iSync Story Pulled

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,579
10,893
In a somewhat atypical move, Apple Legal has threatened ThinkSecret for an article regarding iSync 1.1. The disputed article primarily detailed additional phone support coming with iSync 1.1. Traditionally, Apple has sent Cease and Desist letters to sites housing photographs, screenshots, or similar"trade secrets". Information which ThinkSecret maintains was not a part of that particular report:

At the demand of Apple Computer Inc. we have removed "Details on wireless phone support in iSync 1.1" from Think Secret. We do so only to avoid a dispute, and such removal should not be construed as an admission. We respectfully contend that the use of any disputed material did not constitute publication of "trade secrets" and was part of Think Secret's tradition and practice of comment, criticism and news reporting of interest to our readers.
 

pianojoe

macrumors 6502
Jul 5, 2001
454
16
N 49.50121 E008.54558
Well, when I got my new phone, I made sure that it was a model that was supported by iSync back then. Does SonyEricsson even understand what a fine marketing move iSync support was for them? Obviously not because the company doesn't go very far to promote the Macintosh as a compatible platform.

In the next iSync rev I wish to see calendar syncing for more than 8 weeks! What where they syncing...er... thinking?
 

altivec 2003

macrumors regular
Feb 8, 2003
135
0
Texas
Well, i guess this means that it was pretty close to the truth if apple was that agressive. Unfortunately i didn't get to see it :(. Oh well...
 

altivec 2003

macrumors regular
Feb 8, 2003
135
0
Texas
Originally posted by applemacdude
hmmmm....they pull this story but they dont pull the 970 story...
Hmmm, yeah that is true. It could mean several things:

1. All 970 rumors are false (hope not!)
2. Apple doesn't want us to loose hope (hope so!)
3. There are no pictures of the 970 products which might make them not care as much....

Oh well, maybe not. I just hope that we get the 970 or an equal/better chip SOON.
 

Foxer

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2003
1,249
22
Washington, DC
Originally posted by applemacdude
hmmmm....they pull this story but they dont pull the 970 story...
The site that feeds out all the information on the 970 is a French site, if I'm not mistaken. Apple can't simply run out to the Cuppertino County Courthouse and get an injuction or TRO against an entity operating overseas, while that can be done in the US. I don't know the French system for dong so, but I'm sure that Apple doesn't have the same (immediate) access to a legal solution over there that they have in this country.

That being said, I don't know the likihood that they would go after US sites that disseminate the foreign reporting. Any past excperince with that to your knowledge, Arn?

(This is something of a rehash of a post i made in 970 thread, but it fits here, too.)
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
I noticed this a few days ago--and it was more than one story at ThinkSecret that was pulled by Apple's request. A couple on iSync and one on Keynote I think. Maybe others.

Archive.org (the Wayback Machine) has no caches of ThinkSecret newer than 2002, but it's always worth checking back!
 

Sayer

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2002
981
0
Austin, TX
Faith

I believe ThinkSecret above any other "rumor" site simply because they have the superior track record for being right.

MacWhispers is run by some scam-artists who runs around stealing other businesses ideas/products to resell as his own (after running some investment "business" that by all accounts failed or was just another scam).

SpyMac got its start by hyping a completely made up product they were sure would ship real soon.

MacOSRumors these days simply waits for a bunch of rumors to collect on other sites and then digests and regurgitates the same info as his own.

Anyone else is either getting laughed at behind their backs or may have gotten some tidbits that they amplified to get hits. A big clue is when the followup post/article contains corrections, retractions or altered info due to someone somewhere sending in such corrective info.

I honestly believe we will NOT see 970 Power Macs any time soon (WWDC timeframe). Sorry, Apple just doesn't seem capable of moving that fast with the relatively new chips from IBM. Look at how long it took to get the Xserve RAID shipping. Any other company would be killed for taking so long to deliver a critical product.

