ThinkSecret Gets Legal Representation

[SiliconAddict]

Look, believe it or not, the rumor sites hurt Apple, not usually by when they are right, but by when they are wrong. Last year, before Macworld, Think Secret predicted that the iPod mini would start at $99, and the initial reaction when Apple introduced it at $249 was that it was over priced. The mini obviously went on to sell like hot cakes, but its introduction has directly marred by the false information disseminated by Think Secret. This is not to say that Think Secret does not have a right to publish such info, they do, but no one should be under the impression that sites like Think Secret actually help Apple. They don't.

Well that's Apple's fault for cultivating an atmosphere where rumors flourish. Do you see people going gaga over Windows Longhorn. Nope because they know...OK at this point they have an idea...nope.....they know at least what Microsoft wants in Longhorn...that doesn't even work. You get the picture. Or do you see people going nuts over AMD or Intel stuff? Both have their secrets but by and large they all give roadmaps of where they plan to go. Apple does none of this. I mean if they would at least give us an idea people might not be so ravenous for info on what Apple plans next year.

As for the Mini. Oh BS. Nothing has been marred other then Jobs getting to surprise the world. So someone with an overblown ego gets his bubble burst. Oh boo hoo.

 

[nsb3000]

What?!?! You just contradicted yourself. You said the pre-macworld hype about the iPod mini hurt Apple, but then it went on to sell like hotcakes? So, how did this hurt Apple, it didn't all it did was make the introduction of it during the keynote, less "oooo and ahhh", which was hardly detrimental to Apple sales.

No, I didn't contradict myself. The iPod mini went on to sell like hot-cakes despite the rumor fiasco--this does not mean the rumors did not harm Apple or that they would not have sold that many more iPod minis, had the initial press reaction been more positive.

Apple has a real, legitimate interest in keeping its secrets secret, and although I am as curious as the next guy about what Apple has in store for the future, let us not delude ourselves into thinking the whole rumor business is harmless.

 

[impierced]

No more than a hot dog stand entices you to eat hot dogs. I'm going to be surprised if Apple is able to circumvent the first amendment and hook Think Secret on this one.

Surely you're not compairing a circus meat to industry trade secrets.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Two more weeks for a competitor to whip up a product and make an announcement BEFORE Apple does their announcement.

Ya don't think that could impact Apple? COME ON. Think a little....

Yah this is the third time I'd had to pull out this card today but I'm going to play it anyways. I call BS on that. Lets watch the market and see when the first competing devices ships against a device that is on the market NOW. I'm willing to bet it won't be before 3rd quarter and it won't be from Dell or HP.
And even if it was a couple weeks off who cares. Apple routeinly announces products MONTHS before they ship. Do you think they are sweating bullets over that? Oh my god we launched the 17" PowerBook with a backlight and its not going to ship for another 2 months! They are going to copy our backlight! Oh no!

PS- I've yet to see a backlight in the PC world done as well as the PowerBook line.

 

[rrr]

IJ, I think you make a good point. There are a lot of assumptions, here, not the least of which is that the leak probably came from "inside". So, theoretically, let's say the source actually turns out to be Shanghai Mein and Yoo Sung Too. Where does that go, or end up?
X

Given the scope of pricing, branding, and strategy information published by ThinkSecret, and the wide range of Apple product lines covered, I find it implausible that Ciardelli's source(s) are outside contractors, OEM contacts, or low-level insiders.


rrr

 

[maelstromr]

Even if Nick didn't bribe someone, he still likely broke the law. The relevant portion of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act says:


Now, I am not a lawyer, but as that reads to me, Nick is in trouble simply if he published material he had reason to believe came from someone violating an NDA, or terms of employment, or from someone who illegally obtained the information through other means, or even from someone who mistakenly or inadvertently passed along material that was under an NDA.

In other words, Nick didn't have to use any sort of coercion. He could have found this information in an employee's journal in a dumpster ("derived from...a person who owed a duty...to maintain its secrecy"), and it would still have been illegal to publish it.

I suppose one can argue First Amendment freedoms against the law in general, but since almost every state has a UTSA, I would guess that the constitutionality of these provisions have already been tested.

I would appear to me that Nick's only real defense is that he didn't know the material was under NDA, but given that this is Apple, and that Nick runs a rumours site, I think it would be hard for him to maintain this position.

