Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Think Secret
Isaac Newton writes "Reuters is reporting that Apple Computer has sued website Think Secret for allegedly divulging trade secrets relating to its upcoming sub-$500 Mac desktop and office suite. The lawsuit is apparently giving legitimacy to the rumors."
It's not as if anyone else is allowed to produce a cheap Mac to compete with Apple (thus beating them to it), as Apple hold all the cards for that.
Cheap PC's already exist... so where is the competition that they are afriad of? Who can take advantage of this "trade secret"?
As far as I can see (not far having not RTFA) this is just good journalistic work, and good promotion for Apple.
I really like Apple. Though I had my share of problems with Apple products I generally think they make fine products and I definately prefer OSX to Windows.
/. will soon tell us why Apple is right in doing something that would certainly be considered evil by the /. crowd if any other company did it. Talk about a loyal followin.
But things like this really piss me of (excuse my language).
Doesn't Apple recognize, that sites like Think Secret actually help Apple? Just think about how many stories there are on the web about rumours that immanate from these kind of sides and how much exposure these stories give to Apple.
Ah well, but judging from experience, the Apple advocates on
I'm a fanboy as well. But Apple are right in doing this to one of the best rumour sites on the net. What if this information is false but because of it, their share price goes up and there is a geniune interest from investors. Only for the rumour to be false and thus they get hit by it.
Thats not to say however that they will succeed, I think they are after the people who leak information to TS. Im not up to date on american law, but wouldn't TS be protected by some sort of freedom of speech law.
In any case, I don't think Nick Depulme is bothered, he's still posting rumours on his site, even after the lawsuit! TS have just confirmed the ipod micro rumour.
Jonathanjk.com
That's why it's "funny" rather than "informative". But seriously, suing people who are effectively giving you free publicity could come back and bite you in the future, perhaps when you *want* to leak something.
Apple couldn't find the internal leak
Companies often provide information about product launches ahead of time with non-disclosure agreements. Perhaps it was a member of the press or some other non-Mac employee.......
And then paragraph 3 of TFA... claiming that Think Secret had induced these individuals to breach confidentiality agreements that they had signed with Apple. Perhaps that's what it was...
The rumours were even the subject of the non-computing Pass Notes column in yesterday's Guardian. I'm definitely interested in whatever it is Apple are going to announce, but there is always the possibility that it's, say, a $600 Mac, or just a new word processor.
The rumours might be accurate in part, but perhaps terribly inaccurate in other ways - and could significantly undermine the true products if they're seen as inferior to the imaginary ones. If that's the case, I can see why people at Apple would be upset...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
how do you know they haven't been spreading their own rumours... ;)
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Instead of Apple, if Microsoft had done the same thing, all slashdotters would have tied MS to a stake burned it by now. In fact, if any other company had done the same thing, it would have attracted a lot more negative responses from slashdot and everyone else than Apple. This is not the first time Apple is doing something like this. I remember some guy creating that OS X panel thing (whatever it's called) for windows (without taking anything from OS X) and Apple making him take it off the web because it infringed on their IP. I think it was called Yz dock. I guess Apple bigots are the worst.
Shouldn't the trade partner (or even the Apple employee) that let the information leave the company be held ultimately culpable ?
Maybe this is why IANAL
"Apple has a point"
No they don't.
This happens in any other field. Cars, designer clothes, politics, entertainment, everthing.
And sometimes that information is inaccurate. And sometimes it puts that company is a really poor light.
And nobody sues. Oh. Except apple.
The real joke is that Apple only sues little guys... the guys who are hard pressed to defend themselves.
If these guys had a decent budget, they could sue the hell out of Apple. I'm hoping someone does, because Apple only bullies little tiny websites. They stay clear of anybodhy their own size.
And then people like you defend them. I just bought 3 new Macs, but honestly, people like you are the least enjoyable part of the Macintosh experience, because you'd defend Apple no matter what. You sicken me.
"Of course lawsuits are bad press and one can question the efficacity of such a lawsuit but most likely it will be about strong-arming the community maintainers into divulging their sources so that Apple can take measures against the staff members who broke their agreement."
You know it also says a lot about the fucktards that run Thinksecret.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the suits. I run a music site based for a big part around Apple computers and their software (Emagic's Logic Audio, a wholely owned division of the company). Occasionally I get insider knowledge about whats going on inside the company as well as companies that make synths and other goodies. Sometimes I'll post a rumor about it that is so vague that no one will ever guess (but be completely obvious when its released), but never any details. Sadly, the details are never from the guys that work there (I'm very good friends with a few upper management types as well as the lowly cubicle jockies) -- its always from contractors or beta testers looking to make their mark.
You have to ask yourself if you care about the products and the people that work at these companies when you start releasing wholesale details. Out to stiffle the community which loves the products? Not the community -- the idiotic sites that love to ruin the surprise. Or kill business.
The thing with Apple is that if something isn't right, more often than not they will pull it 24 hours before its supposed to be released and never be heard of again (though there have been a few stinkers). Or maybe the next year at the same convention. In that time, they retune the product and make it right. In this same time, companies that don't care about quality and only care about being first to market get there and end up conquering the area leaving companies like Apple with little chance. In this market, its a rare occasion when a better made product like the iPod (which for the most part serves as the best example of what it does, and nothing more -- no extra features just because it can -- the horrible iPod Photo excluded) actually comes out ahead of the original market leaders.
So does this company really love Apple or love the attention -- and if Apple didn't exist, the same people would be running a rumormill for some other company.
This isn't to say I don't visit the site on occasion, once or twice of a dozen times a week. I just wish they weren't so explicit about their rumors.
> I mean, if they really wanted to deal with this more effectively
> they'd wait until AFTER the 11th.
I think this is more than squelching a rumor so as to not blow Steve Jobs' "oh, one more thing" that he uses to introduce whatever is the centerpiece of the show. Investors and competitors pay attention to Apple's offerings, too.
If investors (or potential investors) hear a rumor of a possible Apple product, the price of AAPL can be affected (either positively or negatively). What if the rumor is more interesting than the actual product? Remember when the iPod was about to be announced? People on Slashdot were speculating that Apple was going to deliver nothing short of a perpetual motion machine. When it was a more mundane MP3 player (albeit, the most successful one introduced to date), people were let down. I can imagine even a sell-off of AAPL happening after this. So Apple's job is to protect the price of AAPL, too.
Also, competitive intelligence is pretty hard, but Apple's competitors must love all these Apple rumor sites, because they do their job for them. Even just getting wind of a product that Apple's planning to build can give them an advantage. They can either shift product plans, or at least not get caught with their jaw on the floor when they see a new Apple innovation (think about people's first reaction to Aqua).
I like hearing Apple rumors, too, but I realize that Apple has every right to protect their intellectual property.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
There are limits on free speech. Contractual agreements are one of them. ThinkSecret may be free to express anything they like (and are), but their source is not.
Besides, this is not some human rights violation or political scandal. Apple seems to be trying to prevent damage to their business from stock price inflation and consumer disappointment, which in my opinion is a worthy goal. In any case, if someone signed an NDA and spilled the beans then they should be punished.
Furthermore, ThinkSecret is profiting from this secret information, so it's not as if they are some altruistic, pro-consumer reporter. If Apple can demonstrate that ThinkSecret profits from information that ultimately causes damage to Apple's business, then they may have a case against them as well.
Think Secret has every right to publish that story, and every right to retain the identity of its source. Apple has every right to to sue them.
Being prepared to defend your right to keep your sources secret and to defend your right to publish is a cost of doing business of any new publication. Think Secret and other online publications don't get a free pass, but neither should they be exempted from the same standards that apply to and protect traditional publications.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
> Or, thinksecret can do what real journalists do and refuse to reveal their source
Christ man, you're talking about a computer rumor site relaying information from people with NDAs. This isn't exactly Valerie Plame. If a "journalist" gets involved in a lawsuit regarding sources, the question becomes one of ethics based on the public trust/greater good not some absolute, "I wont tell you who murdered that couple because I'm a journalist!!!" If you can't see the difference betweeen Watergate and Think Secret its time to step away from the computer for a long, long time.
Like the grandparent posted lawsuits like these are started to help the discovery process to find those who did break the NDAs. The manufactured outrage of "Big company goes after little guy" is paper thin and on par with the false outrage of the RIAA actually suing people for giving away their songs.
I'd much rather see a system which goes after unethical people because the alternative is to go after the technology itself. What I dont need is bittorrent made illegal or having special licenses to run a web server because a few rotten apples are ruining it for everyone else.
Not to mention Think Secret is a commercial site (it serves at least three ads on its pages) and its business model is to coax people to break NDAs and post them on the web soley for profit, not for greater good or whistleblowing, but for money and ego inflation. Not exactly Woodward and Berstein here.
Some people here reckon that "if it were Microsoft" suing rumour sites, then we here at /. would be ripping them a new bunghole. These people say that, because it's Apple doing the suing, we're letting them off with nary a flame.
/revoke/ previously announced features from previously announced products whose previously announced shipping dates have just been slipped by two years!! While Apple fansites try to guess what Apple will release next, MS fansites are left to try to guess what announced features might be left out!!
But... MS rumour web sites must be pretty boring. Not only do most rumours come from Microsoft themselves... most of them
For those no in the know the osbourne effect is explained here
0 4, 922517,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,36
Apple has been wary of this for a long time too.
And also, for ppl who think apple are stupid. They are not. For example, ever wonder why there is a one button mouse?
Think about the requirements that puts on the software designers to make things simple if they know the target market only has one button. They will always make a way to do it with one button. They may well make a right click hidden menu and pro shortcuts, but the simple method always has to be there. Hence their software and OS more usable (to a newbie) than something like the GIMP which starts off with some weird assumptions. Not that GIMP is bad, or linux for that matter, I would prefer to see them prevail over any apple product. I am just explaining why the apples succeed in BOTH newbie and tech markets, because it is possible to do BOTH.
When in doubt, do both. I.E GIMP should have a toggle to MDI mode, but it doesn't because they think only one way can suceed. When in fact adding both ways would be the true success.
Everything about apple is calculated. It's not warm and fuzzy at all.
Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thinksecret is a news and rumours site. They are in the business of printing information that is newsworthy to their readers.
Unless ThinkSecret broke into Apple (physically or electronically) and stole the info they published, they've done nothing wrong. If Apple sues them in a state with a good reporter's shield law they might not even have to disclose who gave them the information.
Who did what now?
S'truth, that. The more /. hates an Apple product, the better it sells. See "What fool buys a computer without a floppy?" and "Who would pay $250 for a 4GB iPod? Nobody!"
I'm kind of worried about this theoretical iMac -- enough posters have been positive about it that it may fail.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
ThinkSquiggle then publishes a leaked story, clearly coming from someone with an NDA, who claims that Squiggleslash Corp is about to release a new computer, probably part of the MicroSquiggle line, a dual 970 based desktop computer, probably 2GHz or better, with a built in LCD monitor. The dimensions are about 20" across, it's about 2" thick, and it's sub-$1,000.
The specs are largely right. The price (and clockspeed) is almost certainly wrong. Does Trade Secret law apply in this case?
Changing the specs a little, supposing SquiggleInsider has also got a friend working at a factory in Taiwan. He reports that the device doesn't actually have a built-in LCD (that's 'cos the factory ships units with a plate in place of the LCD, the LCDs being inserted in another factory three blocks down the road. Hey, it was cheaper that way. At Squiggleslash, we're always looking for savings we can pass on to YOU the customer. Besides, these LCDs are sweeeeeeeet. We didn't want the first factory to install them because they're actually quad-colour, so those women with the reverse colour blindness thing can now see photo-realistic pictures. We're also coming up with three models of two colour LCD too, for slightly less, for colour blind users. Anyway, that's all a major trade secret, so don't tell anyone) So SquiggleInsider then publishes:
So has SquiggleInsider also published trade secrets, despite getting the story wrong?The answer is: probably. And from Squiggleslash Corp's point of view, we're fucked. Since SquiggleInsider and ThinkSquiggle published these rumours, sales of the MicroSquiggle 100 - our current lowest price MicroSquiggle - have plummetted, even though the MicroSquiggle 6000 will cost nearly twice the price and be aimed at a completely different group of people. So, given the chance, we want to take action.
Which, when Steve Quiggleslash owned Squiggleslash Corp, would probably have meant we'd have sent out a few angry letters and announced the product early so there are no false expectations. Unfortunately we were taken over by Steve Jobs last week so lawsuits are pending...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Apple, in the complaint filed on Tuesday, sued Web site Think Secret and other unnamed individuals, claiming that Think Secret had induced these individuals to breach confidentiality agreements that they had signed with Apple."
Ummm, so what? We're not dealing with government secrets, only private enterprise. The press "induces" people to spill secrets all the time. And thinksecret is the press here. If Apple has the right to sue anyone, it's the people who broke their confidentiality agreements. Not the press. I hope ThinkSecret gets a good legal team and shoves this right up Apple's ass. One wonders if free speech organizations will get involved with this, such as the ACLU (or do they only deal with the goverment? I don't know...). What we have here is a corporation trying to intimidate a news outlet. Pure and simple. Of course, Apple can do no wrong...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
ThinkSecret may be free to express anything they like (and are), but their source is not.
Then why sue ThinkSecret? Oh, for the skeevy legal maneurvering of discovery. ThinkSecret isn't guilty of anything, but sue them to get information.
Furthermore, ThinkSecret is profiting from this secret information, so it's not as if they are some altruistic, pro-consumer reporter. If Apple can demonstrate that ThinkSecret profits from information that ultimately causes damage to Apple's business, then they may have a case against them as well.
Utter bullshit. The first amendment protects ThinkSecret from any "you hurt our business" crap. There's no NDA on ThinkSecret, therefor Apple has no case. The whole thing is just Apple doing sleazy legal maneuvering to obtain information on who leaked the information. Similar lawsuits have been brought against sites advertising what was on sale the day after thanksgiving.
AccountKiller
I've said in my journal I doubt there's a $500 headless iMac coming but right now it's the $500 I find the unlikely part of the rumour, not the machine itself which continues to make perfect sense as long as the price is reasonable. Around $700 seems credible to me.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hello oranges... Meet kumquats. (Didn't want to add to the confusion by saying "apples and oranges" in the middle of an Apple story.)
You make several points, all of them wrong:
1) Think Secret isn't "Dealing" in anything, they are journalists reporting the news. First amendment protected their right to publish--regardless of Apple's desire to keep the info private. I'm sure Nixon would've preferred Woodward and Bernstein keep their mouths shut and stop looking into things over at the Watergate, but again, the First Amendment protects their right to publish.
2) Accessory after the fact implies that the reporter at TS had some knowledge that a crime has been comitted. Yet if the info was leaked by somebody who had authorized access to the information, or if the info was left somewhere that anybody could gain access to it, there wasn't any crime. Perhaps a breach of contract on the part of the employee, but not a crime, therefore no "accessory" charge possible.
3) A reporter publishing information and somebody reselling stolen property are total polar opposites--one has nothing to do with the other. Please call a cab for your strawman--he appears to have had too much to drink.
4) Only a government can criminalize disseminating information. A private party doesn't have this option. If they give the information to somebody who hands it to the press, their only redress is with the leaker and not the reporter/newspaper.
Now, if they were suing the person who LEAKED the info for breach of a confidentiality agreement, they would have a case. But the reporter/newspaper who brings the information public is not comitting a crime, he is exercising his rights under the first amendment (and doing his job, to boot.)
Who did what now?