Slashdot Mirror
Think Secret Gets Lawyer
im333mfg writes "Looks like Nick dePlume and Think Secret have gotten some much needed help for their upcoming lawsuit battle with Apple.
"Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP, a lawyer at the forefront of Internet law since the net's early days, will defend Mac news Web site Think Secret from a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc. 'Apple's attempt to silence a small publication's news reporting presents a troubling affront to the protections of the First Amendment,' said Nick dePlume, the site's publisher and editor in chief. 'I'm grateful that Mr. Gross has stepped forward to help defend these crucial freedoms.'""
The problems is that Think Geek obtain information freely from normal information gathering techniques such as social engineering and trend research using the internet. A California law prohibits divulging trade secrets yet if I remember correctly there is a set of laws each state agreed to abide by when joining. This law is freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Think Geek never signed a non-disclosure agreement thus if you or a representative of your company tells me something than that information is no longer protected as a trade secret unless there is a contracted obligation - the entity didn't adequately protect it's information. Case closed unless the corporation wants to sue the party in oblivion, which might be the case that we are seeing today. I don't see how this case can even get to the court level, as it should be dismissed under the grounds of no contractual agreement between the parties; thus, his speech is protected at the federal level.
As for the party that disclosed the information then they would be in breach of the NADA contract. Does Think Geek have to tell apple that divulged the information? Anyone remember Oliver North who forgot a lot of information during the Iran Contra scandal can attest that Think Geek surely can't remember the names either. Should Think Geek have to tell? Does the press have to cite sources? Nope they can protect their sources but if they can become in content in the courts and spend a little jail time - but were not talking about a murder trial or a treason tiral.
Do we respect people's first ammendment rights more than we love apple? I am a free thinker... please tell me what to think...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Not only that, but he should smile, grab a fork and pretend its chocolate cake.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
And this is the government hiding info from us.
Not all speech is protected.
He openly solicits what odds are are insider info, and odds are those are covered by NDAs, and tells the world, and in California that's a crime.
His site suggests he knows exactly what he's doing, or else he's truly naive.
If he's this naive, I want to know who let him into Harvard.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Am I the only one who giggled when reading the name "Mr. Gross"?
Terry Gross's bio
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS
O.J. Simpson Complaint Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Quokka Sports, Inc.
AlaskaMen Magazine
Burning Man
Women Count
Republic of Cuba and its agencies and instrumentalities
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Food First
Edna St. Vincent Millay Society
Gianni Versace s.P.a.
Supercuts, Inc.
Chronicle Books
Source Health & Mobility
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I think he should do more research in the case before making public statements. Apple isn't suing ThinkSecret to have them stop posting news articles. They're suing to obtain the identity of the Apple Employee(s) who posted internal, confidential, NDA protected items that ThinkSecret published on their website. They're also upset that ThinkSecret was apparently trying to solicit the confidential information from employees to begin with.
IF the allegation turns out to be true, I'd be pissed, too.
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
You're late guys, I found this on ThinkLegal over a week ago.
If I were to hand our companies confidential plans to some third party in secret, and they published it online or in print, you can bet your ass we'd sue. This kid is posting confidential material given to him by an Apple employee. This is not reporting, it is posting confidential material. He should be sued. He is guilty.
From the Seattle Times:
Ciarelli had sought legal help from groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based organization that Gross has represented in the past.
The EFF declined to take Ciarelli's case.
Given that the EFF is defending AppleInder and PowerPage in a similar case, the question comes to mind: why not defend ThinkSecret?
Does anyone know?
Here's the thing I'm wondering about.... if they can prove that think secret enticed employees under NDA to release privledged information, do they then have reason for retribution ?
That is, is it illegal to encourage someone to break their NDA, even if YOU arent doing the breaking ?
Wether or not ThinkSecret actually encouraged people or if they came to them with the information is of course another point of contention.
Everyone tell us how much we respect IP law, and how much we love Apple for showing the rest of the world that "trade secret" commonlaw usurps the Freedom of Speech guaranteed us by the constitution.
They do, after all, have a neato little touchwheel dealy on the iPod.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is anyone familiar with the laws regarding revealing your source. If employee tells person A a secrect and person A tells me, must I tell the company who person A is so they can trace the leak? I would think that if there was a criminal investigation and I was *not* a journalist I would have to reveal my source. If there was an investigation and I was a journalist, then it gets murky. Lately, it looks like the courts respect you keeping your source secret until they don't. The world is getting a little less free every day (but I'm making a little more money so it feels freer). Go figure! David
I think it's so cool that radio personalities are able to have careers in the legal profession - I doubt she's getting rich from her NPR gig.
What? Sure it's the same person! Just gotta be! Right?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Let's engage in little critical thinking here. There may be some argument for protecting trade secrets, but I seem to recall that the last time Apple slapped down Think Secret was for talking about products that would be launched in a day or two.
Given that probably thousands of people had already seen those products (the mac mini and iPod shuffle) it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that Apple suffered any damages whatsoever because of Think Secret's reporting.
Apple is behaving like a bully - nothing more.
