Slashdot Mirror

...it's just there so Mac OS X can run.

Apple said Mac OS X wil run just on Macs (of course). That chip is there to tell Mac OS X it's a Mac so it can run.
It doesn't do anything else. You still have complete control of the computer, and any operating system has (Windows, Linux, *BSD, BeOS and so on).

There's a proof I am right: here. Windows XP running on a apple developer intel machine.
How could this be possible if I wasn't right? The software has full control on the hardware even ignoring that chip (or tearing it away, if you're stupid enough: you won't be able to run Mac OS X). That chip isn't anything more than USB (or old serial ones) dongles given with some applications to make sure you're authorized to run them. It's just built on the motherboard.

So, please, stop saying nonsenses.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0507ibookmacmini.h tml (not that you need a ThinkSecret article to tell you that there actually are updates...)

Also, the /. article summary fails to mention some important details--for example, there are now only two iBooks: 1.33GHz/Combo/30GB and 1.42GHz/Super/60GB. Additionally, there are now three Mac Minis with the same specs except 512 MB RAM standard, and AirPort+Bluetooth included on all but the $499 low-end model. Additionally, the 56k modem is actually not included on the two upper models unless you ask for it (add $29)! The ability to add a SuperDrive to a ComboDrive-standard model is also gone, but the new higher-end model helps; BetaNews reports this configuration, $699, would have cost $800 before.

Too bad I just bought an iMac. :)

see... unrelated news: see...

It was all about laptops. Just before the merger was announced, a study was released showing that something like 40% of new PC purchases were laptops, rather than desktops. For Apple, the ratio is probably even more heavily-skewed in favor of portables.

Actually, according to their quarterly earning's report, Apple laptops were 42% of there Mac sales, so just about even with your quoted industry average. Now, I agree laptops are a huge reason for Apple jumping ship to Intel, and they're probably hoping that percentage keeps going up.

I remember the first reports of benchmarks were a little less than desirable... This new feedback is music to my ears. I, for one, welcome our new Mactel overlords.

The point is that to make 54k @ $40 that is 1350 orders the first day. The word had to get out somehow. I see many press releases each day about applications and they are all not doing that many orders on the first day. So, Delicious Monster created the buzz somehow. To suggest they used no advertising is misleading. I was just asking what sites or methods they used to create the buzz.

Well, I haven't bought DL, but I can tell you that the first place I heard of it was Think Secret--they published a "sneak peek" at/of it months before it shipped. Although they imply that they got the beta from an outside beta tester, since DM is all of two main people plus like five more, I think there's some possibility that this leak was quite intentional.

Either way, I don't know how they got TS to do a story on them. :-) TS does not do stories about anyone besides Apple very often--all I can think of are stories about the next version of Adobe's and Macromedia's big suites, and maybe future versions of Office for Mac. In other words, only the big dogs. One probable advantage that DM had, though, was that Wil Shipley left Omni (which is, I would say, a fairly important Mac software house) abruptly and, apparently, with some drama. Since I don't think there was so much as a blurb on Omni's site about it, the story (scroll down) that TS published about that, with some tantalizing hints to his future plans, was likely very interesting to its readership, and got the name Delicious Monster implanted in their brains. Then, a few months later, came the story that I linked first, with a closer look at the product.

Now, Think Secret is, after all, a rumor site, and it's certainly a minority of the Mac-using public that actually reads rumor sites. So it's hard to say whether this had any kind of effect on DL's sales. I have to say, I honestly don't know how they did it. It certainly did seem, however, like "everyone" on the Mac web knew about it as soon as it was released.

Also keep in mind that they got a really nice review from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. :-)

FWIW/HTH

The point is that to make 54k @ $40 that is 1350 orders the first day. The word had to get out somehow. I see many press releases each day about applications and they are all not doing that many orders on the first day. So, Delicious Monster created the buzz somehow. To suggest they used no advertising is misleading. I was just asking what sites or methods they used to create the buzz.

Well, I haven't bought DL, but I can tell you that the first place I heard of it was Think Secret--they published a "sneak peek" at/of it months before it shipped. Although they imply that they got the beta from an outside beta tester, since DM is all of two main people plus like five more, I think there's some possibility that this leak was quite intentional.

