Beavis said, "You said, 'Terminate!'"

Butthead went, "Heh! Heh! Heh! I am bored now."

Beavis: "Anything good on the Internet?"

Butthead: "Apple p***."

Beavis: "You said 'p***!' Heh. Heh. Heh."

Butthead: "Heh. Heh. Heh."

Steve Jobs: "What the h*** are you doing in some Apple news site forums?!? Get out, ya juvenile delinquents! Now! Now!"

Beavis and Butthead: "?!!!??"

"A company no more has a right to secrets than a man has a right to stay in the closet."

That's kind of arrogant considering that you are not the one who's going to lose money . Let me put it this way , if you own a tech company and you are in secret talks about buying a hot new tech firm that will give you an edge in, let's say against Apple's iPods and somebody blabbed about it over a rumor site and Apple negotiated and later bought the same tech firm that you hope to buy and used their technology to improve their iPods . What would your reaction , forget about it ? Or will you sue that site in order to find out who the idiot who blabbed confidential company matters which caused the company to lose a lucrative deal that will catapult your company's revenues .

If it something illegal like fraud and theft , misused of company funds or worse , treason or slavery , then I will have massive problem against the closure of Think Secret . If this is all about releasing company secrets just to get hits on his site , he can go to h*** for all I care .

To the commenter that was sarcastically disgusted that a corporation would protect its secrets...what if they protected them by killing people, would that raise your ire?

It isn't about protecting secrets, its about what level secrets are protected.

I can only hope, but without much genuine sincerity, that you would object to a corporation going so far as to murder anyone who had knowledge of a secret, just to ensure they didn't spill the news later.

Now that you are back on planet reality, lets discuss whether re-writing the rules of journalism that we've had for 200 years, was an appropriate response by Steve Jobs...and making groundbreaking court cases, was exactly what he was attempting to do.

In my opinion, Apple deserves the widespread criticism it got, because they went too far.

You want to protect secrets...don't go after journalists, prevent the leaks in the first place.

yes journalists make money.

Just fantastically amazing, that the business of Apple gets your protection, but the business of journalism, not only doesn't get your protection, but you seemingly deride it for being an advertisement driven money making enterprise.

I'm a tech person, but over the long haul, journalism, as an industry, is far more importantm to society, than Apple will ever be, iPhone or not.

OK...maybe if they add 3g, then we'll talk.

Lose your fanboys and you lose your marketing.

Not sure I can be such a fanboy anymore.

What a freakin dumb move on Apple's part.

This is MS stuff. Man.

Wrong.

I can't believe people would actually side with this individual. Personally, I think anybody who does, has to be the spy (or should I say s-nark) or be associated with Think Secret or with your own site wanting to employee spies illegally.

If this situation were the US government instead of Apple, everyone involved would be rotting in a jail cell. That's not violating the first amendment, that is homeland security and protecting the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Not to make this a political conversation, and I don't even have to say what extreme side of the political see-saw this guys supporters are on (it's too obvious anyway)—but I sure wish you'd all move to another country where you'd all be more happy.

There is a big difference between a journalist trying to get a story legitimately and someone who entices people to break their NDA's to get hits and profit from it . If this anything illegal that Apple has done , I will be protesting about it . It is not , so spare me the First Amendment defense because this is not it .

Journalism is not the most important industry in society , it never was and never is . For those who think that journalists are the press . Here is a hint , We , the People comprises the press and not some J-school grad or wanna be thinking that he or she is the gate keeper of information and he or she is above the Constitution and the laws of the land .

gets from time to time warnings about info it publishes, "cease and desist" as they call it, and just complies with Apple's will. My guess is this guy failed to comply appropriately.

Don't think for one sec that nobody from Apple browse sites like MacNN - it's probably their number 1 site for info leaked to the public. They must have a bunch of people paid to do just that, all day long.

Let's just take a moment to say Hi to them.