Three Squirrels
If every individual has a right to publish stolen information with no expectation that they will ever have to reveal how they got that stolen information, then no one's information, no matter how private or trivial to the public interest, will be safe
Currently, personal and institutional information is protected in two ways: First, access to the information is limited to selected individuals. It is this limitation, enforced by technology like passwords, encryption and physical isolation, that most people think of as information security. The second protection is the contractual and legal obligation that people with access to the information have to not misuse it.
No matter how elaborate the technological and procedural protections for everyone's information, at some point that information gets viewed by a human being. If we have no legal means of holding those individuals accountable then information security, and the privacy it brings, is a dead letter. Granting everyone, from private individuals to vast commercial interests, the right to disseminate stolen information destroys the second protection utterly. Anyone with access to protected information can steal it and perhaps even sell it with little expectation they will be caught.
What we have here is a tag team of privacy violation. The thief steals the information and then the publisher "fences" it. Shielding the thief as a "source" could open the floodgates for information theft. Today, we see the violation of Apple's NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) but the same legal concept could just as well apply to an individual's medical and financial data. Even if the actual theft were theoretically illegal, how could one prosecute if the person disseminating your private information had a legal right to protect the identity of the thief?
The internet changes all the rules. The old style press shield laws won't work in the internet era.
I started this petition because of the petition for Apple to drop the lawsuit against Nick Ciarelli.
,b>A comment from insanelygreat.com:
My petition isn't full of loaded emotional words that irrelevant to the matter.
Wording and background for the petition:
To: Apple Computer
The following represent the level headed Mac faithful who do not appreciate Nick Ciarelli of Think Secret. We understand, by definition, that Nick was outside the bounds of the constitution and outside the limits of journalism. Rumormongering such as Think Secret publishes is harmful to Apple. We understand that "Trade Secret" is important to Apple's business model. We would like Apple to pursue this litigation to send a message to any developer, Apple employee, or industry insider, or beta tester that breach of contract [by breaking your Non Disclosure Agreement] is very serious. We also represent potential customers - we feel such litigation may ease future need for litigation against others who try to take advantage of Apple at our expense (by higher prices). Further, we represent Apple shareholders. As shareholders we believe Think Secret sets financial expectations too high by mixing credible and ficticious rumors, that stock market analysts and major news sources, quote and misquote. This is often detrimental to Apple's stock and quarterly forecasts.
"As an Apple stockholder I do not want anyone releasing detailed information about the company's products until they are ready for market and any new innovations have patents applied for. If Apple didn't sue this individual they would be negligent and subject to lawsuit by investors."
Most rumors sites are just that - speculators/prognosticators - manufacturers of stories. THIS - I do not see as harmful - and occasionally they are right. Other sites do rumor source by patent application.
NO OTHER rumor site solicits information by a phone number and regularly quotes sources as "deep with inside Apple"
NO OTHER website reports (firsthand) about the reseller lawsuit and knows the intimate details such as Think Secret
Plain and simple. Information about Apple products acquired on the Apple campus is Apple's property. You take Steve Jobs stapler from the Apple campus and tell a friend they can have it and they obviously can see you stole it or you say, "Yeah, I swiped it when he wasn't looking" - you are in receipt of stolen property. You are an accessory to a crime.
If you solicit and receive information that is a trade secret - that information belongs to Apple - if you choose to capitalise on that information you are an accessory to the process of theft.
It is NO different.
And I really wish everyone would stop saying rumormongering is journalism. Do you all have the same opinion of The Enquirer or The Weekly World? Is that journalism?
Further, understand that this ALL hurts Apple's relations with developers. I doubt seriously if I would want to be involved with Apple if I had something they wanted or wanted me to cooperate with them on. It's too much drama.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Is Apple good this week, or evil? Between Apple and IBM I'm not sure anymore which corporations we're supposed to hate.
*removes tongue from cheek*
Next try, back to square one: greenbacks ready, spot the pockets!
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
> "I'm grateful that Mr. Gross has stepped forward to help defend these crucial freedoms."
'Cuz all of a sudden Apple went berserk, the lawsuits startef flying, and these crucial freedoms just disappeared. All of 'em. And they were really good freedoms.
(I had to take the site down and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed website wasn't nearly as good, and I blame Steve Jobs for the grade I got.)
There is something truly wrong if Apple can get this kid to divulge the source of his "leaker" when comparatively, Robert Novak can leak the name of an undercover CIA agent any not have to divulge his source? Tell me if I'm wrong here. I am not a political beast, however I am an Apple fan and this is just an outright atrocity in our society. How can we hold some 19 year old to the fire over something as minor as this and we can have no accountability to such things as the Robert Novak affair? And heck he is STILL employed at CNN!
Simply put, NDA's aren't worth the paper they're written on if you can tell someone else secrets and get away with it as long as that person protects your identity.
We see people complaining about freedom of speech. What about Apple's freedom to keep their information secret?
Check out:
http://www.gbcounsel.com/highlights.htm
Specifically:
"Defamation: Gianni Versace, s.P.a. and Little, Brown. Jointly represented the Versace family and businesses in a defamation matter, which resulted in Little, Brown canceling publication of a controversial biography of Gianni Versace.
Hypocrasy?
What say you?
So what the heck does a PRIVATE lawsuit (ie not involving the government) have to do with the First Amendment?
This is not a constitutional argument.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Apple's attempt to silence a small publication's news reporting [...]
