Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ThinkSecret Gets Legal Representation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't know if adzoox has figured out how closely the forum is tied to the dePlume Organization in his investigations into ThinkSecret.
But one of the members on that site decided it's ok to publish pages from Apple/IBM-related technical documents to prove that they had the real stuff on what processors Apple would likely be using in the future.
They've also been rather silent since the January lawsuit hit the streets.
Leaking enough facts and info is bad enough, but actual pages, pictures, and documents isn't too good an idea -- remember we did get the Apple Service Manual page dumped onto the rumor sites of the iMac G5-based PowerMac before the Rev. B PowerMacs arrived.
But one of the members on that site decided it's ok to publish pages from Apple/IBM-related technical documents to prove that they had the real stuff on what processors Apple would likely be using in the future.
They've also been rather silent since the January lawsuit hit the streets.
Leaking enough facts and info is bad enough, but actual pages, pictures, and documents isn't too good an idea -- remember we did get the Apple Service Manual page dumped onto the rumor sites of the iMac G5-based PowerMac before the Rev. B PowerMacs arrived.
Good Post, Tulse. I think these definitions help Nick, rather than hurt him, however. The key words are "without express consent" and "improper means".
The person who acquired the trade secrets probably did not do so through "improper means" (i.e. Hacking a computer, stealing from the dumpster, hiding in an air duct over the boardroom
, etc.). This person most likely had proper access to the info. Now giving that info to Nick is of course a violation of his NDA, but Nick has no NDA with Apple. So, it seems as though Apple would have to prove that Nick knew his informant was improperly acquiring this info (again, stealing), and that seems like a difficult thing to prove. After all, it would be pretty easy for Nick to assert that he believed his guy had acquired the info through proper means, which I'm sure many high-level Apple employees could do.Under 2, it says you are in trouble if you used the disclosure "without express/implied consent" by a person under conditions A-B i-iii. But Nick does have implied, if not express consent, from these people/person who submitted the info.
So with these bases clear (and at least I think they are), I believe it to be a first amendment issue. And I believe that Nick will be protected under that that amendment.
The only caveat would be if Nick paid his informants, which would be a criminal activity. And just to add some fuel, I don't think that a scenario like this is too far out there. Think about it. Nick pays informant --> Nick gets secrets --> Nick posts secrets on website --> Traffic comes to Nicks website to view secrets --> Companies pay Nick to advertise to said traffic ---> Nick makes money.
Do I think that this was the case? Probably not, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering if it was.
As more details emerge, this one should get interesting.
CandyApple said:Good Post, Tulse. I think these definitions help Nick, rather than hurt him, however. The key words are "without express consent" and "improper means".
The person who acquired the trade secrets probably did not do so through "improper means" (i.e. Hacking a computer, stealing from the dumpster, hiding in an air duct over the boardroom
Under 2, it says you are in trouble if you used the disclosure "without express/implied consent" by a person under conditions A-B i-iii. But Nick does have implied, if not express consent, from these people/person who submitted the info.
So with these bases clear (and at least I think they are), I believe it to be a first amendment issue. And I believe that Nick will be protected under that that amendment.
The only caveat would be if Nick paid his informants, which would be a criminal activity. And just to add some fuel, I don't think that a scenario like this is too far out there. Think about it. Nick pays informant --> Nick gets secrets --> Nick posts secrets on website --> Traffic comes to Nicks website to view secrets --> Companies pay Nick to advertise to said traffic ---> Nick makes money.
Do I think that this was the case? Probably not, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering if it was.
As more details emerge, this one should get interesting.
Yeah, details will determine what will happen, but your legal reasoning won't hold up. It's going to be fairly easy to determine if Think Secret knew or had reasonable cause to know if the information was a trade secret--"don't ask, don't tell" doesnt work here...Certainly, it's going to be easy to show that he did NOT have implied consent to use the material, as his leak was NOT authorized to release that information.
CandyApple,
Well if he got the trade secrets through a breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy -- he got them through "improper means"
And he seems to have gotten them from somebody that breached and NDA, whether or not he induced somebody to make a breach cannot be seen from the scant info we have now.
If you want to see how all this works in a case that's already been litigated, try dvdccabnnr82503opn.pdf
Well if he got the trade secrets through a breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy -- he got them through "improper means"
And he seems to have gotten them from somebody that breached and NDA, whether or not he induced somebody to make a breach cannot be seen from the scant info we have now.