Pro sales are sinking lower and lower and lower seriously endangering Apple's postion in high end (DV editing, web design, content creation, Scientific) computing even more than the slower than everything else Mac OS X OS is hurting them.

Who cares if you can run X11 software if the OS slows down already limping hardware? Steve won't be able to spin his way out of another G4 rev with the same case and same tech from the last 3+ years. If I were at WWDC and they rev'd the G4 as little as Think Secret indicated (and has the best chance of being true), I would get up and walk out.
 

Snowy_River

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,519
0
Corvallis, OR
Originally posted by nagromme
I noticed this a few days ago--and it was more than one story at ThinkSecret that was pulled by Apple's request. A couple on iSync and one on Keynote I think. Maybe others.

Archive.org (the Wayback Machine) has no caches of ThinkSecret newer than 2002, but it's always worth checking back!
You could always try doing a google search, and seeing if google had a cached version of the page. I would, but it really isn't all that interesting to me....


4...
 

jobberwacky

macrumors member
Jul 24, 2002
96
0
Zurich (CH)
Originally posted by Foxer
The site that feeds out all the information on the 970 is a French site, if I'm not mistaken. Apple can't simply run out to the Cuppertino County Courthouse and get an injuction or TRO against an entity operating overseas, while that can be done in the US.
Well, they only have to ask dubby's boys to take over the job. After all, they're still waiting for revenche and are risking of becoming redundant now that gawd's own country has been extended to central asia.
 

Snowy_River

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,519
0
Corvallis, OR
Re: Faith

Originally posted by Sayer
I believe ThinkSecret...

MacWhispers ...

SpyMac ...

MacOSRumors ...

Anyone else ...
Aren't you forgetting someone important? MacRumors?

I honestly believe we will NOT see 970 Power Macs any time soon (WWDC timeframe).
...
If I were at WWDC and they rev'd the G4 ..., I would get up and walk out.
Wow, now that's pessimism. No 970, and Apple is in big trouble is there is no 970. Then I guess Apple is in trouble, and you're going to walk out.

Personally, I remain optomistic. Even if there is no 970 at the WWDC, it's coming and soon.

As always, this is just my opinion...


3...
 

Winston Smith

macrumors regular
Feb 14, 2003
169
0
Oceania
Originally posted by Foxer
The site that feeds out all the information on the 970 is a French site, if I'm not mistaken. Apple can't simply run out to the Cuppertino County Courthouse and get an injuction or TRO against an entity operating overseas, while that can be done in the US. I don't know the French system for dong so, but I'm sure that Apple doesn't have the same (immediate) access to a legal solution over there that they have in this country.

That being said, I don't know the likihood that they would go after US sites that disseminate the foreign reporting. Any past excperince with that to your knowledge, Arn?

(This is something of a rehash of a post i made in 970 thread, but it fits here, too.)
I've read a lot on this as I'm in the market for a new Mac and I've made the point as to why MacB doesn't get a cease and desist in the current 970 thread. Foxer makes a great point, everyone refers to the MacB posts but noone posts their own. Even Macwhispers hints at knowing more than he can publish.

I believe the WWDC keynote will be very important read beteween the lines of every credible site and they are being very cagy - particularly this one!:D

Has Snowy got a tar yet:eek:
 

RIP

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Phoenix, AZ
What happened?

Whatever happened to free speech? Is there any proof that supports that what was written about were trade secrets? And even if they were trade secrets, whose fault is it if it ends up on any website not affiliated with Apple? Duh, it's Apple's.

This country is becoming more and more fascist all the time. If it's not the government, it's corporations.
 

Le Big Mac

macrumors 68030
Jan 7, 2003
2,607
185
Washington, DC
Re: What happened?

Originally posted by RIP
Whatever happened to free speech? Is there any proof that supports that what was written about were trade secrets? And even if they were trade secrets, whose fault is it if it ends up on any website not affiliated with Apple? Duh, it's Apple's.