Hi, and Happy Holidays to you 'Apple leaked info crawlers'!

jeph and jonathan - seriously. What do you not understand regarding potential loss of revenue due to leaked information? Do you think it's ok for a site like Think Secret to specifically cause loss of revenue for Apple? Is that ok in your book? Because it shouldn't be. In addition, you actually seem to have a problem with Apple wanting to protect their right to own trade secrets.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you not get this, it's not that hard! Everybody knows that if a new iPod were to be revealed (say at a lower price point with more features) before Apple was ready to announce it, that would almost definitely mean lost revenue for Apple because people would stop buying iPods and wait.

What in all that is holy makes you think Apple is wrong for wanting to prevent that from happening? Do you think Apple is a charity? There are LAWS in place to prevent that from happening. Apple is FULLY within their rights to protect their trade secrets, and shutting down Think Secret falls under the category of protecting Apple's trade secrets. The only "freakin dumb move" would have been to allow Think Secret to continue causing loss of revenue for Apple. Unless you think losing money is smart.

The name of the fellow and his computer have falling into the dim mists of memory, but the story bears repeating.

Back, in the nascent days of personal computing, it seems like one of the early innovators was producing a real champ of a machine. Due to trade leaks surrounding future revisions, no one bought the current release at that time, instead opting for the future-better-release. Cash flow went south and the company and it's founder went bankrupt. This is why hardware companies are zealous about protecting trade secrets. Thinksecret published information that could have seriously damaged Apple.

All things considered, the kid got off lucky. I'm sure Apple could have been way more vindictive. Expect a new rumors site to emerge under the former editorship of Thinksecret soon.

I believe the aforementioned computer builder's name has become synonymous with this sort of business catastrophe. If anyone remembers his name-post it.

Moral of the story, don't stand in the way of the big guy and Apple is definitely a big guy.

The company name was Osborne.

They were one of the top-selling CP/M-based machines and were working on an MS-DOS-based machine.

Yes-the Osborne! Thanks!

According to proponents of the Osborne Effect, the final blow occurred in 1983 when Adam Osborne boasted about an upcoming product months before it could be released, killing demand for the company's existing products. It is unclear whether this boast was about the Osborne Executive, which was released in May 1983 for $2,495 and featured a 7 inch (178 mm) screen and did not sell as well as its predecessor, or, more likely, the Osborne Vixen, a smaller portable that promised to offer compatibility not only with earlier Osborne models but also with MS-DOS, allowing it to run software designed for IBM and Compaq computers. Dealers rapidly started cancelling orders for the Osborne 1.

Unsold inventory piled up and in spite of dramatic price cuts - the Osborne 1 was selling for $1295 in July 1983 and $995 by August - sales did not recover. Losses, already higher than expected, continued to mount, and OCC declared bankruptcy on September 13, 1983. This marketing blunder came to be known as "Osborneing" and the phrase circulated in Silicon Valley for the next decade.

If someone breaks their NDA with Apple, then the legal issue is between Apple and the contract breaker, not between Apple and the journalist who reports on the story. Are there any Americans left without fluff for brains?

Further, just because someone makes money off of a secret, or because someone has an interest in keeping a secret, or even because society has an interest in keeping it, doesn't make it right for government to take a role in limiting free speech (or any other right of individuals) -- especially not on the behalf of a multibillion dollar multinational corporation against a poor college journalist. It is just money for god sake and not a lot of it actually. There is little evidence that a corporation makes or looses substantially be controlling the flow of product release information into the marketplace, except through a process called insider trading -- which is supposed to be illegal.

And so what if they did? As another comment above points out, at what point on this slippery slope do corporations cease to be able to enjoy their will? At the point of limiting free speech? At the point of locking up employees until a product is released? Perhaps at the point of having employees with vital company secrets assassinated rather than to let them leave the firm? What we are talking about here is a return to feudalism, a form of vassalage, wherein individuals are becoming entirely subject to the whim of baronial corporations.

At one time Steve Jobs claimed to have a classical liberal's understanding of issues such as these, but that was before he became rich and powerful. As Lord Acton so aptly observed, power corrupts, and it corrupts even the likes those who profess to think different.

(And "no," in answer to the conspiracist above, I do not have an affiliation with Think Secret, nor with Apple.)

