“In a recent hissy-fit, Apple Computer got bent out of shape after revelations about a future product appeared on three different websites that specialize in news and gossip about the company,” John C. Dvorak writes for CBS MarketWatch. “Risking customer alienation, the company sued and demanded that the sites turn over information as to the derivation of the information.”
“Immediately the Internet, particularly the so-called blogosphere, began a flame war regarding Apple’s lawsuits. These sites, after all were Apple boosters. It made no sense for Apple to attack them,” Dvorak writes. “The brouhaha regards a product code-named ‘Asteroid.’ Asteroid is reportedly nothing more than an inexpensive device called a break-out box. You can plug a guitar or microphone into it and it will move the signal into the computer via a 1394 high speed interface. This can be part of a system used to create a portable audio studio for musicians. This is nothing new. What’s new is that they have typically sold for $500 and the Apple device will sell for $150.”
Dvorak writes, “So Apple considered this a trade secret and now it wants to find out who in the company spilled the beans so they can be pilloried and used as an example of what can happen if you violate your terms of employment. Of course the websites might have gotten this information from anonymous sources… this court ruling represents a very slippery slope since it suggests that some members of the press would have to pass a government standard to be afforded the protection of shield laws designed to promote open and free discussion of ideas. Eventually this could lead to licensing. And we don’t need that since it would kill the free press and the substantial benefits to society that accrue from it.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If you know your source is breaking their non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Apple, is it okay to publish the information or not? What if you only suspect they might be breaking their NDA? If your sources are completely anonymous, how can you establish the veracity of their information? If “Asteriod” is/was an Apple “trade secret” is reporting its existence the stifling of “open and free discussion of ideas” or something else?
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple wins key ruling; three people who published trade secrets must reveal sources – March 11, 2005
Apple’s lawsuits to guard against rumor sites cause sour taste for some – March 09, 2005
Commentator: Apple need to patch its own ‘leaks’ to better protect trade secrets – March 07, 2005
Think Secret files motion to have Apple lawsuit dismissed – March 04, 2005
Attorneys expect decision ‘early next week’ on Apple trade secrets hearing – March 04, 2005
Forbes writer wonders if Apple is the new Microsoft – March 04, 2005
Apple wins initial ruling in ‘Asteriod’ case, can pursue publishers’ confidential sources – March 03, 2005
Apple suspends legal action against three journalists – February 17, 2005
ThinkSecret’s Ciarelli gains pro bono legal help in defense of Apple lawsuit – January 19, 2005
ThinkSecret’s Nick Ciarelli says he can’t afford to defend himself against Apple lawsuit – January 15, 2005
Harvard Student and ThinkSecret owner Nick Ciarelli faces Apple’s legal wrath over product ‘leaks’ – January 13, 2005
Stop the presses! Apple sues ThinkSecret over ‘Headless Mac,’ ‘iWork,’ and other rumors – January 05, 2005
Apple Computer sues three for posting Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ on Web – December 21, 2004
Apple sues anonymous people over leak of unreleased Apple product info on Web – December 17, 2004
RUMOR: Apple preps analog to FireWire audio device for GarageBand users – November 23, 2004
Dvorak is a dick. Even his name doesn’t read right.
MW: property. How apt.
As I understand Trade Secret law, what Apple is doing is absolutely NOTHING NEW. Trade secrets are treated like stolen property. If the party who is distributing said property knows that the property is stolen, the distributor is in trouble too. If the information was unkown to be stolen, then I think the distributor gets a pass on that.
If this were a whistleblower case, it’d be a lot different and very much ok for a “member of the press” to publish information about illegal activities inside Apple.
I think it’s rediculous for people to start complaining about “corporate power” being extended. If you don’t like it, don’t buy anything in a capitalist country. Corporations have rights that need to be protected just as much as the individual.
