toggle

AAPL Stock: 502.67 ( + 0.46 )

MacNN News

Negative publicity may tarnish Apple's image

updated 06:35 pm EST, Wed January 26, 2005

Negative lawsuit publicity

The negativey publicity generated by the recent lawsuits challenging the traditional journalist protections may be doing more harm than good to Apple's image, according to the Online Journalism Review: "In any case, the publicity from these cases has , saying he plans to file a motion in February to dismiss the "meritless" case with the court on the grounds of First Amendment rights as well as seek sanctions against Apple for legal costs already incurred.

by MacNN Staff

(50)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

presearch
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

01/26, 06:50pm | report spam | close Reply |
They had to do it

Apple has to protect it's IP, regardless if it's 1 guy, or M$.
Like it or not, it's the way this world works (for adults).

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

01/26, 07:07pm | report spam | close Reply |
Macidiots hurt Mac

Idiotic apologists for Apple do not seem to understand that Apple is simply trying to intimidate reporters & others from investigating & reporting about Apple. Just because Apple hasn't put out a press release doesn't mean it's not news, doesn't mean it can't be reported. A description of a soon-to-be released product is in no way a trade secret, and I hope Apple gets their hats handed to them in this case.

For far too long small web publishers have been intimidated by mega-corps lawyers. For far too long websites have removed perfectly allowable content in the face of a simple notice. For far too long information has been made inaccesible by gun-shy ISPs. For far too long documents have been deleted for fear of a meritless lawsuit. For far too long innovative manufacturers like Replay TV have been sued into bankruptcy for making legal devices but didn't secure the blessings of the megacorps.

When Apple's lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, hopefully it will cause other megacorps to compete on merits instead of pounding the little guy with legal fees. I think Apple is a great company, I own their stock and I buy just about every Apple product out there. But they are wrong about this lawsuit, they are attempting to stifle the freedom of the press, and that's why I hope they lose.

bigpoppa206
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

01/26, 07:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
If Apple has a legal

standing, then by all means pursue it! You can leave the "free speech" argument to those who don't understand the law.

DannyMac
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

01/26, 07:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Instead

Instead of suing Think Secret, or any other rumor reporting site, they should try to patch their leak(s).

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

01/26, 07:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
First Ammendement rights?

Are first ammendement rights a blanket protection or are there limits? Can a reporter knowingly print false information which tarnishes the reputation of an individual or organization and get away with it? I though the first ammendment/freedom of press had to do with protection of the press from government influence rather than protection from civil prosecution.

Can a reporter knowingly publish trade secrets which have no immediate public interest at stake. Are online bloggers really reporters?

sosumi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 1999

0

01/26, 07:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oh well...

bye bye, Apple...

PookJP
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

01/26, 07:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
Go TS...

I hope Think Secret wins this one. I can't imagine why it's legal for the New Yorker to publish information regarding American troop movement in Iran but it's not for a Mac site to report on future product launches. Both involve information intended to be kept private, and both could theoretically hurt the subjects of the reports. But the First Amendment exists for a reason, and that's to put control of information into the hands of the people, not of the powerful, interested parties.

harryhoode
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

01/26, 07:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
No impact

Nobody will notice this lawsuit beyond the small percentage of geeks who keep up with apple news. The average buyer will never even hear about it.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

01/26, 07:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re:GoTS

The difference is nobody developed the information on troop movements in Iran - they belong to the public.

Corporate trade secrets do not. ThinkSecret solicited people to illegally break their NDAs. That's the difference. If the press happened upon information in Apple's dumpster, that'd be a different story. No law was broken that way. But the way ThinkSecret got the information was by committing illegal acts.

jscotta
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2002

0

01/26, 07:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple, 1st Admendment,etc

JROME,

If a description of a soon to be released but not announced product is not a trade secret, then what is? By that very statement, you severely discredit your knowledge in my eyes.

GENERAL

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States is designed to protect our citizens rights to report on and protect us from our own government. It was never intended to allow journalists to say whatever they want about any subject. How does digging into a companies trade secrets fit that scenario? Short answer, it does not.