Either way, I don't know how they got TS to do a story on them. :-) TS does not do stories about anyone besides Apple very often--all I can think of are stories about the next version of Adobe's and Macromedia's big suites, and maybe future versions of Office for Mac. In other words, only the big dogs. One probable advantage that DM had, though, was that Wil Shipley left Omni (which is, I would say, a fairly important Mac software house) abruptly and, apparently, with some drama. Since I don't think there was so much as a blurb on Omni's site about it, the story (scroll down) that TS published about that, with some tantalizing hints to his future plans, was likely very interesting to its readership, and got the name Delicious Monster implanted in their brains. Then, a few months later, came the story that I linked first, with a closer look at the product.

Now, Think Secret is, after all, a rumor site, and it's certainly a minority of the Mac-using public that actually reads rumor sites. So it's hard to say whether this had any kind of effect on DL's sales. I have to say, I honestly don't know how they did it. It certainly did seem, however, like "everyone" on the Mac web knew about it as soon as it was released.

Also keep in mind that they got a really nice review from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. :-)

FWIW/HTH

There isn't one of them that gives you functionality that your browser doesn't already afford. Sure, they're pretty, but what's going to happen is that as people amass more and more of these widgets, the dashboard becomes cluttered and slow (it already is painfully slow on my MDD 1.25GHz G4, and that's just with the stock widgets, with the default set active only). Then there's going to be the question as to how to organize them all... the faux dock at the bottom is already insufficient. I know, let's stick a menu in there! Great idea!

"the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player"

Funny, WMP and Musicmatch allow this functionality, among others. I wonder why they weren't sued....

Smells fishy to me. Targetting the big kahuna rather than the concept.... I don't like it one bit. Yet another lawsuit that reeks of collusion.

I spoke of tit-for-tat earlier in the day. Here is another fine example of tit-for-tat.

Well, it looks like IBM will continue to have business relations with Apple, just not what they intended!

ThinkSecret has an article discussing early benchmarks from Xbench running on Macintel.

From the article:
"Overall, the Intel Mac are scoring between 65 and 70 with Xbench, a far cry from the 200+ scores higher-end G5 systems reach."

According to ThinkSecret, this performance discrepancy is largely due to Rosetta. However, it also notes that Rosetta caches it's binary translations so that you may see performance increase the more you use the apps.

Until Apple has a Intel powered Mac out, I'd imagine that OS X will run on anything with supported hardware. However, if you check some of the MacRumors sites (thinksecret.com, MacRumors, Apple Insider to name a few), the general opinion is that they will use a different BIOS

Apple also makes excellent hardware designs. How about a Dual P4 iMac in a case the size it currently is? Apple is about hardware and software. Moving to Intel just means that they will be just as fast as anything you can get Windows to run on.

Took me a minute to find the link the parent was talking about. It was in the P2PNet.net article.

Here:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.ht ml

Everyone seems to be assuming that the Intel chips will be more or less straight x86 chips. I think this is shortsighted at best.

First, Intel chips wont be replacing the G5's anytime soon. Benches of Tiger running on Pentium 4's with Rhapsody got destroyed by Tiger on a G5. Apple has indicated that the move to Intel will happen with the low-end Macs first: so eMacs, Mac Minis, and iBooks. The Intel chips will be low clock speed and run cool.

The timeline that Jobs mentioned for the Intel chips hews pretty closely to the Pentium M. The dual-core Pentium M Yonah will support SSE3 by the time they're dropped into the new Macs, providing better parity with the G4's RISC and Altivec-based performance.

It remains to be seen whether Intel will make Mac a chip based on 64 bit architecture. It's doubtful that anything based on IA-64 will be thrown into the new Mac chips, but then again, since the likely Pentium-M derivative will be targeted toward the low-end machines, there won't really need to be 64-bit support. Apple and Intel will have to cross that bridge when they try to replace the G5s two years from now. That will be the real challenge.

I don't understand why Intel will need to make a chip perfectly compatible with normal x86 instructions. They have no backwards compatibility to worry about, and Apple has intellectual property rights to RISC and the Velocity Engine that they can donate to a new chip. We certainly may see Linux running on new Mac machines, but I wouldn't be so hasty in predicting dual-booting Windows/OS X machines, or easy hacks to get OS X to run on non-Mac-specific x86 chips.

I am curious to see how this will work out, especially since the Apple+Intel article came out in the Wall Street Journal.

(Think Secret's take: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0505itunes49.html)

I think this is a better indication for Apple's future processors, as opposed to the Intel rumours.

Apparently the Memphis repair depot has had a horrible track, not just on parts failing, but extremely sloppy repair practices. The issue is supposed to have improved, though.

