If Think Secret doesn't know who gave them the info - say it was called into their phone hotline - do they have to comply and remove the info? If this was the Washington Post I'd think they would not?

No, of course not. But, then again, the Washington Post is run by "real" journalists and know better than to run "rumors" that aren't substantiated, nor to divulge "intellectual property" or "company secrets" without just cause. [Just cause isn't "I've got info, I need to share it!", its more like "Hey, I've got info that Apple's defrauding their users by not admitting that their laptops will cause severe sterility (can sterility be severe?) even though these internal memos say they know of the problem!" And, even then, substantiation is required.

First off, they're only soliciting information. They're not forcing it out of the people who signed the NDAs. They cannot know what information is legitimate and which is not (though they've got an excellent track record).

But it's up to the people who signed the NDAs to keep their stupid mouths shut. Otherwise this is just gossip, and rumour and speculation about upcoming products have been a mainstay of the Mac community for a very long time.

This is simply bullying and I've a feeling they're going to get their backsides handed to them if this actually goes to trial.

"But, then again, the Washington Post is run by "real" journalists and know better than to run "rumors" that aren't substantiated,"

Yeah, like Dan Rather and those memos. Boy, those sure were "real" all right. 8^P

Your arguements are specious. If I know something, I can tell it to whomever I like, as long as I am not bound by an NDA or other confidentiality agreement. I can also keep my mouth shut. But the point here is Apple is trying to roll over this site's opeator's first amendment rights.

Should he be forced, legally, to still his tongue just because Apple is afraid people will be less interested in the products if they know what they are before they're announced? Should a corporation's legal rights trump a private citizen's CONSTITUTIONAL rights?

If so, why?

If this is just about the NDAs, then they really can't go after a website, even if they know specifically that the stuff they're printing is coming from someone breaking their NDAs.

The problem for TS is the phrase "alleging that recent postings on the site contain Apple trade secrets". Trade secrets aren't just covered by NDAs. You can get into trouble passing along trade secrets and IP. Imagine if news of the iMac broke months before the iMac was released, such that a competitor came out with a look-alike prior to that WWDC. Apple would've lost (a) the buzz, as well as (b) sales. Which could've strongly changed Apple's turnaround efforts (to the point we could be talking about Apple's imminent demise and low market share and, oh, wait, I forgot, its apple, we always do that, but, hey, maybe they'd have gone under, and then what would we have to fret about...)

Apparently, the lawsuit does not name any of the articles referencing a flash-based iPod, adding credibility to my contention that those rumors are complete bunk.

common sense would dictate that the signers of the NDAs were not induced to break their agreement as they received no compensation whatsoever. A website is generally protected speech. Of course common sense and the Law don't often go together. A judge might very well compel TS to open its' IP logs and ID the leaker but I can't see that they can be held liable for the anon report. If that were true why doesn't Apple sue MacNN tomorrow for posting secret info about Apple's planned G6 Laptop? "Apple is planning on adapting the G6 chip currently under development for it's laptop line of products."

One thought, is that maybe these items (say the headless iMac), may NOT be released at MacWorld. Look at what has happened in the past month- Wall Street analysts have upped the ante for Apple stock, based on what they beleive will be a strong first quarter in 2005. A big reason for this belief, are the rumored products in the pipe line (specifically, the new headless iMac, and the 'halo' effect from iPods).

Now, zip forward to Tuesday afternoon, if, say, these products AREN'T to be released. Now there is a huge let-down on wall street, and you'll see the stock plummet. Just a thought.

...I didn't sign no NDA.

Oh wait... you can't.

Well, you can, but you won't win.

Some of Apple's retail employees (especially the newer ones, who might not have benefited from proper training/threatening) often help fuel speculation.

I've witnessed a couple of Apple retail store employees speculate what might be coming out & even pursueding a customer NOT to buy a product before the expo...just incase a new ibook is released or whatnot.

Chris

p.s. Its Apple's own fault, they build this mystique about their products and blanket the area with NDA's and threats and yet feed the hype at the same time. Its almost a Roswellian approach. I swear there must bee Airforce Generals at Apple somewhere....or at least little blue/aqua martians.

Shouldn't they also sue any publication that discusses Apple rumors, not just online sites? WSJ, for instance, wrote about the Headless iMac based on rumors. Why aren't they being sued?

You should really look up stuff about trade secrets before bashing Apple. Apple DOES have the right to shut down disseminators of trade secrets and demand damages.

