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.
Hope He Got Some Money (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hope He Got Some Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Are you sure you're talking about the right project? According to this article [wired.com], the "leaked project" that provoked Apple's lawsuit was the Mac Mini [apple.com], which was presented two weeks later at MacWorld Expo, and needless to say, has most definitely not been canned...
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either that, or they aren't as irrational as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
But you have to see it from the company's viewpoint. False rumors fluctuate the company's value in harmful ways, and then the aftershock articles on how "Apple missed their own target" adds to the damage... well, that's easy to see why it's bad.
re: not a win for Apple (Score:2)
Already, this new "9to5mac" web site seems to be coming up with an awful lot of fairly accurate rumors and informative facts. I imagine a
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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!"
nice tags...not (Score:3, Insightful)
TAG PARENT censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just tag it "!censorship" if you disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you two words you might have learned
Hostile Takeover
It's pretty exciting to watch one, as I was an observer to one a long time ago.
In the end you have the same problem that ma and pa shops have against dell. I'll try and be brief here. You see dell buys large quantities of components. VERY LARGE QUANTITIES. So the vendor says Look if you by x we'll give you y% discount.
Ma and pa shops can't afford to keep inven
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, tags are considered a joke, turn them off via Preferences.
This "community" will make me give up Apple somehow, one day.
Slashdot burp (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I have no doubt that Apple has all sorts of restrictions on what their employees are allowed to discuss, and you surely sign all sorts of agreements when you go to work
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get me coat..
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but in two months they'd replace those with slightly better models
Re: (Score:2)
...that they'd have to send in to have the batteries replaced.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It isn't. Which is how sites like AppleInsider, MacRumors and others get their information, legally.
However, ThinkSecret has been known to "entice" Apple employees into breaking their NDAs with Apple and give it certain priviledged information. Apple sued ThinkSecret in an attempt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monkey off his back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monkey off his back? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too Early To Say (Score:2)
If in a month we haven't heard about an Apple lawsuit against an ex-employee, then we'll be able to say.
Re:Monkey off his back? (Score:5, Insightful)
MIn
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He would have closed down either way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
option 3: Think Secreter (Score:2)
4. PROFIT!
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. It's Think Secretly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't think of a publisher that wouldn't want a staffer that has exclusive stories dropping in his lap.
Dangerous Slippery Path (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that trade secrets, unlike patents, have no protection under the law. That's the trade-off a company makes when it decides whether something will be patented or be a trade secret -- If you patent, you get exclusive use of the invention for 20 years, but the patent becomes public knowledge and after it expires anyone can use it. A trade secret, on th
Re: (Score:2)
It varies widely by jurisdiction, but in the US this is not entirely true. The difference is that with a trade secret, if another company independently re-invents it, the other company can use it. However, a trade secret has legal standing in that employees cannot legally reveal them or take them to another company.
Although I don't recommend using Wikipedia to base legal decisions on, they have a description of
Re:Dangerous Slippery Path (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cornell.edu] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone who is not under a non-disclosure agreement finds out the secret and publishes, there's pretty much nothing the company can do except whine at him. They can sue whoever broke the non-disclosure, but the guy who publishes is in the clear.
This is not entirely true from my understanding of US law. NDAs and other contracts are protected by legal statute. Violation of a legal statute is illegal. Making an agreement with someone to break the law is called conspiracy and is also illegal. Finding out something is one thing, but asking, or enticing, someone to break the law is another.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd better talk to the boss about hiring better lawyers, since they are completely wrong if you're talking about US law. This one falls under both Federal and California law and both have trade secret laws and California's Whistleblower statutes don't apply in this case. 60 seconds with Google will provide the relevant laws.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Or Maybe Not So Slippery... (Score:3)
At least Apple didn't really win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear what finally nailed him.... (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
You must be thinking the same thing I'm thinking... that Apple has an artificially intelligent cluster of Octo-core Macs working at the executive level! And it's not happy either...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's been in college since 1998? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard : I know, they're called doctors.
Re: (Score:2)
A year ago this would have been sad, contentwise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A year ago this would have been sad, contentwis (Score:2)
In addition to this there are still plenty of other sites providing this sort of information, including appleinsider.com
My first anti-apple rant (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (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.
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
Nano alternative (Score:2)
I can see it now... (Score:2)
Does anyone really care? (Score:2)
Less hype == less business for Apple (Score:2)
For me, part of the excitement about Apple is all the hype and "can they really manufacture that?" attitude that comes in the months preceding a product launch.
Thinksecret was a major part of the hype machine, for better or worse, and I'm sure Steve realizes that all of us fanatics enjoy the hype and wonder.
I understand they need to protect their trade secrets and should do so, but it would be nice if the site could have stayed in
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 nan
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 kno
Re: (Score:2)
ThinkSecret refused, thus bringing Apple's wrath do
Re: (Score:2)
Attn: Mac Fanbois & Fangrrlz (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fairly normal "agreement" wording (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in 2000, I got a letter from a Sun attorney threatening me with a lawsuit [sunhelp.org] over some material on the "Rumors" section of my web site [sunhelp.org]. 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".
student for life (Score:2)
Well, maybe now he'll have time to finally graduate.
Backroom Deal = Backwards Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only because Woz called up Jobs and pointed out Atari already .
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to keep everyone in suspense, I need sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could have been harmed by the premature release of product information in at least three ways:
- It gave potential competitors time to position or re-position their own products against Apple before the product was released.
- It could alter consumer buying plans, causing some to defer a planned purchase and impacting Apple
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.