Apple Wins Initial Ruling

[EvilMole]

And in ThinkSecrets case Apple isn't suing a fan, they're suing a corporation.

If you're referring to this case, they're not suing anyone - they're seeking information via subpoena.

If Apple had sued Nick personally, the case would have already been thrown out of the California court.

Since CA Courts (under the Supreme Courts eye) have ruled that individuals with little or no money shouldn't be forced to defend an expensive trade secrets case in another state (aka, file it where they live.)

In the trade secrets case (which isn't this one), Apple IS suing "the owner of Think Secret". In Apple's own words from its statement on the case: "Apple has filed a civil complaint against the owner of ThinkSecret.com and unnamed individuals who we believe stole Apple's trade secrets."

 

[fatchuck]

Think Secret did nothing illegal, however they are protecting someone who did... which is aiding and abetting.

Thank you for seeing this. BTW, aiding and abetting is a criminal act, so why is Apple suing them in civil court? If what they did is criminal, then the journalist needs to be charged with criminal charges - which the State of California has not done.

Additionally, it's not clear yet that the person who leaked was doing anything illegal, given that commercial NDA's (as opposed to say, CIA NDA's) have been found binding *and* non-binding, depending on the state court.

 

[Sun Baked]

And which is clearly protected by the shield law.

aiding and abetting is protected?

Don't think criminal activity will be fully covered in all cases.

Otherwise a major drug kingpin would become a journalist -- write about how he imports the drugs, cuts them, and sells them on the street -- then claim he's protected by the the shield law when the feds try to arrest him and take his computers.

 

[txcraig75]

Scope of the California Constitution

Source materials are specifically covered by the Calif. Shield law - specifically, all unpublished information including "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"

Yes, but you are still misreading what the provision says. Does it say that a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person..." shall be indemified and immune from any and all actions? No. It is specifically limited to ONLY to a citation for contempt for "refusing to disclose the source of any information..." or "for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public." The constitutional provision does not strip courts of their power to issue a subpoenas or ordering a defendant to comply. Indeed the provision presupposes that a subpoena has been issued since the provision applies to any body "having the power to issue subpoenas." Additionally, nothing in the provision protects or purports to protect or indemify "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person..." or their "newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or [] a press association or wire service" for the publication of trade secrets stolen in violation of California law. Once again, the Constitutional provision ONLY deals with contempt.

Please reread (or perhaps read for the first time) Article I, §2(b) of the California Constitution more carefully.

 

[latergator116]

Apple's trade secrets and research are *still* secret. Think Secret published leaked information about upcoming products that were due to be released within one week. That's hardly in the same class as say, releasing OS X's uncompiled source code base to the general public, or publishing the secret discussions of Apple management meetings.

As for openly encouraging people to email them, that is not a violation of any NDA unless Think Secret agreed to and signed Apple's NDA. They didn't. As a journalistic web site, it is their responsibility to encourage and publish leaks, just like TheStreet.com does, and NYTimes.com does, and every other frigging news site on the Internet does. The fact that they happened to release Apple leaks just galls your fanboy mentality, and I'm appalled that Apple is picking on these sites when we know damned well they wouldn't approach well-funded, well-represented publications like CNN or the Washington Post.

I totally agree. This suit gives a bad name to Apple.

 

[fatchuck]

aiding and abetting is protected?

Don't think criminal activity will be fully covered in all cases.

Otherwise a major drug kingpin would become a journalist -- write about how he imports the drugs, cuts them, and sells them on the street -- then claim he's protected by the the shield law when the feds try to arrest him and take his computers.

Your example makes sense since it pertains to a criminal action, but Think Secret has not been charged with any criminal acts, nor have they been charged with a violation of Trade Secrets law in California. This dispute is strictly a bullying action by Apple to make Think Secret cough up their confidential sources in civil (not criminal) court.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Expected to Appeal? Really? Whose paying for that set of fees?

Unlike attorneys on retainer, an Appeal process cost a lot out-of-pocket, before attorney fees accrue.

So is Wozniak gonna fund this round?

 

[drewyboy]

Ok, everyone seems to be attacking Apple and saying they are jerks and are bully's. Now if you put yourself in Apple's shoes I think you would think twice. I don't think many of would want our products being announced by some small website. It takes away from the "shell shock" effect. Also, setting out a "road map" of development would be idiotic. That takes away part of what Apple is. Anyways, why are we even arguing?? What will happen is Apple will win no doubt, a multi-billion dollar company vs. a website corp. hmm.... that's a hard one. But I will give TS a chance because Calif. is so messed up with their laws, where they can be prosicuted by the same law they are saved from. Ironic, I think it's idiotic.

