“A ripple was felt through the Mac community early this morning, as one of its oldest and best-known rumor sites announced that it would be closing its doors. ThinkSecret announced that it had settled a three-year-old lawsuit with Apple, which resulted in the site’s tipsters to remain anonymous, apparently at the expense of the site’s continued operations,” Jacqui Cheng reports for Ars Technica.
“ThinkSecret has a long history of reporting on rumors, successfully predicting the introduction of the Mac mini as well as iWork in 2005. That prompted a lawsuit from Apple in an attempt to identify the leakers and to stop the site from continuing to publish what Apple called ‘trade secrets,'” Cheng reports.
“Apple argued that Ciarelli solicited for inside tips on his site, which the company argued was a violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act,” Cheng reports. “The reaction to ThinkSecret’s closing has been mixed. Although not everyone has been fond of the site’s ‘me too’ reporting as of late, the precedent set by Ciarelli’s settlement is very troubling. With ThinkSecret down, who will Apple go after next?”
Cheng reports, “But the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kurt Opsahl has a different perspective on why things went down the way they did, and what it means for the community. ‘I’m very happy to see that no sources were disclosed,’ Opsahl told Ars… ‘Apple was faced with losing the case and having to pay attorney’s fees,’ explained Opsahl, which is likely part of the reason why it decided to settle instead of continuing to pursue it. As for Ciarelli, ‘We understand that Nick is very satisfied with the outcome of the case,’ Opsahl said. ‘We hope that Apple learns a lesson over this.'”
More in the full article here.
Hey source!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Speak up! Or write a book about it that only “leaks” to the torrents.
This is a non event.
MDN please post another headline.
the settlement means Apple will no longer hound Ciarelli and everyone goes home, if not happy, quietly. There’s no constitutional right to reveal trade secrets regardless of how much buzz some one is trying to make for their web site, so I won’t shed a tear to see him go.
At least they’re not running the gambit. I hate it when that happens.
Yeah, it’s a bummer. But the leakers will just go elsewhere; maybe to AppleInsider now. Apple has to sue people like Think Secret to lay a solid legal foundation for preserving its intellectual property. Now all Think Secret (or whoever) needs to do is make it clear (via a prominent, posted declaration on their home page?) that they don’t “entice” insiders to come to them.
Like spoiled celebrities who complain about the paparazzi, Apple wants it both ways: Be fascinated with us, but please don’t inconvenience us in the process of giving us all our money. Screw THAT! They can shut their pie-holes as they rake in billions.
Oops. Goof fixed here:
Yeah, it’s a bummer. But the leakers will just go elsewhere; maybe to AppleInsider now. Apple has to sue people like Think Secret to lay a solid legal foundation for preserving its intellectual property. Now all AppleInsider (or whomever) needs to do is make it clear (via a prominent, posted declaration on their home page?) that they don’t “entice” insiders to come to them.
Like spoiled celebrities who complain about the paparazzi, Apple wants it both ways: Be fascinated with us, but please don’t inconvenience us in the process of giving us all our money. Screw THAT! They can shut their pie-holes as they rake in billions.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That includes Apple Inc.
the first amendment only applies to the government. apple can abridge the freedom of speech however it wants.
Apple Inc. utilizes “the government” in a law suit, you idiot. Who do you think enforces the result of civil suits?
apple is quickly becoming the kind of unabashed corporation we used to accuse microsoft of being: an 800-pound gorilla that likes to throw its weight around.
And, true to form, mac fanatics are becoming just as ignorant as peecee apologists.
I’ll be glad when apple becomes the apple of old again: a small niche player that made cool products for people in the know…
Apple doesn’t want people to know about its products beforehand. No surprise there.
Think Secret tries to find out, possibly illegally from insiders. The fact that Apple went after them is a surprise?
Four words can sum up this situation nicely:
Who gives a shit?
I wonder if Mr Ciarelli got some money from Apple? He seems happy that he lost a source of revenue – his website. Also, he stated that he ‘will now be able to move forward with his college studies and broader journalistic pursuits’. Did he get some money or a job offer from somewhere out of this?
The next one Apple “goes after” will be the next one who publishes information the nature of which the publishing thereof violates the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Apple’s actions in this case were not nefarious, just a bit heavy-handed. There’s a difference between the “source” of a “rumor” and an insider violating a non-disclosure agreement. It’s the “non-disclosure” part that gets ya. That, and the part about “agreement.”
Simple.
Both sides had a case, both had something to lose, both negotiated to a mutually agreed settlement.
