ThinkSecret Shuts Down, Settles Apple Lawsuit

[Unspeaked]

Oh! And I had as much fun as anyone else with these predictions and breaking news that TS released from time to time. It is just that they came too accurate, up to a point in which Macworlds stopped being "let's see if any of the rumors become true!!!" and for a moment were more like:

"Alright, here's Steve-o. Let's take out our rumor list... New iLife: check. Headless-under-$500-Mac: check. Under-$100-iPod: check. Great to be with you, bye".

At some point Keynotes lost part of their interest because even the "one-more-thing" had been leaked, pictures, pricing and specs included, days before the event. I prefer something like MWSF07 in which nobody had a clue about what was to come, or the iMac G5 launch of which nobody had seen anything and was a true surprise!! Or the first nano!

This is not much different than TV shows spoilers, or movie ending leaks or comic book spoilers or anything else that's become much more commonplace since the internet took off.

I remember it being weeks after a MacWorld and still not being sure of what was released! You'd have to wait for MacWeek or MacWorld to publish their next issue and see if the speculation you'd heard about ended up being right.

Same with TV shows - you used to actually have to watch a show to know what was going on. Now, you can have pretty much the entire season summed up for you before the first episode airs. Anyone remember the "Who show Mr. Burns?" Simpsons (or heck, "The Who Shot JR?" Dallas it parodied?). How long do you think those secrets would have lasted in 2007? How much less impact would it have had?

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

RIP TS

Good luck to Nick in future endeavors!

 

[shoobe01]

What? Show me a product, at any company ever that was canceled because it wasn't a big enough surprise. You know as soon as you launch it, its not a surprise anymore, right?


As far as the arguing of whether it was /right/, who cares about your opinion. Read up on the centuries of case law. And part time, internet-only journalists are still journalists. Covered by state and federal shield laws. They do not have to give up sources, and are not liable for violations of law their sources may have made, whether direct violations (government secrets, B&E) or contractual violations (NDA).

Now, the CA trade secrets act (whatever its called) /might/ be excessively broadly interpreted to cover journalists, but I'd find that odd. Unless the TS guy helped the source break in, and wandered the campus at night looking at secret things himself, I'd hope he should still be protected.


Since the EFF helped with the defense, I presume the TS guy just decided he didn't want to spend more years fighting this, whether or not money changed hands.

 

[GroundLoop]

Dream on.

By the letter of the law, TS didn't do anything wrong. Apple was trying to bully TS into outing a source. He stood his ground and did not. I think that the only thing Apple could have done is buy the site from Nick and force it offline.

Anyone remember "Deep Throat"? I don't remember the Washington Post getting sued, being forced to pay anything, or any real legal issues. That is because there was no legal basis. Same as in this case.

The only way to ensure that TS would not acquire new sources would to take it down the only way that it legally could...through acquisition($$$).

The only way it could differ from the above, is if Nick actively solicited individuals and coerced them into providing Apple's trade secrets to TS. I have seen or heard of no eveidence of this (but it is a possibility).

Hickman

 

[Clive At Five]

I will deeply miss ThinkSecret. As others have said before, it used to be my first source for rumors. It's still first in line, for posterity's sake but I never spend more than 5 seconds on the site. There just hasn't been any good content recently -- no doubt due to the lawsuit.

Nick: Congratulations in escaping alive. Your site was awesome. Good luck in your college studies and in your career ahead of you.

To TS's source: If you're still at Apple, please keep the info coming. The rumor scene has been pretty stale since TS got hit, and it's being overrun by idiot analysts. The enthusiasm is still present though. We're dying to know what's up Apple's sleve! Protect yourself though: leak to an array of sites. Or leak to me and I'll leak to sites, hahaha. Wait, actually, I'm serious. Wait, now Apple has my name. Crap. I'm innocent!

-Clive

 

[asphalt-proof]

Well, Apple has not gone after 9to5mac, or Macrumors, or TUAW, or Appleinsider...

This is not about "censorship" or anything close to that. Apple is more than ok with rumors, hype, rumor sites and all its fans buzzing and freaking out with the possibility of a new product being released. That said, it happens to be that secret product information being leaked is a MAJOR threat to a company like Apple that can't live on huge installed user base.

Apple lives on innovation and on the "OMG" factor of their product releases. Just put the Thinksecret lawsuit into perspective, and take a look at the time frame. Apple was developing the iPhone at that very point in time. Guess what a leak of the multitouch interface of the iPhone would have meant for Apple and the most-anticipated-product-launch-ever? Had Thinksecret's source been around leaking info about that before Jan 2007, LG, Samsung, Nokia and the likes would have had waaay enough time to develop an iPhone equivalent even before Apple's came to light. The iPhone would have been dead before launch.

