“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.
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.