While I disagree with much of Apple's secrecy, specifically as it relates to its enterprise business, that is the bread and butter of the mass consumer market. It allows them to control the presentation of the product. This lets them make as much sizzle as possible for potential customers to hear. By stealing the companies thunder with ill-gained information, they are materially hurting the company and its owners. That includes me. I don't like it one bit.

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

01/26, 08:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
Answer this

Answer these questions if you support Apple:

1) What is a trade secret?

2) What was the trade secret Apple is suing about?

3) Why is this (answer to #2) considered a trade secret?

4) When is it illegal to publish a trade secret that was made available to a reporter?

5) Is the date & timing of a product announcement a trade secret?

6) Are generic details about a new product a trade secret?

7) How many publishers have been sued & lost in court for anything besides libel/slander (can't remember which is which)?

8) Should reporters be required to contact a company before writing a story about their products to get their permission to publish it?

9) If the answer to (8) is no, how can a reporter make sure he won't get sued while writing factual stories?

10) If MacNN published "secret" information about Longhorn and the ate of Longhorn's release, is MS entitled to sue?

TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 08:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
i switched cause of rumor

Oh why dont all of you lunatics just enjoy a tempura roll or something? Sure apple has every right to protect their secrets, but they cannot and should not intimidate AND SUE sites that help support them. I dont give a s*** what you people say. before the ipod and mac mini, before mac os x, there were think secret, Apple insider, mac rumors, all drummin up the support. I switched to mac after reading the rumor sites. they excited me and gave me that push and feeling i only get from sushi these days. anyway, im not buying a new apple product till they drop all these suits and sobpenas and c***. and if they dont, i'll go back to dell. plain and simple

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

01/26, 09:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
Clueless

I love how clueless "lawyers" are trying to made this a "Frist Amendment" "case".

Fact is that a law was broken - no, I'm not talking about sources breaking their NDAs - I'm talking about illegally publishing trade secrets.

Maybe this so-called "lawyer" should read a few more law books.

TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 09:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
.

^
|
|
Steve Jobs wrote that... or one of his weasils... is that you, Brent? You little fudge log. Why haven't you got a raise yet eh?

Yasamasi Roll

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

01/26, 09:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: i switched cause of r

" I dont give a s*** what you people say.'

And none of us give a s*** about anything YOU say.

medmuse
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2002

0

01/26, 09:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
perception

I currently do not own any Apple shares.
I agree that Apple has a duty to its owners and employees to control its own marketing and secrets. However, I think it has behaved extremely badly in this instance. Unfortunately, I also agree with the previous poster who noted that only the geeks will follow this. But be aware: while most of the business world believes that it is fine to s**** everyone over for next quarter gains, this modern company culture that calls its office a "campus" and has based its market on "think different" and "1984" with consumer volunteers staffing retail stores is now returning to its early '90s Pepsi-Cola humiliation internally. This is a fundamental shift, and it is not good. The courts will decide the case but Apple will throw away something that no other organization on Earth enjoyed.

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

01/26, 09:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple is Stupid

Case Law supports sources being protected in cases like this. Think Secret is a media outlet.

Back in the day, they used to call this thing a "Scoop". They scooped the story and went with it. Apple looks like a bunch of whining pansies by sueing. Bet if they spend some time looking over who knew what, they could sniff out the culprit's at Apple.

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

01/26, 09:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Besides.......

To Mr. Lawyer above, trade secrets are not protected under the law in this manner. If you work for a company with a confidentiality agreement, you are breaking an agreement and the courts will punish you. However, if you are a reporter reporting what someone said, you are not breaking the law.

Apple is right to be pissed, but they are wrong for sueing Think Secret.

TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 09:28pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oh

bologna

TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 09:29pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oh

bologna

sosumi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 1999

0

01/26, 09:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
wtf!!

I never knew Brent was a little fudge log?!? What about David? Is he a little fudge log as well?

colbol
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 09:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
Sue the party pooper

Any rumour site that tries to spill the beans just a few days before a Macworld keynote is just a party pooper: it is like telling somebody what they are getting for Xmas two days before Xmas.

