Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ThinkSecret Cash Settlement?

farmboy said:
I think Apple would have won, as far up the ladder as the case would go, which isn't far. My legal background is not in that area, but that's my assessment. But you think paying someone (IF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED---Lawyers and PR firms have made lying and strategic misdirection an art form) a settlement prevents someone else from publishing confidential information? What? More like an inducement for easy cash.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that paying a settlement will necessarily prevent copycats. What I think it will do is keep the whole situation much more quiet than either a victory or loss in court. Sure, we're talking about it here, but we can only speculate as to the terms. So, maybe Apple was on the road to winning, but they were more interested in making this go away -- hence the settlement. (And for the record, I still don't think they would have prevailed. But now we may never know for sure.)
 
farmboy said:
I think Apple would have won, as far up the ladder as the case would go, which isn't far. My legal background is not in that area, but that's my assessment. But you think paying someone (IF THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED---Lawyers and PR firms have made lying and strategic misdirection an art form) a settlement prevents someone else from publishing confidential information? What? More like an inducement for easy cash.
Click to expand...

No but Apple probably wasn't looking for a long-term solution with this money settlement nor are a high-majority of major companies when dealing with a thorn-in-their-side type case such as this.

Apple wanted to make this go away and go away quickly. Though it wasn't as quickly or quietly as they wanted, it will in fact go away now.

Sometimes people over-think legal tactics.

Been doing this type of thing for years now. :)
 
Little you know or care!

Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.
 
Timothy Flint said:
Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

You make a good point here and it's exactly why I think that Apple was on the road to defeat in the trial court. Bloggers, especially the more "professional" bloggers, have been treated increasingly as legitimate members of the press. Unless we're talking about TS paying cash for Apple's trade secrets, anonymous tips and stories fit the realm of protected journalism. Apple's real problem here was with their leaking employee(s) and this lawsuit was their attempt to plug that leak. It wasn't going that way and Apple settled. Even in the settlement the sources were protected.
 
I am not sure who to be happy for here.

I honestly didn't think that Apple gave away any cash but to hear that they did and they didn't have him reveal his sources, I mean if this is how Apple works, what kind of company is this? It sounds like they climbed to the diving board, jumped off and then realized the pool had been drained.

Isn't this company getting sued by a myriad of companies and persons? I thought they had good lawyers, this makes them seem like rank amateurs.

And Nick, if the case was so strong and Apple was against the ropes, why not go ahead and make news instead of reporting it? Here's a chance to set precedent and instead he sells out, literally. I get being tired of doing ThinkSecret, but not doing ThinkSecret and pursuing this case are two different things. There really isn't a reason to tie them together. He could stop doing ThinkSecret at any time for free, now it looks like he was paid off. I wouldn't really care except this guy wants to be journalist. Is he the future of journalism? I'll report the news right up until I get paid not to do it?

And all this breaks during this hyper-commercialized time of the year too. This whole thing stinks, if I hadn't lost my faith in Apple and objective journalism already, this would have done it.
 
rockosmodurnlif said:
And Nick, if the case was so strong and Apple was against the ropes, why not go ahead and make news instead of reporting it.
Click to expand...

How many years of your life would you want to spend on ongoing lawsuit? It was 3 so far for Nick. Also, I believe Nick was paying for a private lawyer. The EFF wasn't directly representing him, so he may have had mounting legal bills.

link
EFF helped Think Secret find legal counsel, and, with the able assistance of attorney Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky
Click to expand...

arn
 
I think he settled for a big amount of cash, since he would win the case anyway..

but IMO these rumor sites help promote future products from Apple,which is not bad, right?
 
The question shouldn't be about the money, or even how much money.

It should be about Apple's ethics and personally I think the company is going down hill in that deparment.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter . . . as long as their quartley profit's are up, they'll be happy.

I had come to expect a little bit more out of Apple, which was obvouisly unwarranted.

Shame on me.


Note:

I will still buy Apple product's, but have lost my respect for them in the very matter of ethics . . .

Like I said, it really doesn't matter.
 
Sayer said:
I would imagine Apple merely paid some "fair" amount of future earnings Nick would have received had he kept his web site in operation.

I am mystified why Apple would choose to settle when Nick wasn't accused of merely publishing "trade secrets" someone gave him, he was charged with coercing someone at Apple to violate their NDA/employment contract and give all manner of info to Nick to publish on his website.