I would say that the problem here is cheap, badly trained labor, and poor standards controls in Memphis, not in Mexico. (I say cheap labor because the wages in Memphis are much lower than in many other parts of the U.S.).

The salaries in Latin America and parts of Asia are substantially lower than in richer regions of the world. Sometimes this is a consequence of underpaying the workers, but sometimes the difference is due to an extremely lower cost of life. In the latter cases, the workers are actually very, very well payed, and the quality of their work is remarkable.

Interesting. Steve Jobs is out of the office these days... http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0505itunes49.html

I'd just thought of that one too.

Apple's rumour-monger has an identity (ASOTV); Microsoft's one posts AC. Maybe coincidence, but ASOTV appeared just after the fuss over stuff leaked to thinksecret had been resolved, so he could have the job title of "Official 'unofficial and off-the-record' spokesman". After all, Apple used to have "Evangelists" (maybe they still do).

What will IBM say to this release of data? What if they had a big release in the works?

Surely there is a college student somewhere they can sue!

Oh wait, that'd be Apple. Never mind.

That was a capital P "Power" - as in Power Mac.

Last year at the NAB, Apple followed the Sunday softweare intors with Monday hardware intros. Let's all hope Think Secret is right.

They are predicting Dual G5 configurations from 2.0 to 2.7 GHz in the Power Macs and iMacs from 1.8 to 2Ghz.

They go on to predict Super Drives replaced with Dual layer support, better graphics cards in the iMacs, 512MB RAM standard on all models (as well as Tiger/iLife)

What they do not know is if Apple with drop the dual core bomb, giving us four cores in a Dual processor Power Mac.

Quite frankly, with Tiger and Final Cut Studio, the 17" Power Book will continue to hodl the top spot for Professional editing on the go.

If my memory serves, a judge passed a ruling on this a little while ago. Shouldn't they be at least slowing down a bit while this is resolved? And if not, why didn't someone give some sort of cease-and desist order?

Ah, but you're assuming that what they are posting now isn't made up or guessed-at. Just because they posted inside information before doesn't mean that everything they post is.

If they truly have "highly reliable sources" that provide such detailed information, why don't they publish such details consistently?

If you look at the previous article, it's pretty content-free, and impossible to disprove the accuracy of. They take something very predictable ("Apple will update the PowerMac G5 line."), add in something likely ("Apple will release new and updated products at or before NAB."), throw in some plausible speculation ("They might use versions of the PPC 970 chip that have been developed publicly."), and some eventual guarantees ("Apple will adopt Blu-Ray") : and you end up with the "message":

"Apple will release updated G5s with new chips and Blu-Ray at NAB."

If Apple *doesn't* do exactly this, ThinkSecret can always say "Well, Blu-Ray was delayed because of technical issues." or "It's been pushed back to WWDC."

So, my point is that : if they had access to the detailed specs they posted today, why would they post plausible fabrications like the above instead?

...on whether these use the already-known-to-exist IBM PowerPC 970MP, a dual core version of the G5. This could mean that we'd have >2.5GHz dual-dual core Power Mac systems.

Further, an update to Apple's CHUD tools (subsequently pulled) had clear references to quad processor capability, as well as references to the 970MP, and the single core 970GX.

What could essentially be called "quad G5" systems (including Xserves) are just a matter of time. And with dual >1GHz frontside busses and PC3200 DDR RAM (8GB max in Power Mac, 16GB max (also ECC) in Xserve), these machines are nothing to sneeze at.

What will be interesting to see is when the Power Macs will have PCI-X and Blu-Ray. From the most current round of rumors, it looks like that's still another upgrade away...

Apple is enforcing their rights under the the Uniform Trade Secrets Act(UTSA). Here's the pertinent parts of that law.

(1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of 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 has 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 position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

1. TradeSecret induced breach of the NDA(or a duty to maintain secrecy), by asking readers for Apple Secrets. Go to their webpage, and click on the "Got Dirt?" link.

2. Misappropriation - ThinkSecret had reason know the information was "acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use."

3. ThinkSecret would qualify as "a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity."

4. Finally, as defined by the UTSA, Project: Asteroid "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

Is Apple wrong for using the law? Apple is entitled to the protections of law, just as much as I am. Is the UTSA unconstitutional? That's for the courts to decide.

This was supposed to be a ThinkSECRET!

Wow, 9.3! Do you have access to some unpublished version of the Classic Mac OS?

Viola ... OS X Lite.

Viola? I thought music was more related to that other Apple company ...or were you thinking of et voilà?

I'd be very surprised if such a dual-core chip got SMT too. People have been talking about shared L2 cache, SMT, integrated memory controller, POWER5 derivation, etc., but I see the 970MP as really "just" a dual-core 970FX (which is derived from POWER4) with a few tweaks and extra L2 cache. Indeed, that's what the original rumours suggested last year too, and those rumours were quite specific. (eg. Die size 11.629 mm x 13.225 mm.) So, each "CPU" the OS will see for the time being will likely be a true physical core. Eug

This being the same ThinkSecret that reported as fact that the iPod mini was going to be updated with a colour screen on February 24th?

Or that the flash-based iPod would feature a screen that was as wide as the iPod mini, but a few lines shorter.

Or that a 2Gb iPod mini would cost around US$100.

And a lot more can be found perusing the archives.

Mostly, ThinkSecret gets its reputation from confirmation bias. You remember the hits more significantly than the misses, so it feels far more accurate than it really is. In fact, while they're good at reporting rumours that everyone else knows - like the fact the mini was in the works - or things that can be easily verified - like the contents of the latest Tiger developer seed, or the obvious conclusion from Apple buying up heaps of flash memory - their exclusive scoops from "insider sources" are very hit and miss.

This being the same ThinkSecret that reported as fact that the iPod mini was going to be updated with a colour screen on February 24th?

Or that the flash-based iPod would feature a screen that was as wide as the iPod mini, but a few lines shorter.

Or that a 2Gb iPod mini would cost around US$100.

And a lot more can be found perusing the archives.

Mostly, ThinkSecret gets its reputation from confirmation bias. You remember the hits more significantly than the misses, so it feels far more accurate than it really is. In fact, while they're good at reporting rumours that everyone else knows - like the fact the mini was in the works - or things that can be easily verified - like the contents of the latest Tiger developer seed, or the obvious conclusion from Apple buying up heaps of flash memory - their exclusive scoops from "insider sources" are very hit and miss.

This being the same ThinkSecret that reported as fact that the iPod mini was going to be updated with a colour screen on February 24th?

Or that the flash-based iPod would feature a screen that was as wide as the iPod mini, but a few lines shorter.

Or that a 2Gb iPod mini would cost around US$100.

And a lot more can be found perusing the archives.

Mostly, ThinkSecret gets its reputation from confirmation bias. You remember the hits more significantly than the misses, so it feels far more accurate than it really is. In fact, while they're good at reporting rumours that everyone else knows - like the fact the mini was in the works - or things that can be easily verified - like the contents of the latest Tiger developer seed, or the obvious conclusion from Apple buying up heaps of flash memory - their exclusive scoops from "insider sources" are very hit and miss.

The reason is that Nick Ciarelli is making beaucoup cash from Think Secret. It has been a cash cow for him.

For someone who claims he doesn't understand the draw of rumors, care to explain your source for this?

It is a rumor site that has broken the law by soliciting confidential information and compensating those who choose to divulge confidential proprietary information.

You should be careful what you write. You might find yourself guilty of defamation. And even the blogs aren't going to support your right to do that.

Good write up on the reality here.

An even better write up on the reality (written by people with legal training) here.

A professor experienced in studying journalism and disagrees with your professor has written on the matter.

>In short, Apple is not attacking ThinkSecret.
>They are not being sued for damages. They are not being prosecuted at all.

Apple has sued Think Secret in a different lawsuit.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html

> There has never been a clear and well-defined legal precedent for this supposed protection.

In Mitchell v. The Superior Court of Marin County, the California Supreme Court held: "We conclude that in a civil action a reporter, editor, or publisher has a qualified privilege to withhold disclosure of the identity of confidential sources and of unpublished information supplied by such sources."
http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/mitchell.html

http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/anonymous.html

If the source is totally anonymous, how can they, as journalists: fact check, check their sources? How can they be sure that what they receive is in the public interest, is factual and is not a trade secret or in violation of a publication ban?

They are a tabloid at best and a fanboy blogging site at the worst. Neither of those are journalism or eligible for protection by the freedom of press IMNSHO.

Apple failed back then because its new CEO (who ousted Steve btw) wanted to continue selling the same soda water at the same high prices day after day. Gates success stemmed from his use of contract law to stifle competition (OEMs were in effect not allowed to ship other OSes; they had to pay for Windows license on each box whether it used Windows or not). While Gates came up with an innovative contract, he did not come up with an innovative product. The present Apple is not Microsoft because the Apple of today keeps innovating in its product line. Apple's product innovation is the sole reason for its present success. Don't compare them to Microsoft. They are nothing of the sort.

Btw, Think Secret is moving to toss out the lawsuit. I can understand Apple trying to find out who is breaking its NDAs. But I hope, after this little episode is over, Apple will have learned its lesson. The new Apple tends to behave more intelligently than the old.

I had read this, but I just checked the Think Secret site and found the contact page. It's not as explicit as I had thought it would be, but the case that it's completely innocent is much weaker than the case that could be made that Nick is actively seeking trade secrets and confidential information. If he's not seeking insider information, why all the emphasis on anonymity and reassurances that he will protect his sources.

If Nick was publishing information about Apple knowingly selling a defective product that was a danger to the public, and he gained this from an insider wanting to unveil evil corporate behavior, that would be one thing. This is another.

Some clarification:

This ruling wasn't on the Think Secret lawsuit, which is a separate but related case. In this case, Apple wants to subpoena two Mac news sites, and the ISP of one of the sites for information to help them track down who leaked the information.

In the Think Secret matter, Apple is suing the actual publisher because the believe that he contributed to the theft of trade secrets because he actively solicits such leaks on his website. Whether Power Page or Apple Insider have similar solicitations, I don't know, but they're not getting sued, they're getting subpoenaed.

[rant]It's becoming typical of slashdot editors to skip over important details and post articles that contain sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.[/rant]

Whether this is leak was harmful to Apple is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Remember, it's not just the consumer that now has access to this information, but Apple's competitors. I think Apple can fairly make the claim that this is very harmful to their business, though it would be up to a court to decide that matter.

As to Apple going after the publisher or reporter of the story, the freedom of the press issues, and the California shield law, keep in mind that such laws are based on balancing the public interest and the public right to know against private interests, privacy, and trade secrets. Shield laws were to designed to protect whistleblowers. If Apple had been committing accounting fraud, or some such scandalous behavior, and an employee leaked the information to one of these sites, then the California shield law could appropriately be applied.

One last detail. It is possible that the leaker(s) is not an Apple employee, but a consultant or contractor, or an employee of a contractor. I don't know if this matters much to the case at hand, since outsiders granted such information almost always have to sign an NDA as well.

BTW, I'm not picking on you, you just seemed a little unclear on the subject, like many other slashdotters posting here. I chose to reply to your post because you seem reasonable and coherent and I'm a long time (since 1975 at least) Led Zep fan.

I wouldn't exactly call ThinkSecret a blog. It actually looks rather like the website that newspapers have.

But on the other hand, the leak was not of the whistleblower variety or anything like that, so I see no reason why Apple oughtn't know what employees are leaking to the press, in violation both of trade secret law and most likely of the employees' contracts, or if in fact a competitor has directly engaged in espionage.

Don't screw your employer (if an employee is indeed involved here) and expect to get away with it -- that is how business works.

Read #4

Here is a link to the Apple E3 Article
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0502briefly.html
Also if you remember Sony recently admitted they made a mistake with their new walkman- and you also have to take into account Japanese culture and the concept of competition are not always thought of in the same respect- especially when Apple dominates the Japanese computer market (and now mp3 market).

On this subject, this may be of interest:
Apple patents issued in the last month

As you can see most are for hardware innovations, but there's a few software patents in there too. Given the trend for patenting software it's a good thing too - it gives Apple ammo to deal with other companies challenging them with patent breach allegations. The norm these days is to strike up a cross-licensing deal, so they need such patents for their self-defence.

EFF Defends the apple Ipod here and will defend ThinkSecret against Apple there

Funny world but it shows that EFF and their staff/volunteers are standing for principles and not products/behaviour

If you believe Think Secret (page bottom), the powerbooks will be upgraded next week, since the current stock is completely out. I've been looking into one for a while now, and am waiting 'til at least Tuesday. I'm not expecting G5 laptops or Tiger until at least summer, and even then they'll be way more expensive than I'm planning on spending. If nothing happens next week, though, who knows when it will. It all depends on how long you can wait.

I've got mixed feelings on this.

From one point of view, I agree Apple is being a bit of a hardass about this. This isn't the only site leaking news. As I recall Hitachi leaked that Apple signed to purchase 60GB mini drives (now used on iPod photo). One of the IC manufacturers said that Apple signed on some flash memory technology... etc. etc. etc.

I didn't see big lawsuits on those. And lets not forget about Time revealing the new iMac.

on the other hand...

I do believe that Think Secret has been itching to get accurate insider details. And in recent years have had way to much accuracy.

Take a look at their contact page for a great example of how eager they are:
http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/

voicemail, fax, email, online form, postal...

any method under the sun. I can't think of any other news organization so willing to cater to potential informants.

A company does have a right to use Non Disclosure Agreements to keep trade secrets. Every company does it. It's normal business. I can't think of one company that doesn't do it. Even non-profits have to do it.

Soliciting someone to break it isn't ethical. That's the bottom line. And it's not really freedom of speach.

Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act or break a legal agreement isn't good.

Someone who hires a hitman to kill his spouse isn't any better than someone who does it themself. Encouraging people to do your dirty work doen't make you any better than the guilty party.

IMHO this is a pretty simple case... and will likely be settled out of court. I can't see ThinkSecret standing up in court... they have no real defense. This isn't freedom of speach anymore than saying you have a bomb on a plane.

They will settle on undisclosed terms, ThinkSecret will walk away with it's tail between it's legs covering it's severed ball-less scrotum.

Thinksecret will re-invent itself a bit, and stay clear of this activity... all will be happy.

There not going to court. ThinkSecret can't be that stupid. They have no defense that won't cause a judge to (literally) laugh at them.

I'm pretty sure the above poster meant to refer to ThinkSecret, the technology spoiler site, instead of ThinkGeek, which sells nifty toys for geeks...

Two former employees of developer The Omni Group have reportedly founded a new Mac OS X software company called Delicious Monster Software, and exciting products are in the works. The company was formed by Omni Group founder and former President Wil Shipley as well as interface designer Mike Matas, both of whom are said to have formed Omni's user interface team ....

According to ThinkSecret (who has a better track record with predicting future mac products) claims that only a modest PB update is imminent. Also, with the advent of dual core processors from Fresscale (due in later this year), Apple engineers have another ace up their sleeve. They could move the PowerBooks in that direction with Jobs hyping the first dual processor notebooks. In any rate, I don't see Apple using G5's this year in the PowerBook because of Apple's own contraints. They have to live up to the standard of today's PB. The notebooks can't be more than a 1" thick, can't weigh more than current models, can't last 1-2hours on battery power, and most important can't cause testicular burns. In essence, they can't live by the standards of Wintel OEM's (Dell, HP, Gateway, Alienware, etc)

Nick found someone who is playing fast and loose with their NDA and Apple wants to know who that person(s) is. That's why they're taking him to court. There is precedence here as Nick may not be considered a traditional journalist by many courts in this country, and will thus be ordered to reveal his sources. The other possibility is that Apple sued Nick to see if they can lure the person(s) who broke their NDA out into the open.

In the end, this could turn into an interesting case. I would love to see the Supreme Court's take on this, because it could seriously define the rights the alternative media sources on the net actually have - for better or worse.

This is hardly casual conversation, however, when it starts talking about specifications, dimensions, bundles, software, and capabilities.

It's very possible he just flat out GUESSED, except he didn't. He flat out admits that, "highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret."

So everything he said was something someone else told him. So he "unknowingly" passed along trade secrets two weeks before the fact.

Not that he is one, but isn't that always going to be the argument of someone who's performing industrial espionage? "I didn't know it was a trade secret, sir. I just thought it was something neat someone else told me,"

Don't get me wrong, I love reading about this stuff too, but in this case I can see why/how Apple has a case against the kid. His postings compromised Apple's marketing and sales strategy. Imagine if he had posted a month earlier? Or three months earlier?

On the other hand I suspect Apple is doing this just to be mean, so boo on Apple.

I'm a little stunned by this revelation, but here's the real issue. Someone is feeding this kid. Someone who doesn't like Apple.

All of Think Secret's commentary seems to be negative spins on Apple and Apple financials.

I would not be surprised if we find out this guy's father was a fired Apple employee or someone involved in this reseller lawsuit. Nick DePlume just seems to know this infomation to intimately.

There has to be some sort of bribery or maliciousness here, because I would consider Macrumors more of a premeir rumor site with MUCH wider base of followers and info providers.

March 2003: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/tsnotes.html

December 2004: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo3.html

Mee too :-D