It's not going to change what you get, it's not going to change your purchase decisions (anyone reading rumour sites about Macworld will wait for Macworld itself) ... but it can really spoil the party.

And this has real effects: after Steve Jobs launched the Mini Mac and iPod shuffle at Macworld, Apple stock SLUMPED almost $5 per share. Why? Because all the good stuff had been leaked by the Thinksecret party pooper looser and the Macworld announcements just met expectations, rather than creating news. Apple stock only recovered after the superb profit announcement.

I hope Apple sues this guy to perdition because he deserves it.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

01/26, 10:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
Rights

Hey, if some woman has the right to sue McDonalds because her Hot Coffee was, of all things, hot, and some guy has the right to sue a bicycle manufacturer because he wasn't specifically warned that he couldn't be seen by others when riding a bike at night, then doesn't Apple have the right to sue whoever the h*** they feel like suing?

sosumi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 1999

0

01/26, 10:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
oh colbol...

I think that you are a little banana roll that has been left in the oven too long. Why did you type "pooper" 3 times in your comments? And then you type "party" 4 times.

Are you using these forums to communicate with someone, or is there just a party in your pooper that is itching to get out?

Grunt and pinch, young colbol. Grunt and pinch.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

01/26, 10:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
Peanut Gallery

@testudo

Clearly apple has the ability to sue people, and Apple has the right to bring discredit upon themselves, and they have the right, even if they wish, to make a succeeding rash of foolish decisions, even to the point of going out of business....of course, they won't exercise that right, lets hope.

This isn't an argument about Apple's rights to sue...its about the wisdom of exercising that choice.

And as I glance through the comment, we have the usual gaggle of people tripping over themselves to mention that speach has limits. Yes, it has limits, but luckily it isn't so limited that we cannot type a comment or two at macnn, eh?

Apple may believe that publishing accurate specifications about a computer product is a 'trade secret'...but lets put this isn't the secret formula to a miracle drug, or a new process for regrowing hair.

This is simply the specifications for a computer like...it has 256mb of RAM, and a 80gb hard drive.

People like jscotta really showed how shrill and unreasonable their stances really are, with their talk of 'trade secrets'. Quite frankly, the motivation for being anti-speach will always be a bit of a mystery...but every generation has in their ranks, a reactionary group.

The important thing, is to put this in perspective, people are defending a billion dollar company for suing its own fansites for legitimate and accurate stories about upcoming products.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

01/26, 10:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
Constitution

@jscotta,

You said that the 1st amendment was not intended to 'allow journalists to say whatever they want about any subject.'

Well, here is the text of the 1st amendment, I will shorten only to keep this comment brief:

Congress shall make no law... (snip)abridging the freedom of speech...

Congress...but rights not granted to congress are reserved for the states so what does the California constitution say:

Section 2. Freedom of speech. - (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments ON ALL SUBJECTS (caps added for emphasis)... A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. (b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (snip)

It goes on and on, but the gist of it is, yes, freedom of speech is JUST THAT.

Now, as everyone who hates speach likes to point out...it is not unlimited, it is an established fact, that the freedom of speach can sometimes impede on other rights, and that is when a balance between the rights has to be decided....

but, I think that balance in most states was decided a long time ago...you can go after the NDA breaker...but not the journalist.

As I've said in other posts...THAT is the balance. Nobody, but nobody that I've heard is arguing for an unlimited right here... apple can protect themselves with the NDA and ability to go after NDA breakers.

But not the journalist...well, at least not without some people objecting. This new law on trade secrets, well it cannot trump the consitution of California, and perhaps it is unconstitutional...time will tell.