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't get what the ruckus is about this suit. Calling the ThinkSecret publications that caused this suit "news reporting" seems disingenuous to me. Why? Because TS' model seems to be to solicit insider information from within Apple, likely in violation of both trade secret law and the hiring/IP contracts of those who leaked the information. Also, Apple's main aim in this is to find the leaks in its organization. Casting this as "Apple vs. ThinkSecret" also seems like BS, unless this is cast as some sort of yellow-journalism, David v. Goliath type of slant.
An interesting question this suit raises is: where is the line between "news reporting" and "any random schmoe with a blog/website"? What, if any, legal protections and judicial precedents apply to "news" reporters relevant to this context?
If you were to hand me your company's confidential material, and I had no contractual relationship with your company, I can do whatever I want with what you gave me. I think your company might want to have some words with you, however. If trade secrets changed hands in this case, it's one or more Apple employees who are at fault, not ThinkSecret. Apple is suing to flush those people out of hiding.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
He stole more than one second term?!?
He must be quick!
Who do you work for?
I need to avoid both you and Apple now.
I say hypocrisy; why don't you?
The tort of interference with contractual relations allows a plaintiff to recover damages based on a claim that a defendant interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relations.
The elements of an intentional interference with contractual relations claim are:
(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party;
(2) defendant's knowledge of this contract;
(3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship;
(4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship;
(5) resulting damage.
To be considered tortious, a defendant's actions must substantially exceed fair competition and free expression.
This means that the worst that can happen is that ThinkSecret or Nick dePlume (or whoever) will be found civilly liable and therefore have to pay damages. On the other hand, the 5 elements that Apple has to prove must be proven on the balance on the probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: IAAL but IANACL (not a California lawyer).
The thrill of the Apple rumor mill, particularly around Mac World in January, is intoxicating to me.
But that said, I do think there is a line between freedom of speach and soliciting priviledged information from people you know shouldn't be talking to you.
It isn't enough to say "I have annonymous source e-mail". If you are going to be a reporter, then there are ethics involved. Getting the scoop on a story by any means doesn't cut it for me.
Plus, did you see how wildly Apple's stock was swinging around all these rumors? we are talking 7% in a day market cap swings - that is big stuff for a teenager to be toying with.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Wish I had mod points for you. This is a very good comment, on more than one level and reference.
But then again, I'm beginning to suspect that the people posting in the Mac threads in here can't be the same as the OSS/anti-RIAA people posting in the other threads. The ideology seems so totally the opposite. Has some old Mac fan site gone down and rerouted all is traffic to Slashdot?
a link to it? So we can sign it...
Then again, his comment is total bullshit perpetuated by sad bastards that have no fucking clue what the First Amendment ACTUALLY means. The First Amendment gives absolutely no protection against corporations or individuals attempting to silence you, ONLY against the government doing so. Try wearing a Cannibal Corpse t-shirt to your job as a bank teller and see how long it is before you're fired.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
...is get the other two Mac users to sign it. =)
Things are good
What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet? Would they be silly enough to claim 1st Amendment protection?? Does this make them 'journalists' who got a 'scoop'? NO! They are scoring a quick buck and some notoriety, profitting from stolen goods!
What about distributing sensitive classified government documents, such as the names of undercover agents, on "ThinkCIA.com"? When they get offed, and the feddies come knocking, you will be free to argue your 1st Amendment rights to yourself for the rest of your life while you rot in solitary confinement.
ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!
The only event in which this *would* be protected speech would be if the stolen information exposed some crime in Apple, in which case whistleblower laws would protect the informants. Get a clue, gentlemen: the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to broadcast whatever you want. It does not protect you from having your trolls deleted by forum mods, or your letter to the editor from being thrown away unpublished. It protects you against being censored by the **government** for spreading your political and/or religious beliefs, even if they are contrary to what the govt. is promoting. THAT is your freedom, not the right to post warez, not the right to break your NDA, and not the right to take a handoff from somebody that breaks THEIR NDA and make a pocketfull of cash on it. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this; paying any attention in High School Govt. class (for US citizens) should be background enough.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
Apple wants its leaker, so they decide to sue because a website editor in a place not friendly to them revealed a "trade secret" that Apple would reveal publically not long later. For its lawyers' fees, Apple gets...
1) publicity for its opponents' website.
2) a black eye for going after people who don't like them
3) no leaker if he took any sort of precautions.
So, for the cost of some lawyers, Apple gets to publically crap on the 1st Amendment while not getting their leak plugged. Slick move, guys.
As another poster suggested, why not use a Canary Trap to tag the leaker - change a few decimals in specs before publication. If there's only one source, then the editor of ThinkSecret has to use the numbers he's given (numbers that are really vague won't get him any hits), and the numbers will reveal sets of sources that can be narrowed down. You don't spook the leaker, and you can dispose of him at your leisure. Another alternative might be to sue for potential stock value losses due to the timing of the leak - but that probably will neither look much better or have a better chance of winning.
if Congress makes a law that allows private individuals to suppress speech they don't like, it would also contravene the 1st Amendment. The Bill of Rights enumerates rights of the people, rights independent of government; while it protects those rights from gov't interference, it also implies their existence as rights held by everyone as such.
