[mixin visuals]

just wondering if anyone else has signed the petition for Apple to drop the Think Secret lawsuit?

if you aren't going to sign it why not?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
just wondering if anyone else has signed the petition for Apple to drop the Think Secret lawsuit?

if you aren't going to sign it why not?

I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

Not to mention he deserves it.

The fact that the Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't even want to defend him speaks volumes.

[juanvaldes]

*clears throat*

**** Thinksecret.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
if you aren't going to sign it why not?

I'm not going to sign it because I think Apple has valid claims against Nicholas Ciarelli.

Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products, knowing that the people giving him this information had NDAs.

Also, the EFF is going to defend AppleInsider.com and PowerPage.org in their lawsuits, but not Think Secret. I think the EFF won't touch the Think Secret case because they know Nicholas Ciarelli is screwed.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[Superchicken]

I'm gona miss think secret but... to be honest "We're the guys who read his site which you don't want us reading... so uhh... don't.... wait... what? SHuT UP MOM I"M TRYING TO TALK TO APPLE... where was I... Oh yah Apple... so uhh... what new products are coming out eh? How bout we skip this tiny iPod stuff and... MOM I"M ON THE INTERWEB!"

[ManOfSteal]

I'd only sign if MOSR was getting sued.

[mixin visuals]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
I'm not going to sign it because I think Apple has valid claims against Nicholas Ciarelli.

Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products, knowing that the people giving him this information had NDAs.

Also, the EFF is going to defend AppleInsider.com and PowerPage.org in their lawsuits, but not Think Secret. I think the EFF won't touch the Think Secret case because they know Nicholas Ciarelli is screwed.

so how do you actually know how exactly he got the information?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I'd only sign if MOSR was getting sued.

No information worth suing over.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i am not signing it because I think TS is not a worth cause

they are not doing something that justifies the dropping of the lawsuit.


if they were blowing the whistle on Big Tobacco and shyt then yes, but they are posting mac rumors.




gimme a break

[yukon]

It sounds to me as if he committed no crime or infringement, employees or trusted business relations of Apple leaked the info to what essentially "the press". I don't necessarily like what these sites do, but they can occasionally be an interesting read (as opinion). Apple appears to be using the cost of defending against a lawsuit as a way to stop behaviour they don't like, or forcing "the press" to reveal sources. Perhaps Apple should watch who they trust more carefully, perhaps they should sue the people who actually are in breach of their NDA contract.

I'm not really following this case, I don't particularly care. But I dislike it when someone with the money to go through with a lawsuit uses it as a way to cause another party to go broke in defending or to make them stop something legal. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."-Voltaire

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
so how do you actually know how exactly he got the information?

This isn't just a case about how he got the information. Even if you don't have a NDA with Apple, it doesn't mean you can post Apple's trade secrets. This isn't a case about freedom of speech. Posting trade secrets in California is illegal. California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act is a statute that makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret. Also, this isn't a case of Apple picking on the little guy out of nowhere. Nicholas Ciarelli had been warned many times by Apple that he he could get in trouble for posting trade secrets. Ciarelli ignored these warnings.


From CNET:


The suit notes a number of letters that its lawyers have sent in recent years to Think Secret warning that the site's postings contain confidential trade secrets. In the letters, Apple demanded that the site remove all information on the products and that it provide "all information regarding the person or persons who supplied the trade secrets." Apple said the site's owners have ignored its demands.

"Although the dePlume defendants are aware that such information constitutes Apple trade secrets and is protected by Apple's confidentiality agreements, the dePlume defendants actively encourage and induce persons to provide future product information in breach of those agreements." The suit points specifically to a posting made after Apple's World Wide Developer Conference in June. "Think Secret's request stated, 'Did you hear something you weren't supposed to at WWDC? We appreciate your insider news and Mac gossip. E-mail us or use our anonymous e-mail form."

[mixin visuals]

harvard isn't in california

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
harvard isn't in california

Last time I checked, California has the Internet.

Even though Think Secret may not be located in California, they posted something on the Internet that could be viewed in Califonia that broke California law.

AOL sues spammers in Virginia because spam "goes through" computers in Virginia and Virginia has anti-span laws.

[mixin visuals]

then maybe you should have read your post better

Posting trade secrets in California is illegal.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
just wondering if anyone else has signed the petition for Apple to drop the Think Secret lawsuit?

if you aren't going to sign it why not?

Yah, whatever. I feel so sorry for Think Secret and all the injustices of the world that have been heaped upon them. (Looks for the sarcastistic smiley).

Cough up the source or don't pub the rumor. Simple as that. And Nicky, welcome to the real world.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
then maybe you should have read your post better

Read my post above.

