toggle

AAPL Stock: 561.86 ( -3.46 )

MacNN News

Apple lawsuit is the 'Wrong Kind of Different"

updated 04:35 pm EST, Tue February 8, 2005

\'Wrong Kind of Different\"

Apple's quest for secrecy might be a reason for IT/enterprise to give pause, according to a Computerworld that says the recent lawsuit against Think Secret and subpoenas to other Mac journalists for their sources protected by the US Constitution: "Apple, one of the most famously secretive companies in the technology business, frames this case and several like it as little more than attempts to protect massively valuable trade secrets. The value strikes me as questionable, and the larger reality is an Apple-aimed dagger at one of the foundations of free speech: a vibrant press. IT may think it has no horse in this race. I think IT should -- ahem -- think different. A culture of secrecy, enshrined in law, would make it even harder for companies to know what's going on, in a time when transparency should be ascendant."

by MacNN Staff

(26)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

Deal
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

02/08, 04:55pm | report spam | close Reply |
Conspire

Yay! Let people break the law so we can report a companies secret to everybody and sell advertising space!

This is what freedom of speech is all about! Profit through somebodies breach of contract! Yay!

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 04:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oh puh-freakin'-lease!!!

Again with the flawed free-speech argument! Free-speech doesn't guarantee you the right to break the law!

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

02/08, 04:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
Can we?

Can we ban any more articles on how Apple suing web sites is a bad thing?

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

02/08, 05:21pm | report spam | close Reply |
No wonder USA is a mess

You guys cannot even remember the purpose of your constitutional ammendements. The first ammendment was written to protect the free press from government abuses. It was also there to protect the speech of the citizens. It was "not" meant to be used as a blanket defence against all criminal or civil prosecution/litigation. How in the world did these lawyers arguing these cases make it out of highschool let alone pass the bar with such poor reading comprehension skills?

theduffsronme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/08, 05:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: No wonder...

People, your sudden confusion about lawyers and what they do is childish. Lawyers advocate for their clients and their positions. This is how law is made and interpreted. Apple probably has a strong case, but do not count the other side out or suggest that its lawyers can't read. They can read. And they can also change the country. Let's all watch with interest.

Those who think they know the Constitution inside and out are usually the first ones to lose.

cebritt
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

02/08, 05:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
Damned if you do...

...and damned if you don't. Public companies have to give the appearance of protecting their corporate secrets in order to avoid shareholder lawsuits. Shareholders are suing these days everytime the stock drops. Although the stock is going up now, it could drop in the future after a rumor.

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

02/08, 05:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: No wonder...

I am well aware of what lawyers do. I am also well aware of how much these types of lawsuits cost tax payers. Why is it that Americans think that freedom exists in a void and that they carry no responsibility? Why do so many people believe rights are absolutes? How can you have an absolute right if there are other parties in society which also have rights to consider?

In a free society, the rights of all have to be considered and weighed accordingly. Justice being blind is a horrible myth which should not be perpetuated any further.

just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

02/08, 06:00pm | report spam | close Reply |
Ya right

Customers are going to stop buying MacOS X because some 19-year-old peabrain is sued for soliciting and distributing trade secrets.

Let me give you a hearty ho ho ho.

In a free society, the news media can be sued without retribution when it steals from others.

theduffsronme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/08, 06:07pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re; No wonder

You're making a blanket observation about what Americans think. That's the biggest problem in your argument.

Obviously, some Americans may think that the right to Free Speech applies absolutely. I would agree with you that they are mistaken. However, the guy behind Think Secret would argue that Free Speech applies to him because he is a journalist and he didn't commit any crimes. And he has an absolute right to a spirited defense, complete with bombastic language.

That's the American system. Maybe you don't understand it as much as you think you do.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 06:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
one question then

Why would a legitimate "journalist" as you call him need to use a pseudonym?

theduffsronme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/08, 06:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: one question

Read closely, please. I didn't call him a journalist. He did.

Personally, I don't think he is a journalist...just a mac enthusiast who solicited trade secrets. But I'm not the judge.

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

02/08, 06:21pm | report spam | close Reply |
What law was broken?

Remind me again, what law was broken? That Nick enticed someone to reveal a trade secret. Has any reporter ever been succesfully sued under this law? Apple may have a bone to pick, but they need to sue the guy who revealed the trade secret, not the reporter who wrote about the former trade secret. I still don't get what the trade secret was anyways-- that Apple was releasing a product in 1 month? Can Apple show damages? Do any of the Apple Corporation defenders know how much money was lost due to the publication of this information?

