Apple Sues Think Secret

[areyouwishing]

Im split on this. A lot of the rumor stuff seems so harmless, if TS was telling people how to build a Mac out of duct tape that is one thing, but this is just product announcements. If apple took a middle of the road approach to keeping some concepts secret, and other publicly known, there would be less interest.

Why the heck would they keep a sub $500 computer a secret they are late to the game with this concept!!!

Because of the announcement I decided to put my b&w G3 on ebay because this $500-600 is going to kill the used Mac market. The money i get from that will go to the headless iMac. If I didn't know about the mac, i couldn't have planned ahead and wouldn't gotten as much for the G3.

 

[kdawg]

could you imagine if automotive manufactures did this when spy shots of their vehicles were released on the internet.

It is sad that they have to resort to this...

they should be happy to get so much free advertisement.

 

[ACED]

It is no time for Apple to be seen to be losing it!

I think it's really bad for Apple to sue it's fans...which is what this amounts to.

If any of us had a 'story' about Apple and it's products, we'd probably post it, right?

So, in effect, Apple is taking on all of us who would do this.

I tend to think that Apple has been considering the headless Mac release in very serious terms now...maybe it really is make or break time for Mac. Maybe Apple have realised they actually need a 'cheap' entry model, and not just have to cater for higher end?

 

[Yvan256]

This doesn't make much sense to me. If the switcher's are looking for the OS X experience they can't get it from anywhere else BUT Apple.

Agreed. But Apple's computers are more expensive (please, I'm talking sticker price here, not overall value. We've been there thousands of times).

If the experience is a $500 computer they can get this all day long at Dell.

Now, why are you switching to "switchers who want to experience OS X" to "a 500$ computer experience"? A computer experience has nothing to do with the sticker price (except for the power/specs/features, of course). Would you take a top-of-the-line Alienware box, or a humble eMac? May I remind you that only the eMac can run OS X?

So who are these competitors you are talking about? Microsoft? , they don't make computers the last time I checked. Dell? , they sell inexpensive computers already. Neither one can give their customers Mac OS X.

Exactly. Only Apple can give its users OS X. But only the competition can give users a 500$ computer. Most people always go for the cheapest option, so they will never experience OS X. That's no good for Apple (yes, they're doing fine in the bank, but not so good in marketshare, which is the only damn thing people keep talking about).

With a 500$US box, Apple would at least try to compete a bit with the cheap windows boxes, which is kind of the idea here (i.e. increase the number of users even further, and increase their marketshare at the same time).

 

[virus1]

omfg... thats really low... im kinda scared now... my mom's bf told her of asteroid a few weeks ago (about 5 weeks before the mac rumors posting). He didn't say any details, besides the basics, and now i'm worried about what's going to happen to mac rumors.

 

[BWhaler]

I'm not sure if any news organization are a non-profit org. Does NYT get sued by a company if they publish rumors even though they turn a profit? It doesn't matter if TS is a niche player in the Press. They are simply passing on information freely given to them by someone. I think that Apple would have a hard time proving that TS does NOT provide a public good by publishing rumors and speculation. Many newsstories are based on less informaion. They would have to prove they they DON"T provide a public interest. By making a profit: Nope all news org. make an effort to turn a profit. Because they are only focused on Apple? No they are really serving a specifc niche.

Public purpose in the eyes of Constitution law and theory is different than you are assuming and has a very specific meaning. It applies to visibility into government, the systems of checks and balances, advancement of sciences and useful arts, the sharing of ideas and opinion, the freedom to express oneself.

But it is not everything. I can't call you a thief and say I am protected by Freedom of Speech. The same type of logic applies to TS.

The profit point points to motive. You are correct that most press is for profit. That really wasn't my point.

But the issue here is not whether or not for-profit defines a press organization, but rather the nature of why TS does what they do. It's why I said it will apply to penalties.

TS as a business makes money by publishing proprietary information owned by Apple without permission. It's not some employee who posts on a board. (Although, while the employee would be found guilty, the damages would be small since it was just stupidity.)