Oh look, someone who is intelligent/responsible enough to look into facts and rationale here. Your forums posting rights will probably be revoked shortly.

Thank you for that...as for what seems to be the majority here, you really need to stop whining about "the little guy" and what you perceive as "1st amendment rights" in the lawless west of the internet. The 1st amendment is defined and limited in very specific, very careful ways...distributed patented or confidential information is NOT protected behavior.

To be more simplistic, remember that the pawn broker, or street dealer, who sells stolen goods can get MORE time in jail than the thief who took things in the first place!!!

 

[Maxipeg]

Apple really hurt?

... no one should be under the impression that sites like Think Secret actually help Apple. They don't.

Well, do you remember when Apple was actually trying to help their clients? I guess that the financial loss - if any - was minimal for Apple.

But imagine the guy that has been waiting for a new, better, chaeper, faster etc Mac, nothing happens, no Info from Apple. Then he buys one because he really needs it and he doesn't believe anymore that there will be new products anytime soon. Two weeks later he realizes the error he made...

 

[helmsc]

Surely you're not compairing a circus meat to industry trade secrets.

mmmm ... hot dogs. got any beer to go with 'em?

 

[sinisterdesign]

Apple seeks the identity of iDeepthroat

.
has anyone tagged this as "Applegate" yet?
.

 

[gwangung]

Yah this is the third time I'd had to pull out this card today but I'm going to play it anyways. I call BS on that. Lets watch the market and see when the first competing devices ships against a device that is on the market NOW. I'm willing to bet it won't be before 3rd quarter and it won't be from Dell or HP.
And even if it was a couple weeks off who cares. Apple routeinly announces products MONTHS before they ship. Do you think they are sweating bullets over that? Oh my god we launched the 17" PowerBook with a backlight and its not going to ship for another 2 months! They are going to copy our backlight! Oh no!

PS- I've yet to see a backlight in the PC world done as well as the PowerBook line.

Sorry, but I call BS right back.

You need not have a product compete directly. A company may offer temporary rebates on existing products to blunt the announcement of a new product of a competitor. Or they accellerate development of a previously planned product. The fact that you don't know of any products is irrelevant, as premature revelation of details of a new product is clearly advantageous to competitors.

In this particular case, the extent of damages MAY not be significant--but you're arguing from incredulity and not from knowledge here, which is not a particularly strong position to take.

 

[wdlove]

I wasn't at all surprised by how soon a lawyer came to his aid. Lawyers like high profile cases. Due to the prior assertion of the owner he doesn't have any money, so it must be pro bona. It will be interesting to see how all the legal issues turn out.

 

[Laslo Panaflex]

No, I didn't contradict myself. The iPod mini went on to sell like hot-cakes despite the rumor fiasco--this does not mean the rumors did not harm Apple or that they would not have sold that many more iPod minis, had the initial press reaction been more positive.

It also does not mean that they did harm Apple, how can you prove that Apple would have sold more if there wasn't a leak? or that the reaction woudn't have been as lackluster?, you can't, just like I can't prove that Apple isn't harmed by said leaks.

Really selling 80 million iPods in 2004, or something astronomical like that, I would call not that shabby. If Apple is hurt by said leaks, I would think that it would be nominal, if at all, and that is all I am trying to say.

I guess we will just call this one a stale mate.

 

[Sun Baked]

Sorry, but I call BS right back.

You need not have a product compete directly. A company may offer temporary rebates on existing products to blunt the announcement of a new product of a competitor. Or they accellerate development of a previously planned product. The fact that you don't know of any products is irrelevant, as premature revelation of details of a new product is clearly advantageous to competitors.

In this particular case, the extent of damages MAY not be significant--but you're arguing from incredulity and not from knowledge here, which is not a particularly strong position to take.

I guess everybody forgot about the Longhorn vs. Tiger invented here first wars, and how Microsoft is claiming stuff that they announced first is stuff that Apple is copying from them.

If somebody leaks info, it is quite easy to do what MicroSoft is doing -- even though Apple plans to have their features in Tiger actually shipping much sooner than the stuff MicroSoft announced in their Longhorn preview.

Sure it's easy to have features developed in parallel to other companies, but the one who announces first tends to use the invented here label quite a bit.

So a leak can cause significant issues, even though there are no monetary damages.

