Slashdot Mirror
Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk
An anonymous reader writes "A poster on DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer has posted the weekly ads for Circuit City, Best Buy, and Target ahead of time for the last few years. A few weeks ago he confirmed that there was an intended price break on the PS3 and stole Sony's thunder from E3. A Circuit City ad was used for confirmation. Circuit City has threatened DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer.com to give them personal information about the poster. CheapAssGamer has hired a lawyer and is going to fight. The story is similar to the Black Friday ads being posted early and FatWallet fighting back."
And I agree with you. Sort of. Stealing corporate secrets is only wrong if they are under copyright or you've signed some sort of NDA. As you mention, prices are facts and not subject to copyright. Therefore, the wrongdoing in this case hinges on whether or not the leaker had signed some sort of NDA. However, it is not likely anyone who hasn't signed an NDA would have legitimate access to that information, and so that person should have to defend their actions in court.
A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Very much a trade secret. If the documents were properly labeled, that is. Too often a company will claim "trade secret" without treating it as such. It has to be marked with something that indicates that it's private and proprietary. Like having those words stamped on it. I've been doing this game for a long time.
Now, if I was said poster, I'd be using a Yahoo email address with all fake data and posting from free hotspots.
What is the likelihood that he has signed any kind of confidentiality agreement with Circuit City?
If has signed no confidentiality agreement, are his actions criminal?
Third parties get subpoenaed all the time to provide evidence in cases. Basically, if you have any relevant, specific information to any case, civil or criminal, it is your responsibility to give it up. If the information is sensitive you can get a protective order for it. About the only excuse I can think of right now for not giving it up is attorney-client privilege, and I don't see that applying here.
I HATE seeing the "privacy" shield being thrown up in cases like this. It denigrates the term for everyone else who is really fighting for privacy, not just trying to evade culpability for their illegal actions.
is this really a corporate secret though? Anyone ever wonder why all name brand electronics are the same price whereever you go? All these items have MAP (minimum advertised price) restrictions that they must adhere to. All this means is that ALL retailers will be able to sell the PS3 for the new lower MAP price. Just because it leaked out of a CC ad, this price reduction is not going to be a CC only sale. I know i am assuming a bit on my last statement, but obviously unless they are doind one of those "instant rebate" type of sales, this price reduction would have been made by everyone. In addition, anyone that purchased the device ahead of the sale could get a price match, so they arent going to be making any more money on this is the info doesnt leak out. There is a lot of hoopla over nothing on this, where although CC is probably within their rights to seek out who is leaking it, are they really going to accomplish anything positive? Now all the gamers are pissed at them. I am sure they would still purchase from CC if they have the best price on stuff in the future, but if prices are the same they may be skipped over for an online or "less evil" (in their minds) retailer. And in the age of MAP pricing, how often are their really huge deals at one retailer over another?
Wrong? That is a subjective term. Revealing trade secrets is illegal in most of the US under most situations. Copyright and NDA's don't have anything to do with the legality.
A person's decision to uphold the rights of others should never hinge on whether you like them, agree with their politics, or the actions they have taken outside of the issue at hand. It shouldn't matter whether they are a big fish or a small fry. Rights must be universal.Well, this is sort of true. Rights should be applied universally and equitably to all people, and maybe even to some degree to animals. We're talking, however, about the rights of a corporation. A corporation is not a person, it is a legal construct and legitimacy of a corporations' rights are very much a point of debate. The legitimacy of the right to a trade secret is likewise a matter of debate. Do I have a right to stop a person who finds out one of my secrets from exercising their freedom of speech and telling others? If my girlfriend tells you that I'm willing to take $20 for the book I have on Ebay, even though I'm asking $100 and you post that information here on Slashdot, should I legally be able to force Slashdot to reveal your identity to me, so I can bring a lawsuit against you? Legally, I probably do have that right, but I'm not sure ethically or morally that I should have that right.
Last Christmas, CAG's members donated over $10,000 to Child's Play. We're not misers, we just want good deals on videogames.
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"