iSync Story Pulled

[RIP]

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.

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.

"Amendment I

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. "

First off, free speech applies to all citizens of the US and does not only apply to those speaking in referene to the state. Secondly, there is no legal precedence of what you speak, so you my friend need to perform some research yourself and disclose your sources. Thirdly, read this: http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_834.asp

Apple may have done all they could in this example, but ThinkSecret did not have to remove the reference. They were breaking no law. They removed it either out of respect or FUD. I suspect FUD. I don't need to be educated in LAW to see the common sense in this although I have to admit that a lot of what I see going on in the courts defies common sense.

You make some good points, however they don't apply in this case in my opinion. ThinkSecret does not have affiliation with Apple computer unless there is record of ThinkSecret signing an NDA with Apple. I seriously doubt that.

Finally, I am not your Son. Don't address me as that again...

 

[chazmox]

There are two methods that a company can protect unique intellectual property:

1.) Patent: For general or specific engineering/design solutions.

2.) Copyright: For media, printed word, audio, video, etc.

The problem that many companies have with both of these is that to achieve both protections, then you must publish your intellectual property.

Some companies ( with some IP ) choose not to use the legal protections afforded by patents and copyrights and rather choose to call a set of IP a "trade secret."

However, there is no specific legal protection legal of a trade secret - trade secrets must be protected contractually via NDA's or "do-not-competes" with vendors and employees.

Therefore, Apple has no legal leg to stand on sueing TS for violation of a "trade-secret" ( actually I guess they can almost sue for anything, but whether they would win is another matter! ); however, they can sue if a NDA, "do-not-compete," or some other form of contract ( or law - did TS steal the info? ) was broken attainning the info.

If the info was obtainned legally then Apple again has no leg to stand on; although they can use the threat of a costly lawsuit to get their way.

I may be wrong on the specifics but I beleive that on general idea the above is correct. I am not a lawyer but have worked in defending, acquiring, and circumventing patents.

 

[gwangung]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by BWhaler
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....

Actually, the First Amendment is more a restriction on governments than on individuals. As you point out, the First Amendment was strictly focussed on the federal government. THe 14th Amendment extended it to the individual states (as you also point out). I don't see an amendment that extends this to individuals.....

 

[gwangung]

Originally posted by chazmox
There are two methods that a company can protect unique intellectual property:

1.) Patent: For general or specific engineering/design solutions.

2.) Copyright: For media, printed word, audio, video, etc.

The problem that many companies have with both of these is that to achieve both protections, then you must publish your intellectual property.

Some companies ( with some IP ) choose not to use the legal protections afforded by patents and copyrights and rather choose to call a set of IP a "trade secret."

However, there is no specific legal protection legal of a trade secret - trade secrets must be protected contractually via NDA's or "do-not-competes" with vendors and employees.

Therefore, Apple has no legal leg to stand on sueing TS for violation of a "trade-secret" ( actually I guess they can almost sue for anything, but whether they would win is another matter! ); however, they can sue if a NDA, "do-not-compete," or some other form of contract ( or law - did TS steal the info? ) was broken attainning the info.

If the info was obtainned legally then Apple again has no leg to stand on; although they can use the threat of a costly lawsuit to get their way.

I may be wrong on the specifics but I beleive that on general idea the above is correct. I am not a lawyer but have worked in defending, acquiring, and circumventing patents.

Well, the key here is "legally." If someone (as it may be likely) under a NDA leaked the news, then, yes, Apple can sue and suppress. If someone reverse engineered the information or got it from observation in public, no Apple cannot suppress. Given what was on ThinkSecret, I think it highly unlikely that kind of information was "reverse engineered" or gotten from "public observation" .

What RIP failed to glean from the very article he was quoting was that companies regularly ask for and get injunctions to suppress publication of trade secrets. In the case he's referring to, the reversal of the injunction rests on the reverse engineering of the DVD decryption....

 

[gwangung]

Re:

Umm....you didn't go read up on First Amendment law, did you? No matter what you say, it's more a restriction on the state than on individuals. If I try to spread the intimate details on your personal life, you can and will have me shut down, free speech or not.

And in the article you quoted, did you note that the standard legal tactic for protection of trade secret was a preliminary injuntion? Why did this not apply in this case? Because the item under contention was reverse engineered, which puts it into another ball park.

 

[chazmox]

Originally posted by gwangung
Well, the key here is "legally." If someone (as it may be likely) under a NDA leaked the news, then, yes, Apple can sue and suppress. If someone reverse engineered the information or got it from observation in public, no Apple cannot suppress. Given what was on ThinkSecret, I think it highly unlikely that kind of information was "reverse engineered" or gotten from "public observation" .

What RIP failed to glean from the very article he was quoting was that companies regularly ask for and get injunctions to suppress publication of trade secrets. In the case he's referring to, the reversal of the injunction rests on the reverse engineering of the DVD decryption....

Generally agreed - the point I was making is that there is no automatic protection on "trade secrets." Rather, a company must protect them contractually.

Originally posted by gwangung
I try to spread the intimate details on your personal life, you can and will have me shut down, free speech or not.