That’s the American Way. If either disagreed, either could have pursued it to a trial. Apple has their lawyers, Think Secret, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawyers, had theirs.
Now, the dumbasses at Ars and everywhere else begin their speculation without research, facts, anything. Only a collection of other bloggers online and draw suppositions and conclusions.
Ars is the anal sphincter of Mac sites.
Hmmm…no opinion for MDN?
Apple got your tongue????
dude you have no idea what you are talking about.
there is no first amendment right to free press when the person abridging that right is not a government actor. this is why a store can throw you out for saying something they don’t like.
the constitution doesn’t apply to private actors.
Only Buster seems to have any kind of moral compass, the rest of you don’t seem to.
How can soliciting/publishing infomation that is disclosed illegally be a moral thing to do?
It is different for whistle blowers as there is law that supports the reporting/leaking/gathering of information about illegal activity.
But to report/leak/gather information on legal activity in an illegal manner is still illegal. The crime was committed by ThinkSecret and the leakers. Apple didn’t commit any crimes in this case.
Apple was completely in it’s moral right to pursue this case
Just because we crave to know what Apple has coming up next doesn’t make it right to break NDA’s. Basically ThinkSecret and its informers were selling out their morals for money, or notoriety, or vendetta, etc. They weren’t righting any wrongs or doing any good.
Go to church, learn some ethics. The problem with secularism is the loss of the moral compass.
(And before anyone spouts how many atrocities churches have caused, please realize that those were committed by non-believers who claimed to be believers. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”)
MDM is next!
MDN i mean. Because they don’t have an edit function.
Fortunately, “Disgusted” didn’t write (nor read) the US Constitution. Nothing worse that an illiterate pontificator.
Don’t call me “dude.” The right of a free press means exactly that; free. If Apple has a problem with employees divulging information to the press, then that’s Apple’s problem with their employee, not with the the press or the First Amendment. Get a library card, dude.
I wonder if I could get rich by becoming the Think Secret replacement – on second thought, maybe all I have to do is threaten to do that.
Anyone have Steve’s direct line? I think I’ll give this idea a try.
Please visit this web site: thinksecretreturns.com
You will find the latest rumors, leaked directly from inside the most secure areas at Cupertino. They are all true. Very, very true.
Special note to Steve: There is a secure section of the new site just for you. Password: Send $5 Mil and this site goes away.
Sorry, Pete – beat you to it!
Stygian victory for Think Secret.
@ Disgusted…about losing your moral compass.
How do you defend ‘journalists’ or any publication bringing rumors not being moral? They are doing their job, never mind if it is one you don’t like, but it’s their job. The moral question is with the leak @ Apple. Not with ThinkSecret or any other rumor-website….
ThinkSecret seems to be morally very very correct by sticking to their principle of not revealing their sources.
We had a case in the Netherlands earlier this year where 2 journalists where locked away for not revealing sources. USA had a similar case. Personally, I put ThinkSecret in that perspective, having chosen not to reveal sources.
Ah yes, the old ‘just doing their job’ routine. How convenient.
@Botvinnik:
Please describe your major malfunction. You call someone an “idiot” and then object when someone later refers to you as “dude”. You exhibit all the bravado of someone emboldened by the anonymity of the Internet. Do tell, do you find that others who have to deal with you in person describe you as being an ass(?) or is your behavior something you reserve for when you can hide behind the apron strings of anonymity?
Oh Gee. I really think apple was intimidated by the thought of paying his attorney’s fees.
Yeeeaaaah, right.
I’m sure it sent about 9 Billion shivers down Steve Jobs spine.
Disgusted,
That’s a bit disingenuous don’t you think. They committed atrocities therefore they must not have been “true believers”. Please. There is no need to have any religious affiliation to be ethical. Atrocities, like acts of kindness are committed by believers and non-believers alike. By your reasoning the nordic countries should have relatively high crime rates as they are some of the more secular societies (and would therefore be not as ethical). Guess what the reality is. Open up your mind.
Semper Fi
“That includes Apple Inc.”
Actually it’s well established that that does NOT include Apple Inc or any non government entity.
Secondly it’s also well established that “Freedom of Speech” does not mean absolute freedom of speech. There are limits.
“Apple wants it both ways”
So Apple’s a cult that wants to carefully shape thoughts and control the minds of it’s followers without outside interference. We all knew that already.
Disgusted,
I’m afraid you are wasting your time with these guys. But I hear you.
A. The “idiot” first argued that the constitution did not apply to the private sector.
B. I replied that any civil suit, private or public, is decided by the government (the judicial system.)
C. You too are an idiot, or cannot grasp the English language.
D. I have neither a malfunction nor am I a “dude.”
Thank you. – The Management
speaking of anonymity, what does the L stand for?
