Think Secret Shutting Down 240
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.
Oh, the horror! (Score:0, Insightful)
nice tags...not (Score:3, Insightful)
Monkey off his back? (Score:5, Insightful)
He would have closed down either way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dangerous Slippery Path (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hope He Got Some Money (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Apple didn't really win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least Apple didn't really win (Score:1, Insightful)
Good for the Source (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Monkey off his back? (Score:5, Insightful)
MIn
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous Slippery Path (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
issues (Score:0, Insightful)
1. Trademarked or copyrighted knowledge was released by thinksecret. From what we know, it was information provided by a source outside of thinksecret itself, and we presume the source was inside apple. 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. I would bet any hard-copy publication, such as the New York Times, would balk before publishing trade secrets. The times and other major newspapers have admitted to halting publication of government secrets on those occasions when the government has convinced them of the security risk. And publishing trade secrets probably is illegal. Thinksecret was always skating on thin ice, that's why we liked it, after all. So, let's agree that it was a legal blunder and thinksecret had to admit this.
2. Lawsuits in themselves are stressful. A college student involved in a suit against a major corporation must be overwhelming. 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.
3. Apple allowed thinksecret to publish many secrets. Did it finally get mad, or was there some other precipitating event? I don't think Apple would sue thinksecret over a product that was never released. At least it would have no reason to continue that suit. 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. A company with a number of great engineers can't just fire a development team because they're worried about trademarks leaking from one disgruntled employee.
4. Nick may have acted illegally. His settlement makes him happy because he doesn't have to go to jail or even be arrested. That would make me happy too. Furthermore, as far as we know, nothing is to keep him from working on a similar site in the future, perhaps with lessons learned and a tempered attitude. Of course, if he checks with Apple each time he wants to publish a new secret, well, we won't really be reading him any more than we read MacWorld, now, will we?
Re:Monkey off his back? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hope He Got Some Money (Score:4, Insightful)
See also: dumb share traders who buy on rumors and sell when the real products arrive and aren't up to rumors specs.
Typical slashdot comments (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Good for the Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My first anti-apple rant (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Attn: Mac Fanbois & Fangrrlz (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hope He Got Some Money-INFORMED==BAD!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hope He Got Some Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Either that, or they aren't as irrational as you think.
Re:Good for the Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My first anti-apple rant (Score:4, Insightful)
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?"
i guess i dont understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:issues (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Legally, ThinkSecret was clearly going to lose the lawsuit.
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).
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.
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:Monkey off his back? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hope He Got Some Money (Score:4, Insightful)
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-INFORMED==BAD!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: they don't. Right before Jobs came back, Apple seriously had this problem with websites like MacOS Rumors (which isn't what it once was) leaking VERY ACCURATE info about 2-3 weeks ahead of the new cycle. When the products actually shipped, the tech press didn't care because if they reported anything, it was the rumor beforehand.
Advertising costs Apple a lot of money and the free advertising they get from reporters is very important.