Slashdot Mirror
Think Secret's Nick dePlume Revealed
Nick dePlume has a name, after all. Apple filed a lawsuit against the pseudonymous founder and editor of Think Secret, who correctly predicted two just-announced Apple products and has been the subject of several cease-and-desist letters from Apple in the past; dePlume's identity has now been revealed. Reader willibeast writes "The Harvard Crimson reports that 'Apple Computer, Inc. is suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products, including two unveiled at this week's Macworld conference. Nineteen-year-old Nicholas M. Ciarelli '08, known on the internet as Nick dePlume, has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13.'"
[sarcasm]Dang, if only that had sued him 2 years earlier he'd still be a minor and wouldn't be responsible....[/sarcasm]
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Well, Nick dePlume will have to find out via his website contact page, which offers tipsters "complete anonymity," and urges visitors to submit "news tips" and "insider information".
Who knows? Maybe he'll get another insider tip reassuring him that Jobs was quoted as saying "Just pull a lawsuit stunt to scare the shit of this kid, bwahahaha."
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
What Apple should be doing is finding out who is suppling Nick with this information. He isnt just pulling this stuff out of his ass.
Nick DePlume, like nom de plume but for nerds...I get it!
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare -- a pumpkin with a gun."
Oh wait.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
So how much love do we have to give apple before we can admit they are dicks to?
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
ok... now what?
Not exactly news- but it is cool he began at 13! What would interest someone to host a mac rumor site at 13 !?
Great public relations coup, Mr. Jobs.
Remember when you and the Woz were just kids in a garage?
Apparently not...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Aw, come on now. I was under the impression that Nick's identity has been widely known and documented over the years as Nick Ciarelli. After all, even in 2003, eweek had stories co-authored by Nick Ciarelli and Matthew Rothenburg.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Yeah, right.
Here is one identity I would like to know about. This guy from the old MacWeek fame was hilarous.
From the article:
"Usually you would want to sue your enemies and not your friends," said Gary Fine, a Northwestern professor of sociology and expert on rumors. "I can't think of an instance in which a corporation would sue its own fans. I haven't heard anything like this."
Hasn't this guy heard of the RIAA?
At least for B&E.
How much money would they extract from a 19-year old undergrad at an expensive private university? It's like a campus bully shaking a nerd down for his milk money...it's just for pride (or whatever you call it in corporate legal terms).
I've probably been reading ThinkSecret since he was 13 and it's been consistently the most accurate of all the other rumor sites that I know of.
Way to go kid!
--
It works.
Free Flat Screens | Free iPod Photo
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Tell me, Apple (or rather article author even). You're worried about market advantage 'being measured in nanoseconds'.
:(
I can see no case where disclosing information a week early would do irreperable harm to the company.
Sure, you could argue customers will hold off buying products if they know the next generation is around the corner, but I tell ya....you're an idiot to buy ANY Apple products directly before a MacWorld expo.
If you're going to buy, you buy directly after an upgrade. Or at least wait until the next expo comes around.
So far as the competition...sure, I suppose a Dell or an HP could counter the MacMini, or the iPod Shuffle or whatnot, but really.
I can't help but think Apple is suing over an issue of pride. They want to know who the leak is, so they're going after the person posting the information from the leak(s).
That being said: I hate lawsuits. Period.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
We all know that 19 year olds have millions of dollars to spare....
Maybe if Apple didn't encourage such a fanatical following, there would be an Apple information website.
Getting sued for correct predictions is stupid. Even if he had insider information, proving it will be very difficult.
I hope they have some serious proof that he had access to confidential information under a non-disclosure agreement or something along these lines.
From the article : "The suit, filed on Tuesday in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, aims to identify who is leaking the information and to get an injunction preventing further release of trade secrets. However, in filing the suit, Apple identifies specific articles that contain trade secrets, indicating that at least parts of those reports are on the mark."
At least they're not suing him for damage, but to obtain the source of the leak. I'm no lawyer : can a court order someone to reveal its sources?
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Please stop trying to restrict free speech. No bottom line is worth it. You used to be the cool, hip computer company that produced not just great hardware, but a vision of a better world. At the forefront of that better world was the right to a free press and the empowering notion of a single person, their computer and the truth. Now I can't help but feel that you're trying to crush that vision. For shame.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The young canadian kid running mikerowesoft.com? Sounds a little familiar...
According to the complaint, Think Secret generates revenue from online advertising.
Wow! And does the New York Times or 20/20 generate revenue from print or television advertising?!
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.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Honestly, how does this is any way hurt Apple? All it does is get the public more excited about their products. I highly doubt that this kid's website could in any way shape or form be doing any damage to Apple's sales.
A man who has been predicting the end of world was issued a cease and desist order today. The world rejoiced at the threat to humanity being ended. In other news, the government has begun issuing cease and desist orders to individuals predicting war, famine, plague, and other such sundries as part of their "early prevention system"
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Honestly seems that apple is just try to creatte more buzz about their products. Banning distribution of Jobs speech, subpoenas against unnamed individual who leaked the information .. it's all the same, and the press eats it up. Yeah, they might have kept the secret for like 5 days longer but that really is going to have no affect to their sales nor will they get any money from these fools . my new chick roommate works at apple store and she knew about some of the stuff before think secret , it just gets around..
i'm not a big apple fan, too expensive, but this new 500 pc has me rethinking, but prob not because no upgradabilty =p.
How did he induce these people to provide tips? It is not like a college undergrad is going to pay people off. Apple really contradicts themselves when later they blame the ability of people to place "anonymous" tips on his website. Doesn't sound like they are being "induced" but rather lured by the option to remain anonymous.
True, I think it is wrong that employees are violating their C.A.'s, but it is not Ciarelli's fault. Find the employees that do it, and fire them. Don't go after a kid that discovers where you leak...