I ran the tumag one time, and then realized everyone else was going the other way….
@Botvinnik
You have a very tenuous grasp of the law.
Apple is not “Congress.”
The Constitution limits what the government can do… not the people. The Courts have ruled that the First Amendment, although actually, as written, limits only what Congress can legislate, is extended to all regulatory Agencies and departments in the government. In the 20th Century, the Courts also extended the limitations in the Bill of Rights to all the States by the “incorporation” interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It still does not limit what the people can do… or “fictitious” persons, such as Apple Inc., can do.
Let’s say that ThinkSecret offered $100 to anyone who provides them your Social Security Number, your mother’s maiden name, your bank account and credit card numbers (all of which is considered proprietary information that is kept by many businesses you have done business with) and then, after it is provided by an employee of your bank, ThinkSecret, claiming It is a member of the press, publishes them on the Internet so that they can make money from advertisers. That’s freedom of speech… or is it? Do you think that Congress is correct to make that kind of “speech” illegal? What recourse do you have to protect YOUR secrets? According to your theory, the courts would have to tell you “Sorry, it is their right to publish the “stolen property” they received … and to pay the thieves who stole it, because the Constitution prohibits us from passing any laws prohibiting it.”
Let’s extend the First Amendment to another level… It specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that prohibits “the free exercise” of religion. I have decided to resurrect the practice of an ancient and venerable religion (and truly believe in its tenets) and get thousands of people to join (who also sincerely believe in its tenets) my resurrected religion. One of requirements of the faithful “exercising” of my religion is the sacrifice of a Virgin 13 year old girl every April 21st by bashing her in the head with a club made from the foreleg bone of a Mammoth. Should the Government stop my religion from its “Free exercise” of this very important and significant ritual of my religion? According to you, it can’t, and a 13 year old girl is gonna die…
The US Constitution also specifically says that the government is granted certain powers among which is:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” . . . “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” – United States Constitution, Section 8, Paragraphs 8 and 18.
but according to you, if ThinkSecret can inveigle the revelation of these “Writings” (copyright) and “Discoveries” (patents) before they have been revealed or copyrighted or patented, that it is OK to publish them without permission of their creators? That IS unconstitutional… and the courts can certainly intervene.
Hey, Swordmaker
Good post. Have you seen my plowshares around? Just kidding.
And your thoughts on the “Wall of Separation” that is so often misquoted?
I’m just looking for an educated opinion. Really.
Thanks
All this crap about ‘the law’ – in the language that real people speak, it’s simple:
At the end of the day, Apple have effectively managed to shut someone up whose words they don’t like. This quickly translates to Apple being bullish and anti-freedom of speech.
Together with the recent ecological booboos, Apple are developing a real HR problem. Down this road, it won’t be long before turtleneck sweaters are a symbol of ruthless entrepreneurship, no longer of inventiveness and customer satisfaction.
Get a grip, Steve.
Not the best MAC site. But, disappointing that it felt it had to close.
I hope it doesn’t force other sites to watch what they say. There are already too many sites who don’t want to lose favoured access status with SJ
larry turnauer, Disgusted, Swordmaker, and a few others are on the right track.
The rest of you need to realize that the bottom line is simple: there’s the basis for a Civil lawsuit whenever a contract is broken – – and violating a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a breach of contract and thus actionable.
Where you’re getting tripped up is how Think Secret plays a part as a third party intermediate.
Functionally, Think Secret is exactly like a Pawn Shop who is reselling stolen goods.
-hh
“Should the Government stop my religion from its “Free exercise” of this very important and significant ritual of my religion? According to you, it can’t, and a 13 year old girl is gonna die…”
Where do you find a 13 year old Virgin these days?
” It specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that prohibits “the free exercise” of religion”
As with so many constitutional provisions, they are not construed as absolute prohibitions, rather there are various tests. Free exercise of religion can be affected if there is an “important” or “compelling” state interest.
Some examples which the Supreme Court have ruled are allowable use of this authority are prohibiting a Jewish member of the Air Force from wearing his yarmulke while on duty, outlawing Polygamy and drug use in religious rituals.
Clearly protecting any remaining 13 year old Virgins in society from death by sacrifice is a compelling state interest.
On the other side however they have ruled against a city ordinance prohibiting the ritual slaughter of animals because it was not an overall ban on all ritual slaughter (e.g. Kosher or Halal slaughter) but rather directly targeted the practices of one religious sect.