Hmmm... some of this is protected and some of it is not. Kind of depends on "assumption of privacy" and where and when it applies.

 

[gwangung]

Originally posted by chazmox
Generally agreed - the point I was making is that there is no automatic protection on "trade secrets." Rather, a company must protect them contractually.

Well, yeah....I was thinking in terms of illegally gotten information, the stuff that you really have to break agreements to get...and I'm making an assumption [not a very big one from where I sit] that the sort of information was unlikely to be reverse engineered or derived from observation.

Hmmm... some of this is protected and some of it is not. Kind of depends on "assumption of privacy" and where and when it applies.

In particular, yes...but in general, you really can't assume you're totally free to say anything you want (or where you want for that matter...you damn well can't have a 120 dB political rally in front of my house at 2 am in the morning)(and not in my front lawn without my permission).

 

[RIP]

Re: Re:

Originally posted by gwangung
Umm....you didn't go read up on First Amendment law, did you? No matter what you say, it's more a restriction on the state than on individuals. If I try to spread the intimate details on your personal life, you can and will have me shut down, free speech or not.

And in the article you quoted, did you note that the standard legal tactic for protection of trade secret was a preliminary injuntion? Why did this not apply in this case? Because the item under contention was reverse engineered, which puts it into another ball park.

Selective reading. The sentences directly following what was quoted above:

"By granting an injunction, a court acknowledges that the information itself has value ? but only if it remains confidential. If a trade secret can be disseminated while the opponents argue in court, there?s often nothing left to argue about. "

Do you want the definition of disseminated? Here:
"dis·sem·i·nate __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(d-sm-nt)
v. dis·sem·i·nat·ed, dis·sem·i·nat·ing, dis·sem·i·nates
v. tr.
To scatter widely, as in sowing seed.
To spread abroad; promulgate: disseminate information.
v. intr.
To become diffused; spread."

The cat is out of the bag here. The information Apple wanted to remove is now sitting on peoples servers. I promise someone can reproduce what ThinkSecret has taken down. It is technically no longer a secret if you want to fight it in court. Admit it. Besides, Apple did not even pursue an injunction!

You must be a lawyer. The way you twist words and blatantly disregard others to suit your needs. You said this earlier; "Well, the key here is "legally." If someone (as it may be likely) under a NDA leaked the news, then, yes, Apple can sue and suppress." Had your eyes not have gone crossed earlier, you would have read that I have already acknowledged this point. However, I am not assuming as you must be that the people at ThinkSecret are criminals and thieves and they obtained this information through channels that could incriminate them. This could be entirely true, however my whole point does not boil down to that. My point is to demonstrate how much power corporations are gaining over the people and how they can influence law to benefit them as opposed to protecting the people.

 

[BWhaler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What happened?

Originally posted by gwangung
Actually, the First Amendment is more a restriction on governments than on individuals. As you point out, the First Amendment was strictly focussed on the federal government. THe 14th Amendment extended it to the individual states (as you also point out). I don't see an amendment that extends this to individuals.....

Good point.

You are correct on neither the 14th Amendment nor any other being applied to specifically to individuals. It's why a citizen can start a private club and be exclusionary in any manner (as long as you do not receive government funds or conduct business.)

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[BWhaler]

Well, I guess at the end of the day, all this interesting legal dialog falls short to the "OJ Factor:"

*Whomever has the bigger, better legal team with the most money, wins.*

Ergo, ThinkSecret pulls down the article.

 

[RIP]

Originally posted by BWhaler
Well, I guess at the end of the day, all this interesting legal dialog falls short to the "OJ Factor:"

*Whomever has the bigger, better legal team with the most money, wins.*

Ergo, ThinkSecret pulls down the article.

Sigh....

 

[WM.]

Re: Faith

Originally posted by Sayer
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 pretty much agree with you so far. But I too am curious about your opinion of MacRumors.

It seems to me like MR has been posting fewer "original" rumors than it used too. A very high percentage of the stories have just been "LoopRumors/whoever posts that...", along with a quick summary of related rumors. Now, there do seem to be some "original" rumors, and when they do appear I tend to trust them.

But right now I trust ThinkSecret above all others. The ONLY notable error I can think of was the November PowerBook update (whether it was going to have a SuperDrive).

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.

By all accounts it turned out to be a fantastic product. But I agree, they should have been able to anticipate the delays better.

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...

Don't you think the forthcoming 970s will solve that problem?

...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?

Don't you think that'll improve dramatically with Panther?

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.

Let's be perfectly clear on this. Here's the TS article, with the important parts in bold and the irrelevant parts removed:

Apple to ship minor Power Mac technical update
By Nick dePlume, Publisher and Editor in Chief

May 15, 2003 - Sources said that Apple will soon release a minor technical update to its Power Mac line.

The update, known internally as project P58C, is not expected to include new features or bumps to processor speed or hard drive size. Most likely, the specifications of the models will remain unchanged.

Apple is set to finalize P58C in the next week or so, and will then quietly begin shipping the updated models to the retail channel. On the outside, P58C will probably be indistinguishable from the current Power Mac, aside from a new product number.

