toggle

AAPL Stock: 119 ( + 1.4 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

Rumor site files special motion to dismiss Apple suit

updated 12:40 pm EST, Mon March 7, 2005

Apple dePlume lawsuit

The dePlume Organization has filed a special motion to have Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret dismissed on First Amendment grounds. "Apple's lawsuit is a affront to the First Amendment [...] If a publication such as the New York Times had published such information, it would be called good journalism; Apple never would have considered a lawsuit." The motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in California Superior Court under the California Anti-SLAPP Statute, a law designed to stem meritless lawsuits that attempt to chill valid constitutional exercises of freedom of speech. The court filings also say that the information published is not entitled to trade secret protection under the law as it already had been publicly disclosed and had no economic value. Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret is a separate action from its "John Doe" suit in which Apple did not sue any journalists, but instead sought information through subpoenas.




by MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. mugwump

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    clear

    Any public corporation must declare potential harms to the company in their financial statements. These potential risks to the corporate health are long lists of any potential dangers, including loss of the CEO, terrorist strikes, lack of chips from suppliers, failure of products to catch on with the public, raising price of commodities, etc.

    They have to list these potential harms by law. Never has Apple Computer listed "effective investigative reporting by internet rumor site" as a harm at all. It has never been mentioned in the financial world because thus far it simply does not affect the bottom line.

    You can't have paranoid corporate execs pulling information from the internet just so they can have a bloated ego splash 4 days later. This is not China, and I'm surprised Apple is given any consideration here, unless they can prove harm which is impossible.

  1. abe2

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Boooooo StealSecrets.com!

    Whiny kid cries foul when the victim of his law-breaking actions turns around and sues him.

    Pathetic.

  1. abe2

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    BS

    " The court filings also say that the information published is not entitled to trade secret protection under the law as it already had been publicly disclosed and had no economic value."

    That is total BS. Should get sued for filing a false claim to a court.

  1. jmonty12

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Go Apple!

    So let's see. I'm under an NDA but I want to leak some information. So I tell a "journalist" and now I'm off scott free as long as that "journalist" keeps his mouth shut. So where is the disgrunteled high-ranking Coca-cola executive? I want to know the secret ingredients of Coke.

  1. abe2

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Hmmm...

    http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/02/04/lawyer.dismissal.of.case/:

    Friday, February 4, 2005 @ 10:40am: "The lawyer representing Nick Ciarelli of Think Secret said he will seek to dismiss the case on First Amendment free-speech grounds within two weeks.'

    Today is March 7th. Seems this 'lawyer' is a little slow.... probably why he hasn't realized yet that they don't have a case, hence the pathetic desperate measure taken now.

  1. zdezyne

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    I agree... BS!

    The New York Times would have never published information that was a trade secret and protected by an NDA. It's called responsible journalism and if the Think Secret kid or any other Mac Rumor site continues to publish such information Apple should sue them out of existance. Think Secret and any other Mac rumor site that received the info and published it are essentially accomplices to the crime and should be punished accordingly. None of the rumor sites are run by real journalists so they should not be offered the protection of one in the first place.

  1. ArizonaJoe

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    ?

    So now someone gets to define who is a "real" journalist and who is not? What a great end-run around the 1st Amendment - free speech for real journalists only. Down with the Apple cult!

  1. gwangung

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Real journalists

    Actually, the legalities apply no matter if you're the NY TIMES or Think Secret.

    It's just that "real journalists" have a bit more training on the ins and outs of the law and are supposedly more careful in the legal gray areas.

  1. windsurfer_nyc

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Real journalists

    adding to the debate over "real journalists":

    White House admits first blogger to news briefing: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/w.h.blogger.ap/index.html

  1. zdezyne

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Not about 1st Amendment

    Apple zealot or not, Think Secret knowingly violated the trade secrets and intellectual property of Apple by receiving the publishing the information and should not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment. Apple should be allowed to find out who the source is and take appropriate action.

    And as far as defining what a real journalist is I would use Bob Woodward as a good example of responsible journalism. Think Secret is no where near the same class as Bob Woodward. And just because you get a press pass it doesn't make you a journalist.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

IDrive cloud backup and sync service

There are a lot of cloud services out there, and nearly all of them can be used for backing up key files and folders. A few dedicated ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

MaxUpgrades 512GB Retina MacBook Pro SSD

Apple's Retina line of MacBook Pro notebooks have been impressive, right from their debut in 2012. Thinner than the previous model, t ...

toggle

Most Commented