TokyoSushiForMe
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/26, 11:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
think secret = p***

sosumi, david is a snot rag. meet me at Cafe tom. for the scoop. And to all you other philedelphia rolls... i speak nonsense but also preach the truth: and think secret, tho they like to call them selves journalists, are just a bunch of teenagers who through family or friend know a single upper level Apple employee who, 1 week b efore product intos, leaks them the information off the apple documents. obviouslyh they are always correct and accurate because 1 week before a product launches, this product info sheets must be accurate and it is too late to pull a product from launcing. (Think about all the advertisements and planning that goes into a predetermined launch...) so yes. if anything think secret is a party pooper, but definately not worthy journalists. when was the last time the predicted something more than a month in advance? seriously. but having said all this, apple is still out of their minds. they def have a case against the source... their employee... but not this weasil teeanger who dictates apple docs his buddy sends to him, because if he is smart enough he can just play dumb and say he 'investigated it'. damn that makes me hungry for sushi. TOYO!!!!!!

SUSHI!

SomeToast
Senior User

Joined: Jan 1999

0

01/26, 11:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: Rights

Hey, if some woman has the right to sue McDonalds because her Hot Coffee was, of all things, hot [...]

Ah yes, yet another person whose knowledge of the McDonald's coffee case is derived from the comedy of late night talk show hosts.

piracy
Mac Elite

Joined: Mar 2001

0

01/26, 11:24pm | report spam | close Reply |
Argggh

Doesn't anyone know what this is about? It's NOT about the first amendment or an innocent journalist's right to report a "scoop". It's about this:

-----
But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," Beckerman-Rodau said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
-----
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7937-2005Jan13.html)

That's what most people overlook. A specific law may have been broken here. What remains to be seen is if and how it can be enforced, or if it even applies in Nick's jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction where the case will be heard. If the law is invalid, not applicable, or, at some point, found to be unconstitutional, fine. But for now, he may have broken a law that makes it illegal to knowingly divulge information that was obtained by the necessary violation of a confidentiality agreement, EVEN IF he himself had NO confidentiality agreements. And believe me: there is NO WAY he can claim that he "didn't know" people were breaking their confidentiality agreements. And if he did, ignorance of the law is also no excuse.

Nick has a vested interest in keeping his sources of information flowing: he makes money - and it doesn't matter how much or how little - off his site. This is not like the Pentagon Papers, and NOT like Seymour Hersch, you mind-shattering dumbasses. This is about whether or not Nick violated a specific law, in which case he may be liable for damages and thus compelled to assist in revealing his sources who were also illegally revealing confidential information.

This is not just "news". This is not just a "scoop". This is not innocent information gathering. This is not freedom of speech. This is the willful breach of confidentiality by an Apple employee or contractor, or multiple, and a person or persons with very good information. Most Apple employees didn't even know a $500 Mac was being introduced; his information represents a serious source who is almost undeniably in direct breach of confidentiality agreements, and it would also be impossible for Nick to not be aware of this.

Again, Nick may be in violation of the law. If this is the case, and if the law is held as constitutional on its face, the first amendment and journalism arguments are completely and utterly moot. Whether or not this is good or bad PR for Apple in the long run is also a completely

piracy
Mac Elite

Joined: Mar 2001

0

01/26, 11:28pm | report spam | close Reply |
Argggh (cont)

and utterly irrelevant issue to the topic at hand. (And, I'd argue that the positive benefit of Apple using the path of least resistance, i.e., a web publisher who may be in violation of the law, to find the leak(s), will far outweigh any negative PR in the short term).

Congratulations on posting three pages worth of comments, and NOT ONE PERSON having managed to actually address the topic at hand, instead being a dizzying vomit-spew about how HORRIBLE APPLE IS, DUDE, JUST LIKE THE RIAA, MAN!!! Actually, one person managed to tangentially address the issue. But just barely. And the fact that you idiots can't see what the real legal issues are here - WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT - frankly embarrasses me.

just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

01/27, 12:09am | report spam | close Reply |
Like all journalists

thinksecret.com is nothing but a parasite.

Freedom of expression notwithstanding, these people are not expressing ideas but simply revealing corporate strategy acquired from employees who have signed NDAs.

I love reading thinksecret, but nick de plume is scum.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

01/27, 12:30am | report spam | close Reply |
Well said piracy

hit the nail right on!

mugwump
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2000

0

01/27, 02:40am | report spam | close Reply |
heh

There is no way a company can squash online journalism just because it's paranoid and the showrunner wants to create a wonderful ego moment one week later.