 

[reedm007]

ThinkSecret's Track Record

So let's look at the kind of information that ThinkSecret posts, and the ways in which they solicit information. You may also note the differences in the way the solicit information before they were hit by Apple and after:

Before
Think Secret appreciates your insider information, tips, and confidential materials. ... When submitting confidential information relating to Apple, we do not recommend emailing from a .Mac/iTools mac.com email account.

After (ie, current)
Think Secret appreciates your information and tips.

They've completely removed reference to "insider" or "confidential" information from their website, and no longer provide the assistance of telling folks not to email from Apple email accounts. Why? Because they clearly know they're soliciting illegal information that can get people in major trouble!

Let's also look at some of the types of news stories ThinkSecret has published over the past year:

- Special Report: Apple retail loss prevention with specific information on internal Apple loss prevention policies.
- Internal Memo from Steve Jobs to Apple employees with the exact internal email to all employees
- Special Report: Sources discuss pay and staffing for Apple retail stores with internal documents and spreadsheets discussing internal Apple pay scales

Whether or not this information is illegal or not to publish, I can't say. I'm not a lawyer, nor will I pretend to be one and argue something. But what I can say is that there is much information disseminated by ThinkSecret that is damaging to Apple. Posting internal pay scale documents is really uncalled for, and hardly relevant to a Mac rumors site. We want to know what the next powerbook will look like, not how much a Mac Genius gets paid in NY vs. TX. This type of information, however, is very EXTREMELY useful to competitors of Apple.

Now again, the legality of that, I'm not sure. It may be perfectly legal. But it's still not something that's right to do, in my opinion.

In this particular case we're looking at, we don't know how much evidence Apple actually has to show the method of legally/illegally obtaining this information. It's possible that they have very good reason to believe that this information was obtained through improper solicitation/bribery. Or it could be that they sued assuming ThinkSecret would immediately cave in and not fight. We're discussing a case where we know only the very top level of details, so making assumptions about California Shield Law and the US Constitution seems perhaps not as relevant. That said, I do find it hard to believe that any law could protect illegal activity. And, if that is the case, that state law should immediately be challenged under Federal law, in my opinion.

 

[Zigster]

Either way, it's about time Apple shut down or at least put pressure on the rumor sites. In an effort to scoop each other, they were treading pretty close to breaking the law. Not too mention aiding others to do so.

Probably good all the way around.

 

[latergator116]

aiding and abetting is protected?

Don't think criminal activity will be fully covered in all cases.

Otherwise a major drug kingpin would become a journalist -- write about how he imports the drugs, cuts them, and sells them on the street -- then claim he's protected by the the shield law when the feds try to arrest him and take his computers.

Wouldn't the feds would still need evidence that he is a drug kingpin? They couldn't arrrest him based on the information in a book he wrote.

 

[bosrs1]

Wouldn't the feds would still need evidence that he is a drug kingpin? They couldn't arrrest him based on the information in a book he wrote.

True but they can use it as evidence against him in the case.

 

[Sun Baked]

Wouldn't the feds would still need evidence that he is a drug kingpin? They couldn't arrrest him based on the information in a book he wrote.

If you are dumb enough to say something publically, it can be used against you -- especially if you publish a tell-all book, or series of articles.

One of the reasons the lawyers tell people not to say anything at all to the media.

What you say publically may be enough for the warrant used to gather the evidence needed to convict you.

If you say it in a book, or in a TV special to a reporter -- it may land your rear in jail.

 

[aswitcher]

I wonder what real harm these leaks are doing for Apple? Are they really loosing sales or market share in the longer term (not the 1-30 days heads up the rumors sites give us)?

 

[bosrs1]

I wonder what real harm these leaks are doing for Apple? Are they really loosing sales or market share in the longer term (not the 1-30 days heads up the rumors sites give us)?

It would be interesting to see. The only harm I know conclusively is the harm it does to company morale. I know a few people involved with some of the projects in question and they were totally deflated when the secret got out. They'd wanted to suprise the world. Instead that little bastard at TS ruined it they said.

 

[txcraig75]

Wouldn't the feds would still need evidence that he is a drug kingpin? They couldn't arrrest him based on the information in a book he wrote.

Yes, but in this case it is the publishing of the information written in the book (publication, webpage, etc.) that is the crime. Atleast some of the info ThinkSecret has published more than likely meets the qualifactions as trade secrets as defined by California's UTSA and the unauthorized disclosure or publication of such material to the public is a violation of the law and is an actionable tort for which Apple is entitle to sue and recover damages.

