You're damn right they would! I have an Apple site. If Apple called me and told me that they are going to sue me for a million dollars unless I shut down the site, it'd be down before the phone was back on the hook!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple the Loser in ThinkSecret Settlement?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're damn right they would! I have an Apple site. If Apple called me and told me that they are going to sue me for a million dollars unless I shut down the site, it'd be down before the phone was back on the hook!
Goodness, if that was the case Arn should close up shop now. If someone tells me the KFC's 11 secret herbs and spices I have no duty or obligation to keep that information to myself. Can Arn get hired at Apple and start reporting on his new "secret source" blog page - probably not. Can Arn post tips left for him anon. on his get info page - I'm hard pressed to see why not.
And yet it still turned out to be one of the most successful iPods.
Don't believe the FUD that rumor sites have, in any way, hurt Apple, their trade secrets, or their bottom liine.
And yet it still turned out to be one of the most successful iPods.
Don't believe the FUD that rumor sites have, in any way, hurt Apple, their trade secrets, or their bottom liine.
Its not FUD, its reality.
It amazes me that people think its OK to freely publish confidential information on the web - especially if that information was given to them ( thus no NDA signed ).
Apple: "You shut down your site or else we'll sue you into oblivion!"
Nick: (Hmmm. I was going to get a life.): "OK"
Apple: "Ha! We win!"
Nick: (Heh, heh. Suckers....)
....yuh. Nice fantasy vision of reality. Apple are clearly the winner in this joust. Get corp. savvy and you'll see it.
Unless the publishing company broke in and found the information out on their own, there is nothing I can do to them. I would need to find out who the mole is and fire them. Next I would then do better with my hiring process to only bring on trustworthy people.
On a side note, nothing is developed in a vacuum. Apple has benefitted from all the research and inventions before them (even though they like to act like everything has originated with them) and other companies will benefit from what they do also. It's the nature of technology.
If you were 22, and had Apple dragging you through the courts for 3 or 4 years, (20% of your entire life!), with papers to be filed, legal documents to be responded to, solicitors to be met, uncertainty as to future progress, 4 month adjournments at crucial moments, interfering with your studies, interfering with your peace of mind, worrying as to just what wierd stuff the magistrate's gonna say next etc etc, in the end you'd be happy just to come out alive.
I was involved in some multi-year legal cases with the police, when I was around 23, and believe me, it just it ain't pretty. It really does impact your life. In the end, with my police cases, it all squizzled out, and nobody won anything, but I was pretty relieved it was all over.
i don't like this at all.
this wasn't about gossip or oppression as some early posts suggests. they got ahold of some trade secrets from someone who should not have been passing that info on and then published said info. that is wrong. i hate to see it rewarded with a payday, and i'd hate to see the price of apple products go up because of lawsuits like this.
i still think that what the site did was wrong both legally and in spirit. and while some cheer for that guy to get a payday out of it, the situation smacks of what i think is wrong with american culture in general. i think the site did something wrong, and i don't think that the creator of the site deserves a payday. sure, apple probably determined a settlement would settle the matter more quickly and cheaply than any other way, but how sad that they have to pay off someone printing their own trade secrets. that sounds totally unfair and backwards and i won't celebrate that.
Liking a product does not mean liking the company that makes it. Hey, I like toilet paper, am I devoted to <insert brand name>? Of course not.
Apple is the same thing. It's a corporation, which makes great products. But it is a corporation and it's aim is "to please the shareholders". Which is sadly the main goal in this day and age...
Except in California a judge wouldn't grant that subpoena given that state's shield law.
Actually given all the problems (simple things like making the keyboard work right wtf!) I've had with my SR MBP this will probably be my last mac. I never had any issues with my G4 PB, and from what I can tell Apples quality has dropped steadily since they became more popular. My next machine will most likely be whatever the best laptop hardware wise I can find and I'll just put linux on it.
It's a Wash
ThinkSecret got sued because somebody, obviously within the corporation, was leaking very accurate details about the upcoming Macworld. They sued various sites in order to get them to disclose their source. California law grants "journalists" immunity from disclosing sources, so the essential case was lost years ago. Apple kept the case going, though, because they wanted to make the leaker know, we're watching. To me, the fall-off in accuracy in ThinkSecret and other rumor sites has been palpable since then.