[mixin visuals]

i just saw the :edit

[JHromadka]

I don't see that he did anything wrong with posting information that someone gave him. And I completely agree with yukon. I don't like the idea of any company trying to stop someone from posting news about it. You may say that TS is just posting rumors, but in a day when the evening news couples Iraq, Pitt/Anniston's divorce, and tsunamis all in the same telecast, everything is news today.

[insha]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
*clears throat*

**** Thinksecret.

[MilkmanDan]

Sure, I'll sigh a petition to get rid of think secret. Where do I sign up?

[mixin visuals]

why all the hate for think secret in here?

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
harvard isn't in california

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
why all the hate for think secret in here?

I don't hate Think Secret. It would be best for this to be decided in the courts. Do wonder if the Think Secret website and forum are in actual jeopardy.

[Jaey]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not going to sign because online petitions are useless.

[Cody Dawg]

I don't think online petitions are useless.

I think Apple is an 800-pound gorilla in this case and is stomping (or trying to) out the rights of people to be curious and report information.

Apple now reminds me of Microsoft, to be honest.

Jobs used to steal long distance services back in the day when he was starting out. He thought it was amusing and joked about it. Now he has some money and clout and it's not okay for people to do the same thing that he used to do: Get information and use it for personal or artistic gain.

Jobs & Co. are bullies in this issue. Shame on them.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I don't think online petitions are useless.

Show me one that has worked.

[Cody Dawg]

It's kind of hard to PROVE that a petition worked, isn't it?

At the very least, however, it's an exercise in democracy: Making your opinion known.

I signed that thing at the very beginning because people should be allowed to report however they want to. If this person was an AP reporter, from a large media company, etc., then Apple wouldn't touch them.

No, because it's a single solitary person who doesn't have the ability to defend himself Apple feels like it's okay to knock someone around legally.

It's not okay.

I wish this Nick person would get in touch with Benedict Morelli. Morelli cleans house and likes to help the underdog.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It's kind of hard to PROVE that a petition worked, isn't it?

At the very least, however, it's an exercise in democracy: Making your opinion known.

Fine, show me a poll and that any decision that was turned around by a large company.

[chris v]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I'd only sign if MOSR was getting sued.

Can we make a petition for MOSR to get sued? I think it'd make for excellent entertainment.

[Cody Dawg]

Okay, so don't sign the petition.

You probably don't vote, either, do you? Why bother is your attitude? It takes 15 seconds to go through the action and express your right to free speech, which is what this lawsuit is about. Apple wants to squash the right of free speech:

Read here.

Who will be next?

Could be MacNN...you never know. Someone who works at Apple posts something here in a thread about some secret doo-dad or gizmo and the next thing you know, MacNN is sued because that is what Apple wants to do.

It's NOT alright to sue people because they are publishing information. Sue the people who gave away the information, not the publisher.

In other words, don't kill the messenger.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I signed that thing at the very beginning because people should be allowed to report however they want to. If this person was an AP reporter, from a large media company, etc., then Apple wouldn't touch them.

So you think people should be allowed to report however they want to. So you would have no problem if I printed and distributed a flyer in your community that said you are a crack whore, likes to kill babies, and have sex with midgets? You wouldn't sue me for defamation?

Reporters can't report however they want to. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything.

[Cody Dawg]

Aren't you being a little extreme?

And this isn't just my opinion. A LOT of news companies are watching this. Did you read the CNET link I gave above?

This guy didn't defame Apple. He merely REPORTED A FACT. Reporting FACTS IS free speech unless it involves national security risks or physical harm towards another person.

Apple is suing because he published facts, not speculation, and they are angry because their "secret" is spoiled.

Don't compare two things that have nothing to do with each other. This IS an issue about free speech. It is Apple suing because their "secret" was divulged, nothing more and nothing less. We're not talking about some made-up fiction.

Read the link I provided.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Aren't you being a little extreme?

And this isn't just my opinion. A LOT of news companies are watching this. Did you read the CNET link I gave above?

This guy didn't defame Apple. He merely REPORTED A FACT. Reporting FACTS IS free speech unless it involves national security risks or physical harm towards another person.

Apple is suing because he published facts, not speculation, and they are angry because their "secret" is spoiled.

Don't compare two things that have nothing to do with each other. This IS an issue about free speech. It is Apple suing because their "secret" was divulged, nothing more and nothing less. We're not talking about some made-up fiction.

Read the link I provided.

No, he published trade secrets and with the laws in california that was a very stupid move.

I don't see how its critical that the public be given leaked tech specs. If there is a leak its gotta be plugged: period.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
So you think people should be allowed to report however they want to. So you would have no problem if I printed and distributed a flyer in your community that said you are a crack whore, likes to kill babies, and have sex with midgets? You wouldn't sue me for defamation?