Yeah, but if you're running a website on a shoe-string budget (or even a decent one), and Apple calls you or sends you a letter saying "we'll sue if you don't retract the story" are you going to fight, and pay a lawyer $100k or more to defend your free-speech rights, or are you going to cave? Sure, the reality of it sucks, but small fry aren't going to fight the man. If they did, though, they'd probably win.
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,106
19
Re: What happened?

Originally posted by RIP
Whatever happened to free speech? Is there any proof that supports that what was written about were trade secrets? And even if they were trade secrets, whose fault is it if it ends up on any website not affiliated with Apple? Duh, it's Apple's.

This country is becoming more and more fascist all the time. If it's not the government, it's corporations.
Free speech is the same as it's always been (at least in this case). It's up to the company to decide what's a trade secret---duh! If somebody outside the company knew about it, it wouldn't be a trade secret, now, would it....

And if it IS a trade secret, Apple is within its rights, and has ALWAYS been within its rights, to clamp down on the dissemination of such secrets...otherwise, there's no point to giving trade secrets that kind of protection.

Now, we can debate if this particular bit of information was actually worth that kind of fuss and bother, but there's absolutely no debate that Apple can and should defend their secrets zealously....
 

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
Originally posted by szark
That story seems harmless to me...
Yep it might seem harmless but... it does make SPECIFIC mention of phones that are being planned for support.

Over Bluetooth:
===============
Three Symbian phones via some sort of PPP bridging for synchronization

- Sony Ericsson P800
- Nokia 7650
- Nokia 3650

Two via OBEX

- Sony Ericsson T610/608
- Siemens S55 phones

Over USB:
=========

- Motorola 120C
- Motorola C330
- Motorola C331
- Motorola T720
- Motorola V60i
- Motorola V66i

(Others may also be supported in the final release)

Total speculation here but...

It could be that Apple is working with (or trying to work with) a specific phone provider and said provider might be less than happy knowing that 'insert some other phone providers' phones are going to be supported via the next build of iSync.

I'm just making this up so don't go reading too much into that example but heck, it could happen...

Second issue could be that Apple may have to drop one or more of the phones on that list (who knows why... bugs of some sort) If a whole bunch of people start expecting 'insert any one of the phones listed above' to work with iSync 1.1 and then it doesn't... That too would cause Apple problems.

Who knows... could be someone over at Apple legal just had a bug up their butt and the wrath fell on poor Nick...

Dave
 

RIP

macrumors member
Jul 23, 2002
75
0
Phoenix, AZ
Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by gwangung
Free speech is the same as it's always been (at least in this case). It's up to the company to decide what's a trade secret---duh! If somebody outside the company knew about it, it wouldn't be a trade secret, now, would it....

And if it IS a trade secret, Apple is within its rights, and has ALWAYS been within its rights, to clamp down on the dissemination of such secrets...otherwise, there's no point to giving trade secrets that kind of protection.

Now, we can debate if this particular bit of information was actually worth that kind of fuss and bother, but there's absolutely no debate that Apple can and should defend their secrets zealously....
WRONG! The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES has not changed, therefore ThinkSecret has the right to publish any information, accurate or not, that they wish as long as it was not obtained via an illegal means. If the secret gets out of the bag, it's Apple's fault, not ThinkSecret's. It is Apples responsibility to protect those secrets. You are correct on one point, if the secret gets out, it's no longer a secret. But how is is that any fault of any new/rumors media outlet? Apple should not be able to threaten any such outlet. They do however have the right to prosecute the leak, of which in this case ThinkSecret was no part of.
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,106
19
Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by RIP
WRONG! The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES has not changed, therefore ThinkSecret has the right to publish any information, accurate or not, that they wish as long as it was not obtained via an illegal means. If the secret gets out of the bag, it's Apple's fault, not ThinkSecret's. It is Apples responsibility to protect those secrets. You are correct on one point, if the secret gets out, it's no longer a secret. But how is is that any fault of any new/rumors media outlet? Apple should not be able to threaten any such outlet. They do however have the right to prosecute the leak, of which in this case ThinkSecret was no part of.
Son, you are completely, totally wrong.

