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
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."
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.
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!!!!
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
However, that's probably unlikely in a civil case. And in any event, this case isn't dealing with a subpoena for information about his source; he's being sued for tortious interference. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple offered to drop the charge in exchange for the name of his source, but I would be surprised if he's ordered to reveal it. I'd think that if Apple won they'd be awarded punitive monetary damages.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
But that iPod wouldn't play your collection of Ogg Vobis recordings, nor would it sync with your PC running linux.
I'm sure the 500 people in line waiting for an iPod will be pleased you are getting out of the way.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.