I'll make my pitch real simple. Apple is suing because a reporter published factual information about Apple. If they can independently prove that Nick enticed the breacher to reveal the trade secret, then Apple might have a case. Until then, they are just being a classic bully in the Microsoft sense of the word.

Someone, explain to me why factual reporting is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

theduffsronme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/08, 06:27pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: what law

Apparently, there are laws on the books in many states, including California, that state if you know the information you publish was obtained in a way that broke confidentiality agreements or other similarly binding contracts, than you yourself are just as liable for damages.

The real question is, did Nick know his sources broke their agreements or not? Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with it. We're talking civil law, not criminal.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 06:28pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: one question

but his so-called lawyer call him a "journalist"

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 06:33pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: what law

Apple is suing to get the sources, which is what the so-called lawyer is arguing should be protected by free-speech.

But there was a law broken directly by d*** DePlume of StealSecrets.com which is publishing trade secrets information which you know or have reasonable doubt that they are in fact trade secrets. Given the nature of the website it's obvious he knew they were, so another law (or portion of the same law?) applies which states that if you induce someone to break an NDA to get info and publish it then you are just as liable as if you had the NDA contract yourself. I believe this is the angle Apple is using.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 06:42pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: what law

The real question is, did Nick know his sources broke their agreements or not?

Given that he invited people to submit information anonymously, I would bet he did know (afterall why else would someone need to be anonymous to provide information?)

lurkerdude
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

02/08, 06:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: one question then

'Why would a legitimate "journalist" as you call him need to use a pseudonym?'

He can call himself Assclown the Magnificent if he wants. It has nothing to do with the case.

Calling his lawyer "so-called" and putting "quotes" around "phrases" in order to "cast doubt" is "really ineffective".

I'm sure "Apple", if that is the real name of this so-called "corporation", will have it's day in that alleged "court".

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 06:53pm | report spam | close Reply |
Shows how much you know

It's "Apple Inc." dweeb

Elektrix
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Sep 2001

0

02/08, 07:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Shows how much you kn

It's actually "Apple Computer, Inc."..... so stop calling other people dweebs.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

02/08, 09:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
amazing

It never ceases to amaze me how passionate people are against free speech. Some people just hate their own freedoms and the ideals this country was founded on. The reason we call it 'free speach' is that is because...ITS WHAT ITS CALLED. It not unlimited and without any boundaries, don't be confused, its called free speach because the english language works that way, names are applied to concepts, they aren't always exactly literal.

But its a good name...as it implies, withini limits, speach is allowed. And a journalist covering a story...if you won't protect that freedom, you won't protect much. By the way, a lot are having trouble with the word journalist too, I suggest grabbing a dictionary. A journalist is 'one who keeps a journal'...another definition: someone who makes his living in journalism....journalism is written material of current interest or popular appeal.

I mean, its ashame we have to go back to the dictionary, but the anti-speech advocates here, are trying to turn the world upside in stating that somehow only someone who works for CNN is a journalist....which makes no sense on any level. If you have some other way of defining a journalist...I'd sure like to hear it. Go ahead...if you know more than the dictionary, let us know.

Beyond denying the obvious, that he is a journalist, because the fact that he was writing stories for consumption by a readership is not in anyway in dispute...But it is really ridiculous to suggest Nick is a criminal. We all know that speach has limits, but its ironic that those who claim to know its limits the best, actually have no problem forgetting about one of them: slander.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

02/08, 09:21pm | report spam | close Reply |
It's not slander if you

are reporting facts, as was done in this thread.

theduffsronme
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/08, 09:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
Chill out...

Jonathan:

No one called him a criminal. As I stated, this is a CIVIL case, which means that one side, in this case Apple, believes it has been wronged by another side, in this case Nick. No police are taking him away.

How about this: could I call you any name in the book, besmurch your reputation in the community, and get away with it because I have "freedom of speech?" No. You could sue me.

Granted, this case is different. But you're claiming that somehow Nick can do what he wants, ignore any law he wants, simply because he has a website and the US has the First Amendment.

Nostromo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2001

0

02/09, 12:19am | report spam | close Reply |
Don't make me laugh...

