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 Shuts Down, Settles Apple Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
However, rumour sites also create a lot of problems. First of all, it often gets people excited about nothing. How many times have you anticipated a new product at MWSF or alike but didn't get one? Like the powerbook G5. And how many times have you waited forever for a rumoured product release, then the product comes out with only 1/2 the features as rumoured? Then suddenly a great product becomes a crappy one because you had much higher expectations for it.
Many others also mentioned that it's bad for business and gives the competitors an edge and those are all reasons why Apple wanted TS to shut down.
Apple rose mostly from the iPod, or to some extent, the iMac. Their computer marketshare only dramatically increased after the intel switch. I highly doubt that they got out of the mud of the mid 90s because of the rumour sites. There were rumour sites back then too. They did rise because of the fans, but most of Apple users don't actually go on rumour sites. So this really only effects a very small amount of people, and only a very small percentage of Apple users will actually read TS anyway. However, this does give the competition a leg up, and Apple would rather sacrifice a very small group of its users that visit TS than let the competitors release a product similar to theirs ahead of them and lose majority of their users.
And honestly, Apple is a business. They have every right to drop their price when they think the time is right, and every right to over charge when they think people will buy it. They're not your mother who's always looking out for your best benefits. They're just looking out for the best benefits for themselves.
Epic news...
But is it bad that i can sympathize with what Apple have done here?
If i had snitches walking the company corridors i'd stop at nothing to make sure they didn't spill the beans on anything.
Can you imagine what would have happened if, instead of harmless rumour, we'd got genuine photos of the iPhone 6 months prior to MacWorld?
But is it bad that i can sympathize with what Apple have done here?
If i had snitches walking the company corridors i'd stop at nothing to make sure they didn't spill the beans on anything.
Can you imagine what would have happened if, instead of harmless rumour, we'd got genuine photos of the iPhone 6 months prior to MacWorld?
Then it's Apple's problem and they should investigate the leak internally. They took the easy route and threw their weight around. Twunts.
So what is the difference between what the rumors sites have been doing and what
- Bear Stearns
- UBS Investment Research
- Needham and Co.
- Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc.
- W.R. Hambrecht
- Piper Jaffray
- Prudential Equity Group
- American Technology Research
I wonder where all the Wall Street analysts are going to get their insider information now?
It's interesting to look at Think Secret pages from 7 or 8 years ago, courtesy of http://www.archive.org. (In fact, that site, which archives Web pages, is a fascinating link to the recent past and a great time sink.)
It's interesting to look at Think Secret pages from 7 or 8 years ago, courtesy of http://www.archive.org. (In fact, that site, which archives Web pages, is a fascinating link to the recent past and a great time sink.)
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Predictions mean nothing. I repeat my earlier point: imagine if we'd seen photos of the genuine iPhone 6 months before it was released.
Piper Jaffray and co. are analysts, not spies.
If Apple have shut down TS it means they have secrets that they cannot afford to be revealed. And this is where rumour kicks in...
These analyze information and extract conclusions from that analysis, and based on that work ellaborate predictions.
TS often did that, but also often had an inside source that leaked pics, specs, prices, timelines, materials, suppliers etc, and just copied that in their cover stories.
There's a subtle, but very important, difference between both my friend.
One is researching, other is spying.
TS often did that, but also often had an inside source that leaked pics, specs, prices, timelines, materials, suppliers etc, and just copied that in their cover stories.
There's a subtle, but very important, difference between both my friend.
One is researching, other is spying.
Yes. I think these sites are bad for Apple. They cause confusion in the marketplace and give away trade secrets. By the way, I don't really consider Mac Rumors in the same category. Mac Rumors is more of a hub or collector of rumor-based news. They normally don't break rumor news or even write their own stuff. Most of the stuff is just quoted from ThinkSecret, AppleInsider or 9 to 5 Mac. This site is more about the forums, which are excellent.
In legal terms if you publish something you are as guilty as the person who actually said/leaked it. That is why newspapers get sued for libel.
As others have said on here, Apple have a legal and moral right to protect their trade secrets (not to mention an obligation to their shareholders). TS was way beyond a rumour site and obviously had an inside track to someone who was illegally passing Apple's trade secrets to them.
When they published Apple's trade secrets, they weren't just slaking the desire of Apple's customers to know the latest and greatest ahead of time, they were giving a big heads up to Apple's competitors...