I agree with many others however that have long speculated that Nick "dePlume" is not the ultimate target of Apple's suits, but rather the person(s) at Apple that are disclosing the information to ThinkSecret, AppleInsider, et al. I doubt that Apple wants to shut down sites that spark interest in their products so long as those site don't disclose trade secrets, trade secrets that can realistically give Apple's competition an advantage.

Look at it this way. When a new movie idea hits Hollywood, usually two studios take a stab at the idea (See EdTV/Truman Show or Antz/A Bug's Life for example). One studio rushes the idea out the door while the other works at making a better movie. Which one usually grosses better? The crap one that makes it to theaters first. Apple doesn't want the competition to know about its products before their actual release. If they know, they can introduce some cheap, crappy knockoff before Apple announces. This is especially worisome for Apple's MacWorld releases because the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas every year that happens just before MacWorld.

 

[digitalbiker]

I wonder what real harm these leaks are doing for Apple?

No Harm! These rumor sites get out to 10,000 mac fanatics at most.

Prudent competitors of Apple like (Sony or Dell) aren't out perusing Apple rumor sites to make product decisions. None of these rumor sites are reliable anyway. Ever hear "New G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday".

That is why I have a hard time figuring out the motivation for Apple behind this suit. It just makes Apple look like a corporate bully using their corporate lawyer muscle to scare little rumor sites into giving them a list of all of their sources.

This sounds a lot like some personal vendetta of someone (SJ) high up with a big ego, attempting to get back at some little guy. It sure doesn't make fiscal or business sense. Unless "sue your fans" is a new business strategy that Apple is innovating.

 

[Bro]

So, who's the source?

So if things go the way of the courts, we're all going to find out who the source was. Wouldn't it be funny if it was Tim Bucher, Apple's former senior vice president of Macintosh Hardware Engineering. Now that's a good story.

 

[space2go]

It sure doesn't make fiscal or business sense. Unless "sue your fans" is a new business strategy that Apple is innovating.

Doesn't the MusicIndustry (*sigh*) have a patent on that?

 

[gwangung]

No Harm! These rumor sites get out to 10,000 mac fanatics at most.

Prudent competitors of Apple like (Sony or Dell) aren't out perusing Apple rumor sites to make product decisions.

Sorry, but prudent competitors most certainly ARE looking at rumor sites.

They, of course, are not taking everything at face value, but competitive intelligence folks will take information from a variety of sources, including rumor sites, and then fit it in with what THEY know in order to verify.

 

[arkmannj]

Disclosure

Someone may have said this already, I haven't had time to read all (or even most) of the posts.

But my thought is that the Rumor sites should have to post the source of each rumor.
Then Apple would know who to go after if someone broke the NDA without dragging the rumor sites in the middle. While still providing the possibility of getting rumors, and some info for us to nibble off of.

Just my thought for the moment.

 

[aafuss1]

Here is my beliefs about this legal action as emailed to Apple :
Hello,
I am concerned about your litigation over trade secrets is being pubclised too much (http://news.com.com/Judge+delays+de...ts+case/2100-1030_3-5600366.html?tag=nefd.top). So below is what I believe should be done to protect the basic right of free spech in journalism under the first admendment and other acts/leglislation. What you are trying to do with Thinksecret,et all is unlawful and may violate the Berne copyright convention, ISP AUP policies, the First Admendment , Australian (a predecent about information sources known as the 'Gutnick' case) and United States law (as rumors are often republished) and state laws (the UTSA act) and hinders the ability of the media to report on speculation, unannounced products,etc and the sites you are pursuing are not journalists, and therefore cannot claim protection under the shield law.

I swear that the above is accurate and in my best beliefs.



What I would like to offer is that the lawsuits should be dropped, as per the beliefs of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their attorney- "Apple is saying that trade secrets are an exception to reporters' privileges," said EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl. "If trade secrets are an exception, then a business writer should be concerned every time he or she gets a tip in their e-mail box."

 

[gwangung]

What I would like to offer is that the lawsuits should be dropped, as per the beliefs of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their attorney- "Apple is saying that trade secrets are an exception to reporters' privileges," said EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl. "If trade secrets are an exception, then a business writer should be concerned every time he or she gets a tip in their e-mail box."

Yes? And?

 

[chukronos]

Good. The sources of the leaks should be discovered. What if this were CIA secrets or Military secrets...

Then you would see the story on the front page of the New York Times and on the Evening News.

 

[fatchuck]

Yes? And?

And apparently the entire concept of the chilling effect through legal intimidation is completely lost on you. Well, at least we know who here is for legal extortion.

Sorry, but my idea of news is not for the public to be hand-shoveled highly-prepared corporate press releases, but clearly you disagree.