But a business which exists to profit by breaking the law and doing damage to another party is a totally different ball game. While the violation of the law and tort is the same, the courts and juries tend to treat these situations very differently. When you make money doing this stuff, the courts tend to come down very hard on you.

It's like drugs in a way. Get caught using drugs, small fine. Get caught selling drugs, it's a whole new ball game. (Not a perfect metaphor given the perceived societal damage done by drugs, but you get the point.)

 

[Mord]

blimey

i'd say this is a bad move from apple, .

think secret reports fuel the whole rumor comunnity if they go down all we would have is appleinsider unless macosrumors becomes reliable

 

[hartsft]

thinking about this calmly, aside from right and wrong- it will sure make for some interesting news/gossip for a while

 

[Jaz]

Two things:

Apple wants to smoke out those people who are providing the rumours. They are the ones who are breaking confidentiality agreements. Think Secret is the messenger and has to be pressured to get the source. Think Secret could be sued for interference or material loss if they affect the product release or sales but they have no agreement with Apple to keep quiet. If they get info passively they can publish. If they coerce info then they are liable. The real target are employees of Apple who are violating all sorts of commercial and confidentiality clauses, that's who Apple want.

As we all note, Apple is secretive to the nth degree. Rumour sites are a product of Apple's own consternation and lack of clear market guidance. Suing for them releasing info when Apple refuse to give ANY idea of their product line is utterly hypocritical.

I hope Think Secret win, and Apple's fishing expedition (which is what this case is) gets slapped down.

 

[BobVB]

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.

Yes. If the press can publish truthful yet secret details about someone's affairs and picadillos without committing a crime then they can surely publish the same about Apple.

Doesn't matter if the person or the corporation was harmed by the revelation - freedom of the press trumps the negatives. Apple will just have to plug the holes in their dam rather than blame the bucket for catching the water.

 

[LimeiBook86]

This is almost like a gift. You can shake it and rattle it around, examine the size, guess until your blue in the face, but if you get too many details about it you'll ruin the surprise.

Guessing and speculating is fun, but giving away the 'secret' takes the fun away for me.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. But it has nothing to do w/the topic at hand.


Lethal

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

If you read my post, I answered the question, why now?

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.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Yes. If the press can publish truthful yet secret details about someone's affairs and picadillos without committing a crime then they can surely publish the same about Apple.

Doesn't matter if the person or the corporation was harmed by the revelation - freedom of the press trumps the negatives. Apple will just have to plug the holes in their dam rather than blame the bucket for catching the water.

If the bucket drilled the holes they can blame the bucket.


Lethal

 

[asphalt-proof]

Yes, but they are NOT allowed to disseminate trade secrets...at least not without consequences.

Y'all think if the NY TIMES published the formula for Coca-Cola, they wouldn't get slapped for damages?

Try looking up some material on "trade secrets"...then lets talk from there.

I don't doubt that this is the underpinnings of the legal challenge and its a good one but conceivalby evetything a company does could be considered a trade secret.
http://www.dunn.com/staging/papers/paper_23.shtml
Thi is what found in regards to trade secrets It seems that all the legal protections have to do with the employee. not a member of the press.

 

[joeboy_45101]

The people that Apple is going after broke the the confidentiality agreements. Case closed. Apple makes an example of a few bad eggs, and everybody gets on with their lives. How many of you have made somebody promise to keep a secret, and then have them turn around and tell everybody they know. Do you know how pissed off that can make you feel. I hope they sue the pants off of these guys.

 

[Wash!!]

This is not about suing their fans

I think it's really bad for Apple to sue it's fans...which is what this amounts to.

If any of us had a 'story' about Apple and it's products, we'd probably post it, right?

So, in effect, Apple is taking on all of us who would do this.

I tend to think that Apple has been considering the headless Mac release in very serious terms now...maybe it really is make or break time for Mac. Maybe Apple have realised they actually need a 'cheap' entry model, and not just have to cater for higher end?