This is just a small example of what happens to a company that bases its success in being innovative, sleek designs and secretly developed gadgets. TS was walking the line, and Apple can't just afford such a danger. Rumors are okay - allowing your inside secrets to be leaked and thus destroy your product marketing schedules and timelines is stupid, and really dangerous.

Anybody remember the iWalk? Or the much-rumored Asteroid audio interface? These products really seemed to be almost finished... but they never were launched because timing was destroyed by leakages. I'd rather have an iPhone today at the expense of ThinkSecret having to stop leaking insider secrets, than being able to read about it in TS in Nov 2006 and Apple losing its wow-factor and its opportunity window for the launch.

A fair agreement is "Rumor sites: guess as much as you want about my products, make up fakes of any kind... but please do not post stolen pics of imminent products or I will ask you to take them down... and do not by any means post secret info -again, be free to guess- of my current product developments or I will be forced to take you to court.

Guessing that Apple was to release a phone was something that everybody did. I can clearly see TS being able to post "Apple about to release Ipod-like, fullscreen phone with no 3G capabilities, integrated WiFi and camera, and multitouch interface" in mid-november had things stayed as they were. And apply this to any other product: iPod Touch, Leopard's Time Machine, and whatever they're preparing for MWSF08.

Sad to see TS go, but if you play with fire you will eventually get burn. Other sites never crossed that line, and well they are now.

That's just crap! Are you telling that Apple spent millions of dollars and R&D, manufacturing costs, OS development, etc, and then, days, weeks before the product is released, decide NOT to release the product because it got leaked to the press first? I really doubt that. By that reasoning, all Apple has is speculation going for it. Their superior design and interface is just something that can be copied all willy nilly by any company in just a couple of days. Witness the repeated failures of iPhone-wannabees who can't get it right and they have the actual phone right in front of them!! Sure China made a very nice copy, but its still vaporware here in the US. If the design was good then no amount of leakage is going to spoil the product launch no matter what the PR people tell you.

 

[Data]

I don't understand how they can be happy with the settlement when the site is taken offline.

 

[Brianstorm91]

Bit of a shot in the foot for pulling in the customers.

 

[zioxide]

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.

err.. no.

If some idiot government official leaks ****, the NY Times could publish it all they want. It's called freedom of the press. It would only be legal if someone inside the NY Times had government clearance and used to obtain the information.

I'm guessing the settlement was somewhere along the lines of Apple pays TS, TS closes.

Nick wouldn't have gone to prison or anything if he refused a settlement. He didn't do anything wrong. He's a journalist. If they obtain information from someone, they can publish it, and he doesn't have to tell anyone the source.

He didn't have a NDA with Apple, the guy who leaked it did. The guy who leaked it was in violation. Apple can go after him all he wants (and should investigate internally to find him).

To the delusional fanboys: Apple is not the law, they are not above the law. They can't force TS to do anything in this, since TS didn't commit any crimes.

Apple offered TS a settlement after he didn't just give up his source because they didn't want to end up with a lengthy court case (which they would end up losing).

I don't understand how they can be happy with the settlement when the site is taken offline.

The site wasn't "taken offline" by Apple. Apple proposed a settlement, where they would pay him big $$$ and he would shut down the site. He accepted it.

It's not like the site was his job. He did it part time while going to school. If someone was going to give you a ******** of money to shut down some little hobby site you had, you would do it too.

 

[blashphemy]

RIP ThinkSecret. We will miss you.

 

[seedster2]

Believe me, TS got paid BIGTIME.

I think they did as well. He likely sold it to them and promised to forfeit participation in any future Apple rumor sites for hefty sum.

Apple's legal team is powerful but they cannot rewrite existing laws. This isnt a matter of national security. He cannot be forced to give his source to anyone. The press is protected and so are their sources.

This is Apple's internal problem. They likely filed suit in order to pressure him to sell. They have the resources to continue to harass him for years.

*Wish I had seen zioxide's post I could have just quoted it

 

[zioxide]

I think they did as well. He likely sold it to them and promised to forfeit participation in any future Apple rumor sites for hefty sum.

Apple's legal team is powerful but they cannot rewrite existing laws. This isnt a matter of national security. He cannot be forced to give his source to anyone. There press is protected and so are their sources.

This is Apple's internal problem. They likely filed suit in order to pressure him to sell. They have the resources to continue to harass him for years.

Exactly.