I’m sorry, but I have to side with Apple on this one. While I understand we all want to “peek under the wrapping paper” now and then, this was a definite breach of someone’s NDA and it’s been happening with more and more frequency, lately. Apple has the right to find out who is undermining their secrecy efforts. Contrary to what some believe, disclosing this information on the rumor sites does not serve the public interest. What it does is feed the interested public what it wants, tidbits of information about their favorite company. However, it serves them no real benefit to get this early information. ThinkSecret and the EFF are trying to argue this solely on the grounds that this is a first ammendment issue, but it’s not, and so it must be tried and defended as a Trade Secrets issue. ThinkSecret either compelled someone to break their NDA or published information knowing it violated an NDA. Engaging in a criminal act does not protect you under the shield laws.
go read John Gruber’s blog for the real story:
http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/discovery_ruling
the ruling says:
“The statutes also support the compelling interest of disclosure which may, in the proper civil case, outweigh First Amendment rights. As discussed infra, the United States and California Supreme Courts have underscored that trade secret laws apply to everyone regardless of their status, title or chosen profession. The California Legislature has not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, bloggers or anyone else.”
I don’t think the judge ruled that the sites in question were not legitimate press – he DID say, though, that it doesn’t matter whether they are or not.
Is Dvorak reading the same decision that I did? The file that I read, had the judge avoiding classification of bloggers. It focused in on the fact that one freedom of speech is not exhaustive and two and interested public is not public interest. It’s not as if this breaks any new ground, there have always been limits on the freedom of speech, and there have always been limits on what journalist can get away publishing, regardless if we consider them journalist or not. I would assume most journalist and bloggers would have no issue with this. If you want to break the news to the world that Apple is spilling environmental containments or discriminates against women, collect your proof, get your confidential sources, and go ahead. [NEITHER TRUE TO MY KNOWLEDGE] Both items as well as a bevy of others are in public interest.
If someone leaked a new track from a popular artist and Apple used it as their “Free Weekly Download” wouldn’t that be illegal?
They wouldn’t make any money off of it and it’s merely a form of digital information, but instead of reading some text about the upcoming album, you get to hear what it’s going to sound like.
Journalists report news that is collected under reasonable guidelines and methods (usually) and would understand when certain information is stolen (which is illegal no matter what the product).
Bloggers don’t have a right to post stolen information any more than I have the right to download free songs from LimeWire ‘because I can’!!
I agree with Apple suing for the purpose of outing the leaks. I would have more respect for ThinkSecret if they posted a story about how they helped Apple plug security holes instead of profiting from them.
I’m with Apple on this one as well. They’re not making mechanical baby hearts or anything, but they do have the right to control the release of their product information. A premature leak about the iPod Shuffle, for example, could have seriously damaged it’s marketing position. Suppose Luxpro had gotten wind of the Shuffle in time to release their knock-off just days after Apple released the original?
I know this is a hot issue here at MDN…and I have until now refrained from chiming in, but to say: Dvorak is a d%$#, just because he is typically (almost universally) anti-Apple is not necessary. Especially since in this case he is correct.
I could care less if a blogger or a journalist is possibly aware that the source is breaking Apple’s NDA. Simply put they are not a party to nor are they privy to Apple’s NDA. The confidentiality of the source is broken when it is revealed. I know the issue is much more narrow here, in that Apple is merely trying to ID the potential source…but to subject a 3rd Party to the undue expenses of having to comply with Apple’s request causes, in some cases, severe economic harm and consequently a chilling effect.
Who should have the final say as to whether or not this is a permissible action and whether or not an NDA was breached? Apple (eg any corporation)? A judge? This causes an undue uncertainty to otherwise permissible information, and the dangerous prophilatic chilling effect.
Yes, I know Apple has a right to its corporate secrets. But it also has a duty to safeguard them.
Zac
And before you all jump down my throat, yes I do know the status of the Trade Secrets Act. What I am saying is that I don’t agree with it.