It's apparently legal precident for Apple to go after TS. An analogy is in order:

If you rob a bank and then give me some of the haul and I know you robbed the bank, then I am an accessory after the fact to the criminal act and can be charged.

That's what Apple is saying TS is guilty of ... TS published confidential information from an inside source at Apple who signed an NDA to not pass info along and can be held liable for any such leaks and TS knew that the info they got was under such an NDA. TS is, therefore, knowingly passing along illegally obtained information and can be charged along with the original info supplier.

Apple may also be using this legal action to find out who leaked such info and I wouldn't want to be that Apple employee (having spent time on campus myself and signed not a few NDAs in my time). Thye may also be furious about product info that may have been leaked that isn't coming to pass at MWSF but shortly thereafter making Apple look like to bad guys here for not introducing the [insert miracle Apple item here] in time for MW.

This wasn't publically available information, it is information that affects Apple's business (i.e., their ability to earn $$$) and under a contract of non-disclosure.

Sue the individual(s) leaking the info, not the website that posts it. The website is just reporting information from a source. It's the source that's abusing apple's trade secrets, not the website.

I used to have this girlfriend I was with so long she knew all my stories, and she had this nasty, stupid habit of finishing them for me. I have some pretty long stories, and it would really bug me to get halfway through and have her just steal my thunder. Even worse, I could see her watching me, waiting to jump on my story as I was telling it. It was really irritating.

TO quote Chris Rock about OJ Simpson, "I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."

" ...I didn't sign no NDA. Oh wait... you can't. Well, you can, but you won't win."

By jove, I think he's got it! 8^)

"If you rob a bank and then give me some of the haul and I know you robbed the bank, then I am an accessory after the fact to the criminal act and can be charged."

TS has no clear way to verify whether a piece of information is coming from someone under an NDA (say, a project engineer) or someone who's privvy to a secret which he shouldn't know (but is not covered by an NDA) or whether it's coming from someone making an educated guess, or whether the person is just making stuff up.

If it turns out that TS is paying people to break their NDAs, they should be shut down and the operator(s) sued. Apple will be within their legal rights to do so. But otherwise, this is an example of a large corporation suing a private citizen to stifle his constitutional first amendment rights.

"I've witnessed a couple of Apple retail store employees speculate what might be coming out & even pursueding a customer NOT to buy a product before the expo...just incase a new ibook is released or whatnot."

So? I've been selling and/or supporting Macs for 13 years, and I've been giving that same advice for just as long.

With or without rumors, innuendo, gossip, etc.-- unless you absolutely, positively need a new Mac immediately, it's just plain dumb to make a major Apple purchase right before MacWorld Expo.

~Philly

I think it's become obvious that the person running/writing ThinkSecret is a developer.

Just a point in reference to the comment about Dan Rather:

It should be noted -- and not forgotten, as it has been -- that although the COPIES of the memos were found to be forgeries, the INFORMATION in the memos was agreed by ALL SIDES to be *accurate.*

Something to think about.

"If you rob a bank and then give me some of the haul and I know you robbed the bank, then I am an accessory after the fact to the criminal act and can be charged."

Oh god. Now you're a criminal if you know something criminal has happened, even if you weren't the one the performed the act? Give me a break.

The only reason people can even remotely accept this kind of c*** on the internet is because nobody can seem to find the actual criminals. It's easier to blame the ISP, website, etc. for criminal activity then it is to find the person responsible. But that doesn't make it a good solution.

At any rate, apple was stupid to not shut down Think Secret years ago. Anybody that has any clue knows that much everything Think Secret reports on with regard to apple actually happens. It's the only rumor site I read anymore because it's the only one that consistantly gets things right. I'm amazed it's taken apple this long to respond. RIP Think Secret, the corporate dogs are coming for you :-(

Oh god. Now you're a criminal if you know something criminal has happened, even if you weren't the one the performed the act? Give me a break.

Umm, its not 'Now', its always been that way. For example, if you're driving the getaway car in that bank robbery, and someone gets killed in the bank, you're up for murder, even though you stayed in the car.

The key point is 'knowing' the crime was being committed. Accepting stolen money without knowing it was stolen is not a crime. Knowing it was stolen is.

I can'T wait for next Tuesday. All those lame comments on CNN of utterly deceived Apple fans praying for a headless Mac under 500$...

YEAH SURE...

WOULD YOU LIKE A BMW WITHOUT A ROOFTOP FOR 10 GRANDS WITH THAT?