Apple filed suit against TS to try to scare him in to giving up his source. He didn't, and they realized if they went to court they would end up with a loss and negative publicity, and nothing would happen. They decided to settle the case by paying $$$ in exchange for TS to close and to end the case.

 

[gwangung]

err.. no.

If some idiot government official leaks ****, the NY Times could publish it all they want. It's called freedom of the press. It would only be legal if someone inside the NY Times had government clearance and used to obtain the information.

I'm guessing the settlement was somewhere along the lines of Apple pays TS, TS closes.

Nick wouldn't have gone to prison or anything if he refused a settlement. He didn't do anything wrong. He's a journalist. If they obtain information from someone, they can publish it, and he doesn't have to tell anyone the source.

He didn't have a NDA with Apple, the guy who leaked it did. The guy who leaked it was in violation. Apple can go after him all he wants (and should investigate internally to find him).

To the delusional fanboys: Apple is not the law, they are not above the law. They can't force TS to do anything in this, since TS didn't commit any crimes.

Apple offered TS a settlement after he didn't just give up his source because they didn't want to end up with a lengthy court case (which they would end up losing).



The site wasn't "taken offline" by Apple. Apple proposed a settlement, where they would pay him big $$$ and he would shut down the site. He accepted it.

It's not like the site was his job. He did it part time while going to school. If someone was going to give you a ******** of money to shut down some little hobby site you had, you would do it too.

I am not quite so sure.

This is somewhat different area than what most people are talking about. In the area of intellectual property of trade secrets, there are civil remedies for dissemination of those secrets. Non Disclosure Agreements are totally irrelevant to this. If it's determined that the information leaked was a trade secret (on the level,say, of a marketing plan, or distribution plan), then a media source could indeed be sued for damages for publication of those trade secrets.

And part of those damages could be an agreement to cease publication.

Freedom of the press is not a stay-out-of-jail-free card; there are legitimate limits on it, and trade secrets is one of them.

 

[MM2270]

Shout foul at the source of the leak, not at the reporter.

But anyway, sad to see Thinksecret go, even if they have dropped in accuracy since the lawsuit.

Uhmm, thats what Apple was trying to do, but in order to shout foul at the leak they needed to go after ThinkSecret to get it. I have no doubt that if Apple knew who the leak was, they wouldn't have even bothered with TS.

While I'm sad to see TS go, I feel Apple had a right to try to get the info on who their source was. Some of the ThinkSecret rumors weren't rumors at all, but actual fact that they were releasing on products well before Apple was ready to tell the world about them. Considering Apple is probably one of the most copied companies in the tech world, they had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the info being leaked.

There's no way to be sure, but think about this- have we as Mac users seen the "rumored" Asteroid product? I have a feeling not, and it's hard not to speculate if the leak of the product prompted Apple to temporarily or even permanently shelve the product. Now, if that were the case, how is THAT good for the consumer?

 

[EagerDragon]

Nick must have gotten some cash if he is happy, otherwise I do not see there is anything to cheer about.

Hope his college is paid for at the least.

Anyone has the goods on how good of a payoff he got or are we speculating?

 

[killmoms]

err.. no.

If some idiot government official leaks ****, the NY Times could publish it all they want. It's called freedom of the press. It would only be legal if someone inside the NY Times had government clearance and used to obtain the information.

An interested public is not the same as the public interest. If you leak information about a government cover-up involving waste-dumping that's affecting health in a community, you're not obligated to reveal that source. If you're leaking protected trade secrets of a corporation simply because people are interested, that's not protected by freedom of the press.

Not to mention the fact that the question of whether blogs constitute "the press" or not is still very much up in the air.

 

[Doctor Q]

Nick must have gotten some cash if he is happy, otherwise I do not see there is anything to cheer about.

Hope his college is paid for at the least.

Anyone has the goods on how good of a payoff he got or are we speculating?

Speculation. Maybe part of the settlement agreement was that he would say he's happy with the settlement agreement.

 

[Mitch1984]

apple ceo strike off a name, and look at another name closely.

Macrumors you are next.

They are more likely to pay off AppleInsider next, then 9to5.

 

[California]

An interested public is not the same as the public interest. If you leak information about a government cover-up involving waste-dumping that's affecting health in a community, you're not obligated to reveal that source. If you're leaking protected trade secrets of a corporation simply because people are interested, that's not protected by freedom of the press.

Not to mention the fact that the question of whether blogs constitute "the press" or not is still very much up in the air.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that the Leaker at Apple undoubtedly had a signed confidentiality agreement with Apple?

And that TS had to know about this breech of contract?