But Apple, like any corporation, demands that its employees not leak the details of what they're bringing out to the press. Corporate secrets are worth moolah, and it's a condition of employment that they not make unauthorized leaks. So Apple shut the guy up, or made him move on; the leak is plugged. This was a payoff to get one more site off the board. They won, but no doubt it cost them money: but not as much as continued leaking from insiders would have.
ThinkSecret got sued because somebody, obviously within the corporation, was leaking very accurate details about the upcoming Macworld. They sued various sites in order to get them to disclose their source. California law grants "journalists" immunity from disclosing sources, so the essential case was lost years ago. Apple kept the case going, though, because they wanted to make the leaker know, we're watching. To me, the fall-off in accuracy in ThinkSecret and other rumor sites has been palpable since then.
But Apple, like any corporation, demands that its employees not leak the details of what they're bringing out to the press. Corporate secrets are worth moolah, and it's a condition of employment that they not make unauthorized leaks. So Apple shut the guy up, or made him move on; the leak is plugged. This was a payoff to get one more site off the board. They won, but no doubt it cost them money: but not as much as continued leaking from insiders would have.
This settlement really only goes to show how little integrity Nick Ciarelli has had from the beginning. Does this mean that blogs and criticism are now for sale? What does this do for blogging as journalism? My recent case which gave precedent for "bloggers as journalists" was set back - way back. The EFF should be ashamed for making this deal.
Not to mention that Federal court procedure DEMANDS that parties have pre trial mediation.
I second that and I even had some EFF assistance myself. It was a nightmare because the Plaintiff (who lost) had a nearly unlimited bank account to draw from. (For reference; google for Bidzirk vs Smith)
Oh yes? So what would you have them do? Just say "Aww, those cute Apple fans... we love them so... Here, in fact, let us help you out, here is a list of all the top-secret products we're working on for the next 3 years! Have fun discussing these at MacRumors! We love you guys! Whee!"
... meanwhile, Microsoft works their usual muscle and the week before the iPhone launch, Steve Ballmer announces a brand new revolutionary ZunePhone! And it'll be 1/2 the price of Apple's! And suddenly they've got the 95% market share all over again.
That's what you want?
People. STOP THINKING LIKE A FANBOY AND START THINKING LIKE A BUSINESSMAN. Or a stockholder.
You are wrong. The judgement against Apple said very clearly that Apple cannot _first_ ask a publisher, they have to exhaust other means first (which Apple didn't). However, if there is no other way to find the leak, and Apple has tried every other way, then they _can_ get a subpoena.
What ThinkSecret did was to use trade secret information obtained from people who signed non-disclosure agreements to further ThinkSecrets own agenda. Then TS refused to give up the names of the informants.
The press does this all the time using shield laws or policies to protect their sources. Whistle blowers and other sources frequently feel that if their names were known, they would be subject to retribution, usually by governmental authorities. Sometimes the informants have real fears, such as when a government or private organization uses secrecy laws or contractual obligations to cover up illegal or unethical conduct.
But it is also true that many times these shield laws are used to protect sources who have unethically disclosed information themselves for personal gain, revenge, or just notoriety (albeit secret bragging rights).
That's why these suits get filed after many disclosures: by companies and by law enforcement agencies. It's up to a judge to determine if the shield privilege should be waived on a case by case basis. And that's the way it should be. In order for the press to be a window into sometimes secretive behavior and enforce transparency where none is desired, they sometimes need inside sources. If the privilege gets abused from time to time (unnamed sources with false, misleading, or agenda-laced information), so be it. Press and free speech freedom are more important.
But it is also reasonable for Apple and others to enforce their contracts with employees and vendors, and in some of these cases, they will prevail if actual monetary damage occurred or illegal/unethical conduct is involved. I think in this case, it was going to be hard for Apple to demonstrate that a two week lead about the MacMini harmed anyone, or provided information to competitors which they didn't already have.
Oh, and yes, the lawyers comments seemed self-serving, indeed.