For years, liberals and pinkos have rattled on and on about supposedly "superior" computers produced by the California lefties at Apple Computer. I will explain why this company is nothing more than a front for the International Communist Conspiracy, aided and abetted by their liberal fellow-travelers in the American computer community.
This so-called "company" was founded by a pair of dope-smoking phone service thieves from Berkeley, a hotbed of Communist activity even today. "Apple Computer" supposedly went on to pioneer a graphical interface - actually developed by the good American patriots at Xerox - and develop its own hardware monopoly, just as its Communist creators would impose a state monopoly on all computer-using Americans.
For a short time, this Red front tried to infiltrate the American business community by facetiously engaging in free trade practices, but this only served to disillusion its enthralled socialist followers who complained about a supposed drop in quality. What they really couldn't stand, like all liberals, was choice and capitalism. They only returned to "Apple" when it returned to its old crypto-Stalinist practices.
"Apple Computer" is nothing more than a liberal-backed fifth column intended to subvert the American computer industry, and ultimately bankrupt good capitalist companies such as Microsoft and Intel. "Apple" isn't the only front group run by the International Communist Conspiracy. "Sun Microsystems" engages in similar monopolistic practices, trying to enforce a single hardware and software standard on all users, instead of the choices offered by Microsoft. Worst of all are the smaller Red fronts using the communist Linux operating system, with names like "Mandrake" (a French front, of course), and even really obvious ones like Red Hat! Linux is distributed under a Commie license that forces developers to give away the fruits of their labour, just as Marx ordered all good Communists to work as much as they could for a pittance in return in an illusory equal society.
All of these so-called companies are just fronts for Communists and liberal fellow-travellers. Remember, when you buy Apple or download Linux, you're supporting Communism. Good Americans support real freedom-loving businesses like Microsoft, SCO, and AMD.
Laugh at me now, remember me later when you're all forced to used slow computers with horrid, fruity interfaces foisted upon an enslaved public by the commissars who used to fester in American business under the liberal myth that they were an independent company that loved capitalism called Apple Computer.
when I was 13, the bloody cutting edge Mac was the Apple IIe, which no one I knew could afford...
""California is one of approximately 44 or 45 states that have adopted [the] Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another," Milgrim said."
IANAJ, but does his capacity as publisher of ThinkSecret confer upon him the status of member of the press, and the "anonymous" tipsters then function as his sources?
Normall, the penalty for failing to reveal your sources is usually a contempt charge and 6 months in jail.
But since he doesn't know his informants, does this
1) create a loophole or
2) exclude him from asserting his status as a journalist
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
I envision a commercial where a Linux pengiun is running from a bunch of long-hair hippies in business suits. The pengiun escapes into a building and throws a sledgehammer at a screen showing a big Apple logo.
read my post above.
has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13
No offense, but this is the kind of kid/guy that you'd think Jobs would be hiring, not suing.
Why again does everyone see Jobs as some sort of geek pariah that *earned* his way to fame? He just rode on Wozniak's coattails!
Tortious interfence with a business relationship. That makes sense. I had read that it was for revealing a trade secret, that made no sense. Thanks for clearing it up.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Yeah, you can just shut up there. Harvard has a need blind admissions policy; there's no reason to think this kid has cash.
You don't *like* the effects so you think he should be *sued*? Someone needs to turn in their slashdot card.
The article says Apple is suing 19-year-old Nick Ciarelli. But surely they are actually suing The DePlume Organization, LLC, the limited-liability corporation that claims copyright to everything on the site? It seems unlikely that Ciarelli himself will suffer financial liability for this.
Breakfast served all day!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you want a bigger slice of the PC pie then get with the program. This type of "buzz" on the street is a wonderful marketing tool and I see no way in which it harms your business. You have an internal issue with your employees. Not a website operator. Apple should look at this from the perspective of their potential customers. When I read this announcement on ThinkGeek about the "headless" Mac I was very excited and the buzz was on around my office and my neighborhood. The word was on the street. Make no mistake about it. It was on the street big time. All we were waiting for was the big announcement from Apple. I smiled and was extremely happy to see the "rumors" to be true. If Apple continues with this lawsuit I'm out forever with Apple and I'm not looking back. Apple....it's not 1985 anymore. The world has changed and you will need to deal with stuff like this. So will lots of other corporations out there. Take what has happened and use it to your advantage...because this is a big advantage.
Nick dePlume's operation should be found to be protected free speech and any laws saying otherwise should be ruled unconstitutional.
However, there is the matter of tuition, lab fees, books, housing (either on campus or off), food, etc. If the kid (or his parents) don't have cash, then he'd having to pay for those expenses either with scholarship money, student loans, or out of pocket. And, considering that Harvard's reputation, I don't think their Harvard's tuition is going to be cheap.
Note: I have not read Harvard's schedule of classes yet, but I plan to rectify this situation once I get home and actually have an oppertunity to sit down and read it.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Yeah; because everything on that website is wrong. It seems that even if his information is negative that it still turned out to be true. Doesn't that mean something? Oh; that's right; Apple Zealots - my bad.
Seriously though; if someone is going to feed you information you have the right to do what you wish to it. If Microsoft was in this position this website would be all over it; screaming about how a they are going after the little guy. But when Apple comes into the picture, they get some kind of negative force-field aura that dispells all the bad (and true) information about them.
I'm f#$king magic!
IIe? Heh, that was no Mac.
The IIgs kinda/sorta TRIED to be a Mac... Good heavens it was an awful beast for programming graphics!
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
But they might apply to people who told him things. If so, and Apple can force him to divulge their names, they can go after those people for damages. That's what the suit seems to be about.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Uhhh.. no. Actually, the satellite feed went forward just like normal. No scrambling, in the clear on C-band (and Ku most likely as well). Apple just didn't preannounce the satellite and transponder (like they usually do). Took me all of 5 mins to find it. I think this was more hype-building than anything else.