Nick C is lucky he has enough money to stay at Harvard. Damage was done to Apple's business plan, right at the apex of its resurgence. The way Nick wrote, I thought he was much older. Now I see he was a teen ager faking it. He's dang lucky his ignorance of the legalities of business may somehow have saved him.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I don't know if you are aware that violation of trade secrets is actually a criminal offence. So Apple has about the same right to ask for the name of the leaker as they would have to ask you if you knew the identity of a person who stole a dozen printers from the Apple campus.

So, if I saw someone carry a dozen printers off the Apple Campus, Apple would file a civil law-suit against me to give up the name of the person who stole the printers? It doesn't make sense. If a crime were committed, a court could request my presence and possibly imprison me if I refused to testify on charges of obstruction of justice. But that would be IF it were a criminal case in court. This was Apple suing a private citizen.

 

[yellow]

Speculation. Maybe part of the settlement agreement was that he would say he's happy with the settlement agreement.

Agreed.

I seriously doubt Apple paid him any money, as there was no reason to do so. They held all the cards here, and TS was on it's heels. I think in the grand scheme of things, Apple's checkbookforlawyers is slightly larger than ThinkSecret's and their "settlement" likely consisted of Apple telling them to shutdown and go away and the suit would be dropped.

 

[Peace]

Agreed.

I seriously doubt Apple paid him any money, as there was no reason to do so. They held all the cards here, and TS was on it's heels. I think in the grand scheme of things, Apple's checkbookforlawyers is slightly larger than ThinkSecret's and their "settlement" likely consisted of Apple telling them to shutdown and go away and the suit would be dropped.

Agreed part deux..

I'm sure Nick's having advertising all over TS helped pay for his tuition.

 

[Buran]

They were irrelevant anyway. I remember when they once had new content often that was actually halfway reliable. Now, they nearly never update and have the same stuff on their site that other sites have, and yet were sitting there happily collecting ad revenue.

So we needed that site for what, again?

 

[Mitch1984]

So, if I saw someone carry a dozen printers off the Apple Campus, Apple would file a civil law-suit against me to give up the name of the person who stole the printers? It doesn't make sense. If a crime were committed, a court could request my presence and possibly imprison me if I refused to testify on charges of obstruction of justice. But that would be IF it were a criminal case in court. This was Apple suing a private citizen.

Apple were losing the suit, as the site managed to get it's nature classed as journalism and within the public interest. I suppose, apple though, let's chuck him a wad and make him sign summat so it/him goes away.

Funny how this happens before Macworld though, maybe they had some info that would spoil the show.

I wonder how much he got. I bet he's got enough for a house.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

We were outraged then, we can make a difference now. I hope you all flood sjobs@apple.com with emails about how upset you are that they are going after the rumor sites that make them who they are instead of the source.

That's good, but the bottom line is where it really matters. Between this and their affair with glossy screens, it's hard for me to consider another Apple.

I always thought ThinkSecret danced a little close to the edge, and that MR is careful and reliable with what is published. I'm not that surprised, and I expect things around here will continue much as usual.

TS did nothing illegal - therefore, TS was shut down because Apple didn't like what they did. If Apple decides it doesn't like MR, buh-bye. If you don't stick to the laws, then capricious whims and money rule. Do you like those rules?

Sharing industry secrets won't help, because other companies will be able to learn Apple's pattern, and they'll be able to come up with more competitive products, etc etc and release them in time with or before Apple.

Wait, I thought Apple's success was due to its commitment to design and great engineering. You're saying it's only the element of surprise that keeps them on top? And without it they'd wither?

All these negative comments towards Apple. You have to understand that business is business, this isn't about a big company going after the little guy.

Business is business, but ethics is ethics. Google's "don't be evil" is a marriage of the two. Apple apparently fails to understand its position in its social contract with the citizenry that grants its right to exist.

If valuable information was leaked that could damage and effect sales, I think Apple has every right to put a stop to it. Instead of bashing Apple on a case you know nothing about(detail wise) just take this time to remember ThinkSecret and the years of information they've shared, and be happy that at least he walked away without hefty fines and whatnot.

From what does Apple derive these rights, and how does Apple, Inc.'s supposed right trump the right to free speech and right to a free press, as exemplified by the 1st Ammendment in the constitution of the governing jurisdiction? Apple's only right here is to enforce the terms of its contract with whomever leaked the information.

Trade secrets do not get protection by law outside of private party contracts. For more protection you need to file a patent. Not filing a patent is a conscious decision to try to keep things secret, and the risks of doing so are well-known.

Assuming we have all the information in this case, of course. I wonder what the EFF has to say. They're not ones to buckle lightly.