This Power Mac update could be the last change to the product line before Apple releases its next major update, featuring the PowerPC 970 chip. Think Secret has acquired a variety of information about both the chip and the new Power Macs, and is in the process of confirming the details; If you have information to add please email us or use our anonymous email form.

This WILL NOT be a publicly announced update! This is not what Apple has planned for WWDC. Rather, this is a very minor tweak to the G4 that will likely be the last before the 970s come out. TS doesn't say when that'll be, but they seem reasonably sure that they will be coming, and with the typical Apple upgrade cycle of about six months they should be shipping by late July.

You are too pessimistic.

WM

 

[bertagert]

Maybe Apple is sick of ThinkSecret and the information they provide. It's quit obvious that ThinkSecret has one, or many, very leaking friends that know Apple's goodstuff.

Heck, they even release info about the ipod and exactly what it looked like before it was released. Apple might be trying to shut them up alittle. Kind of like think before you speak next time.

Apple didn't ask them to remove the ipod info and picture. Why not? I think ThinkSecret crossed the lines too many times and Apple decided it was time to quite them down. Who knows?

 

[chazmox]

Originally posted by bertagert
Maybe Apple is sick of ThinkSecret and the information they provide. It's quit obvious that ThinkSecret has one, or many, very leaking friends that know Apple's goodstuff.

Heck, they even release info about the ipod and exactly what it looked like before it was released. Apple might be trying to shut them up alittle. Kind of like think before you speak next time.

Apple didn't ask them to remove the ipod info and picture. Why not? I think ThinkSecret crossed the lines too many times and Apple decided it was time to quite them down. Who knows?

Yep! Apple probably wants TS to be quiet for the month of June and July and decided to launch a preemptive strike using the iSync rumor - kind of lets you know which rumor site Apple is the most worried about.

 

[rt_brained]

Re: Faith

Originally posted by Sayer
even more than the slower than everything else Mac OS X OS is hurting them.

Agreed. As much as I love the stability and beauty of OSX, the moment I jump back in OS 9 to run Quark, I feel like I've suddenly hit the "warp speed" button.

Of course, moments later I freeze up and curse OS 9.

Perhaps if I could just get used to InDesign long enough, I'd forget how slow everything's running.

 

[Joep]

Apple strategy

Hahaha,

Apple is so smart. They send a bogus objection for an innocent story to draw attention from all the 970 stories. Now they have everybody discussing and thinking about the deeper meaning of the iSync move...

The 970 stories are right, they want us to keep hope and at the same time not think about it. An objection to the 970 stories would also confirm that they are doing this with IBM. They can't object, so they seek other ways to minimize the 970 news. Smart.

 

[Awimoway]

Re: Apple strategy

Originally posted by Joep
Hahaha,

Apple is so smart. They send a bogus objection for an innocent story to draw attention from all the 970 stories. Now they have everybody discussing and thinking about the deeper meaning of the iSync move...

The 970 stories are right, they want us to keep hope and at the same time not think about it. An objection to the 970 stories would also confirm that they are doing this with IBM. They can't object, so they seek other ways to minimize the 970 news. Smart.

Good analysis. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why Apple would get antsy about a free and relatively minor app. But this makes a lot of sense. Any clamp-down on a story only confirms its truthfulness, and the 970 is clearly Apple's most closely guarded secret that everyone already knows.

 

[Abstract]

Question: Are any of you lawyers?


Question: Since I'm not American, I think I can/should be pardoned for my lack of understanding of the first amendment. I have a question. Are you lot telling me that it is ThinkSecret's fault that information was leaked by some loudmouth? The site itself is a RUMOURS site (or "rumors" ), and so assumptions and speculation is found on that site. Who can positively identify the true and false stories on that site until after an official announcement? We can read what is on ThinkSecrets, and choose to believe it or not. What is published is understood to be just a rumour, not a legitimate news story. If Time Magazine decided to print such information, then maybe Apple has more of a right to sue since people don't generally look at Time Magazine in the same manner as they would a simple rumours website. It isn't like the info is being posted as a "fact".

And why is ThinkSecrets responsible for the leaks from Apple? If the media were to discover some sort of cover-up by the US government, doesn't the media have a right to publish it without fear of getting their ass sued, even if there is a leak within the government who should have never said anything to begin with? That is a leak, and yet you see these legitimate "sources" interviewed on television in complete darkness so that only their silhouette shows. Do these stations get sued for protecting the identity of their source of information? The info shared by the media surely must be private information that the government would never want you to know.

So if ThinkSecret posts a rumour that simply isn't meant to be taken as an absolute fact, then how can Apple sue? The media can talk about news-worthy, breaking newsstories, right? In fact, they probably get a pat on the back for doing such great "research" and digging for the information, and yet a rumours site gets sued? If Time magazine published some of the rumours floating about, including all the rumours of the 970 and such, then can Apple sue them for clearly "hinting" at what may or may not be coming soon? Its like "groundbreaking info" you find in car magazines like Automobile Magazine with a rumoured BMW 6-series, and artists renditions of such a product if it were to be released. I'm sure Automobile Magazine doesn't get sued.