Obviously, they are suing a "press agency" for the name of their source. And in the present climate where TV reporter Jim Taricanti gets jail time for protecting his source for a videotape that showed a Rhode Island official taming a bribe, Apple may have a strong case.
In Taricanti's case, he works for a television station and their broadcast spectrum, being held "in public trust" may limit his rights under the Constitution where freedom of the press is concerned. But the US Supreme Court found in its examination of the CDA that, due to the diversity of thought found on the Internet, there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
This may offer more protection from such a demand from Apple than Taricanti had, even though this is a civil suit and not a contempt-of-court issue.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)
What remains to be seen is what, if any, of these laws apply, and whether or not the laws of Massachusetts, California, federal, etc., can be applied to this case.
And, as many people have said, they don't really care about Nick Ciarelli (yes, for those who don't know, he's 19 year old Harvard student). They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to Think Secret. And no, it's not "known" elsewhere. He's got a very reliable mole, or a set of them, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe Nick "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)
Just some things to think about.
How did Oliver North get involved in this?
And what's a NADA Contract.
Giveaway: Think GEEK!
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I may be missing something, but isn't this just like those persistant photographers following new cars not yet revealed to the public? Those cars are "hidden" under a camouflash so that even if they do take pictures of them, those pictures won't really tell what the car really looks like underneath. Sure, every so often, a good picture is taken and the hype for the new car to be released just goes up. Sure the car manufacturer might change a little something before release, but who cares, it's great publicity. Relating the car example with this, I would say that hidding a car under an exotic vail would be far more difficult than a gadget that is supposed to fit in your pocket or desktop. If Apple doesn't want the secret out, then they shouldn't share the secret until they're ready.
Now take your argument and take it to the logical next step.
Why would anyone ever leak any information to the press if they thought that simply throwing the reporter in jail would lead the journalist to reveal his/her source?
The Pentagon pagers? That story never would have happened. Any number of scandals in government that people should know about would never see the light of day. How does that make the United States a better country?
If Apple wants to discover who leaked this story, let it hire a private detective.
- dj
th15 15 n0t th3ft!!
1nf0rm4t10n w4nt5 t00 b3 fr33!!!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
In other news, 500,000 parents are suing their offspring for divulging secrets to siblings on what they're getting for Christmas.
Instigator of the lawsuit, Mr S. Claus, stated, "Spoiling the surprise has got to stop. It is unacceptable to have emotional distress brought to parents on being told on Christmas morning: 'Old news, mom, I already knew about the bike and baseball bat after Jimmy told me he'd found them under your bed weeks ago.' "
"Furthermore," said Mr Claus, "divulging trade secrets has materially harmed the company North Pole Elf-Made Cool Stuff Inc., to the extent no one believes we can offer surprises any more, completely undermining our attempt to provides an alternative to South Pole Leprechaun Fools Gold Inc., which controls 98% of the Christmas gift market."
Mr Claus also stated, "and on personal note, it sucks to have my surprise stolen, and means my annual North Pole World Keynote just has 'get to the cheap reindeer bit' catcalls instead of its usual gurgles of childish delight."
The class action seeks to force the blabbermouths to disclose who told them to look on the top shelf of the closet.
UP UP UP
oh yeah, no text
Sometimes its nessasary to break the law to get it overturned. Secondly, what reason should I have to follow a law that does not have the publics interest at heart? Laws are made to protect the public good, personally I dont see this law as something that protects my rights as an individual. its just another step in the chain of events that takes away freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Companies dont have a god given right to the protection of profits.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
Ethically? please. its legally wrong but thats about it. Laws like this are created to give the wealth power and they directly take away from the interests of the public. Whats more important? Interests of Profit or Public? Its the wellbeing of people, and free exchange of ideas, that should always come before Profit. Why the hell would anyone want to obey a law that does not benifit the public is beyond me. Ohh I forgot, business interests come first right? sorry but I could care less about corporate interests, its just money.. they have to compete in an age where information cannot be controlled, so learn to work around it or die.
You're missing something here.
And that something is the laws that may make Nick Ciarelli's actions illegal.
Whether or not you fundamentally think the laws are correct is the subject of another discussion.
Nick Ciarelli may be in violation of laws that prohibit knowingly disclosing information that was obtained as a result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement by any party to the chain of information. It can be argued that Nick KNOWS this information is confidential. How or if any of these laws can be applied in this case remains to be seen.
If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting Nick from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe Nick's challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.
I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, and use the legal system as a backdrop for that fight.
But that doesn't change the fact that the laws are in force in the interim, and that persons, corporations, and other entities within the system will use the law to their advantage.
This little rich punk is clearly in the wrong.
Apple would not be sueing Thinksecret if someelse didnt disclose information they signed a NDC Apple wants the indivual(s) that couldnt keep there mouth shut Think secret wont give them up Thinksecret made a ton of money on this info they received. They may not have paid for the info but they did profit. If you had a great idea for an invention and told a backer for the financing and they turned and patented before you did and made a ton of money on it would you sue them? I know I would
"but isn't this just like those persistant photographers following new cars not yet revealed to the public?"
Nope. It's like a blogger encouraging an engineer from the car manufacturer to break his NDA and send him pictures of the new car which are then posted on the internet.
Gross: "So, you published trade secrets."
dePlume: "Yes. Is that going to be a problem?"