Apple will have to prove harm, which is impossible in this case, since many tech customers play the waiting game no matter what rumors speculation is published or not. Sales before a MacWorld keynote drop for this very reason, not because of online journalism.

The xMac was rumored for years ahead of time. Raise you hand if you're waiting for the Powerbook G5 -- oh yeah, ThinkSecret already reported that it's not anytime soon.

This just in, MS Longhorn is being delayed. Steve Jobs mentioned it in his Keynote a year ago, but for some reason that is not a trade secret.

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

01/27, 02:53am | report spam | close Reply |
You people make me sick

You whiners are exactly the kind of clueless people that make the US look bad to the rest of the world. Freedom of speech protects from "government" abuses. The key phrase here us "congress shall pass no law". It is specifically targeted at preventing unreasonable limits on free speech. It does "not" protect you from prosecution for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, does "not" protect against civil slander/defamation suits or violation of other laws. It does "not" give blanket immunity against criminal or civil law.

Learn to read. How did that lawyer pass the bar?

bigpoppa206
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

01/27, 05:03am | report spam | close Reply |
what lawyer?

?

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

01/27, 08:13am | report spam | close Reply |
Duh, gee boss

Lemme ask a question, who really cares?

chabig
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Jun 1999

0

01/27, 09:08am | report spam | close Reply |
The real reason...

My guess is that the real reason for the lawsuit isn't to go after Thinksecret. Rather, they want to use the discovery process to find the source of their leaks. Thinksecret has had some of the most accurate information. Clearly Nick has good sources. Apple want to know who those sources are.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

01/27, 09:40am | report spam | close Reply |
rats on a wheel�

piracy and aristotle and others have it so right and maybe the reason you guys talk of raw fish is because of the familiar smell, you sound like a bunch of desperate housewives on the treadmill at the gym. Talk about STUPID. This is such a ridiculous non news story. For all you lawyers out there an NDA is an NDA, Nick should have to give up his source. Apple hasn't changed one iota in this regard since they incorporated, and if you don't know it you haven't dealt with them very long. This will not make my mac run any different, Apple products any less excellent or make PCs any better. After a pause I realize that you "industry insiders" probably have never signed an NDA let alone read one, so please Tokyosushi, sosumi et al, go to Dell, rejoice in the utopia of dealing with an upstanding customer centric company like M$. They need more mindless watchdog trolls on windoze boards

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

01/27, 09:55am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Rights

Ah yes, yet another person whose knowledge of the McDonald's coffee case is derived from the comedy of late night talk show hosts.

Oh, I know about the case. I know McDonalds sold hot coffee because, believe it or not, that's what their customers wanted. I also know that you need to sell hot coffee because it cools down once you start throwing sugar and cream into it. Finally, I may not be some law genius, but I wouldn't think you need to be a genius (or be told by leaflets, warnings, flashing lights, and strict instructions) that you shouldn't put a hot liquid beverage between your legs because it could burn. Can I sue GE for allowing to make the burners on my stove hot, or to actually dare have it allow water on my stove to burn, which in turn, if I pour it into my lap, will cause severe burns on me?

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

01/27, 10:11am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Peanut gallery

Apple may believe that publishing accurate specifications about a computer product is a 'trade secret'...but lets put this isn't the secret formula to a miracle drug, or a new process for regrowing hair.

This is simply the specifications for a computer like...it has 256mb of RAM, and a 80gb hard drive.

All right! Its not up to people to determine whether this guy is a journalist. But someone here can say "Hey, its not a trade secret, because I don't know what the definition of a trade secret is, but I know one when I see one, and this isn't one." So would this be different if it occurred 6 months prior? Or if it was a bigger deal? If think secret reveals Apple's new set-top box 3 months before they announce it, is that a trade secret violation? Because I can see that hurting Apple's bottom line (as well as give competitors advanced warning enough to hurry out the competition).

