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
Anyone here ever bother to read the Law???
Including a person who goes by LawGuy???
Notice the term 'Whoever'.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1832Prev | Next
§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.
TS broke the law. I doubt he got any money, he probably was lucky to get away with his ass.
Including a person who goes by LawGuy???
Notice the term 'Whoever'.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1832Prev | Next
§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.
TS broke the law. I doubt he got any money, he probably was lucky to get away with his ass.
true... I'm sure Apple has the best of the best bearing down on your ass. Not a great situation to be in...
Sorry, but you're clearly not familiar enough with the law, as applied.
There was absolutely no way any California judge would grant a subpoena forcing a blogger to reveal their source, whether or not Apple lined up its employees and administered a loyalty oath (or the iron maiden)
EDIT: ok, an individual judge might, but they'd be reversed on appeal
That' s why Apple was forced to settle to get the site offline.
They couldn't press a case for trade secret violations without getting ahold of the source.
There was absolutely no way any California judge would grant a subpoena forcing a blogger to reveal their source, whether or not Apple lined up its employees and administered a loyalty oath (or the iron maiden)
EDIT: ok, an individual judge might, but they'd be reversed on appeal
That' s why Apple was forced to settle to get the site offline.
They couldn't press a case for trade secret violations without getting ahold of the source.
This is a bunch of BS. I am a huge apple fan, however this is an example of how corporations can abuse their power against the small person. Like there was actually any damage done to apple... If anything, rumor sites captivate apple's audience.
Wow - I realize this is semi-off topic for this thread, but I can't start new threads in this forum. I contacted Arn to give him the heads up.
Apparently, Apple legal has gotten in touch with Fake Steve Jobs, in an attempt to get him to shut down his blog. Which, for those who don't know, is pure satire.
This could be a joke, but the last three posts there sure seem to indicate that it's not.
Check it out.
I can't imagine the crap Apple would get if they try to shut this guy down. I can understand ThinkSecret, but a satire blog? This is ridiculous.
Apparently, Apple legal has gotten in touch with Fake Steve Jobs, in an attempt to get him to shut down his blog. Which, for those who don't know, is pure satire.
This could be a joke, but the last three posts there sure seem to indicate that it's not.
Check it out.
I can't imagine the crap Apple would get if they try to shut this guy down. I can understand ThinkSecret, but a satire blog? This is ridiculous.
I still don't see where Apple lost, even if they did pay -- I wouldn't read too much in a company paying another company causing them continued grief to exit the business permanently rather than take the time with lawyers.
Likely there is a rather big stick attached to this carrot if he breaches the settlement.
Likely there is a rather big stick attached to this carrot if he breaches the settlement.
Yes....but No....
Although I agree that yes, if a company got hold of Apples trade secrets early enough they could copy it and then Apple would be in trouble.
HOWEVER.... by the time these secrets are leaked these products are well into the developmental processes. PLUS As soon as APPle develops things that they might want to use in the products they patent them. Even if these companies did get hold of what Apple was doing, Apple 99.9% of time would have already filed for a patent.
Apple does not want this information released because they are a design/hype company. They want their consumers to be guessing because it creates a sort of wild fanaticism about their products. This is why you found people sleeping overnight outside of stores to get the iphone. All this lack of information creates product hype, when this happens people start to value a product more than they should ultimately leading to a higher demand, and more profits for Apple.
Apple is not worried about people stealing their technology they are too careful for that, they file patents way early on. They are worried that essentially part of their marketing model will be compromised. They want people to keep guessing, because it makes adults into children who will do anything and pay any price to get their new toy.
It's one of the smartest business models I have ever seen...
Although I agree that yes, if a company got hold of Apples trade secrets early enough they could copy it and then Apple would be in trouble.
HOWEVER.... by the time these secrets are leaked these products are well into the developmental processes. PLUS As soon as APPle develops things that they might want to use in the products they patent them. Even if these companies did get hold of what Apple was doing, Apple 99.9% of time would have already filed for a patent.
Apple does not want this information released because they are a design/hype company. They want their consumers to be guessing because it creates a sort of wild fanaticism about their products. This is why you found people sleeping overnight outside of stores to get the iphone. All this lack of information creates product hype, when this happens people start to value a product more than they should ultimately leading to a higher demand, and more profits for Apple.
Apple is not worried about people stealing their technology they are too careful for that, they file patents way early on. They are worried that essentially part of their marketing model will be compromised. They want people to keep guessing, because it makes adults into children who will do anything and pay any price to get their new toy.
It's one of the smartest business models I have ever seen...
Yes, and from the definition of trade secret under that act in 1839 to showing the elements of intent and conversion, I think successful action under that statute could be difficult.
Then take into account that, before you even get to a point of trying to build a case that the facts at issue violate a given statute, discovery was effectively blocked by the CA Ct. of App. in the suit where Apple sought records from three sites including TS: Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple), a manufacturer of computer hardware and software, brought this action alleging that persons unknown caused the wrongful publication on the World Wide Web of Apple’s secret plans to release a device that would facilitate the creation of digital live sound recordings on Apple computers. In an effort to identify the source of the disclosures, Apple sought and obtained authority to issue civil subpoenas to the publishers of the Web sites where the information appeared and to the email service provider for one of the publishers. The publishers moved for a protective order to prevent any such discovery. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the publishers had involved themselves in the unlawful misappropriation of a trade secret. We hold that this was error because (1) the subpoena to the email service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712); (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from petitioners would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter’s shield (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd (b); Evid. Code, § 1070); and (3) discovery of petitioners’ sources is also barred on this record by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources (see Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268 (Mitchell)). Accordingly, we will issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to grant the motion for a protective order.