Apple is just protecting their rights to keep products secret until they're ready for the market.
Is the same in the auto industry they protect the next new car style is going to be until they are ready to introduce it, think about it they spend millions in R&D to some guy gets a hold of the new look copies it and they lose the profits, after all Apple is company for profit not Dell, HP R&D department.

Apple is after the employe/Developer who is breaching a NDA and the only way to get to them is by suing the web site to get the real names.

I work in a place where keeping your R&D and the next great product is vital, so I completely understand Apple's hard hand on this.

ran over...

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

My personal opinion:

MacRumors is not at risk. MacRumors reports stories submitted to it and does not encourage anyone to break laws. That applies to non-disclosure agreements as well as other areas such as software pirating.

This brings up the idea that the lawsuits are to get AI and others to provide the names of those that are breaking the NDAs. These are the ones that Apple is really after.

 

[xsnightclub]

As we all note, Apple is secretive to the nth degree. Rumour sites are a product of Apple's own consternation and lack of clear market guidance. Suing for them releasing info when Apple refuse to give ANY idea of their product line is utterly hypocritical.

That is not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if Apple was releasing the info and then sued TS for releasing the info.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. But it has nothing to do w/the topic at hand.


Lethal

Oh yea!? Well then fine I'll just go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater then.




Yes I agree that prior poster needs to take a course on Constitutional Law.

 

[nsb3000]

You should check out Daring Fireball...

As usual, Daring Fireball has a great piece analyzing why apple would do this. Everybody should check it out.

He makes a good point that shutting down Think secret won't really do any good, but what they are really after is getting to the individuals who leaked the info in the first place, and making a very public example out of them.

 

[gwangung]

I don't doubt that this is the underpinnings of the legal challenge and its a good one but conceivalby evetything a company does could be considered a trade secret.
http://www.dunn.com/staging/papers/paper_23.shtml
Thi is what found in regards to trade secrets It seems that all the legal protections have to do with the employee. not a member of the press.

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.

 

[asphalt-proof]

Public purpose in the eyes of Constitution law and theory is different than you are assuming and has a very specific meaning. It applies to visibility into government, the systems of checks and balances, advancement of sciences and useful arts, the sharing of ideas and opinion, the freedom to express oneself.

But it is not everything. I can't call you a thief and say I am protected by Freedom of Speech. The same type of logic applies to TS.

The profit point points to motive. You are correct that most press is for profit. That really wasn't my point.

But the issue here is not whether or not for-profit defines a press organization, but rather the nature of why TS does what they do. It's why I said it will apply to penalties.

TS as a business makes money by publishing proprietary information owned by Apple without permission. It's not some employee who posts on a board. (Although, while the employee would be found guilty, the damages would be small since it was just stupidity.)

But a business which exists to profit by breaking the law and doing damage to another party is a totally different ball game. While the violation of the law and tort is the same, the courts and juries tend to treat these situations very differently. When you make money doing this stuff, the courts tend to come down very hard on you.

It's like drugs in a way. Get caught using drugs, small fine. Get caught selling drugs, it's a whole new ball game. (Not a perfect metaphor given the perceived societal damage done by drugs, but you get the point.)

The distiinction I see is that TS makes no money off the info from Apple. They do not sell it to other rumor sites or to APple competitors. They make their money from ad revenue like a traditional news org.

 

[JRM]

Bring on Powerbook G5

This has Powerbook G5 written all over it. Apple know the rumours are getting out and this is merely an attempt to can the rumours by threatening both the publisher of the rumours and the source.

Yeehaa. Shotgun first G5 PB of the line.

 

[BobVB]

If the bucket drilled the holes they can blame the bucket.l

ThinkSecret FORCED someone to talk to them?!!! How sinster (and, baring blackmail, impossible).

Journalists approach potential sources all the time - even if they did approach someone all that person would have had to do was purse their lips into a gentle 'no comment' and that would be that. The individual is responsible for their indiscretion, not the press for asking.

And if it was simple volunteered then they are positively saints