BTW, Apple's Power G5 sales were sluggish early last year, partly because people were waiting for the next revision. Think Secret (and other sites) basically were telling people for months that releases were imminent, but they never came. Don't you think this affected Apple's bottom line? Its not just people going "Well, I think there's a new version coming soon, so I'm going to wait", its "Hey, I read on-line that a new revision is coming next week or two, so I'm going to wait", because, as we all know, if you read it on-line, it must be true (esp. on a rumor site, because they got the inside info!).

And I have to agree with another poster. I doubt this will affect Apple at all, as most Mac users will never hear about it. And I can't remember I heard someone say "You know, I was going to buy this product, but I hear the company that makes it is suing an web-site publisher. So I'm boycotting them. That'll show those guys."

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

01/27, 10:40am | report spam | close Reply |
Step up Apple

I guess my questions were too hard. But I challenge Apple to do this: first, find the guy who leaked the info. Second, present the confidentiallity agreement that was violated. Third, prove that NdP knew that the leaker was violating this agreement. Once they do all that, let Apple sue and let them convince a judge that the leak involved a trade secret and it caused Apple material harm. Total damages: $0. Anyone else care to guess what the total damages suffered were? Anyone find an example where the leak of an impending announcement constituted the revealing of a trade secret?

Apple's case is worthless and they know it. They are suing NdP because they want to find the leaker, and this sort of thing is an abuse of the court system. That's why it should be thrown out-- Apple's only objective in this suit is to find the leaker's name through discovery. It's a waste of taxpayer resources and petty harrassment. I hope Apple is sanctioned and reprimanded for wasting the court's time.

alex627
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

01/27, 11:11am | report spam | close Reply |
B > S !

Soliciting people to break their NDAs is NOT ILLEGAL! You idiots! FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT! Oh wait corporations don't bring frivolous lawsuits. Only individuals do.

CORPORATE APOLOGISTS. DIRTY SCUMMY RIGHT-WING MONEY GRUBING REPUBLICAN b*******. EAT SH-T! You're destroying the freedom of information, stifling invention, and ruining our country. F--- OFF

colbol
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

01/27, 11:43am | report spam | close Reply |
Party poooooper

Sue the pooper. Sure the pooper. Sue the pooper. Yeah.

gwangung
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

01/27, 12:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Alex627

Sorry, but you're wrong; soliciting people to break their NDAs is illegal. That's specifically covered by the California Trade Secret Act.

And, depsite the folks who are spouting off without having a single iota of legal knowledge, Apple has a substantial case here. Will they win? Don't know, but they have a fair amount of legal standing here.

flask
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2004

0

01/27, 12:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not to get off topic, but

...about the coffee case: really it was about getting warning labels put on the coffee cups. It just happened to include a case of a woman who spent thousands of dollars on a skin graft to replace the burned skin, as an illustration of what hot coffee is capable of doing.

Some people in defense of the woman have claimed that "this particular McDonald's was told SEVERAL TIMES PRIOR to lower the teperature of their coffee", yet they were brewing and serving it in the temperature range recommended by the National Coffee Association. It just so happens that this temperature can also cause 3rd-degree burns in 2-7 seconds.

The end result was a warning label on McDonald's coffee cups, and the woman who brought the suit had her skin grafting reimbursed. By the time all was said and done, the original prize of $2.7 million was lowered to $480,000, along with $160,000 in compensatory damages, but then McDonald's settled with her privately out of court, so the actual amount she received is unknown.

To dispell some common myths about the case: she was not the driver of the car, and the car was parked, not in motion. However, she *was* holding the cup between her knees to get the lid off to add cream, when the spill occurred. Hence the lowering of the punitive damages and the court finding her to be 20% responsible for the incident.

ZZZman
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2004

0

01/27, 01:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
Every move you make...

Forbes readers know how important it's to hold the trade secrets. Companies here in Asia are watching closely everything that is showing up on these rumor sites. Sometimes they give just enough information to make somebody curious enough to look what kind of components or materials are being bought and if you are just about to make a strategic decision it might be just what you need.