 

[Laslo Panaflex]

Sorry, but I call BS right back.

You need not have a product compete directly. A company may offer temporary rebates on existing products to blunt the announcement of a new product of a competitor. Or they accellerate development of a previously planned product. The fact that you don't know of any products is irrelevant, as premature revelation of details of a new product is clearly advantageous to competitors.

In this particular case, the extent of damages MAY not be significant--but you're arguing from incredulity and not from knowledge here, which is not a particularly strong position to take.

Sorry. If I were running a company and the head of my R&D team said "I read a RUMOR that so, and so, is releasing so, and so we should go create a product to compete with it right away, and lower the price of our current competing product by half!" I would fire the guy.

I hardly believe that competing companies read rumors (as accurate as TS has been in the past) and take it as truth. It's a really stupid thing to do, and is bad business.

 

[coolsoldier]

It's interesting to me that Apple is filing suit under a California state law against a company registered in New York. How would ThinkSecret fall under the jurisdiction of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act? (It's worth mentioning that New York doesn't currently have a Trade Secrets Act)

Also, it seems highly likely that ThinkSecret doesn't actually know the identity of its source, given that their email and telephone submissions are explicitly anonymous, and their forums are run by a separate organization.

 

[HumanJHawkins]

What does "Obtained Legally" mean?

We simply don't know how dePlume obtained the information he had. If Apple can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he obtained it illegally, then Apple easily wins.

What does this mean? Someone else inferred that if DePlume paid for the info then it would be illegal. But I don't see why that would matter... Is there some precident involved here that everyone seems to know about?

Are there other ways that would also be illegal?

 

[Flowbee]

.
has anyone tagged this as "Applegate" yet?

Mmmmm... Applegate.

 

[Sun Baked]

Mmmmm... Applegate.

You guys should be slapped for that... at least you didn't mention the adult movie.

Which makes one wonder the chances that ThinkSecret will get this case tossed under the anti-SLAPP statute in California.

 

[ericmooreart]

Jounalist do it all the time

Apple will lose. How many times in the past have jounalist jepordized national security for a story for example. They are never punished. I'm not sayin Think Secret was wrong, I'm just saying they are the little guy.

 

[fixyourthinking]

I posted a petition for Apple to pursue this lawsuit

Read on because I do not see MacRumors, MacOSRumors, or AppleInsider in the same light as Think Secret:

http://www.petitiononline.com/0515opts/petition.html


I started this petition because of the petition for Apple to drop the lawsuit against Nick Ciarelli.

My petition isn't full of loaded emotional words that are irrelevant to the matter.

Wording and background for the petition:

To: Apple Computer

The following represent the level headed Mac faithful who do not appreciate Nick Ciarelli of Think Secret. We understand, by definition, that Nick was outside the bounds of the constitution and outside the limits of journalism. Rumormongering such as Think Secret publishes is harmful to Apple. We understand that "Trade Secret" is important to Apple's business model. We would like Apple to pursue this litigation to send a message to any developer, Apple employee, or industry insider, or beta tester that breach of contract [by breaking your Non Disclosure Agreement] is very serious. We also represent potential customers - we feel such litigation may ease future need for litigation against others who try to take advantage of Apple at our expense (by higher prices). Further, we represent Apple shareholders. As shareholders we believe Think Secret sets financial expectations too high by mixing credible and ficticious rumors, that stock market analysts and major news sources, quote and misquote. This is often detrimental to Apple's stock and quarterly forecasts.

A comment from insanelygreat.com:

"As an Apple stockholder I do not want anyone releasing detailed information about the company's products until they are ready for market and any new innovations have patents applied for. If Apple didn't sue this individual they would be negligent and subject to lawsuit by investors."

Most rumors sites are just that - speculators/prognosticators - manufacturers of stories. THIS - I do not see as harmful - and occasionally they are right. Other sites do rumor source by patent application.

NO OTHER rumor site solicits information by a phone number and regularly quotes sources as "deep with inside Apple"

NO OTHER website reports (firsthand) about the reseller lawsuit and knows the intimate details such as Think Secret

Plain and simple. Information about Apple products acquired on the Apple campus is Apple's property. You take Steve Jobs stapler from the Apple campus and tell a friend they can have it and they obviously can see you stole it or you say, "Yeah, I swiped it when he wasn't looking" - you are in receipt of stolen property. You are an accessory to a crime.