For one thing, the Constitution applies to state action. Apple is not part of the state.

For another, you do NOT have a right to publish ANY information. Please take an elementary media law class. There are such things as privacy laws, anti-defamation laws and libel laws which apply; in some cases, it doesn't matter even if it's true.

For a third, for trade secrets, Apple is empowered and has always been, to suppress publication of trade secrets. If they are the victim of theft of trade secrets, they are, and has always been, empowered to suppress disseminatation of those secrets. They are not powerless to control the distribution of those secrets...and it has always been the case under the Constitution.

Please, please, please, PLEASE...do some simple research of media law. It's well established and there are myriad number of web pages available on this. Come back after you do than and you won't look like a rube.
 

elo

macrumors regular
Feb 6, 2003
140
0
Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by RIP
WRONG! The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES has not changed, therefore ThinkSecret has the right to publish any information, accurate or not, that they wish as long as it was not obtained via an illegal means. If the secret gets out of the bag, it's Apple's fault, not ThinkSecret's. It is Apples responsibility to protect those secrets. You are correct on one point, if the secret gets out, it's no longer a secret. But how is is that any fault of any new/rumors media outlet? Apple should not be able to threaten any such outlet. They do however have the right to prosecute the leak, of which in this case ThinkSecret was no part of.
In fact, Apple's ability to "threaten any such outlet" gets Constitutional protection, while allegedly reporting trade secrets is not protected under the Constitution. And no media source has an absolute right to report inaccurate information (as you erroroneously assert), though you are at least correct that the legality of the process has a bearing on the legality of the reporting itself.

In this case, you are probably also correct that the First Amendment rights fall in favor of ThinkSecret, though it would be up to them to maintain their position, possibly incurring a lawsuit from Apple. If Apple could then show that ThinkSecret was in any way complicit with an illegal act in violation of Apple's trade secrets contracts, then Apple's attempt to stop the publication of illegally-obtained information likely would prevail.

This is not, by any reasonable definition, fascism, nor is it a new or unusual interpretation of our Constitution. Just read it, and you might be surprised about a few things!

elo
 

BWhaler

macrumors 68040
Jan 8, 2003
3,015
3,327
Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by RIP
WRONG! The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES has not changed, therefore ThinkSecret has the right to publish any information, accurate or not, that they wish as long as it was not obtained via an illegal means. If the secret gets out of the bag, it's Apple's fault, not ThinkSecret's. It is Apples responsibility to protect those secrets. You are correct on one point, if the secret gets out, it's no longer a secret. But how is is that any fault of any new/rumors media outlet? Apple should not be able to threaten any such outlet. They do however have the right to prosecute the leak, of which in this case ThinkSecret was no part of.
Wow...there's a lot of passion there...good to read...even if you are mostly incorrect (sorry.)
 

BWhaler

macrumors 68040
Jan 8, 2003
3,015
3,327
Re: Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by gwangung
Son, you are completely, totally wrong.

For one thing, the Constitution applies to state action. Apple is not part of the state.

...
You are correct on almost all of your post, except for the statement that the Constitution applies to State action. Depending on the section and application, the Constitution applies to the Federal Government, the States, even citizens.

Further, the First Amendment, which is what this debate is about, is actually focused on the Federal government. That's why it begins, "Congress shall not pass any law..." Many decades later after the passing of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme court decided this should also be applied to the States using the Constitutional legal concept called Incorporation. But, technically, a strict Constitutional constructionist could argue the 1st Amendment is a Federal restriction, not a State one. (Doubtful this would ever happen.)

I hope this was helpful/interesting. Is Constitutional law what I do for a living? Hmmm....
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.