Think Secret Shutting Down

A number of readers are sending in the news that the Mac rumors site Think Secret will be shutting down, as part of the (secret) settlement of a lawsuit Apple filed in 2005. Apple had claimed that the blog, published since 1998 by college student Nick Ciarelli, had revealed Apple's trade secrets. The only other detail of the settlement that has been revealed is that Think Secret was not forced to reveal any sources.

Comments

Hope He Got Some Money

[Apple Acolyte]

I really hope Nick got some money in exchange for agreeing to terminate his site. In any case, thank you for your years of work on behalf of the Mac community, Nick.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[electricalen]

IMO, this is not a win for Apple. They have killed a very pro-Apple website which was read by Apple fans and customers. This was not some site that was trashing them, spreading damaging lies, and promoting non-Apple stuff. They were getting the fans excited and trying to sell more products, which is exactly what Apple is trying to do. If you kill off your friends, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[falcon5768]

You can be pro-Apple yet severely damage them at the same time. Anytime you expose secret projects that the company does not feel is ready for prime-time, you risk losing any forward momentum that you would have had over opposing companies in development. This is why corporate espionage is considered a serious problem. As it stands now, the "leaked" project that started this whole mess has been to most peoples knowledge, canned.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[Yvan256]

This was not some site that was trashing them, spreading damaging lies, and promoting non-Apple stuff.

I'm not so sure about this one. When rumors of unbelievable Apple products get around the net, people's expectations get too high. And when Apple finally releases their new product, people are shocked that it's not as amazing as the rumors.

See also: dumb share traders who buy on rumors and sell when the real products arrive and aren't up to rumors specs.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[catbutt]

See also: dumb share traders who buy on rumors and sell when the real products arrive and aren't up to rumors specs.

Why is this a problem? If it's true, all you have to do is notice when they are stupidly selling, and buy, and notice when they are stupidly buying, and sell. Easy money.

Either that, or they aren't as irrational as you think.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[erroneus]

Apple's success and failure are caused by their beyond-anal control-freak-mentality. It's to their credit because the extreme control over the quality and consistency of their products are directly related to their popularity and good reputation. (That wireless network sound device, though, should be recalled. It simply can't play music well enough without skipping!) But their control-freak-ness is also a tremendous inhibitor of their progress in the business world which affects how many homes Macs are found in. People often get the stuff for home that works like their stuff at the office... 'thinking different' is too risky when it comes to business needs.

While I have made numerous predictions about Apple in 2008 and in 2009, I also assert that the results of 2008's observations of Apple will determine if Apple gains a much more significant market share. And among the things that could prevent their growth and success in 2009 are Apple's attitude to customers both new and old and Apple's ability to handle a cultural change brought on by new consumerism and a surge of newbies -- in short, it depends largely on whether or not Apple can keep up with their public-perceived reputation and deliver on it.

A big part of what keeps Apple level in its market is the fact that their user base has little growth and little attrition. So for the most part, the same group of people using Apple 5 years ago are the same people using Apple today. But with the iPod breaking through that closed-culture barrier and heavy demand for iPhone, Apple's popularity surge will prove to be quite a trial for Apple in 2008. Are they prepared to handle it? Will they handle it? If they fail, the public will not forget it for another 10+ years... they won't lose their long-term base, but they will have lost credibility in the eyes of the general public. On the other hand, if they manage to deliver in 2008, 2009 will see a tremendous amount of market share for Apple.

The reality is that people have always know about Apple and have always had a kind of interest in it. But the part that always kept people a few steps away has always been the commitment necessary to make that change. But if more people make the change and are successful, that will bring the masses closer to doing the same... for the moment, much of those masses are still waiting and watching.

Apple will have to get over their control-freak nature, though. Their carefully managed culture will get utterly trashed by the public stampede they've been trying to generate. If they try to control that mob, they will be risking utter failure.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[PriceIke]

Correct, this is not a win for Apple. It IS a win for all the other Apple rumor sites though.