What is key and fundamental in all your posts is the presumption that the 3rd Party was aware that the info leak was “illegal” or contrary to Apple’s NDA.
Listen, I work for corporation ABC, and in three months we are going to release a product that will called speedwidget that will allow any computer to run at 10X it highest rated speed. The process is very simple and up until now unheard of. Did I just violate ABC’s NDA?
Zac
“Trade secrets are treated like stolen property” (steve m) How much truth in so few words!
Sigh. Dvorak needs to actually read these things before he rambles.
The Judge actually pretty well sidestepped the whole “legitimate members of the press” issue that Dvorak rambles on about. The Judge is more concerned with the issue of whether trade secrets trump “freedom of the press.” In his opinion, it does–whether or not the “press” is the New York Times or Joe Blogger.
My favorite quote from the Judge, “an interested public is not the same as the public interest.”
So Dvorak thinks it’s a “liberal” conspiracy against bloggers?
What a moron…. can anyone get dumber than this?
Zac
On behalf of all the self righteous posters on this board and with the help of our greedy and overpaid lawyers we will suit your sad butt ASAP as you sir have been found to have exposed not only ABC’s ultimate computer for world domination to the media ( if you call MDN media) but the core of our total and complete stupidity.
the not so magic word is “repent” as what you should start doing righ this moment.
California has enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. What is prohibitted is “misappropriation” of trade secrets, not theft of trade secrets. Misappropriation is broader than theft, because it includes both inducing someone to divulge secret information, as well as disclosing trade secrets when you knew or had reason to know that the person giving you the information was under a duty not to disclose it. Here’s a link to the California version of the act: http://w3.uchastings.edu/patent_01/Handouts/California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.pdf
Findlaw has a summary of California’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act: http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00073/009531/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual Property_Trade Secrets/filename/intellectualproperty_1_764
“Yes, I know Apple has a right to its corporate secrets. But it also has a duty to safeguard them.”
maczac, what do you think Apple is doing by asking the bloggers in question who their source is? They are trying to safeguard their secrets by prosecuting the person(s) that are selling those secrets.
By the way, I use the term “selling” loosely. I’m not implying that they sold the secrets for money (although that is a distinct possibility that I haven’t seen anyone bring up), it’s possible that they sold the secrets to boost their ego, to hurt Apple, or to gain favor or many other possible reasons.
As far as I’m concerned the court’s ruling is just. If the “mole” was a whistle blower exposing some illegal activity, then I say the bloggers have first amendment rights, but that clearly isn’t the case here.
The ThinkSecret site has an anonymous webmail type information submission system – I doubt they know who there sources are, and have no way of finding out.
By taking legal action as they have they are antagonizing and alienating a whole sector of the Mac user group – in the end this will come back and hurt Apple. I would imaging TS is doing very brisk business now as a result of all the free publicity. Apple are using a sledge hammer to crack a very small nut. The whole thing is unnecessary. So much for thinking different.
I thought that extensions for Asteroid were found in Garageband somewhere. Wish I could remember where I read that article.
I would imaging TS is doing very brisk business now as a result of all the free publicity.
Considering the amount of space Nick Ciarelli sells to advertisers over on ThinkSecret, he should be able to go to Harvard for grad school, too.
So this is a plan to get “right-wing and conservative publishers would have to be more circumspect”. He has truly lost his mind.
Wonder who’s agenda he’s pushing?
beatsme’s post is the first post on MDN that makes the most bit of sense… but it’s not what would have happened if the Shufflepro were introduced just days after the iPod Shuffle was…
.. It’s the fact that it was produced and introduced in the first place.. period.
There’s no way Apple would have alienated so many Mac enthusiast with a First Amendment issue if the rea issue wasn’t just the concept of trade secrets being leaked a week or so before MacWorld. What Apple is really going after are the crooked Apple employees that leaked the information to LuxPro months or maybe even a year ago.