Regarding the Osborne effect, that company made their own blunder through foolish production planning and the arrogant boosting of its owner. The damage caused to Osborne was not the result of anyone releasing NDA information.

The Osborne case further highlights the aspect of information control wherein corporations try to seek market advantage over the consumer by limiting the flow of information available to the consumer. What was bad for Osborne, was very good for consumers.

When consumers know to wait six weeks because a more powerful model will be available at a third of the cost, it has the potential to save the entire economy greatly, even if it does hurt the corporation's bottom line in the short run.

Should the government interfere with this process, thereby imposing a substantial cost on the entire economy merely to provide a marginal benefit to corporations? Some would argue that that is a policy question. Others would say it is an issue of ethics. How you think about it says a lot about who you are and who we are as a society.

Having people build buzz for your products is great.

Worry about the other guy and you take your eyes off the ball. Creating remarkable products makes the cheese not keeping info out of the marketplace.

Seriously, who actually competes with this info. The Zune? MS? Apple is well within MS reaction cycle.

Look, there is no, repeat NO, loss of revenue here. Asteroid? Geez.

Apple is a Marketing company that sells products. You can get the same darn stuff from anywhere else.

Trade secrets are fine to keep secret but reporting on those secrets is also freedom of the press.

Here's a hint: don't share secrets. You think the CIA/DoD is happy about secrets getting out?

"Look, there is no, repeat NO, loss of revenue here. Asteroid? Geez.

Apple is a Marketing company that sells products. You can get the same darn stuff from anywhere else. "

That's so ignorant I don't even know where to start. Really, you can get an iPod Touch from anybody other than Apple? Really? Can you show me who else builds them? And other people build iMacs? Are you sure about that? If anything, Apple is the one company who is actually bringing new and unique products to the market.

And let's see you prove that there was no loss of revenue. If asteroid was real and was going to be released by Apple, then they obviously lost money by not releasing it. You think R&D is free? Where is Apple going to recoup those costs from? I bought a firewire audio interface from M-Audio a while back, but if Asteroid had been out at that time I might have bought that instead. You seriously think Apple didn't lose ANY potential revenue from that fiasco? Maybe you need to check again.

And if you really believe Think Secret was in the right, then why are they shut down now? Just a coincidence maybe? Yeah, right.

There is debate regarding Osbourne, but in the end analysis, the slowdown caused cash flow probs, in turn leading to dubious business dealings etc. A chicken or the egg argument. The "Osbourne effect" has been so named as it aptly describes what can happen when you disclose too much about future releases or your product.

I don't believe this was a case of reportage on Thinksecret's behalf, but rather a NDA violation due the developer's materials/software received by the editor. If, in the online agreement you sign to download that software, it definitely holds you to a NDA, warning of prosecution. Including matter TS published which coincidentally is idential the the NDA the editor signed.

Clealy Mac isn't just a "marketing" company. They design software and hardware in a very competitive business environment. Otherwise, I'm typing this post on a billboard. Buzz is good, dropping secrets that allow your competition to diminish your saleability is another thing. Revenue is not equal to future sales and likely not the reason Apple went after this guy. Competitiveness is.

The Osbourne effect merely indicates why NDAs and secret details of unreleased products are important to any company with a competitive advantage.

I would firmly applaud journalists that are protecting their readers from health threatening, or liberty threatening corporate secrets, but reporting the details of a product that doesn't come close to that criteria is just an attention grab with no real societal benefit.

So if the reporting goes "Apple plans to use such-and-such a component from so-and-so in their forthcoming secret iPencil. The such-and-such components are known as extremely carcinogenic. blahblahblah..." or, "Apple executives named in backdating scandal. blahblahblah..." I'm all good with that.

Somebody Got Paid!

Nick is a college student? Heck, he's judgement proof 'cause he's got nothing. What's Apple going to do with an old fridge, a beanbag chair and a bong?

Apple is the new Microsoft, with Jobs as a more camera-friendly Bill Gates.

APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS APPLE SUCKS

Rumors are what make Apple stock soar and makes for free advertising. It baffles me that when Apple's service is going like Dell and it's stores remind me of Gap with all the excitement of Walmart that they crushed this site that kept the flame alive for so long. Apple really is the new MS.