"Seweeeet, one of our competitors--a particularly GOOD one, good enough to get Apple mad enough to shut them down--bites the dust! More Web ad revenue for me! Merry Christmas boys, iPod nanos all around! See you at MacWorld, Nick! Ha ha ha!"

Re:Hope He Got Some Money

[necro2607]

"As it stands now, the "leaked" project that started this whole mess has been to most peoples knowledge, canned."

Are you sure you're talking about the right project? According to this article, the "leaked project" that provoked Apple's lawsuit was the Mac Mini, which was presented two weeks later at MacWorld Expo, and needless to say, has most definitely not been canned...

nice tags...not

[stewbacca]

Since when is "protecting trade secrets" the same as "censorship". I think it's time for /. to abandon the tag feature.

Re:nice tags...not

[niceone]

Maybe it's the "Sorry, comments have been disabled for this story" at the end of TFA?

Re:nice tags...not

[catxk]

Not robots, Oompa-Loompas!

Re:nice tags...not

[geminidomino]

I'm not sure what else you expect Apple to do to prevent it, maybe replace all their employees with robots? No way, then they'll all be chronically depressed. Just look at the iRobot in the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.

Re:nice tags...not

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If they really want to protect trade secrets, maybe they could try to make sure they don't get leaked in the first place?

Which you do by making sure your employees know you'll do what it takes to find them and sue them if they release such information. Apple sued for the names of the leaks, not to shut down the publication. In the end, Apple did not get those names, but the publication shut down, so everyone lost.

When did speculation and reporting on rumors get deemed as private information?

When you're profiting from information you solicited from people who you knew or had a reasonable expectation to know where violating their confidentiality clauses. There are trade secret laws to this affect in almost every state.

All I know is CNN is screwed.

CNN is probably very careful not to do this very thing, except in whistleblower cases, where there is government corruption, a danger to public health, or an overriding public interest for the information to be released. What new gadgets Apple is working on, does not qualify for whistleblower protection.

Monkey off his back?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

It sounds like the creator of Think Secrets is pissed off but trying to act otherwise. He alludes to being "pleased" with the result, saying that he is now able to focus on his "college studies". Had college studies been important to him in the first place, he wouldn't have spent so much time on other projects like this. Most likely this statement is just a weak attempt to save face.

Re:Monkey off his back?

[Rob T Firefly]

I wonder if he's "pleased" in the sense that he has a "big fat Apple check" to "deposit."

Re:Monkey off his back?

[gnasher719]

I wonder if he's "pleased" in the sense that he has a "big fat Apple check" to "deposit." Maybe in an alternative universe, but not in the one where Steve Jobs runs Apple.

Re:Monkey off his back?

[Minupla]

I expect that what you see on the website was carefully vetted by the various legal teams involved.

MIn

Re:Monkey off his back?

[Vellmont]

Most likely this statement is just a weak attempt to save face.

No, most likely this is a statement as part of the legal agreement. It might contain something like "ThinkSecret will not make any deragatory or defamatory remarks regaring Apple Computer Inc."

I on the other hand am under no such legal obligation. What Apple fans need to remember is that Apple is a big corporation that'll do whatever they like to defend what they see as their interest. That includes silencing critics when they're able to. In many ways Microsoft has been a better player in terms of free speech. I don't recall them suing anyone over spoiling the CEO's "big surprise". (Which is really what this is all about, Steve Jobs personal vendetta). That doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't exert the same controls over their product.. they just tend to take the "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" approach.

Re:Monkey off his back?

[MrPerfekt]

Priorities certainly can change over 8 years, don't you think?

Re:Monkey off his back?

[cmacb]

I think the day will come when Apple marketing people will BEG for publicity such as they got from ThinkSecret.

The company seems to have no common sense when it comes to a sense of proportionality. Microsoft my be an incompetent bully when it comes to its competition, but Apple is downright schizophrenic when it comes to dealing with its friends.

This will go down as a milestone in the company's history and whether they continue to be successful it will remain an unsightly incident.

He would have closed down either way.

[RandoX]

Don't give up your source and shut down, or give up your source and don't shut down. You won't be getting any more "insider tips" either way.

Re:He would have closed down either way.

[daveywest]

Nick now has an established and proven reputation for keeping his sources confidential. Even with TS shut down, I have to imagine he will be a coveted corespondent for mainstream Apple press.

I can't think of a publisher that wouldn't want a staffer that has exclusive stories dropping in his lap.

TAG PARENT censorship

[aussie_a]

Wouldn't that be censorship?

Dangerous Slippery Path

[Bruha]

So now corporations will determine what independent press is able to say or shut them down? Our news is already skewed enough as it is by the various corporate news outlets who cater to this and that political party.

Re:Dangerous Slippery Path

[falcon5768]

different fields. Apple is about hardware, in particular consumer and business products. Intel has to work with hundreds of companies to make products that are PART of their partners products (including Apple)

Intel has a vested interest in letting its partners know whats on the horizon. Apple has a lot to lose by doing so, since what makes them so popular, is how well they can design products for user simplicity.

Re:Dangerous Slippery Path

[Mr. Underbridge]

So now corporations will determine what independent press is able to say or shut them down? Our news is already skewed enough as it is by the various corporate news outlets who cater to this and that political party.

Journalists are no less obligated to respond to subpoenas than anyone else. In this case, TS was obligated to name the source who had illegally leaked trade secret information. He chose not to do that.

Note that he actually was not barred from printing the information. It was not giving the guy up that was the problem.

Re:Dangerous Slippery Path

[ubernostrum]

There are two issues people tend to go after here: the "I thought trade secrets weren't protected!" issue and the "OMG First Amendment!" issue. Both objections have serious problems.

Let's deal first with trade secrets. The revelant federal law is quite clear, and lays out some pretty stiff potential penalties for both Think Secret (who almost certainly knew they were receiving an inappropriately-disclosed trade secret, and thus would have triggered the statute) and the person who talked to them (who almost certainly misappropriated a trade secret or improperly transmitted one, and thus would have triggered the statute). 10 years' federal imprisonment or $5m fine is nothing to sneeze at, so we're talking about something that -- from the standpoint of the law -- is a pretty serious offense.

Now, as for journalism and the First Amendment: Think Secret originally attempted to claim the traditional right of journalists to protect anonymous sources, but there's serious doubt about whether they ought to receive it. The traditional protection afforded to journalists' sources exists to ensure that information which is important to, or which impacts the public good will be brought to light. But in this case the information does not serve any high and lofty public purpose: this isn't Watergate or the Pentagon Papers, it's some company's product lineup. And while we have freedom of the press, that's not the same as carte blanche to break the law: if you're going to wrap yourself in the Constitution, you need to go to the judge with something better than "Well, we really only did it because we can, and because we thought it'd be cool." Think Secret didn't have anything better to tell the judge than that, and so the judge (rightly) laid the smackdown on them.

The result is that they've been backed into a settlement which puts them out of business. Whether this means Apple is the next Google is the next Microsoft is the next IBM is the next Dark Lord Sauron, I don't know. But Think Secret basically screwed themselves, and have no-one to blame but themselves.

At least Apple didn't really win

[__aaahtg7394]

It's sad that this came out the way it did, but kudos to Think Secret for taking the cyanide pill for us. At trial, this case could have resulted in a terrible outcome. If Apple had won in court, it would have set a harmful precedent: you must reveal sources. By agreeing to some (probably less-than-ideal) conditions, Think Secret and their legal team has saved us all from that precedent. Thank you!

Re:At least Apple didn't really win

[aussie_a]

A harmful precedent being that encouraging people to break their NDA and then publish what they is actionable? I'm guessing that precedent has already been set.

I hear what finally nailed him....

[explosivejared]

was when he got a hold of anti-reality distortion field unit. I hear got a look at Jobs' real face. All I can say is... he's lucky he's not dead. Count your blessings and move on man.

Good for the Source

[oahazmatt]

I work for a large Telecom corporation, and I had to sign quite a bit of paperwork regarding trade secrets. My training material, which did not include any usernames, passwords, server paths, etc., was not allowed to leave the building. We were granted access to quite a bit of information that was not intended for anyone outside of the company.

That being said, this is an excellent outcome for the Source. As the Source does not have to be revealed, something within Apple, perhaps at a significant level, will not be losing their job for divulging information that he had probably signed agreements to not disclose but felt the information should be shared anyway.

The person who wins this is the Source, as he most likely violated enforced company policy and came out of it free and clear.

Re:Good for the Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Company policy may not be law, but contract law is most definitely law.

He's been in college since 1998?

[radiotone]

Wow. That beats my record.

A year ago this would have been sad, contentwise

[ThatbookwritingWheel]

But since the "issues" he had with Apple, the content on thinksecret wasn't really much beyond what someone with an Apple Developer Connect membership could access. To many articles on the latest seed of this or that. Before that ThinkSecret sometimes had some real gems every now and then (and was plain wrong lots of times also)

My first anti-apple rant

[ahoehn]

Before I begin my first real anti-apple rant on Slashdot, I should note that I have and love an iBook, a 4th Gen iPod, a 2nd Gen iPod Shuffle, a Hackintosh, and an iPod Mini.

Now, to the rant. Perhaps I'm just paying more attention, but it feels to me that Apple is becoming more and more of an Evil Empire(tm). Suing a site that is completely devoted to Apple Fanboys out of existence seems pretty anti-customer. The "You installed bootcamp beta and now you must upgrade to Leopard if you ever want to boot your computer again" fiasco a few weeks ago reeked of the same.

My most recent bout of self-righteous indignation came when I went to Apple's online store to buy a new nano as a gift. I wanted to buy one of the 4gb nanos, and I wanted it in green. Sadly, this is impossible. The 4gb nano only comes in silver. To get a colored nano, you have to pay the extra $50 bucks for the 8gb model. It's a little thing, but it pushed me over the edge. Part of Apple's appeal has always been, "You pay a bit more to get something a bit cooler", but this is a bit too blatant for me. It's enough to kick me out of the fanboy camp. I'm sure Apple-product-lust will still rise in my greedy heart from time-to-time, but I'll do my self-righteous best to suppress those longings in favor of less restrictive fare.

In a related story, are there competitors to the nano that are as elegantly designed and easy to use?

Re:My first anti-apple rant

[MrPerfekt]

I'm with you that the whole suing a fan-site thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth but really the site was more than that. If ThinkSecret got word of a product a few months away from launch and it seemed credible enough, that really does give the competition an opportunity to get an early start on a similar product. That could have an effect in the millions of dollars range. I'm not saying everything ever printed does that but then again Apple doesn't sue for every rumor every printed, in fact, they've done so only a handful of times. Presumably when a 'rumor' report hits far too close to home to have come from anywhere but inside of Apple.

Apple certainly isn't the only company to use the 'upgrade to a higher model and get X' tactic. It's grossly common in the Auto industry as well. Take Audi, for example, sales of the A4 with the 3.2 engine were suffering because everybody wants a 2.0T engine, which is not a terrible amount slower, much cheaper and more upgradeable. What's Audi to do? Well, cut out options from the 2.0T and make convenience features like 'memory seats' only available on the 2.0T. And the engine upgrade option is much more than $50.

The point is that if you really enjoy the product, you'll dish out the extra cash to get more of it. More memory, more engine. The concept is definitely not unique to Apple.

Re:My first anti-apple rant

[mihalis]

Dell also uses similar bundling tactics, or did last time I checked.

I have no objection to them doing this, by the way, it's up to them, but it dissuaded me from buying from them a couple of times.

The issue seems to be Dell's desire (or perhaps Intel's desire) to hide the cost of top-of-the-line CPUs, so any PC that has one fitted tends to be bundled with a lot of other high-grade options which (presumably) are intended to enhance the purchasers perception of the value they are getting.

what this means in practice is it's very difficult to get a Dell with their nicest case and motherboard, great speakers, all the frills, but put a Celeron class cheapie processor in the machine. Their website wont allow cetain combinations that should be valid in the sense that the motherboard in the model selected could accept certain cheaper and slower processors.

Understandable but sucky. They may say they only validate a limited range of combinations and "everything nice but the CPU" is not one of them, but one could say "but did you ever TRY?"

Typical slashdot comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: Apple is closing a website! Apple are against freedom of speech! The horror!
Truth: That website was leaking company information, that's illegal.

Slashdot: Apple aren't supporting BootCamp for Tiger users in 2008! The bastards!
Truth: Apple said that BootCamp on Tiger was a Beta,since the beginning. Also, it won't stop working in 2008, you just won't be able to re-install it.

Slashdot: Apple is forcing me to pay $50 for a green iPod nano! How greedy!
Truth: Nobody is forcing you to get a green iPod nano, and that $50 also gets you twice the storage capacity.

Etc, etc.

Slashdot. News for nerds, nonsense comments.

Re:Typical slashdot comments

[nqz]

Truth: Nobody is forcing you to get a green iPod nano, and that $50 also gets you twice the storage capacity.

Consumer truth: He *wanted* a green, 4GB iPod nano. Not a silver one, not an 8GB one. This is a case of Apple forcing the customer to the extra $50 just for a different color. In the manufacturing process, it doesn't cost Apple a single penny more to slap on a green case versus a silver case. It'd be one thing if the faceplate was interchangeable, but I don't own an iPod nano so I wouldn't know.

Re:Oh, the horror!

[Poltras]

I'm torn between moderating you +1 troll or -1 insightful. Then again, I'll just reply shamelessly.

Attn: Mac Fanbois & Fangrrlz

[seandiggity]

There are free operating systems that will run well on your Mac hardware and do not shut down websites for revealing "trade secrets". In fact, there are no trade secrets and you are invited to join in on the development process. Begin here.

That's fairly normal "agreement" wording

[mrbill]

Back in 2000, I got a letter from a Sun attorney threatening me with a lawsuit over some material on the "Rumors" section of my web site. They didn't like the fact that I'd copied documents (blueprints/engineering drawings) from their web server to mine and those documents were marked "Proprietary and Confidential". They also disliked the fact that I used the color purple on my web site and had a logo that was vaguely reminiscent of theirs.

I countered with the fact that I got the documents from a search on their publicly-accessible web server, and that after AOL, the next six top visitors of the site were Sun employees themselves hitting it from internal Sun proxy servers, and that no one had ever expressed concern over the logo or the purple color since the site was created in '97.

After a couple of weeks of negotiations, we came to an agreement and I made this public statement:

"I'm happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my situation with Sun regarding SunHELP.org. The site will function much like it has in the past, but in a manner that protects Sun's trademarks. In fact, although I will continue to operate independently of Sun, Sun has offered to help me provide you with better information about Sun and its products. I am pleased with the outcome and the manner in which this situation was resolved. I now consider this matter closed."

A couple of weeks later, I got a FedEx delivery of a brand-new Ultra 10 workstation as a "thank you" for "resolving the dispute in a friendly and speedy manner that avoided litigation". Since then, I've had good relations with the company. I was a member of the Opensolaris Pilot Program and have talked in email with both Scott McNealy and Jonathan Schwartz. Sun has greatly improved their relationship with third-party supporters since 2000; in fact, in 2006 they donated a fully-loaded T1000 system to SunHELP.

Nick at ThinkSecret probably ended up with some free Apple gear in exchange for shutting his site down - after all for Apple, "no publicity is bad publicity".

Or Maybe Not So Slippery...

[EXTomar]

Or maybe "Think Secret" was really more tabloid than journalism. I'm not a big fan of the big money machine, I'm rather neutral about Apple Inc. itself, and I'm also a big believer in free flow of information but I'm not sure "Think Secret" was acting in the public interest as much as their self interest to see sensational information generate clicks. I'm all for journalists protecting sources from reprisals to continue to reveal new information but it must have some intrinsic value and it must be backed up by collaborating evidence if they can't cite the source.

I want corporations to be responsible and journalists help to make that happen. I also want the journalists to be responsible where in many cases just one hidden source isn't enough to publish a story on. Without more its just rumor which is the level of stuff you see at the supermarket checkout. It isn't so much that a company gets to determine what the press says any more than any other person gets to determin what the press says about them.

If it was simply that "Think Secret" was saying "Apple products suck" that wouldn't be an issue. It was that "Think Secret" was using information and data that belonged to Apple which without a good reason is not permissible. Sorry but "the fans demand to know" is not a good reason.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money-INFORMED==BAD!!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Anytime you expose secret projects that the company does not feel is ready for prime-time, you risk losing any forward momentum that you would have had over opposing companies in development.

Yeah, it makes it ever so much easier to keep selling the old stuff to the cluele<<<<<< faithful, instead of the much improved, better performing, cheaper gear coming out in only 2 months - which you can then sell them as well. An Informed consumer is a Bad consumer.

Backroom Deal = Backwards Solution

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I probably have a different take on this development, having done a lot of research at one time into trade secret laws and whistleblower statutes in the U.S., as well as this case in particular. What I find really interesting about this agreement we know so little about, is the only two things we do know are exactly backwards from justice. It seems to me that both Apple and ThinkSecret lost here, since neither was given what they wanted. Let me explain.

First, ThinkSecret had no right to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Apple sued ThinkSecret asking for the identities of those people who had committed a criminal act against them. (Note, whether revealing trade secrets should be a crime, is another discussion). According to the filing, that is all they wanted and it is the one thing they did not get. Despite having no legal right to keep these sources secret, ThinkSecret managed to make a deal to do that, probably out of personal loyalty or a perceived ethical obligation on the part of Nick Ciarelli. He seems to have walked away from this with his reputation as a journalist intact, which is a valuable asset if he's planning on asking sources to trust him in the future. It also speaks quite well of his character.

Second, Apple had no right to shut down this publication, and it was probably in their best interests to avoid doing so. And yet, in a deal to protect those sources, that is exactly what happened. Why and how did such a thing happen? We can only speculate. My best guess is that after dealing with the public relations aspect of this for a while and with mounting court costs that were unlikely to ever be repaid, someone at Apple made the decision that this should "go away" and ham-fistedly ordered the legal team to settle it one way or another and make sure it didn't happen again. As a result, Apple failed to get what they were out for, and stupidly got an agreement to shut the site down instead.

I think my perspective on this is probably a little less reactionary and a little more realistic than what I've seen in other posts here. ThinkSecret was aiding others to break the law and clearly in the wrong on this lawsuit, but having done something wrong, Nick Ciarelli took all the responsibility for other's criminal acts (which he helped incite) upon himself and shielded them. Apple, fumbled the ball, failed to get the leaks identified, and made a typically corporate and shortsighted decision. Everyone lost.

i guess i dont understand

[justaj]

This wasn't an apple fan site. They were profiting from corporate espionage. As it is, everything apple does is watched/imitated by companies like Microsoft and Dell. If say something like the iPhone was leaked a year earlier, someone could have beaten them to the market. The point is Apple has a right to not have its company secrets told to everyone. It is not your right to know that information. It will never be your right to know that information. It's just plain arrogance (and stupidity) to think that it is.

Re:issues

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Trademarked or copyrighted knowledge was released by thinksecret.

This is incorrect. The violations were trade secret violation, not copyright or trademark. In almost every state it is illegal to intentionally reveal trade secrets or to solicit others to reveal them for financial gain. Even in states without trade secret laws, the employees would still have violated their civil contracts with Apple (NDAs).

The actual information apparently concerned a firewire musical instrument, from before 2005, that never was released. So should thinksecret be held liable for releasing a trademark secret? Legally, I don't know the answer.

Legally, ThinkSecret was clearly going to lose the lawsuit.

Even if there was a legitimate way to thwart Apple, would any college student have the resources to undertake such a fight? And from the beginning, wouldn't Apple be aware of its strength in that regard? I'd like to think that if I were faced by a lawsuit from a major corporation I'd have the money to afford a single lawyer for at least a few hours of work. But the truth is, I don't.

Civil suits are clearly weighted in the favor of the party with more money. In this case, however, ThinkSecret didn't really have a leg to stand on. ThinkSecret's leverage was the threat of bad press for Apple. I would note, however, Apple reportedly did not seek any damages or even court costs from ThinkSecret, just the names of the sources (which they were entitled to under the law).

I think that Apple was concerned over a related product, whose secrecy was more important, and whose developing team may have had some overlap with the firewire guitar, or whatever it was. So they wanted to protect some other development.

Actually, if this product was ever going to market, it probably was not important and that is why Apple pressed this case. Apple thrives on secrecy. They make huge profits from the press they get from surprise releases of new products. Journalists actually want to attend their press releases because it is occasionally more than filler material and PR about things everyone with an interest already knows.

Apple pushes this culture really hard and tries to make sure all the employees know they are serious about it, because real money is on the line. So when you were in highschool and the football team was all boozing it up every night and causing trouble, did the coach go after the Quarterback and suspend him from the team, or did he pick a fairly unimportant team member to kick off the team so the others knew he was serious? This is probably the same thing... going after leakers from less important projects to make an example for the rest of the company.

Nick may have acted illegally. His settlement makes him happy because he doesn't have to go to jail or even be arrested.

This was a civil suit. There was no danger of anyone going to jail or being arrested. There was no threat of the publication being shut down. There was no claim to financial damages, although there clearly could have been. Apple filed for one thing only, the identities of the leakers... and they did not get them in the end. Apple lost. Sadly, instead of what they wanted, the publication shut down, which isn't good for the readers or Apple or Nick. He lost too. Pretty much everyone here lost except the leakers, who Nick took all the heat for. It was admirable of him, but not really a good thing for people in general. And who knows, maybe Apple found out the leaker's identities from other sources, and it was a moot point for them. We don't know because all this happened behind closed doors. Basically, a tragedy all around.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money-INFORMED==BAD!!

[pushing-robot]

What reporter is going to cover the launch of a new Apple product that everyone knew about before hand?

Yeah, Apple really shot themselves in the foot over the whole iPhone thing. If they'd kept it a secret till launch it might have at least received some news coverage.

Re:Hope He Got Some Money-INFORMED==BAD!!

[mstone]

The Osborne Effect: what happens when consumers are so 'well informed' about upcoming products that it puts the company out of business.

Let's also consider Microsoft's long-standing "Real Soon Now" policy for killing competing products. 'Inform the consumers' that MS will release something "just as good" in the near future, and that it's silly to go with another vendor when all your business software is currently from MS, and you can pretty much wipe out a company with a good product.

Beyond that, consumer markets have this thing called 'first mover advantage'. There's some serious dollar value to opening up a new market so fast that the competition has to run like hell just to get a shoe in the door. Leak the specs for an upcoming project far enough in advance, and any company in an even vaguely similar line of business can have a me-too product ready to go on the shelves about the same time as your debut. The end result is that nobody makes enough money to make the new market seem worthwhile, and the whole thing lapses back into nothingness in about six months.

There are lots of cases where a large number of people who make 'well informed' decisions in their best interest end up making things worse for themselves and everyone else. See: The Tragedy of the Commons.

Besides, the whole idea of 'informed, rational consumers' is pretty much fantasy anyway. If such creatures existed, most people wouldn't have some gadget in their kitchen that they haven't used even once since they bought it. We also wouldn't see billions of dollars every year rewarding the software industry's de facto policy of 'whoever has the longest list of bullet points wins'.