Think about it. This issue is as big to Apple as the A-Bomb was to the United States government during the Manhattan Project.
There is NO way LuxPro could have designed and set up production of a virtually identical product to the iPod Shuffle (FM and WMA notwithstanding) and introduced their clone within months of the original’s introduction without having had EXTENSIVE advance insider information a very long time ago.
Where did LuxPro get the “plans” ?? Did they take apart a Shuffle to see what made it tick?
Let’s face it, people are waitng weeks for the real thing. We haven’t even seen one in my town yet, maybe not even in the whole state. So that makes reverse engineering highly unlikely.
Do you think Apple no advance warning about the impending clone war ?? Not in your life. Hence the suit against the little guys to get to the big guys.
The real issue is, thus, not potential damage from violation of the NDA, but ACTUAL DAMAGE[b} Apple must have known was already taking place !!!
Why did it take me so long to figure this out? Why hasn’t even John Gruber figured it out?
The issue is now as plain as night and day, guys! Let’s get with the program and wallpaper Dvorak and the rest of the media with the real story instead of wrangling over who’s right it was to divulge trade secrets that were already out in the wild.
doobie, lol
Andy C: I don’t mean to nit pick, but that is precisely my point. How as a 3rd Party do you know it is a trade secret covered by an NDA, and thus “illegal” to have?
You don’t know until after the fact. Unless of course you are alleging that TS engaged in industrial espionage (I use the term in its most expansive definition).
You again are all presuming the fact that what TS published was illegally gotten, AND WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME TO BE SO. Did the information come with a tag, or watermark, or some warning label advising the holder of the information as such?
I am personally disgusted by the state of the law in this case. I have for decades watched the erosion of rights granted by the Constitution. What is accept for the mainstream today, would never have been dared by the most extreme many years ago. It is frightening to imagine what it will be like in years to come.
Zac
beatsme’s analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the issue here.
This is not about the use of a valid trade secret, but about the spread of information.
Can I report a trade secret, that is no longer secret? Even if yes, and given that it is a valid “trade secret,” you still cannot use it for gain. See the difference?
Also a much more fundamental issue, is whether or not Apple’s use of the trade secret Act was valid?
Zac
Dvorak uses any excuse for an anti Apple rant.
He bet his life savings that Apple would buy The Be OS. Apple bought NeXT and Dvorak lost his shirt. That’s the only reason the old fart is still writing.
He is just a bitter old man. Ignore him.
I find what is most interesting is that now anybody can publish themselves for free and have anyone on the planet read them. No longer are there natural barriers to publication (convincing a newspaper editor, paying to print your own copy, etc.).
Now anyone can consider themselves journalists – even MDN!
This is kind of access is happening everywhere for pretty much anything.
It’s not that this kind of phenomenon wasn’t possible, it was just not feasible.
I do believe that Apple does have the right to protect its property. Frankly, this isn’t much different than if you were a Pixar employee, made an internal copy of a secret title, and gave to a friend who would review it and publish it.
I guess if somebody anonymously e-mailed you an outline of the plot, it gets murkier. Still, somebody violated their NDA – they were just smarted about covering their arse.
More fun with the contradictions inherent in the fan sites’ attitude:
Nick Ciarelli has been quoted as saying that he’ll still buy a Mac for his next computer. Great idea! Contribute to the finances of the company suing your butt off! Of course, ol’ Nick’s kind of in a lose-lose proposition. I mean, if he abandons Apple, ThinkSecret really has no reason to exist, does it?
I love how some readers of the fan sites are so furious, they’re NOT GOING TO BUY APPLE PRODUCTS ANYMORE! Yeah, that’ll show those bastards! You’ve lost a whole bunch of customers, Apple! …
And, of course, the fan sites have lost a whole bunch of readers. ‘Cuz if they ain’t buyin’ Apple no more, they really have very little incentive to continue reading Mac fan sites, do they?