The success of Apple, is tied to the fact that they are good about keeping secrets of products. Look back at the history of the stock price. See how it has increased in the past 6 years. Apple’s ability to “drop bombs” on the consumer is one of its biggest assets. I know we all want to know what is “in the pipeline”, but to Apple’s credit, they should hold tightly to those secrets.
From the consumer stand point, we don’t want to purchase something, just to find out that next week it is being replaced by an updated model. Well, it would be updated soon anyway. If we all waited for the next update, we would never have the tools needed to do our work.
From Apple’s point, they are out to make money, and they will do whatever they can to make a buck without turning off the customer.
I say, let them hold their secrets. I would rather have them put the money into R & D than giving it to lawyers.
What the world needs is a lot less lawyers and a lot more Virgins (why are we capitalizing virgins?). Well, at least a couple of Virgins for Pete’s sake. Wait, forget the Pete part; that guy is totally whacked out.
“The success of Apple, is tied to the fact that they are good about keeping secrets of products”
Part of the success is that they’re also good about generating just the right amount of pre-release speculation and frenzy. What’s clear is that Apple wants the ability to leak information and create speculation, but doesnt want anyone else doing it.
And frankly as a consumer I’d rather know the product I’m going to purchase tomorrow will be obsolete the day after.
Outside the fanboy community who will put up with anything, each “Fucked over by Apple secrecy” experience a general consumer has will hurt Apple long term.
Read between the lines.
Apple bought the web site and shut it down.
The kid gets $$$$$.
Apple admits no wrong and pays no penalty.
The leaker gets to keep his or her job and leak more trade secrets another day.
The share prices continue to go up.
It’s a win, win, win, win situation.
Once again I will reiterate for the slower of you reading these responses (whose latest entity is comprised of the copy & paste ramblings of “Swordmaker”): Apple’s suit with ThinkSecret was settled in court, the court is the judicial branch of the federal government, all decisions handed down by the federal government are liable to the law of the land, that is, the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press. If Apple has employees who are divulging information to the press, then it is Apple’s problem with their employees and not with ThinkSecret or any other news gathering and reporting entity. If my explanation is still unclear to you, you must have slept through junior high civics class.
Dammit! I knew I should have gone to bed earlier when I as in junior high. Sorry Botvinnik. Ya know, you Slavic people are kinda cranky.
“Once again I will reiterate for the slower of you reading these responses”
Clearly you are completely ignorant of constitutional law issues.
Despite people’s repeated attempts to educate you, that’s clearly going nowhere.
So I don’t know what else there is to say other than grab a good introductory text on constitutional law, read it then come back and apologize for your ignorance.
If you haven’t got the time for that, perhaps reading the wikipedia article on free speech would be a good start.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s “definitions” are comprised of contributions made by non-scholars. Similar to yourself, C.
Then go read some Supreme Court decisions ignoramus.
Read them directly off the supreme court website if you’re concerned that they’re being misinterpreted.
Start with Reynolds v. United States, 89 U.S. 145, (1878) (Upholding a law outlawing polygamy).
Then look at Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. ___ (1986) (upholding the Air Force’s right to forbid wearing a yalmuke on duty).
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 222 (1969) (Upholding bans on speech intended to incite imminent lawless action).
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1975) (ruling that obscene speech is not protected speech).
I could keep going, but the reality is that even the slightest bit of research on your part will show that neither complete freedom of religious exercise nor complete freedom of speech are guaranteed by the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court (who as you may or may not know are the people in the US who get to decide what the Constitution means). If you don’t believe that they’re the guys who get to do that instead of you see Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Fletcher v. peck 10 U.S. 87 (1810).
Now I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to take all this in, but I’ll cast the pearls before the Botvinnik swine anyway.
As an addendum, the US Constitution was written in the syntax and idioms of the day, so that any American citizen could know precisely what his rights are. What part of “Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” do you not understand? …no/yes, black/white, male/female, cold/hot?
I, nor any other American citizen, require an “introductory text on Constitutional law.” We can read it for ourselves. You immerse what is left of your ability to think for yourself at Wikipedia, I’ll stick with James Madison and The Boys From Philly.
Apple’s problem is with employees who have broken non-disclosure contracts and not with news sites that simply report them.
Hot Damn !!! This string is really getting brutal. I love it!
Real World,
I’m confused. You said:
“And frankly as a consumer I’d rather know the product I’m going to purchase tomorrow will be obsolete the day after.”
Does that mean you would buy it even if you know it’s going to be obsolete the day after you buy it? Did I miss something? And please don’t reply: Yes, you missed the short, yellow school bus.
Unless you really mean it.