Nick always seemed to get "hooked up" with the latest seeds of OS X and other apps, and some hardware info, so someone in the range of middle-management must have gotten a thrill in spilling the beans for so long and never getting caught.

The real winner in all this mess is the leaker(s) at Apple that was, apparently, never found out.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not as part of the settlement, but TS has been way off base for well over a year on most rumours, so either the leak got plugged or Nick and the leak fell out. Of course, the leak might simply have switched allegiances to 9to5mac.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever the payoff was, the guy deserves it. At the end of the day, anybody who sets up that kind of site at 13 is a pretty dedicated Apple fan and whilst ppl can argue the ethics of it as much as they want, Apple thrives off its cult following that Nick helped to promote. Rumour sites add to the mystique of a company that likes to keep its customers guessing by trying to break down that mystique, making it apparent to whoever bothers to search for when the <insert apple product here> will next get updated. Nick's connections facilitated his doing so too successfully for Apple's liking and in the end, the company he loved enough to start a website devoted to, paid him off (probably not as handsomely as most of you think, but just a few years' worth of ad revenue, and I mean if rumour sites make so much money how come MR asks donations of its members to get better user statuses?). The payout came long after TS's accuracy went down the pan (probably because the lawsuit put the squeeze on the leak) so the site was no longer big news anyways.

I say good luck to him. Apple knows they need sites like TS to keep the dedicated fans informed, but that they need to bring down sites as accurate as TS so as to keep their brand mystique alive.
 
Timothy Flint said:
Not a single poster here has any sense of what has gone on here. This is a key Constitutional issue -- uh, what they call "freedom of the press." This is one of the primary cases in the United States today regarding the use of the Internet as a medium for journalism. Are bloggers journalists, who can protect their sources? So all you guys who posted your "who cares?" messages don't seem to care about the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

This is not a Constitutional issue. This is an example of industrial espionage and it's quite against the law.
http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1832.html
 
For me, the question is why not take care of it soley internally?

There are other sites out there, correct?

If I were to openly talk about patient's, studies, experiments, or anything else related to what goes on in my workplace, I solely would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Not the third party.


Is it really in Apple's rights to go after that third party?
I'm interested in knowing . . .

(Now if there were kick-backs that would be a whole 'nother story.)
 
ventro said:
I'm guessing around $1M. We might be able to find out when Apple posts their financials and we can dig through their expenditures.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't even break their computer sales down by type, and you think you'll find details of a one-off legal settlement?
 
RoadieJodie said:
For me, the question is why not take care of it soley internally?

There are other sites out there, correct?

If I were to openly talk about patient's, studies, experiments, or anything else related to what goes on in my workplace, I solely would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Not the third party.


Is it really in Apple's rights to go after that third party?
I'm interested in knowing . . .

(Now if there were kick-backs that would be a whole 'nother story.)
Click to expand...

I would find it hard to believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that some sites may pursue information more aggressively than others. I would also find it pretty reasonable that someone in their late teens may not know or understand the legal ramifications of their actions or even have the slightest understanding of such terms as trade secrets or industrial espionage and where the lines are drawn. I think you could also make a pretty educated guess that there was a trigger why Apple got aggressive with TS.
 
arn said:
How many years of your life would you want to spend on ongoing lawsuit? It was 3 so far for Nick. Also, I believe Nick was paying for a private lawyer. The EFF wasn't directly representing him, so he may have had mounting legal bills.

link


arn
Click to expand...

Ahh, I was under the impression EFF was helping in his defense for free. If there is a cost then I certainly understand. Which eases the sting of a payment and such. Thanks arn.

But as for your question, if it weren't costing me anything or if I had the credit, I'd see it all the way through. It's how the legal system works, as far as I know, you set precedent. I mean, someone has to stand up and draw the line and say 'no more'. What if a case like this comes up again and the defense is less aggressive, less vigorous? Then where will we be? But I say that with someone else paying the bill and when it comes to legal counsel you get what you pay for.

But for those who think this isn't a first amendment issue, according to the lawyer, his counter motion, the one that made Apple lose interest, was anti-SLAPP. I had no idea what that was so I looked it up here. I quote from there.

What are SLAPPs?
SLAPPs — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage.

While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.
Click to expand...

