Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Mar 19, 2005, 01:31 AM

I was watching one of Apples 10.4 demo's and thought the choice of RSS headlines was funny.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/safari.html

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2005, 07:30 AM

alphasubzero949 · Mar 19, 2005, 08:35 AM

Free publicity for Nick dePlume?

Mithras · Mar 19, 2005, 10:10 AM

Maybe it's a quiet protest by a website drone.

wdlove · Mar 19, 2005, 12:49 PM

Interesting

JohnSmithXTREME · Mar 19, 2005, 01:01 PM

Microsoft picks on smaller companies, and Apple picks on their customers. Which do you prefer?

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Mar 19, 2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Microsoft picks on smaller companies, and Apple picks on their customers. Which do you prefer?

Smaller companies.

JohnSmithXTREME · Mar 19, 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Smaller companies.

Agreed.

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Agreed.

Disagree. People should obey the law.

Apple Pro Underwear · Mar 19, 2005, 01:59 PM

i think if we caught an imac masturbating or something it would be "making fools of themselves" but this is just sort of "meh" stuff only mac geeks get

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Mar 20, 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i think if we caught an imac masturbating or something it would be "making fools of themselves" but this is just sort of "meh" stuff only mac geeks get

I don't know about only Mac geeks. I mean it is obvious negative press about Apple.

Zimphire · Mar 20, 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Disagree. People should obey the law.

Eriamjh · Mar 20, 2005, 08:40 PM

Disagree. The law does not say anything about coporate leaks and publishing them.

Ghoser777 · Mar 20, 2005, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Disagree. The law does not recognize binding legal contracts.

Fixed�

Eug Wanker · Mar 20, 2005, 10:24 PM

I'd be highly surprised if Nick signed any NDAs about the 970MP or Asteroid.

Dimethyltrypt · Mar 20, 2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I'd be highly surprised if Nick signed any NDAs about the 970MP or Asteroid.

unfortunately, you simplify the situation too much.

Ghoser777 · Mar 20, 2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I'd be highly surprised if Nick signed any NDAs about the 970MP or Asteroid.

What good are NDA's if they are unenforceable? If people are allowed to hide behind reporters to break the law, companies are in for some serious s***. This isn't an issue about Nick, it's about the sources that Nick doesn't want to rat on (aka people breaking the law).

Eug Wanker · Mar 20, 2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
What good are NDA's if they are unenforceable? If people are allowed to hide behind reporters to break the law, companies are in for some serious s***. This isn't an issue about Nick, it's about the sources that Nick doesn't want to rat on (aka people breaking the law).

So you agree Nick shouldn't be considered as breaking the law then?
Yeah, his sources are breaking the law, but that's a different kettle of fish.

In any case, this is what IBM itself had to say about the 970MP:

The dual 64-bit core PowerPC970MPTM (970MP) is the next evolutionary step in the PowerPC 970 family of microprocessors. The higher frequency grade versions of the 970MP consume higher amounts of power than earlier IBM microprocessors do, and that can cause temperature issues.

I think Apple should sue IBM for revealing its trade secrets.

olePigeon · Mar 21, 2005, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Disagree. People should obey the law, except when they have billions of dollars and can buy their way out.

Fixed.

Eug Wanker · Mar 21, 2005, 01:52 AM

NY Times: To Cut Online Chatter, Apple Goes to Court (bugmenot.com is your friend.)

I find it interesting the way the article starts out:

In the fall of 1981, Paul Freiberger, a reporter for the weekly computer industry newspaper InfoWorld, was preparing to run a story that Apple Computer was engaged in two secret development projects. But first, he listened as company co-founder Steven P. Jobs shouted at him over the phone that revealing the code names of products would offer a crucial advantage to the computer maker's Japanese competitors.

In the end, the paper got its scoop - Apple's new projects were called the Lisa and the Macintosh - and the company still managed to handily trounce its competitors.

Nick vs. Steve:

goMac · Mar 21, 2005, 05:06 AM

People forget Think Secret isn't being sued because they published the rumor, they're being sued because they won't release the name of the guy who gave them the info. Apple isn't trying to shut them down, they just want to trace the leak.

Nick dePlume · Mar 21, 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by goMac:
People forget Think Secret isn't being sued because they published the rumor, they're being sued because they won't release the name of the guy who gave them the info. Apple isn't trying to shut them down, they just want to trace the leak.

goMac,

I think you might be confusing Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret with Apple's lawsuit against the John Does. The press release on our site from earlier in the month might help to clear things up.

Thanks,
Nick

moonmonkey · Mar 21, 2005, 08:05 AM

told.

JohnSmithXTREME · Mar 21, 2005, 09:54 AM

An interesting "article" on CNet: http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-5817...?tag=cnetfd.sd

(I'm not really sure if you can call it an article, its just one of those CNet sites with 2 paragraphs of editorial comment and a bunch of links to relevant stories)

Mar 21, 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Nick dePlume:
goMac,

I think you might be confusing Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret with Apple's lawsuit against the John Does. The press release on our site from earlier in the month might help to clear things up.

So Nick, since you are here (assuming it is you), may I ask, do you think it's right to actively solicit readers to break the law? And then publish information that is known to be corporate trade secrets?