Not if it was factually true. As the Associated Press says, "The best defense against a libel suit is proof that you're right."

And in this case, Nick's reports aren't even negative, so they don't even have that against him.

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
If there is a leak its gotta be plugged: period.

Nick wasn't the leak. He was a private citizen, under no obligation or contract to Apple, reporting things that other people told him.

Also, people: Don't bother signing an online petition. Go straight to the source and call, write or fax Apple with your opinion. That will make them take notice.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Aren't you being a little extreme?

And this isn't just my opinion. A LOT of news companies are watching this. Did you read the CNET link I gave above?

This guy didn't defame Apple. He merely REPORTED A FACT. Reporting FACTS IS free speech unless it involves national security risks or physical harm towards another person.

Apple is suing because he published facts, not speculation, and they are angry because their "secret" is spoiled.

Don't compare two things that have nothing to do with each other. This IS an issue about free speech. It is Apple suing because their "secret" was divulged, nothing more and nothing less. We're not talking about some made-up fiction.

Read the link I provided.

You said, "I signed that thing at the very beginning because people should be allowed to report however they want to."

I was being extreme to point out that you can't report however you want to. Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want. There are laws regarding defamation, slander, libel, and trade secrets.

Yes, Think Secret reported facts - facts that are trade secrets. Under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it is wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret. Think Secret knew it was posting trade secrets.

Yes, Apple is pissed because their "secret" is spoiled. Why wouldn't they? These trade secrets can give their competition a heads-up on what they are doing and it can cannibalize sales of current models, which effect Apple financially.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Yes, Think Secret reported facts - facts that are trade secrets. Under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it is wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret.

Ciarelli, as a resident of the state of Massachusetts, is not under the jurisdiction of any California laws. That's like China trying to indict you for having too many children.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Ciarelli, as a resident of the state of Massachusetts, is not under the jurisdiction of any California laws. That's like China trying to indict you for having too many children.

Did you read this entire thread or just skip to the end? We've already discussed this - read this entire thread again.

[Chuckit]

Yes, I've read the entire thread, and there was hardly any argument for why people in a place he may never even have visited feel entitled to inflict their laws on him.

If you want your point addressed directly, it's like China indicting you for putting up a pro-democracy page on the Internet and someone accessing it in China. Whatever. He's not in California. Just because someone in Farsideoftheworldistan reads what you've written, that does not make their laws applicable to you.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Aren't you being a little extreme?

And this isn't just my opinion. A LOT of news companies are watching this. Did you read the CNET link I gave above?

This guy didn't defame Apple. He merely REPORTED A FACT. Reporting FACTS IS free speech unless it involves national security risks or physical harm towards another person.

Apple is suing because he published facts, not speculation, and they are angry because their "secret" is spoiled.

Don't compare two things that have nothing to do with each other. This IS an issue about free speech. It is Apple suing because their "secret" was divulged, nothing more and nothing less. We're not talking about some made-up fiction.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. I understand why they are suing. Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders, plain and simple.

Up to this point, TS has only revealed new products shortly before they are announced. Not that big of a deal, perhaps, in terms of potential financial impact. Let's suppose however, that Apple is planning to introduce a product that will take it into a totally new market (much like the iPod did). Now let's suppose that TS gets a hold of some info regarding this product while it's only at the R&D stage, and publishes that info. Not only do Mac fans get the big scoop, but so do Apple's future competitors. Not an ideal situation, when you plan to enter a highly competive market, and your future neighbors in that market get some free intelligence on your intentions (especially at such an early stage of your product development).

Are you saying that such leaks can't have a negative financial impact on a business's future prospects, or that it doesn't matter when viewed in the light of free speech? I am a shareholder, and I can assure you I wouldn't like the above scenario to take place, because it affects me. Just my $.02.

[edited for silly grammar errors]

[Chuckit]

So fire anyone suspected of leaking information. Nick wasn't the leak, he was the bucket.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
So fire anyone suspected of leaking information. Nick wasn't the leak, he was the bucket.

If he was a 3 year-old who didn't know what he was doing, I would agree with you. But, he's a student who willfully assisted in distributing information which is considered sensitive, and can affect a company's financial well-being. Look, I'm not saying Apple will win the suit, or even all the details behind it. I'm just opining that there is, or should be, a line drawn between free speech and irresponsible publication of business secrets. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for him.

[Chuckit]

Still, keeping Apple's secrets is not his problem. By the time they get to him, they are no longer Apple's secrets. The people who violated Apple's trust are the ones who should be punished.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Still, keeping Apple's secrets is not his problem. By the time they get to him, they are no longer Apple's secrets. The people who violated Apple's trust are the ones who should be punished.

Well, I don't know what to tell you then, except that we should agree to disagree.