Nice to have a front row seat, while sitting out here in the middle-of-nowhere (go look that up on your Newton).
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
then I wouldn't have been following the keynote with awe, and I wouldn't be as tempted to order a mini mac as I am now.
I wonder how much apple made of this guy. Maybe they should just pay him...
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Macrumors doesn't seem to be bribing, coercing, or malicious in nature either.
They don't appear to solicit information from developers and don't have close relationships with those who litigate against Apple.
Macrumors aslo doesn't provide much editorial content.
There's more of a Mac lover feel to MacRumors.
ALL of Macrumors information is ranked and placed as good or bad rumor - so there's not really a consistency issue.
And FYI - Think Secret predicted colored iPods and some with stripes too. They also said Apple would have a hard time crossing the 4 million Ipods this season due to drive supply problems and distribution issues - Apple sold 4.542 million iPods.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
so wait a second..
i'll post my OWN trade secret to some guys mailing list and then I can sue him in the states? wtf you need patents for when you have such more powerful tool in your portfolio then, why bother patenting anything when you can just say that it's your trade secret and forbid anyone from talking about it?
someone 'published' the information to him - or are all the websites that reported on this quilty? would slashdot be quilty if i posted my own trade secrets on slashdot?
or maybe he'll just say that he pulled it out of his ass and say that "look, i've made so many predictions that at least once in 10 years i'm going to be right about something".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sure Apple could sue an employee or former employee for divulging this type of information, but I don't see what duty the kid has to keep it a secret. Once he, as a member of the public, learned the secret, it was no longer a secret.
Go read the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Basically, if you knew it was a trade secret and knew that it was obtained improperly, and you disclose it, they can sue you for doing so.
However, it's possible that he could weasel out because knowledge of the existence of a product might not fall into the category of "trade secret" according to the definition of "trade secret" in that law.
It's also possible he could get out of naming names using the California Shield Law. This protects journalists from revealing their source (most of the time) and is written directly into the California Constitution, so it supercedes a lot of other laws there.
In short, if he hires a good lawyer, he can probably get out of it, and maybe even get his attorney's fees paid using the anti-SLAPP legislation. Depends on the court, really. His best bet is probably to turn the whole thing into a First Amendment issue in the eyes of the press. He'll be quite likely to get some support on that angle, you can be sure.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Indeed. The mystery and detective work are part of what makes the cult of the Mac fun. It's not like people get so worked up over the next big product from Dell or HP. I think Apple would do better to keep it a little more lighthearted. I don't blame them if they go on a molehunt -- they've got to protect their trade secrets, after all -- but ThinkSecret and rags like it are free publicity. In this case, the publicity could be bad because they're attacking one of the fanatics that make up their customer core. Eating your customer core is never good. When they turn on you, it's ugly.
SharkJumper
I guess I slept that day in law school. I remember learning that a third party had no duty to protect trade secrets. But you're right, the act says what it says.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
That is assuming this whole lawsuit is an attempt by Apple to get the identities of DePlume's sources.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
All he did was pass on information that was passed on to him from an insider in violation of that person's contract. You can hardly call what he did "prediction." Really he just passed on information that somebody else had given him. No educated analysis required.
Not only that, but Apple probably wouldn't be giving him such a hard time if he'd tell them who leaked the information to him.
You know, if you're going to violate a law whose relation to the first amendment is pretty sketchy, California is a good place to do it.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Or to try to get the names of the employees doing the violatin'! ;-)
adam b.
There are many financial news websites posting articles about Mac mini and iPod Shuffle. After reading them, I can better understand just WHY Apple took the action it did against Think Secret.
In summary, the articles stated that the stock price of Apple ran up more than 7% in the days preceeding Mac World in anticipation of the leaked rumors of a $500 Mac and a flash iPod. Further, the stock dropped about 6% during the key note primarily because Apple sold "only" 4.5 million iPods. More than the 4 million many analysts predicted, but less than the 4.6 and 4.8 million other analysts had.
Now, if the share price of Apple can drop 6% because the wildly sucessful iPod "only" clobbered-the-shit (technical term) out of the competition versus some analysts estimating it would clobber-the-ever-lovin-shit, imagine what would have happened if Apple had NOT released the said rumored products.
Further, imagine how big the POSITIVE impact would have been if the Mac mini had remained a secret until Jobs' announcement.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
$50 says that Apple had plans BEFORE these "secrets" were published to announce them at MacWorld. So the judge is going to look at this and wonder why, if it's such a secret, they announced it to the largest gathering of journalists, developers, and customers in the world.
I suspect Apple may win their suit and be awarded $1 in damages. If Nick's smart enough to file a countersuit, he's liable to win and be awarded $1 in damages and attorney's fees.
Macrumors only reports the news of the rumors, and people talk about it. They rarely make predicitions.
would slashdot be [g]uilty if i posted my own trade secrets on slashdot?
If you divulge your own trade secret it is no longer a trade secret. If you divulge somebody else's trade secret you've broken the law. This entire situation is dependant on the assumption that the informant who sent the trade secret to Think Secret was not authorized to divulge the information. If that isn't the case, neither the informant nor Think Secret has done anything wrong. It would be pretty hard to prove either way...
Harvard has really good financial aid. Just because he can handle the expenses you cite doesn't mean he has money in general.
makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another
So he is surely guilty for publishing information known to be under NDA. What is next? Sue poor guy or just frighten him?
I think Apple wants to show everyone the clear and plain sign: respect NDA - it is not a game, but a business with a serious money involved. Obey the law or face consequences.
I think it is fair.
*CRUNCH*
Bad, bad freshman! Divulging trade secrets like that!