Gross: "Yeah that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. Apple's attempt to silence a small publication's news reporting presents a troubling affront to the protections of the First Amendment. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous."
dePlume: "It's definitely preposterous."
You see it as a zero sum game, don't you? It's either Public, or Profit, and nowhere in between. No information should be kept secret, and all information should be free.
I hate to tell you this, but there's a balance. And sometimes the concept of "Profit" of "Corporations" - those who employ the Public - is good for that same Public. Sometimes the protection of the mechanisms that make us a prosperous society and protect the concept of fair competition are good for that same society.
Don't talk about information as if it's some fanciful abstract thing that should fly free as red breasted robins now that we have the amazing Interweb. You make a gentleman's agreement with your employer to not leak his secrets to the world, you fucking keep it. You don't surreptitiously break it, secretly leaking private information that you have been TOLD is private, and asked not to leak, as a condition of your employ, for years to feed your own sense of selfishness, or self righteousness, or self confidence.
Just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Please tell me how it is inappropriate for a business to want to keep its own ideas secret. If you're just one of those anti-corporate anti-business types, or think all information should always be free and unlimited under all circumstances, then you needn't reply, because we'll be in fundamental disagreement.
Right. Because everyone who has ever worked with / on linux or x86 products is a pure freaking angel.
;)
Grow up moron. All companies are out to $make$ $money$ period. Even the ones that hawk Linux and Linux wares.
If the Mac is a better computer with a better OS you are only hurting yourself. If the PC is a better computer with a better OS then you have made a good choice.
But they all have lawyers, and they all use them, and the ones on top are way way richer than you or I. No matter which computer you buy.
So why do so many support Apple (or Apple products?) Because we use them ourselves. And if more people use Apple computers, more stuff will be made or sold that works with and runs on Apple computers. We win. None of us actually care about how rich Bill or Steve or whoever are getting. We all know they are on top. But in the end I want to use my computer the best way possible, and I support anything that helps me do that...
And Apple is cool.
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.
The day corporations were considered persons common sense was fataly wounded...
But... the future refused to change.
Historically, the law was hostile to trade secrets. If a third party not bound by contract found out a trade secret, it wasn't a secret any more. If you wanted to protect a technology, you had to get a patent, which has narrow coverage and a limited lifetime.
That's changed, due to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and 1996 Federal legislation. But it varies from state to state. Massachusetts hasn't enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Federal law is about "commercial advantage". It's not clear how this will unwind.
Compare, for example, Popular Mechanix spy photos of prototype cars.
If anything, I think Steve does not like anything that ruins his mystique as the giver of all things "Ooh and Ahh." As "punishment" to the rumor-mongering hordes of the internet, Steve banished the entire lot of 'net users from viewing his keynote at Macworld.
Three simple rules for "How NOT to get sued by Steve's Apple machine":
He's not the world's richest man, but he has lawyers and a penchant to unleash them on people who f**k with his world.
It might be one's right to contradict the above caveats, however, beware: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should and just because you think you should doesn't mean you're right. Of course, this axiom goes both ways, but good luck when dealing with a megalamaniac who runs a large company with lots of cash.
Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
In the internet age who is a journalist? Everybody is a potential journalist. Who is a public figure? Could be anybody. Is Cowboy Neil a public figure? He is on slashdot. What is newsworthy? Is any company information "newsworthy?" How about the product plans of small software company comprised of two guys in a garage? Can the guy they hire to do their product web page freely sell their information to anybody else on the entire web?
"how different is Nick dePlume's journalism from what Woodward and Bernstein were doing to uncover Watergate?"
Woodward et al were uncovering political corruption and outright crimes. Nick de Plume is providing entertainment for money. His fencing of stolen information helps no one but himself. Nobody is going to die if they don't know what Apple's hot new thing is a week before they announce it.
The very triviality of the information stolen makes it more not less important that the legal restrictions be enforced. Once we create an environment where people with access to private data can steal it without consequence it will inevitably lead to gross violations of individual privacy.
That's copyright infringement. Works are copyright to their creator upon creation, no matter if they are published or not. So take take a work and release it is to commit copyright infringement.
That's not what happened here, he just revealed the existance of something that wasn't known publicly. It would be the same thing as if you found out that Lucas had a script for Episode 7 written and revealed that fact. You aren't releasing the script, you are releasing the knowledge that the script exists.
Also, trade secrets are generally somethign that the onus is on the holder to defend. They can make those involved sign NDA's, and go after them for breach of contract if they do divulge the info, however if ti gets out, it's out and there's shit they can do. So if you are someone not under NDA and you find out the info, you are free to tell everyone.
That's the issue here, is that Apple seems to think they can tell ThinkSecret they aren't allowed to release anmore secrets (they are seeking an injunciton to that end). No, sorry, they don't have that right. They can try and keep things secret, but if someone finds out, they can't bitch and scream when that person tells.
What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet?
Well, for one thing, those would be protected by copyright law.
ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!
The question is whether this sort of information is protected information. If somebody off the street comes up to me and tells me "hey, apple is coming out with a new flash player device called the iPod Shuffle" and I post this infomation online, have I done broken the law? Certainly not copyright law, because information cannot be copyrighted, only actual text and photos and such can.