If you solicit and receive information that is a trade secret - that information belongs to Apple - if you choose to capitalise on that information you are an accessory to the process of theft.

It is NO different.

And I really wish everyone would stop saying rumormongering is journalism. Do you all have the same opinion of The Enquirer or The Weekly World? Is that journalism?

Further, understand that this ALL hurts Apple's relations with developers. I doubt seriously if I would want to be involved with Apple if I had something they wanted or wanted me to cooperate with them on. It's too much drama.

 

[gwangung]

Sorry. If I were running a company and the head of my R&D team said "I read a RUMOR that so, and so, is releasing so, and so we should go create a product to compete with it right away, and lower the price of our current competing product by half!" I would fire the guy.

I hardly believe that competing companies read rumors (as accurate as TS has been in the past) and take it as truth. It's a really stupid thing to do, and is bad business.

You may have a hard time believing it, but there's a rather large field called competitive intelligence which does exactly that. And it's extremely good business to do so.

[Expanding on this, a typical competitive intelligence office will be reading trade newsletters and general economic newsletters. They will also know the ordering patterns of their own company. They will be searching all news sources for information on competitors (INCLUDING rumor sites), and evaluating the reliability of this outside information, while putting it together with their own proprietary data. They will also interview outside vendors both they and their competitors use--while they won't get specific answers, they can get generalities that give them hints on where else to look. This is all to gut together a comprehensive picture of what your competitor is doing]

[Note: this may well be the way Think Secret generated its story. If so, then Apple has no case. On the other hand, if he cracked someone's email account to get his information, then obviously Apple is justified in bringing suit. Arguing if Apple is right without having the total picture is more than a bit foolish.]

 

[gwangung]

It's interesting to me that Apple is filing suit under a California state law against a company registered in New York. How would ThinkSecret fall under the jurisdiction of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act? (It's worth mentioning that New York doesn't currently have a Trade Secrets Act).

Apple would probably argue that as they are based in California, the source would be in California. Certainly, the original information about the product originated in California, and any transaction, even with subcontractors, would involve business done in California.

I doubt that Georgia trade secret law would prevent Coca Cola from bringing suit if the NY Times published the formula for Coca Cola.

 

[James.Paul]

Just a thought really, as Think Secret have often published screenshots of Mac OS X beta builds in the past, someone in the organisation (maybe Nick) would probably have a developer account in order to get that build asap and publish info on the site. As anyone with a developer account that can get get builds is under a NDA (not neccesarily signed but agreed to) then this NDA would cover quite a wide aspect of Apple's business, not just OS X beta builds (got to say i have never read all of mine). If Nick has a developer account wouldn't the fact he has agreed to the terms stop him publishing info about future products. If that is the case then he would have breached an NDA.

 

[cal6n]

Hey, Adzoox.

If it's not too late, I reckon you'd stand a good chance.

http://sweepstakesonline.com/macoffice/

 

[CandyApple]

Originally Posted by NSB3000
Look, believe it or not, the rumor sites hurt Apple, not usually by when they are right, but by when they are wrong. Last year, before Macworld, Think Secret predicted that the iPod mini would start at $99, and the initial reaction when Apple introduced it at $249 was that it was over priced. The mini obviously went on to sell like hot cakes.

Yes, it ovbiously did, proving once and for all that these rumors (false, flawed, or otherwise) don't materially hurt Apple. Yeah, us people that read these boards, or that read the Tech secion of the Wall Street Journal may have been dissapointed, but no one else heard or cared. And many of us bought an iPod Mini, higher price and all, to boot.

And those iPod Shuffle and Mac Mini rumors, well they were pretty much right on, and guess what, every Apple store in my area has sold out of their initial shipment of Shuffles. I expect the Mini to be the same way.

These rumors don't hurt Apple's sales, and they don't hurt the stock. And unless they are released well before the product is announced, they don't really help the competitors. And to those who say that competitors will offer rebates, announce x product, and so on, to blunt Apple's announcement, well, they don't need rumors to do that. They know what day WWDC, Macworld, etc, are, and they can announce whatever they wish on that day.

What matters is not the rumors that we read, but what Apple actually announces and has for sale. That is what makes or breaks the company.