Wrong , rumors may keep Apple stock up , but it brings them back down when the products did not measure up to the rumors and it's not free advertising , it's a trojan horse for disappointment , recall the original iPod mini , TS rumored the price to be 100 dollars , the actual price was 249 . Who got blamed , Apple . Besides Nick DePlume was noted to entice Apple employees to break their NDA , note the word entice . This is not about the First Amendment , this is about a young and intelligent kid that thought that he could encourage others to break the laws so he can profit from it . If he is willing to expose trade secrets for soon to be release products that only matters to Apple fans , I would shudder to think what he would do for real issues like national security ?

"Trade secrets are fine to keep secret but reporting on those secrets is also freedom of the press."

So to anyone who believes this line that jeph4me wrote above, rewrite what this fool thinks as follows:

"My own personal information/secrets are fine to keep secret but reporting on those secrets is also freedom of the press."

You sir/madam are a first class moron. So if I happen to come across someones personal information including their credit card numbers, using your line of thinking, I can freely share that information with the rest of the world. Or using the Think Secret line of thinking which was to actively seek out individuals to break their NDA's by sharing those secrets, I might as well set up a website actively asking people to anonymously share their personal information so that I can report on that information. If the line of thinking that some of you idiots subscribe to (that information should be set free) is applicable to a corporation, than you cannot have it the other way when it comes to your personal information. If you feel so strongly about that, post all your personal information online somewhere and set that information free fool.

I agree with you, noitabrutsam . It's really funny to see the mental gymnastics of the supporters of Think Secret in trying to justify it on First Amendment terms . The problem is that it's not their money , it's not their hard work and they don't have to suffer the consequences of any trade secrets leak . They think they are sticking it to the Man , I always wonder why would happen if someone else did a Think Secret on them and they got hammered by their competition using their own work as a basis for the competition's successful product . Heck , what good for the goose is good for the gander . Let's do one better , noitabrutsam , since information is free , we can just ask them for their address and at the time of our choosing , pay someone to get personal information by having their house entered and at the same time reward that person by letting him or her take whatever he/she wants from the house of Nick's supporters after he or she is done with acquiring us of the needed personal information .

I like how the MS fanboys compare Apple to MS. If this was an MS case, they would have bought Harvard, expelled Nick, Bought his parent's employer's businesses and fired them. Shortly after they would have sent thugs to beat them senseless. Afterwards commissioning jack-booted astroturfers to malign them on every blog in the known universe.

I may be understating the kind of reaction MS would have, but it is hypothetical, so it will never happen. MS has no secrets worth protecting. They steal pretty much everything they do, build and write from Apple.

Snark:

You are completely mistaken. Free speech protections apply not only to speech uttered, but also protect a person's right to NOT speak. Given that a corporation is a legal person, it is entitled to keep secret those things that it derives financial benefit from, provided it actually makes a reasonable effort to keep it secret.

Now, if some journalist were able to read the patterns in the clouds, or divine from the pattern of parking spaces occupied at One Infinity Loop that a 13" MacBook pro was on the horizon, he is entitled to "speak" through writing the article.

If, however, that journalist bribes an Apple employee into breaking an NDA with Apple, the journalist is no longer in the realm of "free speech." Rather, he interferes with a lawful contractual relationship between Apple and his employees, and he does so tortiously. This is nothing new, and before you start waxing romantic on how free speech is the pillar of democracy, bear in mind that the Founding Fathers had a much narrower view of First Amendment rights than we do today. They certainly would have agreed with the current legal approach.

A journalist encouraging violation of NDAs induces the divulgence of a trade secret. His liability to Apple stems from the methods our hypothetical journalist uses to find the facts underlying his expression.

The same day that the little guy, Think Secret, is shut down, larger fellows, Forbes, Fortune, Business Week... are running speculative stories predicting table computers, future iPhones, future AppleTVs... Where these guys got their info is not the issue, the ability to AFFORD a good legal defense is the issue. Moral: Don't try this at home, boys and girls, or you will be sorry.