Now you have to suffer the wrath of Apple's newest product, iHazing!
(yes, this was a joke attempt)
Let me get this straight... Microsoft prematurely releases details of their products and grabs marketshare as a result. Apple sues everyone who talks about their products before the official unveiling. I've been a Machead for over ten years, but I think Apple could learn something from the boys in Redmond on this one. Especially when it comes to the iPod, where they are the Microsoft of the field.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
It's like blanketty but a bit thicker and possibly warmer.
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
...until somebody looses an i.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do tell.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
So you already know enough about Harvard that I don't have to tell you that Harvard has a policy that anybody who is accepted into Harvard and whose family income is less than $40,000 per year goes to Harvard for free. Glad you're only commenting on issues about which you're fully informed.
I will not buy another apple product. I am getting tired of both microsoft and apple. I am gonna stick to doing my own computer stuff. If anyone else wants to . . . do what I am doing and express your opinion to apple via email...
Hmmm, bright as all those wonderful people over at Apple are, how many of them have run such a succesful web site for so long. Especially having started at age 13? Instead of putting the hammer down on him, they should be harnessing him as an asset to help them with product development and checking the buzz on Apple and it's products. Unless, Steve and Co. have abandoned their beginnins completely and opted for the "Emperors New Clothes" style of product development. Only keep those who agree with you on your staff. If that's the case, then they should be raiding Bush's staff for people who know how to sit and nod.
If they think about it, he probably has a much better idea of where they're really headed and where their market is. As a consultant, he could be of more use to them, if they really care more about their market than their bonus' and stock options. If he can do this well for this long from outside the company, he has something that Apple can use. Unless they've become the people on the screen instead of the one smashing it.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
he's soliciting Apple employees to break their NDAs.
:P
Apple employees specifically.
Apple has a case, imo.
Blind admission regardless, Harvard tuition ain't Community College tuition.
Almost every company states projects it's working on. Longhorn is an example here. But not Apple, that is because Steve Jobs loves to go to show off to the Mac zealots. "See what I, your god have wrought!" This a trade secret? Releasing new products is some kind of secret? Funny he doesn't keep movies pixar's working on a secret. So he sues a fan site. Did he wait for him to turn 18 so he wouldn't be compared to the RIAA? That goodwill generated from that fan site can turn to vitrol real quick.
I wanted to buy the mac mini... guess not anymore...
I.E. Did he obtain them via NDA, or did someone else give them to him. If they gave them to him, he's off the hook as it's no longer a Trade Secret and the ones who gave it out are in trouble.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Once you know a trade secret you haven't signed the NDA for it is already divulged.
If the plaintiff wins a suit, or even has a reasonable basis to believe they may win (as determined by a court in possible countersuit -- and US legal tradition is pretty friendly towards the original plainiff here), then the defendant will not be awarded costs or fees related to that suit.
California breaks this down by cause of action: if the plaintiff pursues a single frivolous cause of action, even if every other part of their lawsuit is sound, the defendant might be able to recover costs related to defending from the frivolous cause of action.
As a non-lawyer, I would think Nick's best course of action is to move for a change of venue or dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Apple could probably not show that he had a presence in California.
As a side benefit, the two states where he is undoubtedly present (New York and Massachussetts) apparently have not passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. NY uses common law for trade secrets, and MA has some other statutory protections, so he may not be home free, but Apple would have a different burden of proof.
FTFA??br. Fuck the fucking Assholes?
If you would only RTFA, then you'd be able to quote FTFA
Lately, companies have taken to marking their press releases "Confidential - Internal Use Only", because the media outlets (ahemSLASHDOT) then exhibit the desired behaviour -- does anyone really believe that the feature list of a cellphone due to be announced next week is TOP SECRET EYES ONLY?
And what's this crap about trade secrets getting legal protection? The whole point of the PATENT system is to reward companies for publishing information via the quid pro quo of limited time period protection (Don't bother telling me how it doesn't work, I'm talking about the IDEA). If you give companies protection for their secrets without the patent filing burden, you're rewarding them for keeping knowledge secret.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
TFA says that he accepted anonmyous tips, and would pay for prime information. Here is my question... Could not have this kid, in making his website, make it so that people who submitted tips were exempt from the logs? Or could he simply have them set up to delete every week to "save" space (the site IS so popular) ??? Or am i just dreaming, and all sites keep all their logs till infinity?
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Since this guy doesn't work for Apple, and presumably has no NDA agreement with them, the 1st amendment should protect him, like any other journalist.
That depends on how broadly you define the word "journalist." Every geek with a blog thinks he's better than Bob Woodward. We'll have to see if the court agrees.
World's tallest building rises in the desert
It's possible but unlikely that someone who's had regular access to Apple products since the age of 13 (and especially in the last 6 years - if he was 25 now he might have used them in school, thats less likely now) has a family income of less than $40,000. I'd say chances are fair-to-good that he's from an upper middle class or better family.
My comments about NY and MA turn out to be wrong: both states passed the UTSA into law in 2004. Along with the US Virgin Islands, these were the first to adopt it since 1985. Curse you, outdated web pages!
I agree (but IANAL). But do they care?
At this point, they actually know WHO he is... therefore, they can now go through phone logs to see if he's ever actually talked to anyone at Apple. While most, if not all, of the items may have been anonymous submission, if more of a concrete relationship was formed (rather than semi-anonymous bits from home), then Apple may get what it wants, albeit indirectly.
FTA:
"Apple is also suing the unidentified individuals who tipped off Think Secret and has urged Ciarelli to reveal their identities."
Is it just me, or am I the only one that sees the irony in that statement?
Some avenues of approach for the defense here: 1) this application of the act would violate the First Admendment, 2) Apple didn't take reasonable efforts to protect its trade secret, and 3) the information didn't have economic value (no way).
