admitting defeat, courts are having problems with the legal bills -- since there is generally no "official" court victory. Both sides could end up fighting each other over the legal bills.

Just "cheaper" to pay somebody to "go away" than it is to go to trial, especially with large law firms breaking the $1000/hour barrier for legal services -- personally I'd hate to see those firms rates for being in court/arbitration rooms.

 

[gwangung]

I dont think Think Secret in any way can be found culpable.
They are completly covered by the First Amendment on this one.

No, they aren't.

Look up the term "trade secret". NOT covered by First Amendment.

 

[lssmit02]

Look up the term "trade secret". NOT covered by First Amendment.

That's a little too broad a statement. The First Amendment also doesn't mention the term "defamation," but that is covered under the amendment, at least according to the US Supreme Court. Better to say that there is no absolute first amendment privilege to disseminate trade secret information, although it is likely the courts would be reluctant to restrain publication or hold a publisher liable for damages. However, if the matter is not of public importance, and the publisher itself misappropriated the information (including inducing someone to reveal a trade secret) there very well may be liability. This was the concern CBS had with the Brown & Williamson executive that wanted to release trade secret information about cigarette manufacturing. However, because the matter was of great public importance, ultimately the press did run the story without being sued (although CBS didn't run it until after a newspaper did, the Washington Post, I believe).

For example, I doubt a court would hesitate to enjoin the publication of Microsoft's source code to Windows, if the code was obtained illegally, as the competitive harm that this would cause to Microsoft would greatly outweigh the news value of its publication. (Not that we wouldn't all have a good laugh, of course.) This is exactly what the California Supreme Court held when it allowed an injunction against Andrew Bunner prohibitting publication of DeCSS code to stand.

*edit: added last sentence.

 

[gwangung]

That's a little too broad a statement. The First Amendment also doesn't mention the term "defamation," but that is covered under the amendment, at least according to the US Supreme Court. Better to say that there is no absolute first amendment privilege to disseminate trade secret information, although it is likely the courts would be reluctant to restrain publication or hold a publisher liable for damages. However, if the matter is not of public importance, and the publisher itself misappropriated the information (including inducing someone to reveal a trade secret) there very well may be liability. This was the concern CBS had with the Brown & Williamson executive that wanted to release trade secret information about cigarette manufacturing. However, because the matter was of great public importance, ultimately the press did run the story without being sued (although CBS didn't run it until after a newspaper did, the Washington Post, I believe).

For example, I doubt a court would hesitate to enjoin the publication of Microsoft's source code to Windows, if the code was obtained illegally, as the competitive harm that this would cause to Microsoft would greatly outweigh the news value of its publication. (Not that we wouldn't all have a good laugh, of course.) This is exactly what the California Supreme Court held when it allowed an injunction against Andrew Bunner prohibitting publication of DeCSS code to stand.

*edit: added last sentence.

This is quite correct and is a much more accurate statement of the reality of the First Amendment and trade secrets.

Lot harder to remember, though. (And if they DID look it up, they'd uncover all the shadings and conflicting issues and interests you covered).

 

[lssmit02]

This is quite correct and is a much more accurate statement of the reality of the First Amendment and trade secrets.

Lot harder to remember, though. (And if they DID look it up, they'd uncover all the shadings and conflicting issues and interests you covered).

gwangung,

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm currently writing an article that touches on trade secrets, so I was compelled to write something.

 

[absolut_mac]

Excellent analysis.

If all laws were so clear cut - i.e. black and white with no shades of grey - there really wouldn't be any need for judges. Unfortunately for us lay-people, things are not always so clear cut, hence the need for an expert, and hopefully unbiased opinion. Hence one of the reasons that Supreme court justices are given life time appointments, in order to free them from some (but not all) outside influences.

As I mentioned earlier, one sees all sorts of government secrets, highly classified info, and even certain trade secrets published almost every day without those people who publish said info being sued. And even then, most of the time even when they are, they still win anyhow.

As for the Apple case, enough speculation already, let's see what happens as it unfolds.