I can’t repeat this loud enough:
IT MAKES NO FSCKING SENSE FOR AN APPLE FAN-SITE TO FIGHT WITH APPLE!!!
Dvoraks “weighing in” only carries weight with the guy who made the movie “Supersize me,” and Micael Moore.
maczac sez: “How as a 3rd Party do you know it is a trade secret covered by an NDA, and thus “illegal” to have?”
You use common sense. Advance knowledge of an exciting new product that’s never been seen before? Gee, I’d lay odds thats a trade secret.
Or, if common sense isn’t your bag, how about when you receive a letter from Apple saying “You’ve published a trade secret. Please take it down.” Y’know, like the letters ThinkSecret supposedly got?
When you get such a letter, you can respond in one of two ways:
1) “I’m sorry Apple! I didn’t know that was a trade secret! I’ll take it down right away! Please keep making insanely great stuff!”
2) “F— YOU APPLE! I’LL FIGHT YOU TO THE SUPREME COURT, YOU FIRST AMENDMENT-STOMPING S.O.B’S!!”
ThinkSecret took option #2. ‘Cuz, you know, they’re a fan site and love Apple so damn much.
I’m tired of hearing that “this will hurt Apple”. Hurt them how? By pissing off whiny fan-site readers? That’s all win for Apple, folks. They piss off the fan-site readers enough to make them buy PCs, they quit reading the fan-sites, the fan-sites die. Meanwhile sales continue unabated to the vast majority of customers who aren’t obsessive net addicts.
LordRobbin…Wow, words escape me, you continue to miss the point. And exactly who’s “common sense” would that be: Yours, perhaps? (“Hmmm, I just received this tip, should I publish it, naaa I might get sued. . .” Don’t you see the problem here?)
BTW, I do not read TS, I really feel that rumor sites are just that. Not really interested.
The “use” of a trade secret, is protected, however the “reporting” of information about something that may or may not be a trade secret is something that should be safeguarded at all costs. Did TS publish a pdf of the plans, or some internal Apple document? BTW what about the site reporting about the info passed on by the said TS, are they not also in violation? Again the issue here is very narrow, it is Apple’s attempt to compel the said TS in revealing its source. However, my point is the same, this will cause undue hardship and economic harm to the “reporter” and thus the chilling effect.
As for boycotting Apple: I have used Apple products since 1979. I don’t intend to change as long as they continue to provide state of the art products. However, I do not run lockstep with Apple or SJ just because it is Apple or SJ.
Did TS’s injure or hurt Apple? Even assuming it did, too bad for Apple. That is the cost of doing business. Do a better job policing your perimeters. Again, TS was not in possession of a trade secret of Apples, nor did they use a trade secret of Apples. They merely reported on the existence of the “secret.”
I see Steve Jobs step out of his car with ear buds connected by a white wire to a white devise in his hand. I report on that. I am just a reporter. I don’t care about Apples NDA, and neither should anyone else, except for Apple and Steve Jobs, who breached his NDA by wearing his iPod in public prior to the release and announcement of the iPod.
Zac
Oh and just for your further information, I particularly enjoy Steve Job’s “Oh, and just one more thing…” moments. I enjoy being surprised and astounded at the latest thing produced by Apple’s R&D. I was also somewhat chagrinned by all the pre-release reporting of the mac mini. It spoiled the party, so to speak, so much so, that I believe SJ actually changed the order of the presentment at the MacWorld Expo in January.
However, I still lay the blame squarely on the doorstep of Apple (most likely a vendor) for not securing its perimeters. Apple has every right to go after and plug its leak, I however think that going after the reporter is the complete and opposite direction that Apple should be going. I have heard no argument that even comes close to changing my mind.
Zac
Zac, how do you propose Apple “secures its perimeters”? Is there any obviously better way than a non-disclosure agreement? What do you propose they do, keep employees from ever leaving the grounds? You can’t develop products without someone actually working on them…and if someone has made up their mind to leak confidential information, there’s not much you can do to prevent that.