I think a successful lawsuit here would be harmful to the First Admendment. While I don't know legal relevance, IMHO a description of future Apple products is legitimate journalism while publishing a phone book of Apple employees wouldn't be. Both would be and frankly should be considered trade secrets. Media sources should have a good deal of freedom in publishing trade secrets.
Your talking about "secrets", not "Trade Secrets" which are different. An IP lawyer is going to ask what "Trade Secret" was published and won't find any.
because all corporations love kids that have no problems blabbing about their to-be-released products to increase banner ad revenue. What a winner!
I don't think it has anything to do with hating Apple.
I beg to differ.
MS has a policy of harassing eBay sellers and cancelling their auction listings every time they attempt to resell *unopened, shrink-wrapped* copies of their OS's - just because they were "originally bundled with a new PC". MS claims that these OEM versions of Windows are somehow intangibly "tied to the original computer" they came with, and it's illegal for you to attempt to resell them seperately. If you continue to relist these types of cancelled auctions more than 1 or 2 times, you get nasty letters from Microsoft's legal dept. and threats of a lawsuit.
On the other hand, I've *never* seen Apple cancel eBay auctions for unopened Apple software.
I had a IIe in 1983 when i was 11 years old. had the IIGs(upgrade not the whole new computer) 3 years later. Of course that was a small payoff so I didnt use my mom and dad's computers...
Ahhh all those nights playing Karateka, and Bolo
moo.
That's an interesting law, and you're probably right - that's what they'll go after him on. At least until he caves and tells them who gave him the info.
/., IANAL) I would simply say that since the tips were all anonymous, he had no reasnable basis to know that the tips that turned out to be correct were any more or less likely to be truth than any others he received. As long as he does indeed receive tips that are wrong, Apple will have a very hard time proving to the required standard that he had a reasonable basis to believe the tips were true.
If I were his defence council (and like everyone else on
Sure, they may be confident, but they can't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. BTW - is this is a criminal law or a civil law? The required level of proof of course is different. If it's a civil suit, the burden of proof is much lighter for the plaintiff.
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
People now pretty much expect that MWSF will be the big product announcements and they *do* hold off major purchases until the show. If their much-rumoured product doesn't materialize, people then feel disappointed and proceed to whine about Apple for weeks afterwards.
Hang out at an Apple Store sometimes. I can't remember how many times I've heard stuff like "Oh, thinksecret says they're going to speedbump the PowerBooks to the G5 at MWSF... just wait until then!" and other similar comments.
The rumor mill is one that would be best cut off.. seriously.
Also Nick did commit a crime: he egged individuals in-the-know to provide him with trade secrets with the intent to publish it.
Well, a lot of people started up "Mac news sites" so they could try and get free media badges for the MWSF keynotes.
As a result, Apple has clamped down big time on media passes.
On what grounds can Apple really sue this man?
If he did not sign a non-disclosure agreement with Apple, they can't force him to keep quiet.
Like, for example. If I hear two executives on their lunch break talking about how they believe that their company's stock is going to tank next week I can post that information online.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If you have any idea that you could get sued for relasing this type of information, then release it to the Internet anonymously.
Posting to the Usenet via Mixmaster or Mixminion chained remailers (across multiple countries) ending at a mail2news gateway is one such way to preserve your God given right to free speech which many corporations try to stiffle through the use of illegal civil litigation.
Besides, if you read the article, what he did can be considered wholly illegal.
Such irE
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Nearly half of all people are below average
Wait wait.. Everyone here seems to be supporting the notion that Jobs manipulates the timing of events to get up to a 10% or more boost in stock price surrounding Mac World. Once the truth is out, it will be priced into the stock, regardless of whatever blips occur on the day of. So who cares when it comes out except the people who want to make profit on pre-existing knowledge of said truth? Certainly not Apple (unless they're planning a new issue of stock to raise more capital). This is the definition of insider trading
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Except that Harvard, if you need it, pays for *all* of that, even show tickets for school events and such. Harvard has some of the best need-based aid in the country (which makes up for the total lack of merit-based aid).
Such irE
It's Steve Job's Ego. It is all-consuming, and prevents those it has affected from saying anything against Apple.
[IANAL but I just finished my 1st semester of law school.] Nick doesn't have to be in California for a CA court to have personal jurisdiction. They just need to show minimum contacts and if Nick purposefully availed himself to CA. It seems likely that they will be able to show this since he specifically published trade secrets of Apple, which is located in CA and he did this for a period of 5-6 years. Plus, it was reasonable foreseeable that Apple would sue Nick since history shows that Apple is very sue happy. He probably can't move for change of venue or dismissal since those are usually granted based on convenience factors and I believe most courts don't consider it very inconvenient to take a plane from MA to CA.
Please show me the constitutional ammendment that protects anoymous sources.
Oh, by the way. If I publish your social security number and all your bank account numbers on a web site, is that protected free speech, too? Or an ev1l invasion of your privacy?
Clear, Dark Skies
I wholeheartedly agree. I cringe every time I hear about "consumer rights". It used to be that being a citizen is what mattered in this country, but now we're nothing but producers and consumers.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
This lawsuit could be a distraction to pull attention away from the OSX lockup during the "Spotlight" search engine demo, and the "Unit Converter" widget giving slightly incorrect conversion answers.
As the editor of the MTK column for some years, I can attest that the column was always written by a solo writer, and that the writer changed a handful of times during MacWEEK's decade-long life.
To be sure, reporters in the newsroom contributed tips that made up a lot of the meat of the weekly column. The Knife was not some independent reporting monster; he always fed of the scraps of the legitimate news table. But there was no collaboration on the writing of the column.