Personally, as someone who used to have his own business, I really do hope that Apple catch this guy. Someone like that just comes across to me as such an ingrate - signing an NDA, accepting a paycheck from Apple every month, and then turning around and stabbing them in the back by leaking inside info, whether it's trade secrets or not

 

[~loserman~]

That's a little too broad a statement. The First Amendment also doesn't mention the term "defamation," but that is covered under the amendment, at least according to the US Supreme Court. Better to say that there is no absolute first amendment privilege to disseminate trade secret information, although it is likely the courts would be reluctant to restrain publication or hold a publisher liable for damages. However, if the matter is not of public importance, and the publisher itself misappropriated the information (including inducing someone to reveal a trade secret) there very well may be liability. This was the concern CBS had with the Brown & Williamson executive that wanted to release trade secret information about cigarette manufacturing. However, because the matter was of great public importance, ultimately the press did run the story without being sued (although CBS didn't run it until after a newspaper did, the Washington Post, I believe).

For example, I doubt a court would hesitate to enjoin the publication of Microsoft's source code to Windows, if the code was obtained illegally, as the competitive harm that this would cause to Microsoft would greatly outweigh the news value of its publication. (Not that we wouldn't all have a good laugh, of course.) This is exactly what the California Supreme Court held when it allowed an injunction against Andrew Bunner prohibitting publication of DeCSS code to stand.

*edit: added last sentence.

Good Post...
I would think there is quite a difference in your 2 anologies and the releasing of News about an upcomming product. In the two examples you listed another company could take the source and basically "build the better mouse trap" although that would also start some lawsuits over patents, But in TS's case I would doubt Apple could prove how they were hurt by the announcement. Time will tell.

 

[wdlove]

Good Post...
I would think there is quite a difference in your 2 analogies and the releasing of News about an upcoming product. In the two examples you listed another company could take the source and basically "build the better mouse trap" although that would also start some lawsuits over patents, But in TS's case I would doubt Apple could prove how they were hurt by the announcement. Time will tell.

Do you think that we will learn the entire story in this case? Will someone be fired, or a chance to resign quietly is we will never know? Any indication of this hurting TS in anyway?

 

[~loserman~]

Do you think that we will learn the entire story in this case? Will someone be fired, or a chance to resign quietly is we will never know? Any indication of this hurting TS in anyway?

IMO I think the lawsuit is really aimed at trying to ferret out TS's sources for the info. I think they are trying to scare TS into giving up their source.
Also I think that the leaker/NDA breaker will get fired if they are caught or sued if they are private individuals. That depends on who it actually turns out to be, and if Apple finds out.

A side story. Both Apple Insider and Think Secret contacted the company I work for about a particular story they published. They both quoted us as If we were a source for info. Apple was livid. They called us and had an absolute fit. We assured them that we didnt actually say anything that wasnt public knowledge at the time and showed that with careful reading of the articles that TS and AI published it didnt actually show that we were violating our NDA's. I felt sorry for the person they talked to because I knew they were fishing for info when they called. In the end we came out all right but it was a little hairy for a day or two.

 

[wdlove]

I'm happy to hear that it all worked out well for your company. That's just not wright to go trying to blame someone else. When you say that Apple called, who was it that actually called? What kind of work does your company perform?

 

[JNB]

Regardless of your opinion about lawyers, lawsuits, and the legal industry in general (personally, I agree with Shakespeare)...

Apple is perfectly within its rights to protect trade secrets, as is any other corporation that competes in a marketplace. If an NDA was involved, then I say go after 'em. The offenders have violated a trust that they willingly agreed to, and short of calling Vinnie to whack 'em, this is the only allowable recourse.

As far as a "Product Road Map," sure, I'd like to know what's on tap for even the next 12 months, but that takes the wind out of current sales (sorry for the crappy pun). Plus, if they announce that in September, the iPhone will be released, then can't deliver, the SEC comes crashing down on their heads - it's a public company, remember, and "forward-looking" statements are one thing, but firm announcements are another.