No-one has the divine right to know the intimate details of Apple's (or anyone elses) forthcoming products and whilst rumours and speculation are (mostly) harmless, when they are based on hard facts leaked directly from the source they become much more insidious and I don't see that Apple had any choice
When they published Apple's trade secrets, they weren't just slaking the desire of Apple's customers to know the latest and greatest ahead of time, they were giving a big heads up to Apple's competitors...
No-one has the divine right to know the intimate details of Apple's (or anyone elses) forthcoming products and whilst rumours and speculation are (mostly) harmless, when they are based on hard facts leaked directly from the source they become much more insidious and I don't see that Apple had any choice
If I had a snitch in my team, who couldn't keep his bloody mouth shut and had to blabber out confidential information about a new product, and that product that the whole team worked hard for was then canned, I would want to know the name of that snitch so I could give him a good kicking and then throw him out. I don't think there is any sympathy for Think Secret in the team that produced this product, and they all paid a high price for that leak.
Try discussing a raise with your boss. When he asks you what you have worked on in the last year, you have to tell him that you got this product close to completion, but it was canned because a snitch somewhere in your team leaked the info out to the press. So your achievements in the last year were a big fat ZERO. So that discussion won't work out too well for you.
What was the crime?
I don't recall much about the suit itself. What exactly were they accused of doing? It's not about copyrights or trademarks. It must be a trade secret thing. Having followed the cult of Scientology's big efforts when they tried to sue people on the Internet from spilling their so-called sacred scripture secrets, they went after it every which way and to the max, and lost big, big time. I've learned that revealing trade secrets is a crime, but the criminal is the person who was officially authorized to have the secret, but NOT a person who was illegally told that secret.
If I have a trade secret and tell you, I may guilty of something, but you are not, even if you tell the secret publicly. Because I am the one that broke my agreement. You broke no agreements. Scientology lost on that logic. So if an Apple insider told them something, what's ThinkSecret's crime?
I'm not a lawyer so I probably have something wrong. What was the alleged crime?
I don't recall much about the suit itself. What exactly were they accused of doing? It's not about copyrights or trademarks. It must be a trade secret thing. Having followed the cult of Scientology's big efforts when they tried to sue people on the Internet from spilling their so-called sacred scripture secrets, they went after it every which way and to the max, and lost big, big time. I've learned that revealing trade secrets is a crime, but the criminal is the person who was officially authorized to have the secret, but NOT a person who was illegally told that secret.
If I have a trade secret and tell you, I may guilty of something, but you are not, even if you tell the secret publicly. Because I am the one that broke my agreement. You broke no agreements. Scientology lost on that logic. So if an Apple insider told them something, what's ThinkSecret's crime?
I'm not a lawyer so I probably have something wrong. What was the alleged crime?
Even though it might sound like bragging, I just have to say that I actually saw this coming. ThinkSecret was being very unusually quiet during the last months so the old lawsuit came into my mind and I was able to do the math.
I'm sorry to see them gone, but what can you do...
Its TS that had the choice to publish the information, they should have acted with more discretion.
There's a difference between publishing rumours and sensitive information that could damage the company in many ways including: financially, competitive advantage.
Rumours are fine, but you can go too far.
However, its sad to see a rumour site go. In its day, TS was very accurate and it was great to get accurate information about what was upcoming from Apple ( despite the above!).
There's a difference between publishing rumours and sensitive information that could damage the company in many ways including: financially, competitive advantage.
Rumours are fine, but you can go too far.
However, its sad to see a rumour site go. In its day, TS was very accurate and it was great to get accurate information about what was upcoming from Apple ( despite the above!).
That's my point exactly. We should remember that people's entire careers depend on these products, and being grassed-up to a website just isn't fair on them.
The easiest parallel to draw is with the government...
Does the New York Times have the right to post information that has been classified as Top Secret/Special Compartmentalized Information....hell NO!!
That information in the public could have cost human lives or, at a minimum, lose a genuine technical advantage.
It would have been similar to revealing stealth technology to the public as it was being created.
Hickman
Does the New York Times have the right to post information that has been classified as Top Secret/Special Compartmentalized Information....hell NO!!
That information in the public could have cost human lives or, at a minimum, lose a genuine technical advantage.
It would have been similar to revealing stealth technology to the public as it was being created.
Hickman