R.S.V.P.
“Does that mean you would buy it even if you know it’s going to be obsolete the day after you buy it”
Possibly, if I needed it that day and knew the one coming out the next day wasn’t much of an upgrade. In any case, I sure wouldn’t feel pissed off if I did that because I would have made a conscious decision.
What would piss me off is buying a product and a new secret unannounced upgrade or massive price drop happening the next day.
“I, nor any other American citizen, require an “introductory text on Constitutional law.”
I guess that’s probably true if you want to continue to live in ignorance as you do today.
I’m not exactly sure who you think the “Madison” in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison I cited was. Take a guess. His first name was James. Perhaps since you profess a respect for James Madison you should read at least that one case.
That the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution means was well settled within the lifetimes of most of the drafters of the Constitution. Jefferson was not fond of that decision but not enough people agreed with him to create any constitutional amendment that supported his view.
That your simplistic interpretation is wrong is well settled law. So you can go on believing that the law works the way you ignorantly think it works, or you can get an education.
Yeah, that’s happened to me a couple of times with Apple stuff. It’s all part of the game. At least I never felt like I got ripped off. Their stuff is still good stuff.
C, you are the man! Finally someone who understands reality.
To Al:
You also need to do some homework. I am half Danish, my mother is Danish, and I have visited Denmark and other Nordic countries, I have family still living in Denmark. The reason that Nordic countries have low crime rates is due to the homogeneity of their societies. Through their centuries of history they have killed, or driven out of the country anyone who was different. I love the Danes, so I am sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth.
Also, did you know that Adolf Hitler was the product of anti-religious thinking? It is very difficult to find an ethical person that doesn’t believe in a supreme power, because without that belief might makes right, selfishness reigns, and majority thought rules, and these lines of reasoning are at odds with ethics.
@ HaHaHaHa
Finding 13 year old Virgins to sacrifice is one of the real problems of practicing a religion that will sacrifice several each year… it’s a pretty good incentive for girls to change that status before April 21st… Of course we will probably end up with a lot of 14 year old mothers … finding Mastadon clubs is also a trifle difficult…
@ C
Thanks for the knowledgeable back up…
@ LorD1776
Refer to the comment to HaHaHaHa above… Virgins are rare… and rare nouns deserve to be capitalized.
@ Botvinnik
Ah, Argument Ad Hominem: the first resort of someone without a case is to attack the opponent not his argument. Phrases such as “the slower of you” and ” cut & paste ramblings” are intended by you to denigrate the debaters, not refute the arguments. The only things I “cut and paste” in my “ramblings” was the exact wording of the Constitution of the United States section that grants the power to the central government to regulate certain things and to enact the laws to do that regulation.
It is obvious you do not have a response to what you would do when your personal information has been sold to someone for profit. Do you sue the nameless drone who stole and sold your data, or do you sue the easily found website publisher who bought and is spreading your data? Under your absolutist Constitutional interpretation, I am free to publish the details of your identity and that 13 year old Virgin is gonna die.
You want scholars? How about Sir William Blackstone? You know, one of the most scholarly legal minds in history? (Pardon me if I cut and past again, but it is easier to cut and paste than to accurately retype words from Blackstone’s Commentaries)…
“Where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical, seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by English law – the liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publication, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: <u>but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity</u>.” (Underlining done by Swordmaker)
This is particularly true where private persons (including private corporate persons) are concerned… there are consequences to publishing information one does not own. One of them might be a cease and desist order… or monetary damages.
Swordmaker,
The human female will soon evolve into being born without a hymen. I mean, what the heck is it good for? Well, other than giving religious fanatical loonies a reason to kill women when it’s not there. The word Virgin will drop into obscurity (if it hasn’t already), along with chastity and fidelity, and removed from our vocabulary.
Regarding the capitalization:
I understand. Like Government Intelligence. Makes sense.
Hi all. Each individual woman’s body demands to be accepted on its own terms. Help me! Need information about: Maymie from I love money naked. I found only this –
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”mad” style=”border:0;” />. Bingham from Arab.
How are you. Don’t be afraid to take a big step if one is indicated. You can’t cross a chasm in two small jumps.
I am from San and now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “in today environment, it more important than ever for financial services companies to maintain a path toward long term profitability by cutting costs.”
Thanks 8-). Randie.
Good afternoon. There are admirable potentialities in every human being. Believe in your strength and your youth. Learn to repeat endlessly to yourself, ‘It all depends on me.’
I am from Grenada and now study English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “The headgear hours like laying with many texture may be made to winter.”
Thank you very much
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />. Echo.