Apple products are tricky nuts to crack as they are combination of tightly integrated software and hardware but Apple still needs to keep the competitors guessing their moves until the last minute.

Deal
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

01/27, 02:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
All the more reason

For Apple to sue their pants off and get this over quickly :)

climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

01/27, 03:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: Instead

"Instead of suing Think Secret, or any other rumor reporting site, they should try to patch their leak(s)."

Wow what a brilliant idea. I bet Apple never thought of that before.

Maybe they should have contractors and employees sign an agreement not to talk about things they shouldn't talk about.

They could call it, oh, I don't know... a "Non-Disclosure Agreement"? And they could sue anyone they catch violating it.

Oh. That's standard procedure, eh?

What do you propose they do to tighten the leaks that they have not done already, Mr. Einstein?

Bug phones? Homes? Send a PI to follow around their contractors? Threaten to kill anyone who leaks, their family as well, and burn their home to the ground? Salt the ground so nothing can ever grow there again?

They've done all they can do short of really draconian, illegal measures. I'm all for them suing ThinkSecret. Revealing corporate secrets is about as damaging (if not more so) to a company's livelihood as revealing a country's secrets is damaging to national security.

slur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

01/27, 06:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
Thank You US Press

Gotta love the US press. While they fail to report on things that actually matter to our lives they are happy to harp on non-issues like this one. Apple has an obligation to its shareholders to protect its brand. If it fails to follow up on these kinds of things they can actually lose the right to do so in the future. That's just the quirkiness of trademark law.

Meanwhile the US continues to support dictatorships across the world while pretending to foster democracy, our industrial waste poisons children in the third world, and our depleted uranium causes horrendous birth defects across Iraq.

I'm not going to waste any emotion over Apple's court behavior when there are more important things to work on.

HeatherEcsedi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

01/28, 04:55am | report spam | close Reply |
Looks like...

there is a conflict of interest between the California Trade Secret Act and the US Constitution. Now I'm no lawyer but I thought this was not supposed to happen. And I guess the Constitution is the law they should refer to in the first place.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/17	Mountain Lion may drop support for...
02/16	Google, others said bypassing Safari...
02/16	Google now known to be patenting own...
02/16	SumOfUs criticizes FLA head, plans...
02/16	Safari 5.2, Xcode 4.4 seeds reach developers...

Show All

02/17	Mountain Lion may drop support for...
02/16	Google, others said bypassing Safari...
02/16	Google now known to be patenting own...
02/16	Cook sees merging of notebooks, tablets...
02/16	Apple claims backing for rights to...

Show All

02/16	Cook sees merging of notebooks, tablets...
02/15	Apple upgrades iBookstore with screenshots...
02/15	Congress asks Apple to answer questions...
02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...

Show All

02/17	Get $300 off refurbished 1.4GHz MacBook...
02/16	Garmin nuvi 4.3-inch Portable GPS Navigator...
02/15	Monster iCarPlay Wireless FM Transmitter...
02/14	Refurb. 16GB iPhone 4, now only $259...
02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...

Show All

toggle

Negative publicity may tarnish Apple's image

updated 06:35 pm EST, Wed January 26, 2005

Negative lawsuit publicity

Related Articles

Recent Articles

They had to do it

Macidiots hurt Mac

If Apple has a legal

Instead

First Ammendement rights?

Oh well...

Go TS...

No impact

Re:GoTS

Apple, 1st Admendment,etc

Answer this

i switched cause of rumor

Clueless

.

Re: i switched cause of r

perception

Apple is Stupid

Besides.......

Oh

Oh

wtf!!

Sue the party pooper

Rights

oh colbol...

Peanut Gallery

Constitution

think secret = p***

re: Rights

Argggh

Argggh (cont)

Like all journalists

Well said piracy

heh

You people make me sick

what lawyer?

Duh, gee boss

The real reason...

rats on a wheel�

Re: Rights

Re: Peanut gallery

Step up Apple

B > S !

Party poooooper

Alex627

Not to get off topic, but

Every move you make...

All the more reason

re: Instead

Thank You US Press

Looks like...

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace