>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).
What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do?
Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either).
The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog?
>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).
What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do?
Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either). The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog?
m.
>>Your link says you're "ethically opposed to 'outing'." Why is that? Are secrets necessary to your work? Why does the press, did you, conspire to keep secrets that are in the public interest? It's not like naming him was like outing a CIA agent or anything. Double standards?
Nick's a private individual, not a public company. He chose to operate under a pen name; I respected his choice. You might not choose to see the distinction -- but that's your choice.
Dear Mr./Ms. Coward: Perhaps it's my own hubris to assume that I'm not unknown to readers who follow the Mac market -- and who know that I've made no secret of my work with Nick Ciarelli.
In point of fact, I've written a couple of essays that discuss my work with Nick over the years -- it's hardly a fact I've tried to conceal.
Quite the contrary: I'm proud to "disclose" this relationship. I wish that at age 19, I'd had half Nick's savvy, and I'm confident he'll do great things with his career.
And FTR (in the interest of disclosure), I'm not involved in this suit in any way, shape or form, although I stand ready to testify to Nick's methods and accuracy.
>>Firstly, the suit you're referring to specifically refers to the "Asteroid", which is supposedly a FireWire audio interface that has still yet to be announced. It concerns the leak of product specifications, not of a release date. The Mac mini is not "Asteroid".
dr. badass: No, the suit to which I'm referring -- the Think Secret suit -- is about the Mac mini, not Asteroid.
TS hasn't been accused of posting Asteroid stuff; that was AppleInsider and PowerPage.
>>Considering that they have yet to claim what you're saying they did, I think that counts as shutting up.
Apple hasn't made any claims about this latest Tiger report, but that's the ostensible reason for the suit the company filed after Think Secret revealed information about the Mac mini two weeks before Apple's announcement. And Apple hasn't shut up about that one yet.:-)
>>That's not the standard. The standard in a civil dispute is a preponderance of evidence. There's no requirement that the evidence be "tangible," to use your word. It can be entirely circumstantial or inferential.
... But it'll have to be compelling to get the brass ring. And considering that Apple itself has arguably played footsy with these sites -- and likely benefited at times from the advance buzz they provide -- I don't think that's going to be a walk by any means.
I didn't say it would never stand up in court, although I certainly hope it won't.
I said that on the face of it, I don't see the merits of the argument that Apple has lost money because of these sites' reporting. (Quite the opposite, since the company has at times demonstrated a willingness to use them as a marketing tool -- viz. the "Beyond the Rumor Sites" campaign the company launched in advance of Macworld Expo SF 2002.)
>> According to the law, a trade secret is any information with value that the holder tries to keep secret. If it meets those two qualifications, it's still a secret, even if it gets out.
Who makes the determination of value? If I call Apple PR to ask whether the company vending machines stock Coke or Pepsi, the flak might well tell me that Apple doesn't divulge that information because any seeming corporate endorsement in soft drinks might blunt its competitive edge.
What if I subsequently ask an Apple employee what soft drink he bought today, and he tells me Coke (despite Apple's recent cross-branding deals with Pepsi)? Am I in illegal possession of a trade secret? An Apple staffer told me this information has value, after all, and she opted to keep that information secret.
This is a silly hypothetical, I know (although I might actually enjoy pursuing this story just to see whether I get straight-armed). Neverthless, I would like to see some tangible evidence that Apple has lost money because of these reports.
>>I'm sure you're aware that they are under absolutely no obligation to demonstrate anything until trial, right? At this point, all they need to do is make a reasonable and sound claim, which they've done.
Right, but the poster was asking me if I wanted to back off my position. Which I don't until Apple puts up or shuts up.:-)
>>MS isn't going to create a new Windows release for April 1-14, but they could schedule their own press event for that period extolling the feature set of the Longhorn beta to steal some (or all) of Apple's thunder.
... And so has Apple RE Longhorn. Both companies have taken cross-platform potshots, and I don't see any evidence that one more Longhorn press release will have a quantitative effect on Tiger sales.
>.So, here, add 1 to your count people "quantitative evidence".
Both you and your friend based your purchase decisions on Apple's own announcements. Unless you're proposing Apple sue itself for spoiling its own surprise, I'm afraid I can't add your one unit unsold to the tally of Mac sales lost to unauthorized pre-announcements!:-)
>>Then perhaps your original claims were a bit overstated? Or was that journalistic freedom?
Until Apple demonstrates otherwise, I don't think my claims were overstated. (I've been covering the company for 15 years, and I've yet to see Apple present any numbers to back a claim of this sort.)
There is a first time for everything, though, and if Apple backs this argument with real numbers, I'll be eager to report it.
>>In fact, while they're good at reporting rumours that everyone else knows... or things that can be easily verified... their exclusive scoops from "insider sources" are very hit and miss.
... So the site isn't actually divulging Apple secrets at all! Case dismissed.:-)
>>Do you find it conceivable that there could be some monetary costs involved as well as hurt feelings? Do you think it impossible that getting less than the impact you pay for is a monetary loss? Or are such things absolutely impossible?
It's not impossilbe, but I don't think Apple's demonstrated it yet. I'll be curious to see how the company documents such a claim.
>>It's going to damage Mac sales between now and probably the announement (at which point I'd expect a free upgrade offer to kick in.)
I've never seen any quantitative data supporting the truism that advance word from Mac sites damages sales. I would be very interested in seeing any documentation to that effect.
>>If you plan a surprise birthday party for your child, or your wife, and someone gratuitously tells them all about it in advance, then I suspect you will feel damaged. Whether the person who did the telling thinks you should feel damaged isn't really relevant, is it?
But are there grounds to sue over your hurt feelings? I don't see it, myself -- and Apple's emotional health still doesn't equate to a trade secret!
Leo: In my many years covering Apple, that would cover anything that Apple ever does not embodied in an Apple press release -- up to and including compensation of its janitors and the availability of office supplies! (Not hyperbole -- these questions have actually come up.)
What unique competitive advantage does this release date (if accurate) represent? To what advantage could a competitor use this information between today (March 13) and April 1? E.g., is Microsoft going to create a major new Windows release for delivery on April 14 based on this report?
And how does an announce date of April 1 and ship date of April 15 represent "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that... derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use"?
I don't see how this information comes close to fitting either bill.
m.
Leo: You think that because of this report, someone will be able to imitate the features of Tiger -- which have already been announced by the company itself -- between today and April 1? Come on!
Longhorn is a lock for 2006; nobody's going to use this information to blunt Apple's competitive edge.
As far as Apple "jealously guarding" this date: Apple jealously guards everything pertaining to the company and its products. That doesn't make everything a trade secret.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
>>I wonder if Apple will delay the release because of this leak? That'd suck!
Delaying a planned release to spite the Mac sites would be even more counterproductive than Apple's recent actions. However, I wouldn't underestimate Apple's willingness to cut off its own nose -- and those of its users -- to spite its face.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
Slashdot Mirror
m.
>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).
What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do?
Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either).
The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog?
m.
>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue). What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do? Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either). The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog? m.
Nick's a private individual, not a public company. He chose to operate under a pen name; I respected his choice. You might not choose to see the distinction -- but that's your choice.
m.
In point of fact, I've written a couple of essays that discuss my work with Nick over the years -- it's hardly a fact I've tried to conceal.
Quite the contrary: I'm proud to "disclose" this relationship. I wish that at age 19, I'd had half Nick's savvy, and I'm confident he'll do great things with his career.
And FTR (in the interest of disclosure), I'm not involved in this suit in any way, shape or form, although I stand ready to testify to Nick's methods and accuracy.
m.
dr. badass: No, the suit to which I'm referring -- the Think Secret suit -- is about the Mac mini, not Asteroid.
TS hasn't been accused of posting Asteroid stuff; that was AppleInsider and PowerPage.
m.
Apple hasn't made any claims about this latest Tiger report, but that's the ostensible reason for the suit the company filed after Think Secret revealed information about the Mac mini two weeks before Apple's announcement. And Apple hasn't shut up about that one yet. :-)
m.
... But it'll have to be compelling to get the brass ring. And considering that Apple itself has arguably played footsy with these sites -- and likely benefited at times from the advance buzz they provide -- I don't think that's going to be a walk by any means.
m.
I said that on the face of it, I don't see the merits of the argument that Apple has lost money because of these sites' reporting. (Quite the opposite, since the company has at times demonstrated a willingness to use them as a marketing tool -- viz. the "Beyond the Rumor Sites" campaign the company launched in advance of Macworld Expo SF 2002.)
m.
B. Apple has on occasion seeded bogus information to catch leaks, but I don't believe TS has fallen for such a gambit to date.
m.
m.
Who makes the determination of value? If I call Apple PR to ask whether the company vending machines stock Coke or Pepsi, the flak might well tell me that Apple doesn't divulge that information because any seeming corporate endorsement in soft drinks might blunt its competitive edge.
What if I subsequently ask an Apple employee what soft drink he bought today, and he tells me Coke (despite Apple's recent cross-branding deals with Pepsi)? Am I in illegal possession of a trade secret? An Apple staffer told me this information has value, after all, and she opted to keep that information secret.
This is a silly hypothetical, I know (although I might actually enjoy pursuing this story just to see whether I get straight-armed). Neverthless, I would like to see some tangible evidence that Apple has lost money because of these reports.
m.
Agent: Since when does "journalism" exclude inside sources?
Public info and on-the-record comments are important, but they're not exclusive in my book.
m.
Right, but the poster was asking me if I wanted to back off my position. Which I don't until Apple puts up or shuts up. :-)
m.
... And so has Apple RE Longhorn. Both companies have taken cross-platform potshots, and I don't see any evidence that one more Longhorn press release will have a quantitative effect on Tiger sales.
m.
Both you and your friend based your purchase decisions on Apple's own announcements. Unless you're proposing Apple sue itself for spoiling its own surprise, I'm afraid I can't add your one unit unsold to the tally of Mac sales lost to unauthorized pre-announcements! :-)
m.
Until Apple demonstrates otherwise, I don't think my claims were overstated. (I've been covering the company for 15 years, and I've yet to see Apple present any numbers to back a claim of this sort.)
There is a first time for everything, though, and if Apple backs this argument with real numbers, I'll be eager to report it.
m.
... So the site isn't actually divulging Apple secrets at all! Case dismissed. :-)
m.
It's not impossilbe, but I don't think Apple's demonstrated it yet. I'll be curious to see how the company documents such a claim.
m.
I've never seen any quantitative data supporting the truism that advance word from Mac sites damages sales. I would be very interested in seeing any documentation to that effect.
m.
But are there grounds to sue over your hurt feelings? I don't see it, myself -- and Apple's emotional health still doesn't equate to a trade secret!
m.
m.
And how does an announce date of April 1 and ship date of April 15 represent "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that ... derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use"?
I don't see how this information comes close to fitting either bill. m.
Longhorn is a lock for 2006; nobody's going to use this information to blunt Apple's competitive edge.
As far as Apple "jealously guarding" this date: Apple jealously guards everything pertaining to the company and its products. That doesn't make everything a trade secret.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet
Delaying a planned release to spite the Mac sites would be even more counterproductive than Apple's recent actions. However, I wouldn't underestimate Apple's willingness to cut off its own nose -- and those of its users -- to spite its face.
Matthew Rothenberg
Executive editor
Ziff Davis Internet