If an employee breaks an NDA, they face the legal consequences, it’s that simple. How is breaking one worth your career?
Securing the borders… Let’s see, Apple has demanded that manufacturers run midnight shifts instead of daylight one, demanded that curtains go up in the windows to prevent snooping from the outside, etc. etc.
However, all it takes is sticky finger to lift an iPod Shuffle (or Asteriod) and pocket it on the way out the door. Or somebody visiting a friend for lunch and noticing product (and then reporting about it). The latter involves no NDA at all.
Hey, Car & Driver takes spy photos all the time of cars under development out in the desert, etc. Do they get sued?
Much of Apple’s product is manufactured in Asia, where copying isn’t exactly shameful…
How little truth in so many words!
I can’t think of any relevant reason to bring up the fact that Jobs is a friend of Bill Clinton other than to incite a reaction from the rabid anti-Clintonites. It’s a cheap shot and is (I thought) beneath Dvorak.
…dear Zac
DV-dork is a assss.
Lets seem him plunk down a few million for a new product design just to have it leaked all over the internet and loose any chance to make a profit because the Asians crank out a clone in a few months later.
How many jobs were lost because of this leak?
Now we won’t get “Asteroid”
STUPID ASSS
Maczac: I can’t believe I’m actually replying. I miss the point, huh? Funny, that’s exactly what I was thinking about you. Sure, there’s situations where something may or may not be a trade secret, when the reporter should be given the benefit of the doubt. There are also cases when it’s bloody obvious, and I think that applies here. It sure as heck applies to the O’Grady case, where Apple documents clearly marked as confidential were published on the site.
Again, didn’t Apple send ThinkSecret a notice that they were publishing trade secrets, telling them to knock it off? Shouldn’t that have been a clue? Why they instead decided to make an enemy out of the very company to which they owe their existence is something I’ll never get.
Yes mz, if *you* saw Steve Jobs step out of a car with the new iPod Extreme, *you* could report it, because it would be public information (presuming you weren’t a guest on the Apple campus at the time). That’s not the case here.
Don’t apply generalities to a case where specifics are known.
“an interested public is not the same as the public interest” – Good quote. If you have to make a decision whether something is in the publics interest before you publish something from someone who is breaking their NDA it makes it a major grey area. Did the reporting of Watergate help or hurt America? I would say hurt but it was something that had to be done.
What about the current case with Apple? I would say that I agree with the judge and it did not serve the public interest to have these trade secrets reported nor was it really something that had to be done. But the key point is that we have taken something that was more or less black and white and are making it a grey area that someone has to decide on. This will make whistleblowers and people who publish information from whistleblowers have to think twice and I am not sure that is a good thing.
According to the ruling, which to judge from the thread to date about five of the posters have bothered to read, the material which Apple is trying to track consists of material from a slide set marked Apple need to know confidential, reproduced verbatim. It refers to a product in development.
The Judge concluded that prima facie that met the standards for being treated as “trade secret” material under Californian law for the purpose of discovery. Whether it actually is would need to be established at any subsequent trial.
The ThinkSecret case is a separate one, and was not covered in the ruling.
TomCS
This whole BS about the rumor sites being real fans of Apple and how this law suit will affect their loyalty is beside the point.
Last week I read the news that Mel Gibson sued a “fan” who kept intruding on his (Gibson’s) privacy. It’s the same issue here. A fan (Think Secret) has turned into a stalker, using illegal means to gather information on and thus be nearer to the object of desire (Apple).
Hinckley was a fan, too, but I bet Mrs. Foster could do without him.
Just my 2 ¢.
Jack A: “This will make whistleblowers and people who publish information from whistleblowers have to think twice and I am not sure that is a good thing.”
This has nothing to do with whistleblowers. Don’t conflate.