If you want to see how all this works in a case that's already been litigated, try dvdccabnnr82503opn.pdf
CandyApple, thanks for your post -- I think it makes sense to talk about the actual law.
However, my reading is very different from yours, largely because I think the terms you cite apply to different parties than you do. Regarding "improper means", I think that Nick would count as the person acquiring the trade secret, and he indeed presumably "knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means", that is, NDA violation.
As for "express or implied consent", it's pretty clear that to me that that refers to the consent of the company whose trade secret it is, and not merely the possessor of the information, such as an employee. Otherwise, it would be legal to publish information from someone who knowingly violated an NDA, but not legal if they gave the information inadvertently, and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, it seems clear that the trade secret belongs to the company, and not whoever happens to know it, and thus the company would be the "another" referred to in 2, from whom consent is needed.
And thanks to Sun Baked for finding some case law on the topic -- I think it clarifies things quite a bit.
However, my reading is very different from yours, largely because I think the terms you cite apply to different parties than you do. Regarding "improper means", I think that Nick would count as the person acquiring the trade secret, and he indeed presumably "knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means", that is, NDA violation.
As for "express or implied consent", it's pretty clear that to me that that refers to the consent of the company whose trade secret it is, and not merely the possessor of the information, such as an employee. Otherwise, it would be legal to publish information from someone who knowingly violated an NDA, but not legal if they gave the information inadvertently, and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, it seems clear that the trade secret belongs to the company, and not whoever happens to know it, and thus the company would be the "another" referred to in 2, from whom consent is needed.
And thanks to Sun Baked for finding some case law on the topic -- I think it clarifies things quite a bit.
Tulse said:
You brought up some interesting points. I suspected there was some sort of law along the lines of "misappropriation" that would protect Apple's right to secrecy.
dePlume is still innocent until proven guilty. I guess this will be an interesting case to follow. Keep us posted, Macrumors.
His own Alumni didn't help him...
While I don't think this case will be dismissed, and I do believe TS/dePlume has some level of culpability, I don't know all the details and agree with those who say we should let the courts handle it.
But that wasn't what I found interesting about this item. I was immediately struck by the fact that this Harvard student wasn't immediately represented, pro bono, by a Harvard Law graduate.
Draw your own conclusions. It just seemed significant to me.
wdlove said:
While I don't think this case will be dismissed, and I do believe TS/dePlume has some level of culpability, I don't know all the details and agree with those who say we should let the courts handle it.
But that wasn't what I found interesting about this item. I was immediately struck by the fact that this Harvard student wasn't immediately represented, pro bono, by a Harvard Law graduate.
Draw your own conclusions. It just seemed significant to me.
A Harvard grad doing something pro bono? Call me jaded, but that just doesn't seem possible to meSeanMcg said:
hmmmm
Remember a while there was a Fox news reported planted with some troops over at Iraq? he supposedly gave out secrets and plans about what the troops were planing? he got into trouble? isn't this the same thing but with out the bloodshed?
or what if I'm a reporter that found out the the gov is going to bomb country X on the 15th and on the 14th I published this with how and where they are going to do it... it's not my fault STOP CALLING MY A SPY OR TRATOR! it's the idiot who told me about it why didn't he keep his mouth shut? I was just being a good reporter first amendment! I can't tell you who it is!
I see it as being something like this... and I think Apple only wants to know the names of the sources who broke the NDAs and I think they have the right to ask! you don't want people who can't keep their mouths shut do you?
Remember a while there was a Fox news reported planted with some troops over at Iraq? he supposedly gave out secrets and plans about what the troops were planing? he got into trouble? isn't this the same thing but with out the bloodshed?
or what if I'm a reporter that found out the the gov is going to bomb country X on the 15th and on the 14th I published this with how and where they are going to do it... it's not my fault STOP CALLING MY A SPY OR TRATOR! it's the idiot who told me about it why didn't he keep his mouth shut? I was just being a good reporter first amendment! I can't tell you who it is!
I see it as being something like this... and I think Apple only wants to know the names of the sources who broke the NDAs and I think they have the right to ask! you don't want people who can't keep their mouths shut do you?
I had just skimped through the thread so i am not sure if someone had made this point.
I agreed that if Nick obtained his information illegally then he would be in trouble and the fact that nothing has been proven yet. but how about the fact that he knew he had obtained trade secrets and even though it may have been given by someone willingly, he knew that they had violated their NDA and he knew that this information had nothing to do with public welfare and he published the information knowingly that the person who give it to him has violated their NDA.
Its just like this forum, if someone post anything about warez, obtaining pirated materials even though the information is given freely or "illegally", the mod would wastedland/delete their post. This is because that they knew that it is illegal to pirate materials and that the source is illegal in the first place. Nick knew as well that they had violated their NDA. Yet he did nothing against it and aid them in publishing the information. What's the difference? Well, he can act dumb and pretend that he didnt know that they have violated their nda.... but come on, he's from havard (if i remembered correctly)
I'm guessing this would be different if the information involved is important to the public welfare or other parties' survival.
I'm not siding with anyone just asking out of interest if this point is valid
I agreed that if Nick obtained his information illegally then he would be in trouble and the fact that nothing has been proven yet. but how about the fact that he knew he had obtained trade secrets and even though it may have been given by someone willingly, he knew that they had violated their NDA and he knew that this information had nothing to do with public welfare and he published the information knowingly that the person who give it to him has violated their NDA.
Its just like this forum, if someone post anything about warez, obtaining pirated materials even though the information is given freely or "illegally", the mod would wastedland/delete their post. This is because that they knew that it is illegal to pirate materials and that the source is illegal in the first place. Nick knew as well that they had violated their NDA. Yet he did nothing against it and aid them in publishing the information. What's the difference? Well, he can act dumb and pretend that he didnt know that they have violated their nda.... but come on, he's from havard (if i remembered correctly)
I'm guessing this would be different if the information involved is important to the public welfare or other parties' survival.
I'm not siding with anyone just asking out of interest if this point is valid
In the first place, shouldn't reporters should have their ethics? if the reporter give information knowing that it endangered national security, isn't that unethical? I mean it is worse in this case as it might cost the lifes of your fellow americans.Longey Nowze said:
To quote DaveC again...
never, ever sue poor people -- they have nothing to lose and you have nothing to gain.
IMHO as I mentioned in another thread on this subject, this is a lose, lose situation for Apple.
The only question is how much they lose before Steve has the good sense to reign in that bloated oversized ego of his and bring this stupidity to an end.
Yes Steve, go and nail that Apple traitor who is selling you out by spilling the beans on your *closely guarded secrets*. But no Steve, this is not the right way to go about doing it.
Time to sit back and enjoy the entertainment regardless of whether it's short and sweet, or a long and messy affair
never, ever sue poor people -- they have nothing to lose and you have nothing to gain.
IMHO as I mentioned in another thread on this subject, this is a lose, lose situation for Apple.
The only question is how much they lose before Steve has the good sense to reign in that bloated oversized ego of his and bring this stupidity to an end.
Yes Steve, go and nail that Apple traitor who is selling you out by spilling the beans on your *closely guarded secrets*. But no Steve, this is not the right way to go about doing it.
Time to sit back and enjoy the entertainment regardless of whether it's short and sweet, or a long and messy affair
One of your main conclusions is that ThinkSecret's publishing of rumors hurts Apple stock. As this is contrary to empirical evidence, what are you left with?adzoox said:
As petition signatory #38 states, "I think apple should pursue those that broke their NDA's not Nick dePlume. I am an apple shareholder. I have seen apple's ahres skyrocket this past year. the rumors help. haven't you heard the old addage, buy on rumor. sell on fact. nick's work helps apple."
As petition signatory #75 states, "Because a web based petition created by a smeghead apple sycophant in South Carolina is really going to motivate Apple Inc. to persecute a young adult for exposing their panties."
You've got nothing to worry about. Apple won't be knocking your door.adzoox said:
This lawsuit helps Apple's relations with developers. The message the lawsuit sends, and the one point on which both supporters and detractors of the lawsuit agree, is that Apple takes NDAs very seriously. In other words, the message is, "don't violate your NDA."
I saidgwangung said:
You're absolutely right about the demands on a law student. If The Paper Chase is anywhere near true, then no law student would have the time. And you are also right that you wouldn't want a law student taking this case.seanmcg said:
But one would think, after the article in The Crimson, which I'm sure some Alumni get, that a Harvard Law graduate would have the time, money, and (according to Harvard grads at least
) the talent to do this.
ThinkSecret has nothing to worry about. This is no Metallica vs. Napster case. ThinkSecret is a journalistic venue and on that grounds would not be liable for freedom of press - in releasing information others breached contract to disclose - especially since ThinkSecret would not have known the disclosed information was a trade secrect for sure (hence the "rumor site" classification). As I and many others have stated, Apple should just accept these rumor leaks as free publicity around the world. If they had kept their mouth shut noone would have even known the rumors were true. After the information is released to the public they should then pursue an internal investigation into those which leaked the information.
Ethics!
Exactly! ETHICS! dePlume knew they were giving out secrets and he knew that they had access to secret info and I assume he's smart enough to know that they are under NDAs he could've been smart and been a little more vague about it... what are they people under NDAs getting out of telling him all this info?! are they getting paid? what is he getting out of it? I were in the same situation I wouldn't give out trade secrets not for free!
angelneo said:
Exactly! ETHICS! dePlume knew they were giving out secrets and he knew that they had access to secret info and I assume he's smart enough to know that they are under NDAs he could've been smart and been a little more vague about it... what are they people under NDAs getting out of telling him all this info?! are they getting paid? what is he getting out of it? I were in the same situation I wouldn't give out trade secrets not for free!
More on the "Save Nick, Sue Nick" petitions
Stock data FOR THIS QUARTER is skewed due to iPod holiday sales. Look at the stock and the inventory problems Apple has just before expos. Why do you think Apple is TRYING VERY HARD to get away from expo only announcements? Because - if they had continued, the rumor sites would continue to steal any thunder that Apple had at all. Also, Apple is in a unique position in the computer industry right now - where anything they do can ride the success of the iPod. Other companies are literally falling ALL OVER rumor sites trying to find out anything they can - it's nothing short of corporate espionage.
As for the dozen or so fake signatures that are on the petition; there are literally hundreds on the "save nick petition" that are fake. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates signed it too with similar hate messages.
I knew when I created it - that it was somewhat flamebait. But the "save nick" petition is the most ridiculous thing I have seen come out of this debate. (what does his being a college student and being 19 have anything to do with the issue; for instance?)
It may NOT be right for Apple to pursue this from a PR perspective, but business is not about PR and it's not about bottom lines. It's all about integrity and responsibility. Any business that has those two characteristics will be a success no matter what market revelation.
Shame on Think Secret and shame on any one who agrees what they have done is ethically or legally appropriate. And certainly; shame on Think Secret for making Apple customers even discuss this issue to begin with.
Many who consider Think Secret in the clear, aren't considering the points that I have brought up in this forum or others. It bothers me that Think Secret became a lot more accurate just as Elite Computers and Macadam declared "WAR ON APPLE". It bothers me that Think Secret has initimate knowledge of this reseller lawsuit. It bothers me that Think Secret mixes obviously true stories like this, partially true stories like the MacMini, and completely inaccurate rumors like iPod Mini's with 2GB & stripes and starting at $99. It bothers me that they are unlike ANY OTHER rumor site that seems to report gossip. Instead Think Secret quotes sources as "deep with inside Apple" They also solicit for rumors via a phone number. You HAVE to know that anyone who gives such information is under NDA.
Macrumors sometimes bases rumors on reader submissions of patents and FCC approvals - I see nothing wrong with that. Macrumors also aggregates rumors - I see nothing wrong with that. Macrumors watches other website changes - such as Cassidy & Greene's Soundjam becoming iTunes or the recent iWork hand changes. Macrumors sometimes makes guesses based on release dates and refresh periods - again - I see nothing wrong with that.
As Mac lovers - we are all being taken advantage of because we are so interested in Apple that we cease to have any respect to their right to privacy and corporate integrity.
Before you make statements like Apple not being interested in things I have, you might want to meet me face to face - A) So I could spit in your face B) so you know who I truly am.
Rod Rod said:
Stock data FOR THIS QUARTER is skewed due to iPod holiday sales. Look at the stock and the inventory problems Apple has just before expos. Why do you think Apple is TRYING VERY HARD to get away from expo only announcements? Because - if they had continued, the rumor sites would continue to steal any thunder that Apple had at all. Also, Apple is in a unique position in the computer industry right now - where anything they do can ride the success of the iPod. Other companies are literally falling ALL OVER rumor sites trying to find out anything they can - it's nothing short of corporate espionage.
As for the dozen or so fake signatures that are on the petition; there are literally hundreds on the "save nick petition" that are fake. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates signed it too with similar hate messages.
I knew when I created it - that it was somewhat flamebait. But the "save nick" petition is the most ridiculous thing I have seen come out of this debate. (what does his being a college student and being 19 have anything to do with the issue; for instance?)
It may NOT be right for Apple to pursue this from a PR perspective, but business is not about PR and it's not about bottom lines. It's all about integrity and responsibility. Any business that has those two characteristics will be a success no matter what market revelation.
Shame on Think Secret and shame on any one who agrees what they have done is ethically or legally appropriate. And certainly; shame on Think Secret for making Apple customers even discuss this issue to begin with.
Many who consider Think Secret in the clear, aren't considering the points that I have brought up in this forum or others. It bothers me that Think Secret became a lot more accurate just as Elite Computers and Macadam declared "WAR ON APPLE". It bothers me that Think Secret has initimate knowledge of this reseller lawsuit. It bothers me that Think Secret mixes obviously true stories like this, partially true stories like the MacMini, and completely inaccurate rumors like iPod Mini's with 2GB & stripes and starting at $99. It bothers me that they are unlike ANY OTHER rumor site that seems to report gossip. Instead Think Secret quotes sources as "deep with inside Apple" They also solicit for rumors via a phone number. You HAVE to know that anyone who gives such information is under NDA.
Macrumors sometimes bases rumors on reader submissions of patents and FCC approvals - I see nothing wrong with that. Macrumors also aggregates rumors - I see nothing wrong with that. Macrumors watches other website changes - such as Cassidy & Greene's Soundjam becoming iTunes or the recent iWork hand changes. Macrumors sometimes makes guesses based on release dates and refresh periods - again - I see nothing wrong with that.
As Mac lovers - we are all being taken advantage of because we are so interested in Apple that we cease to have any respect to their right to privacy and corporate integrity.
Before you make statements like Apple not being interested in things I have, you might want to meet me face to face - A) So I could spit in your face B) so you know who I truly am.
ASP272 said:
*sigh*
Again, trade secrets.
This is NOT a slam dunk for Think Secret. And there are well defined limits to "freedom of the press"--one of those is in trade secrets.
Remains to be seen if the law agrees, but if it's held that trade secrets were involved, then Apple WILL win.
Counterfit said:A Harvard grad doing something pro bono? Call me jaded, but that just doesn't seem possible to me
Even being a Harvard Law Grad, he has to start his career some where. Taking a high profile case will get him noticed and open many doors in the future.
who's paying his bill
Most likely the lawyer will try to do this for notariety. That said, his choice of lawyer was very poor because it's the same lawyer that defends downhillbattle.org who runs these two websites
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
http://itunesperipod.com/
And downhillbattle.org also ran a bogus contest to collect pepsi caps during last year's super bowl promotion.
This same lawyer defends the illegal file sharing siteslike SuperNova.
[ Note: I do not think ALL p2p is illegal ]
As for whether he could afford it or not and whether Nick Ciarelli is playing to our heartstrings. How many Harvard kids do you know come from poor families? (there are some I know)
Also, this message was found in a Google search, typed by "Nick Deplume" himself in 2000 - so either he's lying here or he making pretty good money.
"Think Secret has since transformed from a small fan-style website to a viable and profitable business, and the dePlume Organization LLC was founded around it, managing the sales and marketing end of the site. Our staff has grown from a single webmaster (myself) at the beginning to several regulars...
KyleC said:
Most likely the lawyer will try to do this for notariety. That said, his choice of lawyer was very poor because it's the same lawyer that defends downhillbattle.org who runs these two websites
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
http://itunesperipod.com/
And downhillbattle.org also ran a bogus contest to collect pepsi caps during last year's super bowl promotion.
This same lawyer defends the illegal file sharing siteslike SuperNova.
[ Note: I do not think ALL p2p is illegal ]
As for whether he could afford it or not and whether Nick Ciarelli is playing to our heartstrings. How many Harvard kids do you know come from poor families? (there are some I know)
Also, this message was found in a Google search, typed by "Nick Deplume" himself in 2000 - so either he's lying here or he making pretty good money.
"Think Secret has since transformed from a small fan-style website to a viable and profitable business, and the dePlume Organization LLC was founded around it, managing the sales and marketing end of the site. Our staff has grown from a single webmaster (myself) at the beginning to several regulars...
gwangung said:So, why should he take this case, then?
Think this is just small potatoes; not big and splashy enough for someone who wants to make a name for themselves just out of law school....
He wants to build a reputation. Winning against a company like Apple would certainly put him on the map.
I too wonder if Nick comes from a wealthy family or just got lucky.