Stephen Howard-Sarin
VP, ZDNet.com
(no, that's not Ziff Davis anymore)
Keeper of the MacWEEK Alumni page
http://www.oct17.com/macweek/
Jobs' personal attitude to leaks is well known, it's amazing nothing was done sooner. Nick must have a lot of chutzpah to leak big news like the iPod, the Mac Mini...
I certainly don't think it's a publicity grab by Apple. C'mon. As if Jobs doesn't already have the media dancing to his tune! This is the guy who gets Time covers synchronised to the day of his product launches.
you had me at #!
I wouldn't necessary call a quadrupling of my company's stock price in four years "irreparable".
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Found this a couple of days ago on blackvortex. My only amazement was that someone didn't do the same steps before.
Honestly, WFT!
...and, what is with all the bloody mac hating, you don't like it don't buy it. Just because you don't like a ford or ferrari doesn't mean you spent all your time complaining about how crappy they are, you buy yourself a honda, gm, porsche whatever and move on. end of story.
Someone under contract to Apple leaked information, breaking his/her/its NDA agreement, breaking the law. This isn't being 'sue happy' this is following up on a broken contract. I.e. I hire you to paint my house/build a beowulf cluster/whatever for me. you do it, but I refuse to pay you. You are not going to have too many alternatives other than to sue me for breech of contract. Now sure these are very different examples, but both are contracts that are broken, plain and simple.
The only think a little different in this case, is that they are going after thinksecret because they don't know who leaked the information. Not the nicest thing to do, but perfectly legal in California as has been mentioned above (don't like it too bad, you voted for it, unless things are passed now without public approval. sorry I'm from Canada, eh). I imagine they are just trying to scare the poor kid into handing over server logs. Any other company would be pissed too if all of your big product launches were made public a couple weeks before.
Im.
Off to hide in my Igloo to protect from flames.
The real identity of ThinkSecret's author has not been all that secret.
Maybe Apple just now read Daring Fireball's January 5th column: "Plugging Leaks"
"The suit is filed against site owner The dePlume Organization, as well as its owner who uses the pseudonym Nick dePlume, whose real identity Apple has not determined." Which I find slightly curious, in that I thought it was widely known in Mac insider circles that dePlume is Nick Ciarelli, whose identity as Nick dePlume was hinted at by byline changes at eWeek. While working at eWeek, "Nick dePlume" shared several eWeek bylines with Matthew Rothenberg on Mac rumor-related stories; starting in 2003, similar stories were bylined "Nick Ciarelli and Matthew Rothenberg"."
I remember a good story about Nick. When ThinkSecret started advertising, Brian at the now-defunct artificialcheese.com website decided to advertise. Brian didn't like Nick very much so he sent the $100 fee in nickels. He got a big cloth bag from the bank, spray painted a neat dollar sign on the side with a stencil, filled it with nickels, boxed it all up and sent it by UPS to ThinkSecret. He documented every step on his website with photographs, but alas, those pages were left behind when he redesigned the Artificial Cheese website.
I mailed Brian several times to see if Nick accepted his ads and the bag of nickels, but I never got an answer.
Trying to nail a kid for divulging trade secrets?
Here's the thing- if Apple was hurt in any way shape or form by his actions they might have a little bit of a case. However, all this kid did was get information and go with it. Frankly, that takes some balls.
His entire story has only helped Apple by aiding them in building the hype for Macworld. All a judge could possibly do is ask the kid to reveal his source and then find him incontempt if he didn't. Even then, Apple would have to show damage. And there are no damages here. ThinkSecret wins, Apple wins....this story will go away.
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
Shakespeare
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
Um, whoops. Financial institutions do and must keep copies of email, both inbound and outbound in many instances, for 7 years. IM too. Failure to comply (whether such compliance is practical or not) can result in fines up to the $millions. I'm doing an architecture for this for a major investment bank. The rules are pretty clear, and the bank is spending big to comply. You can't be sued for what you don't keep, but you can certainly be prosecuted and fined for it.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
While applying physical-object laws to information is always a questionable business, the corresponding meatspace function would be that of a fence, and is usually called something like "receipt of stolen goods." The idea is that even if a fence never actually steals anything himself, he still knowingly facilitates the role of thief as a livelihood for others, and thus shares some of the burden of their crimes.
You could open up a discussion about whether such indirect legislation is ethical or adviseable, but that would be something of a different topic. It can at least safely be said that it has extensive precedent.
but if someone else knows it, is it a secret?
still, if it was posted on their mailing list - insta publishing it , could think secret be responsible, even if they didn't publish the information(it was their informant directly)?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I think the real problem for Apple isn't the rumors that turn out to be true, but the ones that turn out to be false or only partially true. People trade stocks based on these rumors. Remember when the rumor was that the iPod mini was going to be cheaper than it actually was? Apple got slammed because they put out a device that was more expensive than the false rumor said it was going to be. Apple has a right and a responsibility to protect its shareholders from unnecessary stock price fluctuations that result from bogus rumors. Clamping down on sites like ThinkSecret will stabilize the stock price see-saw that happens before and after every MacWorld.
Shame on Google.
There may be a differnce to you but is there any discrimination in the law? That's all that really matters in this situation.
Time makes more converts than reason
I gave up waiting for my mug. I sent in a tip, that was published, about the latest Mac version of Netscape being on hold due to it crashing when rendering c|net's websites and never did receive my mug
/>
I still sniffle about it to this day.
<sigh
>Apple said in a statement to CNET News.com that the
>company's "DNA is innovation, and the protection of
>our trade secrets is crucial to our success".
Being a Script kiddy is in my DNA, and unpatched systems are crucial to my success. Does that mean i can sue people who patch their systems?