Eddie O.
While I understand keeping trade secrets tight, isn't it more the fault of the betrayer...the one inside Apple than the news organization.
What bugs me more (off topic kinda) is when fake rumors get announced and spread in the market (Say from Cramer's site The Street announcing poor IPhone sales), manipulating a stock price down.
Things like that (which is clear manipulation of market and should be illegal) go unpunished even though it has way more of an affect on market share and market price than getting the scoop on a friggin mac mini. But hey everyone who's anyone can buy low and ride the wave up again.
What bugs me more (off topic kinda) is when fake rumors get announced and spread in the market (Say from Cramer's site The Street announcing poor IPhone sales), manipulating a stock price down.
Things like that (which is clear manipulation of market and should be illegal) go unpunished even though it has way more of an affect on market share and market price than getting the scoop on a friggin mac mini. But hey everyone who's anyone can buy low and ride the wave up again.
Actually, he had several moles. For one, he had a mole inside the PowerSchool organization up to just after the PSE shutdown in 2003-2004, which I can absolutely guarantee was not the same person giving information about Apple proper. For another, I'd doubt that leaks like the Asteroid came from the same source as leaks about the OS or iLife or iWorks or the Mac mini.
But saying "he had a mole" is a bit of an exaggeration; he had an open line that people inside of Apple and its divisions chose to call. I seriously doubt he had a paid mole anywhere.
Actually, market manipulation (pump and dump and similar) is illegal, at least in civil courts (SEC regulations). It is hard to prove that Cramer, for example, tried specifically to drive Apple stock down so that he or his friends could buy it up cheap. If that could be proved, Cramer would be toast.
Eddie O
The NY Times says ...
Mr. Ciarelli filed a countermotion against Apple in March 2005 under a California provision that makes litigants vulnerable to financial damages if they sue over what is determined to be constitutionally protected speech. Mr. Ciarellis lawyer, Terry Gross, who represented him pro bono, said the motion could have resulted in a financially damaging and embarrassing ruling against Apple, a risk that he said led to this weeks settlement.
Apple lost the two other suits on appeal after a higher court ruled that the Web site operators were journalists and entitled to First Amendment protections. The court forced Apple to pay $700,000 in legal fees to the sites.
Mr. Ciarelli said his agreement with Apple constituted a clear statement about the rights of online journalists: Speaking more broadly, I think online journalists can feel confident that they can assert their First Amendment rights, even when they run up against large corporations.
However, some free speech advocates warned that the sites closing could be viewed as a partial victory for a large company that tried to squelch an independent voice.
Its great for the individual critic to be paid to be quiet, but the public is worse off if we lose the ability to get more information in the marketplace of ideas, said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington.
.....
The outcome could have been better, could have been worse. Apple has deep pockets and a mega legal team. It's good that the AI guy came out OK. But it's probably going to have a chilling effect.
Mr. Ciarelli filed a countermotion against Apple in March 2005 under a California provision that makes litigants vulnerable to financial damages if they sue over what is determined to be constitutionally protected speech. Mr. Ciarellis lawyer, Terry Gross, who represented him pro bono, said the motion could have resulted in a financially damaging and embarrassing ruling against Apple, a risk that he said led to this weeks settlement.
Apple lost the two other suits on appeal after a higher court ruled that the Web site operators were journalists and entitled to First Amendment protections. The court forced Apple to pay $700,000 in legal fees to the sites.
Mr. Ciarelli said his agreement with Apple constituted a clear statement about the rights of online journalists: Speaking more broadly, I think online journalists can feel confident that they can assert their First Amendment rights, even when they run up against large corporations.
However, some free speech advocates warned that the sites closing could be viewed as a partial victory for a large company that tried to squelch an independent voice.
Its great for the individual critic to be paid to be quiet, but the public is worse off if we lose the ability to get more information in the marketplace of ideas, said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington.
.....
The outcome could have been better, could have been worse. Apple has deep pockets and a mega legal team. It's good that the AI guy came out OK. But it's probably going to have a chilling effect.
madame defarge talking about first amendment rights has certainly sent a chilling effect through my sydney carton spine!