To me, that's the biggest difference your site and real journalists. Real journalists hide sources because their sources are reporting on laws being broken, people being scammed, etc. by the subject of the reports. Apple isn't breaking laws here, your sources are, and I believe so are you by publishing information that is known to be a corporate trade secret.

Eug Wanker · Mar 21, 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by hayesk:
So Nick, since you are here (assuming it is you), may I ask, do you think it's right to actively solicit readers to break the law? And then publish information that is known to be corporate trade secrets?

To me, that's the biggest difference your site and real journalists. Real journalists hide sources because their sources are reporting on laws being broken, people being scammed, etc. by the subject of the reports. Apple isn't breaking laws here, your sources are, and I believe so are you by publishing information that is known to be a corporate trade secret.

Just to reiterate... From the NY Times:

In the fall of 1981, Paul Freiberger, a reporter for the weekly computer industry newspaper InfoWorld, was preparing to run a story that Apple Computer was engaged in two secret development projects. But first, he listened as company co-founder Steven P. Jobs shouted at him over the phone that revealing the code names of products would offer a crucial advantage to the computer maker's Japanese competitors.

In the end, the paper got its scoop - Apple's new projects were called the Lisa and the Macintosh - and the company still managed to handily trounce its competitors.

Troll · Mar 21, 2005, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by hayesk:
do you think it's right to actively solicit readers to break the law?

It's not against the law to breach an agreement like an NDA. Anyone who breaches an NDA is in breach of the agreement which would normally ground a civil claim for damages on the part of Apple or a loss of employment. It wouldn't mean that the law had been broken. So, even if thinksecret were inducing people to break their NDA's, they wouldn't be inducing them to break the law. Even worse (for Apple's case), thinksecret apparently offers no incentive to people who supply it with information. If no monetary or other reward is given, you can't say they're inducing people to do anything. The law has never been interested in enforcing commercial relations between private individuals and I don't believe it's about to start. If Apple wants to stop people breaching their NDA's, it needs to find another way, IMHO.

Eug Wanker · Mar 21, 2005, 12:39 PM

Mercury News Editorial: Apple ruling puts all of us in danger

Mar 21, 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
It's not against the law to breach an agreement like an NDA.

True, but that's still just nitpicking. Replace "breaking the law" with "breaking their contract with Apple" or whatever. My squestion still stands.

Mar 21, 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Just to reiterate... From the NY Times:

That's nice but that's just one example. What if the Japanese company beat Apple to market? It'd be a very different market today.

What point are you making with your single example? That there is no way a competitor could have an advantage by knowing trade secrets? What exactly are you trying to say?

Mar 21, 2005, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Mercury News Editorial: Apple ruling puts all of us in danger

Again, what's your point?

The editorial is flawed. He compares it to not being able to expose a drug company covering up a dangerous drug that could harm people. I believe such a thing is illegal. That's a huge difference which the author of the editorial conveniently ignores.

Nobody is whistleblowing illegal activity on the part of Apple. Apple is making computers, not poisoning the population. These people are divulging trade secrets that could give competitors an unfair advantage, not protecting the public from harm.

Can you not see the difference?

Eug Wanker · Mar 21, 2005, 02:29 PM

The point of both examples is that "real journalists" can do it, so Nick should be able to too... But somehow Nick is called some web-blog-hack, despite the fact that Nick's articles are usually much more accurate than what a lot of "real journalists" write about Apple.

It's not Nick's fault that Apple employees are stupid enough to break their NDAs to give him information. It's not as if he's bribing them or threatening their children or anything.

Mar 21, 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The point of both examples is that "real journalists" can do it,

When? You didn't post about a "real" journalist actively seeking people to break their NDA's. You posted about a guy who published trade secrets. I must have missed the part about solicitation.

so Nick should be able to too... But somehow Nick is called some web-blog-hack, despite the fact that Nick's articles are usually much more accurate than what a lot of "real journalists" write about Apple.

Hey, I don't put much faith in the other tech reporters either. I wouldn't call a lot of others journalists either.

It's not Nick's fault that Apple employees are stupid enough to break their NDAs to give him information. It's not as if he's bribing them or threatening their children or anything.

He's not bribing them with money, sure. But why did these people send him info? They must of gotten something, even if intangible, out of it. But again, you are going to have to do a lot better than one example to say it's ok to solicit and publish trade secrets.

Eug Wanker · Mar 21, 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by hayesk:
He's not bribing them with money, sure. But why did these people send him info? They must of gotten something, even if intangible, out of it.

Nice argument: "I have no proof, but they definitely got something out of it. Trust me. Note that that something can't be measured or seen though."

Hmmm... Maybe that intangible something is just kicks. They sent it to TS just for kicks, knowing that TS would publish it. This is TS's fault how?

moonmonkey · Mar 21, 2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by hayesk:
So Nick, since you are here (assuming it is you)

Its quite likely as he registered 5 years ago.

goMac · Mar 21, 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The point of both examples is that "real journalists" can do it, so Nick should be able to too... But somehow Nick is called some web-blog-hack, despite the fact that Nick's articles are usually much more accurate than what a lot of "real journalists" write about Apple.

It's not Nick's fault that Apple employees are stupid enough to break their NDAs to give him information. It's not as if he's bribing them or threatening their children or anything.

All the "real journalists" I've seen do it are usually writing articles about ThinkSecret articles.