Now, some laws exist to prevent the release of trade secrets, this much is true. However these laws might be superceded by freedom of the press. And the press is defined as anybody reporting information to the public, like it or not. He has every right to argue that he was publishing as a journalist. Whether he makes a profit on it or not is irrelevant. The New York Times sells advertisements and subscriptions, after all.
And it's really quite debatable whether the knowledge that Apple is making any particular product is indeed a "trade secret" or not under the definitions used in the law.
If he had posted copyrighted material, he'd have no case. As it is, he does have a case.
- 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.
If Apple is suing him, then they are suing him using some form of law to make their case. You can't just sue anybody at random, you have to have a legal backing upon which to do it. he has no contract with Apple, he signed no NDA, so they're not getting him on contract law. In this particular case, they are using trade secret protection laws to do the suing.
Laws are passed by the government. If the existance of this law allows the private company to suppress his freedom of speech, then the government is at fault for passing the law in question. The existence of the law constitutes government interference and First Amendment protections do indeed apply.
- 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.
I like free software and all, and I'm a mac user as well, but sometimes i think people ae not really that fair. Why? because I've seen people agree with some issues only when it's convenient to them. What I'm trying to say is that, c'mon, Apple is only protecting their interests. I mean, suppose you had a company that was about to announce some big product and some idiot decided to tell everybody before you made your announcement. I mean, really, would you really like someone else spoiling your surprise? These days everything revolves around corporate image. Now, by this guy spilling the beans about new products does indeed affect Apple. It's just like in war, the surprise factor accounts for a big part of your strategy. Now, I do appreciate sites like ThinkSecret just because I'm another geek, so I like fresh info. But think about it, if you were about to release a product you have worked on long and hard, you would be pissed too @ those who reveal your surprise. Not to make it trivial, but think about when you're telling a good joke and someone spoils it. You just want to slap them silly. So, it's Apple slapping them silly for ruining a nice surprise. Imagine the impact the Mac mini would've had if we knew nothing about it. Instead, we just went "ok, here we go, the mini" Not that I agree with all their policies, but give them a break already. They're making M$ sweat, so in my book they're good people :)
In the case of Appleinsider and Powerpage, Apple filed suit against several "John Does" and is using subpoenas served on these two companies to identify the people it claims leaked information. Appleinsider and Powerpage are not defendants in the action. Think Secret, however, is a named defendant. Since Think Secret and the "John Does" are part of the same civil complaint, and Gross is representing several non-party potential witnesses to the action, any representation of a named Defendant would be a clear conflict of interest.
Spy photoes of proptotype cars are protected in the same way that celebrity photos are; photographers (paparazzi) can take pictures of anything they want (in public) and sell them. The only thing they can't do is trespass, break & enter, or break other laws to get the pictures (such as local laws around where I live that say people can't use ladders to peer directly over their neighbor's walls if they're a certain height). Taking pictures in public--and the right to sell them--is protected by the law. There are other situations/reasons that require photographers to make you sign waivers, etc., for example, to keep you from claiming wages as a model or actor when they stage you up for a 'man-on-the-street' commercial, or when you scream at your ex on Rikki Lake, but these are considered different than walking down the beach and photographing Brad Pitt walking his dog.
The car makers may be coy about their cars and put little disguises on them, but they still drive them around publicly accessable places. In fact, sometimes (here in AZ) you can see them driving on public roads with the disguises on. If you sit on a public mountain with a telephoto lens, you can snap whatever pictures you want of the test track below. But you can bet they'd throw a fit if one of their designers, on an NDA, published a book of secret, unrealized concepts and thought he could chuckle all the way to the bank with it.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
I was planning to buy an iPod shortly but now I don't think I'll bother. I don't want to fund Jobs delusions of Godhood.
Oh great wise one, enlighten me:
Did congress pass a law to insure you would be fired if you wore a Cannibal Corpse shirt to work?
Here, let me clue you in: if a corporation or a private individual is using a law congress passed to silence me, I indeed have protections.
Try reading the rest of the document.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
To state the 1st amendment is solely a protection from government intrusion is an interpretation, and not strictly what it says.
Congress shall make no law...
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Ollie was acting in ways that were both treasonous AND against the constitution and the law as expressed by the senate and house.
There is no inalienable rights to control your employees either.
Either you don't trust any of them and go down the pan as nobody knows what they are working on (cue dilbert), or you do and risk losing the trade secret.
If we are talking about inalienable rights, then we should look at both sides.
How about...you're incorrect. The name of the undercover agent wasn't a trade secret, since the CIA isn't a corporation and they don't officially have a "trade." Therefore, the name of the spy wasn't officially protected under this law, and they guy didn't break that law. The kid did, because he was in possession of trade secret information. Apple has the right to learn his source so they can sue and fire them.
Now, is what Novak did right? I say hell no. I say if that isn't treason, it should be. I think it should be an executable offense, publishing the identity of an American operative in the field. It's pretty much implicit that's a death warrant. If you can do something like that and live with yourself, you are a piece of human filth.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"When you know not whereof you speak; your mouth is best used for chewing"
A company can be both good and evil at the same time, just as an individual simultaneously can be a mass murderer and a good father.