And then TS files an anit-SLAPP motion and Apple faces a weak case with the real possibility of some embarrassment on dismissal and fees and here we are, with what is not such a bad outcome for Apple. They've sent the message that they're willing to at least make your life unpleasant for few years, and they did get the site in question to shut down one way or another through a confidential settlement which has the benefit of leaving some mystery on what terms the owner agreed to cease publication... although the mystery is a little thinner given the public comments about how the site owner feels about the settlement.
play-by-play:http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-05-CV-033341
My guess is he's "very satisfied" because he's not going to jail for a "very" long time.
Why would he go to jail?. This was not a criminal matter. Even if by some remote chance apple proved it's case, i know of no civil suit that resulted in jail time. Hey apple fanboi, Apple is not the government, they cannot jail people. Secondly, he did not have to reveal his source, Apple settled with him and he did not have to reveal his source yet there was a threat he would go to prison?. So lets get this. Apple would settle with him and the only terms for him not going to jail is shut down the website?.. not give up the source, but shut down the website?. Does this make sense to you?. I'm guessing you are a first year college student. I hope you get better at applying logic and common sense in the future. Prison was not even an option in this case. Give it up, apple paid him handsomely. I'm thinking of starting a mac blog. Maybe i'd get lucky and get an inside source. If the worse that could happen to me is that apple pays me off to stop blogging.. wow!!
And because of all this nick was "very satisfied" to settle with apple?. Really?.. all it takes is for apple to sue someone and then offer to settle to make the person "very satisfied"?. I dunno.. even if apple sued me and made me go to court every day, settling would not make me "very satisfied", espicially if the other company was wrong. Also, he does not have to respond to anything, his lawyer does. He does not have to file any papers.. as to weird stuff the judge was gonna say, is nick so mentally fragile that his life was in shambles wondering what the judge was gonna say?. I'm sorry, buzz!!!!.. wrong!!. I think you are overthinking this.. nick was "very satisfied". I don't know about you but it would take a lot more than making my lawyer file papers and have to prepare for a deposition and worrying about a judge for any company to force me to shut down a website (which was a source of income for him, let me remind you of that and one that he built with sweat and hard work).. naw, apple could threaten me from now to forever, i'm not closing down my site which provides me with revenue all cause they filed suit against me. Lawsuits are not unique. Apple is not the first to file one. People have survived lawsuits before and have not commited suicide or gone bananas. That is a pretty weak excuse for why nick was "very satisfied" (notice my emphasis throughout the reply). I think nick was trying to tip of everyone when he said "very satisfied".. he could have just said "satisfied".
Then don't ever start a website.. or rather, start one and i will call you and threaten to sue you for a million.. and not only that.. i would demand you pay me 100,000 and shut down (why not be outrageous?.. you are so stupid and weak that you would shut down immediately without determining the legal basis of the suit that i would demand pretty ridiculous terms from you).
Yep, i would demand you pay me to shut down.. after all, you so weak minded, you would mail the check out before the phone was back on the hook.
Now go play with your toys and remember.. start that website.. i need the money.
Of course apple was gonna pay nick a lot of money.. while the EFF was representing Nick for free, it was not free for apple if they lost. Every hr billed was gonna be charged to apple if they lost.Technically, apple pays nick, nick pays the lawyers. Kinda like when you see tv commercials that say... come with law firm x, you don't pay unless we win. I assure you, the cost if apple would have lost would not have been insignificant.
I've been there and stuck it out to the bitter end, and you haven't. Talking big don't mean stuff till you've experienced it. If Nick got a payoff, which now seems to be the case, then good for him. Doesn't change the fact that long court cases can be hell.
So basically what you are saying is that you with all your experience in court cases was wrong about Nick getting a payoff and me with little experience in court cases but with the basic ability to understand English especially the two words "very satisfied" am right.
Thank you, good night.
Please. In the USA, the ambulance chasers that you talk about are not paid by the losing party. If you use one of these companies, and you win damages, you will pay them out of your rightfully deserved damages. Usually between 30 to 50 percent. That is YOU are paying, not the losing party.
On the other hand, if you are sued, the best case that can happen is that you don't lose and you are only stuck with your lawyers cost and nothing else.
Anyone saw they are trying to shutdown FakeSteve also
Check out the the posts on his site, they were offering thim 500,000 to shut down and he turn it down.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/
What is going on with Apple????????
Check out the the posts on his site, they were offering thim 500,000 to shut down and he turn it down.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/
What is going on with Apple????????
Have you ever been involved in a long-run court case?
If yes, what was the dispute, when was it, and where?
Of course Apple paid him. Wasn't that blatantly obvious when the story broke? He's very happy his entire operation wont be published anymore and is now in a position to move onto other things.
Dollars, dollars.
Apple certainly lost, but it wont have scratched their bottom line.
Dollars, dollars.
Apple certainly lost, but it wont have scratched their bottom line.
TS's lawyer could probably have gotten Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and Charles Manson off on involuntary manslaughter, with a 5yr max sentence.....GEEZ!