And I've decided who I'm happy for. The legal system. One less case to tie up the courts. :D
 
$1.22 Million

ImAlwaysRight said:
Someone just has to leak the amount of $$$ paid by Apple. Can't you see the irony in that?!? :D
Click to expand...

This will be the next unconfirmed bit of information. I have it on a good source that the amount is 1.22. :cool:

Not a bad way to wrap up and everyone is happy.:p
 
well apple kinda of did violated the first admendment but then again the other party kind of got leaked info. The only reason apple paid this guy was so he can shut down his business. Before apple lost money with thinksecret, however, now no one kinda knowa what is happening, and now we relie on digitimes and the intel road map. :eek:
 
Bababasjd said:
well apple kinda of did violated the first admendment
Click to expand...


Every poster who says this oughta be whapped up along side the head with a copy of the first amendment and be made to study some actual first amendment case law.
 
stealthman1 said:
I would find it hard to believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that some sites may pursue information more aggressively than others. I would also find it pretty reasonable that someone in their late teens may not know or understand the legal ramifications of their actions or even have the slightest understanding of such terms as trade secrets or industrial espionage and where the lines are drawn. I think you could also make a pretty educated guess that there was a trigger why Apple got aggressive with TS.
Click to expand...


Pure speculation.

The fact remains, that there are very little facts.
APPL has learned how to maintain a positive public veiw/stand point, by saying nothing at all.

Personally:

I could give a **** less about how their finances, legal, and PR departments work.

The thing I'm trying to push is that the Think Different Apple of the 80's - 90's is not the same as the Apple of today.

People need to step back and look at the whole picture that is Apple Inc.


Again, Note:

This is not a personal attack against Apple, my intentions are to convince people to pause before they hit the post button with the "I wonder how much he got?" post's and make this an intelligent conversation.

I still love me some :apple: though ;).
 
Romanesq said:
This will be the next unconfirmed bit of information. I have it on a good source that the amount is 1.22. :cool:

Not a bad way to wrap up and everyone is happy.:p
Click to expand...

If you were running a successful website, and a corporation threatened and tried to intimidate you, and then the EFF got some lawyers for you (that told you basically what we all know, that Apple had zero chance of winning any kind of suit against you) - would you take less than a substantial sum to shut down your website?

This was a save-face move by Apple all the way. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the payment was six figures. Once they realized they couldn't intimidate by pushing frivolous lawsuits (thank god the EFF bailed him out on that score), their only choice was a payoff to at least get him to agree to close the site. Huge win for the consumers. Neutral for Apple, could have been really bad PR.
 
Obvious?

I would have guessed the settlement was to make things go away with some kind of closure. I would think that the symbology of the website shutting down would be sufficient to satisfy Apple. The lawyers for TS would still want to get paid (I don't believe all of it was pro bono). I suspect Apple would be fine with picking up the tab. TS's legal fees is probably less than 1 commercial run at the SuperBowl. Maybe we can blame TS if we don't see an Apple commercial this year! :D

From TS's standpoint, they are happy to get out the legal fees and like someone said before, TS was dead for some time now. The "journalists" will likely pop up again as some other rumor website, hopefully a little wiser.
 
Think Bait, Think Secret!

Sayer said:
The real winner in all this mess is the leaker(s) at Apple that was, apparently, never found out.
Click to expand...

If I were running Apple these days, I would have monitored email, within the letter of the law, found the leak, and then legally threatened them to cooperate in flushing out the websites that are trying to manipulate Apple employees. You ask, "Why wouldn't Apple just fire the suspect and take them to court?". Sure, they could fire the employee, but who's to say it won't just happen again. That employee might sue and they could potentially take bad publicity for an internal leak.

If they took the road of patience, they could find the aggressive rumor websites and learn their methodology for turning employees against their NDAs. Isn't this what a government would do with a captured spy?

This is what I think they did. It was the Asteroid device, right? I don't think that ever saw the light of day. I always thought that was a phony device anyway. Here's a tagline for you... "Think Bait, Think Secret!".

Now, what happened to the leaker after Apple interrogated him/her? Either assigned to system test, or is now application owner for the smallest most insignificant application released with Mac OS X. Anyone know what that is? Let's check the about box to see who it is! :) Then again, maybe they are cleaning the toilets to the executive suites...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back