Of course, if there's one thing that the corporate world is known for is its openness and hunger for new ideas.

What a load of horseshit.

climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

02/09, 01:12am | report spam | close Reply |
maroons

i get a hearty laugh reading these posts from people who know next to nothing about our legal system, pontificating about what free speech is and isn't.

Here are some facts:

The 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech apply to the relationship between the FEDERAL government and citizens. It was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) protected citizens' right of free speech from state government interference as well.

In this particular case Apple is suing ThinkSecret. It is a CIVIL case, not a criminal case. No one's life nor liberty is at stake, "just" money.

In this great country of ours, anyone can sue anyone for anything they say or do (and all too often, they do). Whether any particular case has merit, is another question.

The moral of this story: there is a difference between the legal concept of 'free speech' and the philosophical concept of 'free speech'.

A LOT of bandwidth could be conserved if you folks would refrain from thoroughly mixing the two up.

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

02/09, 01:41am | report spam | close Reply |
The disconnect

The Apple apologists here seem to be of two minds on the issue of the 1st Amendment & the alleged illegal actions by Nick. As climacs helpfully pointed out, the 1st Amendment protects our freedom of speech from government intrusion. It reads, "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."

The important words are "no law." The California Trade Secrets statute clearly abridges the "freedom of speech, or of the press." The guy who leaked the trade secret is subject to contract law and any agreement he made with Apple; Nick made no such agreement with Apple. They have no basis to sue him for a violation of contract law. They can only sue him under this Trade Secrets statute, which is possibly unconstitutional. Even if the statute stands, Apple will likely need to prove probable cause that Nick encouraged the leaker to break his contract. Unless he paid him or blackmailed him and Nick knew the source was under NDA, I just don't see how that could be the case. For those of you certain of Nick's guilt because of his "Got Dirt?" link, I think you need to understand that requesting information is a long way from asking someone to break an NDA.

If Apple wins this case, expect many other companies to start suing journalists, bloggers and message board posters anytime a bad word is uttered about them. The bar will have been lowered, and our freedom of speech will be imperiled by all of corporate America. If Apple wins this case, we all lose

ScottEllsworth
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

02/09, 01:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
World of difference

There is a world of difference between whistle blowing of illegal activity and releasing trade secrets. The one promotes a healthy society, as crimes are punished. The other makes it in a company's interest to hide information from people who can use it.

The people who released Apples' trade secrets deserve to be prosecuted according to their contract. This may only mean firing, or may also mean fines as well. Regardless, they broke a contract, and they deserve to be nailed.

Were the releases information about Apple doing something nefarious, like illegal insider trading, defrauding resellers, or otherwise breaking the law, then I would not be quite so strident. We need whistle blowers. We do not need people who release proprietary information just because they can.

Put another way - if an NDA cannot be enforced because the people who published the information cannot be coerced into revealing their sources, then companies will not use NDAs, and will not widely distribute anything they want kept secret. This makes for poorer products, vaguer roadmaps, and lousy planning.

Scott

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...
05/24	Google�s 7-inch tablet ships next month...

Show All

05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...
05/22	Hands on: TouchType case for iPad,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Apple lawsuit is the 'Wrong Kind of Different"

updated 04:35 pm EST, Tue February 8, 2005

\'Wrong Kind of Different\"

Conspire

Oh puh-freakin'-lease!!!

Can we?

No wonder USA is a mess

Re: No wonder...

Damned if you do...

Re: No wonder...

Ya right

Re; No wonder

one question then

re: one question

What law was broken?

Re: what law

re: one question

Re: what law

Re: what law

Re: one question then

Shows how much you know

Re: Shows how much you kn

amazing

It's not slander if you

Chill out...

Don't make me laugh...

maroons

The disconnect

World of difference

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

Apple lawsuit is the 'Wrong Kind of Different"

updated 04:35 pm EST, Tue February 8, 2005

\'Wrong Kind of Different\"

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Conspire

Oh puh-freakin'-lease!!!

Can we?

No wonder USA is a mess

Re: No wonder...

Damned if you do...

Re: No wonder...

Ya right

Re; No wonder

one question then

re: one question

What law was broken?

Re: what law

re: one question

Re: what law

Re: what law

Re: one question then

Shows how much you know

Re: Shows how much you kn

amazing

It's not slander if you

Chill out...

Don't make me laugh...

maroons

The disconnect

World of difference

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