ThinkSecret Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit

[Sun Baked]

Where is the money for ThinkSecret's lawyers coming from?

The EFF set him up with a former EFF lawyer.

Even though the guy is doing pro-bono work right now. I'd fully expect to see this lawyer submit paperwork, to get Apple cover the costs of litigation, if he wins.

As a writer for the Harvard Crimson, Nick Ciarelli is a "journalist."

But, should those credentials be used when the journalist is no longer under the legal umbrella of his paper? When he is doing something on his own for profit.

Nick Ciarelli isn't a little guy, he owns a company, advertises it quite well, and has high traffic. Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

Unless he's willing to submit his complete financials, along with his parents financials, it'll be hard to say he is impoverished. But pleading poverty could be dangerous, especially if there is any Apple stock in his portfolio.

 

[gwangung]

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

And how is that going to happen? Trail leads straight to Nick.

Seems to me, if you were an industrial spy, you could be set yourself up well by exploiting some young journalist who's wet behind the ears and who'll take the heat instead of you.

 

[Sayhey]

And how is that going to happen? Trail leads straight to Nick.

Seems to me, if you were an industrial spy, you could be set yourself up well by exploiting some young journalist who's wet behind the ears and who'll take the heat instead of you.

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.

 

[gwangung]

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).

 

[martman]

By tracing the information from the other side. Never said it was easy, but the cost to the First Amendment press protections is too great if the courts allows Apple to continue down this path.

exacty. Apple's beef should be with the people who violated their NDAs. These folks who run the sites have not signed NDAs. Apple's problem is that they are leaking like a sive right now and blaming Nick is not going to solve the problem but if they win this then the internet is going to dry up as a source of news at least in the US.

The folks who are saying Nick et al are not journalists are only saying this because they don't like him and mostly because Jobbs doesn't like him.
His readership is WAY larger than many print opperations so this "he isn't a REAL journalist" argument is lame and I think the courts will agree.

Apple seems to be looking for the legal system to do the work Apple should be doing. Someone(s) is leaking information the the CEO of the company doesn't want to get leaked. Apple needs to look inward to see who is doing this and why. Going after Nick is wrong and this tactic jeprodises the first amendment rights of all US based online journalists. This is about the rights of people online to publish the same kind of stories their print counterparts can and do all the time.
What Apple needs to do is change whatever behaviours it is doing that is allowing these leaks to happen not attacking the rights of online journalists.

Loose lips sink ships.

 

[bosrs1]

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

That's what Apple is trying to do! They want Nick to give up the sources so they can nail them. Nick is protecting them. At that point he failed to remain a victim and became culpable as far as Apple is concerned.

 

[martman]

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).

Ok but give me an exaple of anything like this involving "traditional " media. This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict.

 

[bosrs1]

Ok but give me an exaple of anything like this involving "traditional " media. This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict.

Probably true, but TS is not a media outlet.

 

[martman]

That's what Apple is trying to do! They want Nick to give up the sources so they can nail them. Nick is protecting them. At that point he failed to remain a victim and became culpable as far as Apple is concerned.

this is not true until a court says it is. Personally i don't buy that for a second.
Nick is a journalist protecting his source. Period.

 

[bosrs1]

this is not true until a court says it is. Personally i don't buy that for a second.
Nick is a journalist protecting his source. Period.

Nick is a college student filching Trade Secrets from sources that deserve to be brought to justice.

And the court has said it is, that's what the inital ruling granted them.

 

[martman]

Probably true, but TS is not a media outlet.

TS is a media outlet as we shall soon see. TS has more regular readers than many Computer Magazines MANY more. What makes internent media any less media than a magazine? (especially if the site has more readers)

 

[bosrs1]

TS is a media outlet as we shall soon see. TS has more regular readers than many Computer Magazines MANY more. What makes internent media any less media than a magazine? (especially if the site has more readers)

Is he registered with any media groups?

 

[Sayhey]

Except that First Amendment press protections don't necessarily trump trade secret protections. That depends on the particulars of the case, which we don't know as of yet. Just as privacy and libel concerns will trump the First Amendment in some cases, trade secret protection may trump First Amendment concerns here.

Note, also, that Apple is not enjoining publication (and that's a crucial bit of legal action that isn't being appreciated here). That takes it down the scale in press law. It's asking for a source, in an area where it can't possibly chill any press action (because it's in an area that is ALREADY illegal).

We have been down this road of argumentation before, gwangung. Yes, there are cases where protection of trade secrets will "trump" press protections. The whole point of this case, it seems to me, is it worth declaring on-line journalists as unworthy of First Amendment protections in order to protect Apple from the early release of very general future product information. Is this where we want to draw this line? I hope not.

I think Apple is going to alienate far more customers than it could ever get from protecting this information. I would again encourage others to let Apple know they are making a major mistake.

 

[martman]

Is he registered with any media groups?

not sure...

 

[bosrs1]

not sure...

Well we'll see. So far the courts don't think he is a media outlet based on the first ruling.

 

[martman]

Well we'll see. So far the courts don't think he is a media outlet based on the first ruling.

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.

 

[bosrs1]

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.

Point taken. Sad thing is this lawsuit was inevitable and sad thing is either ruling is not good for both Apple and their customers. This is a no win disaster.

 

[Sun Baked]

A partial first ruling. The judge is making a final stament early next week. Don't count your chickens till they hatch.

With a real media outlet, you expect that the circulation information is easy to find, names of key employees are there in the open, phone numbers, address, etc. are all there and in the clear, they have an inhouse legal team or one on retainer, they carry insurance, comply with a myriad of federal and state laws.

Heck if you plan on suing them and call up the editor, a real news organization would probably connect you with their legal team or the person to send notice of service to.

With thinksecret, nothings clear, he's hiding and doesn't anwer to anyone but himself. But if you want to advertise, send him money or information -- they'll make it easy. And probably run if you say you're a lawyer wondering where to send your notice of service to.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Nick is not. He runs a rumour site nothing more. It is amazing to see such hard asses in a different rumour site saying these things. If this was really a case of industrial espionage the EFF wouldn't have taken this case on.

This is about revenge not about what is right.

Apple is losing customers over this and those of you who have stock should be pissed.

I own a Dual G5 1.8, a Molar Mac, an iPod 4G, iMac 266, B&W G3 400 and an Apple Studio Display 23" CRT Monitor. If these various lawsuits against mac fans don't end my purchases will and I'm not the only one.

This litigation is BS and it is time for it to stop. Jobbs has made his point. 😡

I don't think you know what you're talking about .... the EFF has also defended SuperNova and battled previously against iTunes and supports Kazaa.

SuperNova WAS a site used 90% for the distribution of unquestionable illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

EFF also defends Downhill Battle.org which has several anti Apple websites under it's belt.

 

[fixyourthinking]

The EFF set him up with a former EFF lawyer.

Even though the guy is doing pro-bono work right now. I'd fully expect to see this lawyer submit paperwork, to get Apple cover the costs of litigation, if he wins.

As the editor of the Harvard Crimson, Nick Ciarelli is a "journalist."

But, should those credentials be used when the journalist is no longer under the legal umbrella of his paper? When he is doing something on his own for profit.

Nick Ciarelli isn't a little guy, he owns a company, advertises it quite well, and has high traffic. Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

Unless he's willing to submit his complete financials, along with his parents financials, it'll be hard to say he is impoverished. But pleading poverty could be dangerous, especially if there is any Apple stock in his portfolio.

This post had some interesting points that many may not know the details to or may be ignorant to:

I run a website and a very successful local Apple consulting biz, my credentials stop at my website and stop within the confines of my immediate area. Saying Nick is a journalist online because he is one offline - is like saying Micheal Jackson is a good guy in person, so he MUST be a good guy in private too (with no perversion) Point also being - we don't know and can't really qualify ourselves for any speculation.

What I do know is that good journalists have ethics. They follow the law of reporting and RESPECT the subject matter on which they are reporting. Nick has broken SEVERAL laws - not just the UTSA. This may even extend into "obstruction of justice" if he's not careful. Good journalists also don't put their controversial sources at risk, nor their advertisers. Anyone who advertises with Think Secret at this point is just as sleezy in my eye.

Plus he is going to Harvard, and that's a $40k yearly nut.

You do realize that 85% of Harvard students are on scholarship? It is the (or one of the) most well endowed Universites in the world. That said, MOST kids who are there - are from wealthy families. And to add, my own research puts The Deplume Organization (which isn't JUST Think Secret) at the high five figures in income!

 

[fixyourthinking]

I think Apple is going to alienate far more customers than it could ever get from protecting this information. I would again encourage others to let Apple know they are making a major mistake.

Would people just quit saying this?

It's ludacris .... no ONE will stop buying Apple products or alienate anyone if Apple comes out CORRECTLY in this matter.

People are taking this debate WAY TOO grand! Hardly anyone I know (I see dozens of Apple Users every week, hundreds a month) know about this or really even care.

If they do stop buying ... looks like Apple will gain significant marketshare this year - so there's plenty of users to take their place amongst the loyal Mac Faithful who love to discuss mac related issues such as we are here.

If it is then those folks need to be pursued by Apple, not the reporters they leaked their information to.

This ISN'T the facts - the information is SOLICITED for. There is a phone number and there WAS a process for submitting information. It is NOT leaked, it is asked for. It is bribed - if not by money - by egomaniacal anonymous fame - "I gave Think Secret that info" - I am a cool person (says the guy in the mirror to himself)

 

[Counterfit]

This suit would have been toosed out right away if Think Secret was Mac Addict.

The suit wouldn't have been necessary if MacAddict had run the info, because they wouldn't have! Go read the UTSA

One of the broadly stated policies behind trade secret law is “the maintenance of standards of commercial ethics.” Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974). The Restatement of Torts, Section 757, Comment (f), notes: “A complete catalogue of improper means is not possible,” but Section 1(1) includes a partial listing. Proper means include:
1. Discovery by independent invention;
2. Discovery by “reverse engineering”, that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to find the method by which it was developed. The acquisition of the known product must, of course, also be by a fair and honest means, such as purchase of the item on the open market for reverse engineering to be lawful;
3. Discovery under a license from the owner of the trade secret;
4. Observation of the item in public use or on public display;
5. Obtaining the trade secret from published literature.

Improper means could include otherwise lawful conduct which is improper under the circumstances; e.g., an airplane overflight used as aerial reconnaissance to determine the competitor’s plant layout during construction of the plant. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (CA5, 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 1024 (1970). Because the trade secret can be destroyed through public knowledge, the unauthorized disclosure of a trade secret is also a misappropriation.

bold = mine.

(1) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means;
(2) “Misappropriation” means:
(i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who
(A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was
(I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) before a material change of his [or her] position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

I'm really, really getting tired of quoting this 🙄

 

[Dippo]

Apple should have left it alone...

Whatever side you are on in this debate, I am sure that you would agree that it would have been better if Apple had not filed any lawsuits in the first place.

While I do believe that Apple has every right to protect their "trade secrets" and it is quite apparent that someone violated their NDA, Apple should be going after those people first.

Apple reminds more of a **AA with this shotgun lawsuit approach. Even if Apple takes down Thinksecret, there will be another rumor site that will stand up to take it's place. Apple needs to go after the true source of their problem, and not file lawsuits against their customers, just like the **AA's do.

 

[Sayhey]

Would people just quit saying this?

It's ludacris .... no ONE will stop buying Apple products or alienate anyone if Apple comes out CORRECTLY in this matter.

People are taking this debate WAY TOO grand! Hardly anyone I know (I see dozens of Apple Users every week, hundreds a month) know about this or really even care.

Perhaps you should go to a few websites and see how much discussion is being generated by this story. Or perhaps read the New York Times, Associated Press, or any number of widely read media. That's not counting TV news. This a HUGE story for anyone concerned about the extent of First Amendment freedoms. You may not like it, but others are taking note of what Apple is doing here and it will have an impact on how people view the company.

Finally, let's be real clear, ThinkSecret or any of the other defendants in this suit are not charged with breaking any laws.

 

[Sayhey]

The suit wouldn't have been necessary if MacAddict had run the info, because they wouldn't have! Go read the UTSA
bold = mine. I'm really, really getting tired of quoting this 🙄

You can quote it all you want, but you don't get to weigh what takes precedent the section of law you quoted or the First Amendment and California's Press Shield Law. That is what the case is all about, so don't be surprised if your understanding of what the law should be is not upheld by the court.

What can effect the case is pressure put on Apple. I hope more people view Apple's position with alarm and do so.