I know some companies would like it to be, but it isn't. Some laws give it some of the properties of property, but there's nothing natural about those laws, they're just there to make certain kinds of commerce work better. It's not a moral issue, no matter how much you shout about "theft".
Could it be that defamation (lying to hurt or defraud) is somehow different from being sued for telling the truth?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Slashdotters go ape over the Evil Alliance & micro$oft, but Apple is just as evil as those 2 are, they just have a smaller market share in their particular field.
How about this: congress passes a law which says it is okay to fire you because you wear a Star of David. Is that a violation?
I thought Apple was a paragon of virtue who could do no wrong and that evil such as this is only perpetrated by Microsoft? Oh, I forgot - /.'ers used to think that evil such as this could only be perpetrated by IBM and that Microsoft was the paragon of virtue.
How short their memories are . . .
2) a black eye for going after people who don't like them
Actually, it's two black eyes for going after people who do like them.
Like them very much and run websites enthusiastically promoting their unreleased gadgets.
Go Apple.
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
Heck, it could be stated that Novak committed treason.
I'd consider it treason. And he got someone killed. Good for him.
I had a bit of respect for the people at EFF, but now that they support this dePlume character, I'm not so sure... I don't see why the claim this is a freedom of speech or 1st Ammendment thing - am I free to divulge patent information on the Internet (and suggest commercial applications) of some work with a Creative Commons license with non-Commercial stipulations? What gives...we're talking about trade secrets here...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
3) no leaker if he took any sort of precautions.
You mean like, wear a condom while talking on the phone or reading email? =)
Nick had to have some way of establishing the credentials of the leaker. How did Nick know he was getting good information?
And if he does know who it was, he'll have to disclose that he know. If he doesn't, he'll perjure himself, and then he's going to be in real trouble that makes the current legal situation look like a traffic fine.
I don't think just trashing your logs or not keeping them in the first place is going to be enough in this case. Or wearing a condom. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Especially Providence, so the reporter most likely saved the life of his source. The judge who wanted the source is probablly not as clean as we would like to beleive.
Uh, working for more than one employer is hypocrisy?
Or are you saying that no attorney should be allowed to argue a case for a plaintiff, and then at some future date argue a case for the defense? That somehow the attorney here is betraying all the plaintiff lawyers, by becoming a defense lawyer?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Sorry, I meant to respond to bazmat's post, not yours. You at least know how to spell. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
WOW, Steve Balmer and Bill Gates both agree with the petition. Those signers must be legit!
Wonder what this says about Apple if someone as EVIL as Microsoft agrees with them.
"He openly solicits what odds are are insider info, and odds are those are covered by NDAs, and tells the world, and in California that's a crime."
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
California has no ability for citizens to publish information. By your reasoning, California could prohibit you from any sort of speech.
However, Apple won't try to push this angle in court because they'll likely lose and know it. They'll bluster for a few weeks and then drop the case.
Continuing what is a long, uninterrupted string of cases where apple bullies little websites. Ever since they got their asses handed to them by MS in court, they stay away from companies that can defend themselves.
Apple deserves to get their asses kicked for this kind of nonsense.
"Indeed, by signing an NDA,"
Thinksecret didn't sign an NDA.
Repeat that over and over until you get it.
Apple is suing them because they didn't like that they published the truth.
"I don't like what he did. I will stop my feet. I will threaten to sue. I will bluster mindlessly. I am clueless. I am dum. Tell me which end of the gun to hold so I don't shoot myself. Coffee is hot. McDonalds should be sued for hot coffee. First amendment...uh...doesn't apply here. Gibber gibber gibber. They ought to sue this kid. I am dum. Dum dum dum. I haven't a clue. I will bluster and sue. My mother should have used a coat hanger. I am dum. Dum."
That, sir, pretty much covers it.
"Rumors artificially inflate Apple's share price, then when they actually announce the product, the share price DROPS 6 dollars. There's your damages."
No, prices dropped because financial people heard about the lawsuit and assumed Apple is fucking stupid and therefore they've pulled their money.
Steve Jobs should be sued by investors for cluelessness.
And maybe, investors looked at the new iPod and thought "Man, what Cluefuck took over engineering?"
Your petition is stupid and should read like this instead:
Dear Apple:
Here's a quarter. Buy yourself a clue and drop the lawsuit. It makes you look stupid and its wrong.
Signed,
People with more than an ounce of brains.
"And I really wish everyone would stop saying rumormongering is journalism. Do you all have the same opinion of The Enquirer or The Weekly World? Is that journalism?"
Yes. If I'm interested in Julia Roberts, then I want to read all the gossip about her. If The Enquirer goes to the time and trouble to report every rumor about her, then that's journalism.
Here's your equation:
1) I like it == journalism
2) I don't like it != journalism
3) If Apple doesn't like it != journalism.
Stop defending apple so much. THey're clueless asshats.
My favorite is the signature from
Faw King Clueless.
I don't think he's a real king though!
We're discrediting you because you appear to be Faw King Clueless.
And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
I'll bet your mother wished she would have used a coat hanger before you were born.
No. I merely asked "What say you?"
I say, "get a spelling checker", and stop comparing cases that aren't even remotely similar.
Dumbass.