The question is whether or not Massachusetts has some version of this act. If they don't. personally, I don't think Apple has a leg to stand on. Granted IANAL, but if you live in one state and do something in that state that is legal there, but not legal in another state, should someone in that other state be able to go after you in a court of law? For example, marijuana. In some states it's legal for medical use, where as in others it's completely illegal for all uses (be it misdemeanor or felony isn't totally relevant). If Joe in state A is allowed to have it for his glaucoma, should Frank in state B be allowed to sue Joe because he can smoke weed but Frank can't according to state B's laws?
They even say so themselves...here's the proof! Yale-Harvard 2004, Harvard Sucks -- and they know it!
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Well damn, there goes my arguement. I wasn't able to find a page that said it had been passed in MA. Only that they had a proposed one that was set to go before the powers that be at some point in 2004.
That could be because the bulk of Apple's revenue comes from hardware and not software, so there's no business case for such an action. Unopened OEM software from Microsoft, it can be argued, diminishes the market for the equivalent retail versions of the same product, the sales of which generate higher margins for Microsoft than the OEM copies.
Then again, I don't see Apple suing anyone over *unopened* Mac boxes, either...
Shame on Google.
If there's a conflict with the First Amendment, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, couldn't it?
Oh, wait...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Even having a $1 judgement against you can make your credit rating very bad.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I'm not really trying to flame you, but really, it's hard to know where to start with that. First, right, an NDA is a contract, a legally binding contract (if it's written correctly, of course). Breaking it is illegal. Contracts made by individuals of sound mind, not under duress or under fraudulent pretenses have legal backing, with certain, legal, stipulations. If a suit can be brought, there's a matter of law. In many cases it's civil law rather than criminal law, but you didn't say that.
Found something on Gizmodo that will make you laugh.
f
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gi
Apple bashers only please, no fans.
Stephen Colbert on race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad."
The NDA only applies to the person who signed it. If that person reveals something to a third party, the third party *is not bound* to honor the NDA.
Apple could sue the person who violated the NDA, but not the third party.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
This is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment and, if enforced, would put an end to the free press. My guess is that this sort of idiotic legislation hasn't made it's way to the Supreme Court to be struck down - yet.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
If this guy was a "real" journalist with real journalistic ethics, he would have known it was wrong/illegal to publish trade secrets, especially if there was no compelling reason such as protection of the public interest. If this guy is trying to use the "freedom of press" defence then he is demeaning the entire journalism industry.
I won't shed one tear for some irresponsible "fanboy" with delusions of grandeur getting his ass handed to him by corporate lawyers.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
One of the leaked "secrets" was never released at Macworld... so its very likely its still in development
That kid is in a HUGE heap of trouble.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
So, um, "He can take being sued by Apple, there's fair-to-good chances that he comes from an upper middle class or better family?"
That's what he was thinking though. Perhaps a better wording would have been "no criminal about that." But even then he is only somewhat right. There are industrial espionage laws that in many cases do make things like this criminal. But really he isn't a competing company and (logisticians: I didn't say or =P) he didn't entice someone to break their NDA. This will most likely be protected as freedom of speech/press though it may be a little shakey. In all likelyhood it won't go to court but seeing that he is a Harvard Undergraduate it would be interesting.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
s/no/nothing
opps.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Ahh, yes, semantics. I guess it's only to be expected that a conversation about law would fall to it. We can go that route, if you like. In legalese it is considered a "breach", correct. But simply put, "illegal" is used quite broadly in common parlance and, as I understand it, doesn't fit perfectly with any of the more specifically honed legal jargon.
Since you can't provide a legal cite
For someone so hung up on semantics, you can't seem to grasp first order logical and related concepts. Just because I didn't provide a cite, doesn't mean that I can't or couldn't. Frankly, your point didn't seem worth the effort, but now at the end of a long work day and with you insisting on your somewhat lacking point, I'll bite.
I'll offer you the opportunity to point to any authoritative lay source which refers to contract breach as "illegal."
So, you yourself accept that it's an issue of common usage. Therefore, I'd first point to common language definitions of the word "illegal": first, from webster's:
and then from:hyperdictionary:
So then one is forced admit that it hinges on just what "law" is. Wikipedia states:
Going further, with the understanding the the legal system in the United States is based upon the British Common Law system, we look to the area of law that is Civil Law, specifically, the contract law, which owes its existence to concept known as the Law of Obligations :
Going further, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University has much to say about contract law but specifically:
Therefore, it seems clear that inasmuch as a contract is a promise enforceable by law, and that contracts are regulated by a specific area of law, and that failing to fulfill the duties required by a legal contract have penalties enforceable by law, breaking a contract is going against the law, inasmuch as it's going against the specific, accepted rules of contracts, as understood through contract law. This is similar to other things that are held to be contrary to law (be it civil or criminal law such as murder) inasmuch as the law has systematic methods for the prescription of remedies for
.
:)
I don't possibly see how that could survive a constitutional challenge.
At least in Canada - where we have a half decent Constitution.
.
The first amendment is what's called "statutory law", which means law written by legislators. Other laws passed by Congress are also statutory law.
When you ask "where specifically does it say in the 1st amendment", you're asking where is the statutory law that says so-and-so, with the implication that if it's not in a statute, it's not law. That's how it works in, say, Germany or France, which are what's called "civil law countries", which means "the law" and "the statutes" are the same thing. But that's not how law works in the US.
The US (and the UK, Canada, etc.) are what's called a "common-law country", just like the UK and various others. That means there's two kinds of law: statute law, written by legislators, and case law, written by judges. BOTH ARE LAW. And legislation is written taking this into account. In civil-law countries, legislators have to anticipate all kinds of details and contingincies into the statutes. So the German civil code has a lot more sections and subsections than the US statutes. Something is either in the statute or else it isn't. The law is fairly sharply defined, which sometimes leads to Procrustian results.