If ThinkSecret wins This NDC will mean nothing. anyone working for any company A sees the next great idea and goes to Company B,C,and D and Sells all the details. Company B & C have Really deap pockets and larger R&D come out with the the produce First. This would kill Company A as they are Third with the product they Invented. This would Kill the originating Company. Company secrets are what makes the comnpany money by being first.
This will effect all the Ideas. There will be no competion any more everyone will know what the other guys is doing. Look at pro football if each team had the others playbook and where able to listening to the other teams coach give the next play Football would really SUCK!!
There's several 100 fake signatures on the petition not sue him. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates appear on that one as well.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Intentionally leaking false specs is illegal.
mbbac
If you have the next DirecTv type idea your a small company of 100 or less. Enough money this Billion dollar idea created and on the market in 1 year. Remember your a small company with limited funds.
One of your employees is talking to someone and gives them the whole idea you come up with 1 month after you start your process. That person works for a billion dollar company. this comany like the idea and put that idea out in 6 months. Thats 5 months before you could get yours out.
Now tell me the law is there only for the wealthy
I didn't apply to Harvard. The point still stands.
According to state law as reported here and elsewhere, since California has adoted the UTSA, Apple has cause to pursue this. Yes it is a tort, not a criminal case. I followed original suggestions that the criminal code was involved. My bad.
There are limits to protected speech. I never said only Woodward et. al were protected, but the first amendment isn't intended to shield from litigation people who simply decide they want to be party to a breach of contract for their own entertainment.
No one is saying he can't say it - they did say that to the poor sap at Apple, though. They're saying if he does say it they'll use the UTSA to sue him.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yeah I know, I was just pointing out why no one would or should take these things seriously.
Plus with the online ones like petition online it is so easy to keep adding in new names, and easy for the trolls/ANTI-this-petitioners to screw with.
Untrue - you can willingly enter into a contract with me (I can be a person or a corporation) that says you agree not to divulge some piece of information I give you. If you then reveal that information (even if you're ordered to do so by a court) I can sue you for breaking the contract.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
agreed...
... I wanted to point out that the same type of petition with the opposite stance would get the fake signatures. I was hoping that the fanatical would post to my petition in greater % just so it would show anyone that the petition to "save nick" was bogus as well.
While my petition was seriously worded
For the few places it has been placed online - I don't see how it's gotten all the signatures it has.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I say, Relax. Don't do it.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Yes, you fucking retard, because it's the goddamned government doing it.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Well, I can actually see it. Petition online has no limits as to how many times you can sign a petition, and you don't have to give them a working email address.
It might not be the case, but with petition online setup I wouldn't be surprised if some signers are using a random name generator. Heck, it probably wouldn't be too hard to program something that generates names, addresses, and have it submit them.
Plus it depends on the community that you announce the petition to, places like slashdot or a big Apple fan site can bring in a lot of singers, as well as trolls/critics. Also it depends on the petition as well, I know one joke petition that spread among the Anime community, it featured common stereotypes about Anime and Anime fans, and a lot of people thought it was legit. So you got a lot of "This Petition SUX" type comments, as well as "you are a religious nut" since the petition played that angle. The author did include a reference that only a Anime fan should get, and had a web page saying it was a joke(unfortunately that page is now long gone, but the petition still lives).
Kind of funny seeing that petition still being spread around and people still falling for and believing it. I remember one place taking comments seriously when the petition comment were by people who got the joke and were playing along. Those who where Anti-Anime on that forum took these comments as if they were legit. Like this petition, can't say I am surprised the way people treated it, and still stress why these online ones can't and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Now take your argument and take it to the logical next step.
No its not logical, because you're talking Apples and oranges. As soon as Apple Computer starts initiating wars under false pretenses, is involved in government coverups, or starts shipping biohazardous products, then we'll talk about your "next step." Until then, this is the technical of sneaking into the backyard of Britney Spears to try and snap some pictures of her latest husband/boyfriend, and then publishing them in the Sun while loudly blathering about the "publics right to know."
someone else internally would be, and they could find out who that person is. or group of people, and narrow it down further...
If they know someone will leak them? I don't know.
You seem to be forgetting that we are talking about the US here, they WOULD do that!
"We'll be a corporate feudal state, not a republic based on rights."
'We will'? try "We are"
Probably too late to respond to this, but I wanted to anyway.
In a way I do see it as a zero sum game. profit is important, but its not more fundamental then public good. The balance should all ways lean in the publics direction. And IMHO trade secrets don't, in anyway shape or form help the public good. Personal I don't sign anything I wouldnt be able to agree to, but I still support the right for people to disclose under certain circumstances, especially if it is in the interest of public awareness. No company should be able to force someone to maintain silence when their motivation do not protect the public good.
A company doesn't not equal a person, they shouldn't have equal rights what so ever. people have a rights. A right to privacy and what not, but the main goal of companies IMHO is to help the common man live a better life, and reap the benefits in conjunction to that. when the focus is based on the opposite you pretty much all ways have a situation where the common man suffers. Personal I don't think its right.
Too many people in America think money is the end all to everything. its just MONEY. it helps you get from point a to b. It should never become so important that we stop helping people because they dont make a six figure salary.
Money distorts the true meaning of life when its used as a focal point, if more people took to the time to learn how empathize with their fellow humans we wouldnt have problems like greed and selfishness.