In the US, the law instead has a fractal boundary. The Constitution and the statutes are sort of a seed crystal. They state a generality and express an intention. Figuring out how to apply the generality and interpret the intention is left as a complex judgement call assigned to certain highly trained people called "judges" whose job, as the name implies, is to make judgement calls. Whenever a judge above a certain level makes a judgement call, that call becomes part of the law, binding on other judges, and in some cases (where the Constitution is involved), binding on the Congress. The law thereby grows a new tendril based that governs what happens with similar cases in the future.
This isn't some cockamamie idea invented by Bill Clinton---it's what was written into the Constitution by the Framers, based on 300+ years (now 500+ years) of English legal tradition that governed the American Colonies before the US became independent. If you're proposing that we throw out the Constitution and every other law on the books and start over with a civil law system, well fine, there's nothing wrong with having such a philosophy (might as well make us a monarchy while you're at it). But you don't get to pick and choose, living in the common-law system for things that you like and expressing outrage at it for things that you don't like. It's all or nothing.
So to answer your question, it doesn't matter whether the 1st amendment's wording specifically mentions journalists. There's ample case law (written by judges interpreting the 1st amendment) protecting journalists and that's what Nick is relying on.
I hate to say this, because I believe information should be free, essentially, without limitations; even defense intelligence.
But it is completely understandable why Apple has no choice but to try and keep things like this secret, especially when they release new product info at the same time as quarterly results.
Last year I worked for a big corporation that made one of the most successful "products" of the year, not situated far from Apple.
Rumors of something that would impact stocks spread. Very easily. Due to my low on the totem pole training status I got to witness a lot of private, fly on the wall conversations between very big and powerful individuals who would ignore me until they needed something. I got to listen and eavesdrop a lot on a world that I had no experience or idea about.
When it came to the matter of any sort of announcement such as this which will impact a company's stock price, you have no idea how terrified corporate execs have become of turning into the next Martha Stewart. They have basically been briefed on this by the government. Do something out of line. And we will make an example of you.... That's the word they've received.
They don't have a choice except to try and institute litigation in such a proceeding because they have to make a public claim and display for shutting down any information whcih might give the appearance of stock manipulation. Apple stock shot up in the days before the expo because of the rumors at ThinkSecret. Period.
This has become one of the top paranoia inducing issues amongst executive staff.
The funny thing is; it's all because the Bush admin is trying to cover up the soft pedaling they did on Enron so it looks like they are responsible in going after big corporate crime. They put a message out to high profile companies. And now as a result they have to be very, very careful with any information regarding announcements that would affect stocks.
This is not a defense of a severe lawsuit, but an explanation for corporate mentality and the further reasons why it seems so severe; in some respects the current business environment has fostered this era in.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
or are all the websites that reported on this quilty? would slashdot be quilty if i posted my own trade secrets on slashdot?
Nope, Slashdot will not be quilty. Moreover, it would not be guilty either!
Apple should instead of suing this kid try and find the leak first.
One way would be send a "bogus memo" out to everyone describing some new tech, however each email is slightly different in terms of punctuation, use of conjunctions an maybe a few details etc.
If the "leaker" was foolish and lazy enough to cut and paste it to a news site that quoted faithfully. It might uncover the source or at least requesting the original submission might do so.
isn't it?
Most jurisdictions permit a recovery of both actual loss caused by the misappropriation and any unjust enrichment gained by the culprit so long as the enrichment is not also included in the "actual loss" portion of the equation. If such damages are not easily proved, the aggrieved party may seek to impose a "reasonable royalty" damages. In addition, if the conduct leading to the trade secret misappropriation was willful and malicious, most states permit the imposition of punitive damages and the award of attorney's fees.
Apple will likely prove in court that a trade secret was misappropriated and will have the legal right to recover most of it's damages from Nick. When Nick realizes that this can seriously screw up his life, between having tarnished his chances of being hired by any tech company and having his wages garnished, he'll most likely "remember" who gave him the info in an attempt to reduce the amount he owes.
Apple's decision to sue Nick Ciarelli was not a good PR move. Apple probably has valid claims against the Harvard freshman, but Apple probably would have accomplished a lot more by enlisting him as a marketing ally rather than suing him as an enemy. The decision was probably made by the lawyers rather than the business people. See more analysis and links here: http://www.blawblawblawg.blogspot.com/
Getting sued for correct predictions is stupid. Even if he had insider information, proving it will be very difficult.
Just wanted to address this one point. It actually should be very easy to establish whether his source(s) were from inside Apple or not, whether or not he is willing to identify them. Ask him under oath. This will probably be a preliminary question to the question of identity in the depositions, and he'd better not lie, or he's in a shitload* of legal trouble if it comes out later (and these things often do come out later).
Furthermore, if he refuses to answer, he might be penalized by the judge, even if he lucks out and finds a judge sympathetic to his desire not to name names. He could lose the case at any number of points before it even goes to trial if he refuses to answer this question.
*Right now this is a civil suit, but he could quickly become the target of criminal prosecution if he perjures himself.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
IIRC, Clare Quilty was the detective in Lolita.
"$50 says that Apple had plans BEFORE these "secrets" were published to announce them at MacWorld. So the judge is going to look at this and wonder why, if it's such a secret, they announced it to the largest gathering of journalists, developers, and customers in the world."
And Apple will explain what happens when talk about future products (real or imagined) causes customers to stop buying the currently available products.
Apple has the right to decide when they will divulge the information. A 19 year old pipsqueak at Hahvahd does not have that right, and does not know the business factors leading Apple to decide when it will announce.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Ciarelli might be a kid at Harvard, but Think Secret was a business, a way to make a buck.
This is not a story of a company grinding down Joe Everyman, this is about a company taking care of a profit-seeking tick who's been attached to Apple since 1998.
Nick Ciarelli is essentially in the business of making money by causing problems for Apple.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA