Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses News Apple

Think Secret Gets Lawyer 371

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the polarize-the-hull-plating dept.
im333mfg writes "Looks like Nick dePlume and Think Secret have gotten some much needed help for their upcoming lawsuit battle with Apple. "Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP, a lawyer at the forefront of Internet law since the net's early days, will defend Mac news Web site Think Secret from a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc. 'Apple's attempt to silence a small publication's news reporting presents a troubling affront to the protections of the First Amendment,' said Nick dePlume, the site's publisher and editor in chief. 'I'm grateful that Mr. Gross has stepped forward to help defend these crucial freedoms.'""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Think Secret Gets Lawyer

Comments Filter:
  • Trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashnutt (807047) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:05PM (#11424147) Journal
    The problems is that Think Geek obtain information freely from normal information gathering techniques such as social engineering and trend research using the internet. A California law prohibits divulging trade secrets yet if I remember correctly there is a set of laws each state agreed to abide by when joining. This law is freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Think Geek never signed a non-disclosure agreement thus if you or a representative of your company tells me something than that information is no longer protected as a trade secret unless there is a contracted obligation - the entity didn't adequately protect it's information. Case closed unless the corporation wants to sue the party in oblivion, which might be the case that we are seeing today. I don't see how this case can even get to the court level, as it should be dismissed under the grounds of no contractual agreement between the parties; thus, his speech is protected at the federal level.

    As for the party that disclosed the information then they would be in breach of the NADA contract. Does Think Geek have to tell apple that divulged the information? Anyone remember Oliver North who forgot a lot of information during the Iran Contra scandal can attest that Think Geek surely can't remember the names either. Should Think Geek have to tell? Does the press have to cite sources? Nope they can protect their sources but if they can become in content in the courts and spend a little jail time - but were not talking about a murder trial or a treason tiral.
  • I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:06PM (#11424163) Journal
    Do we respect people's first ammendment rights more than we love apple? I am a free thinker... please tell me what to think...
  • Circle the wagons (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt (596332) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:14PM (#11424286) Journal
    Everyone tell us how much we respect IP law, and how much we love Apple for showing the rest of the world that "trade secret" commonlaw usurps the Freedom of Speech guaranteed us by the constitution.

    They do, after all, have a neato little touchwheel dealy on the iPod.
  • by CrankyFool (680025) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:21PM (#11424383)
    Three possible reasons come to mind:

    1. The EFF might believe that the AppleInsider suit has less merit than this suit;
    2. The EFF might believe that if the AI suit succeeds, the damage to our rights will be more significant than the damage to our rights if the TS suit succeeds;
    3. The EFF might believe that the suits are substantially similar and are only out to establish a precedent, so it makes no sense to represent both defendants.
  • Re:heh (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:24PM (#11424402)
    Apple should do its own private investigative work.

    They know who signed NDAs for what was published. They should start squeezing these people first.

    Going after the ThinkSecret guy at this point is kind of like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.

  • by Shannon Love (705240) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:24PM (#11424405) Homepage
    The ultimate ramification of these cases isn't whether citizen journalists (meaning anyone with a website or blog) will have the same privileges granted "professional" journalists but rather whether any of us will every have any information privacy at all.

    If every individual has a right to publish stolen information with no expectation that they will ever have to reveal how they got that stolen information, then no one's information, no matter how private or trivial to the public interest, will be safe

    Currently, personal and institutional information is protected in two ways: First, access to the information is limited to selected individuals. It is this limitation, enforced by technology like passwords, encryption and physical isolation, that most people think of as information security. The second protection is the contractual and legal obligation that people with access to the information have to not misuse it.

    No matter how elaborate the technological and procedural protections for everyone's information, at some point that information gets viewed by a human being. If we have no legal means of holding those individuals accountable then information security, and the privacy it brings, is a dead letter. Granting everyone, from private individuals to vast commercial interests, the right to disseminate stolen information destroys the second protection utterly. Anyone with access to protected information can steal it and perhaps even sell it with little expectation they will be caught.

    What we have here is a tag team of privacy violation. The thief steals the information and then the publisher "fences" it. Shielding the thief as a "source" could open the floodgates for information theft. Today, we see the violation of Apple's NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) but the same legal concept could just as well apply to an individual's medical and financial data. Even if the actual theft were theoretically illegal, how could one prosecute if the person disseminating your private information had a legal right to protect the identity of the thief?

    The internet changes all the rules. The old style press shield laws won't work in the internet era.

  • Re:Trade Secrets? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nojomofo (123944) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:27PM (#11424435) Homepage
    The problem with your argument is that it's not up for you (or Nick DePlume) to decide when it's okay to release Apple trade secrets. I'm not arguing the merits of going after somebody who didn't sign the NDA. But those were trade secrets, even if it was only a day or 2 before they were to be released to everybody.
  • Which is worse? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xgyro (553902) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:36PM (#11424556)
    There is something truly wrong if Apple can get this kid to divulge the source of his "leaker" when comparatively, Robert Novak can leak the name of an undercover CIA agent any not have to divulge his source? Tell me if I'm wrong here. I am not a political beast, however I am an Apple fan and this is just an outright atrocity in our society. How can we hold some 19 year old to the fire over something as minor as this and we can have no accountability to such things as the Robert Novak affair? And heck he is STILL employed at CNN!
  • by rcs1000 (462363) * <{moc.liamg} {ta} {0001scr}> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:41PM (#11424629)
    What???

    Are you really telling me that news sites can't dig and try and find out stuff? Are you really suggesting that if PC Week finds out about a Microsoft bug it shouldn't be allowed to publish it?

    Apart from anything, ThinkSecret is not in any contractual agreement with Apple. An Apple employee broke an NDA (a civil contract), and Apple (understandably) wants to find out who it was. But ThinkSecret wants to keep getting scoops (as would any newspaper or journal) and so is (rightly) fighting Apple's lawsuit.

    I love Apple. I just ordered a Mac Mini. But in this case, you have to support ThinkSecret.
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Macadamizer (194404) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:41PM (#11424634)
    "This isn't criminal law, though."

    A minor point that most people happen to ignore...
  • by amichalo (132545) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @04:51PM (#11424776)
    The thrill of the Apple rumor mill, particularly around Mac World in January, is intoxicating to me.

    But that said, I do think there is a line between freedom of speach and soliciting priviledged information from people you know shouldn't be talking to you.

    It isn't enough to say "I have annonymous source e-mail". If you are going to be a reporter, then there are ethics involved. Getting the scoop on a story by any means doesn't cut it for me.

    Plus, did you see how wildly Apple's stock was swinging around all these rumors? we are talking 7% in a day market cap swings - that is big stuff for a teenager to be toying with.
  • by iroll (717924) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:00PM (#11424892) Homepage
    What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet? Would they be silly enough to claim 1st Amendment protection?? Does this make them 'journalists' who got a 'scoop'? NO! They are scoring a quick buck and some notoriety, profitting from stolen goods!

    What about distributing sensitive classified government documents, such as the names of undercover agents, on "ThinkCIA.com"? When they get offed, and the feddies come knocking, you will be free to argue your 1st Amendment rights to yourself for the rest of your life while you rot in solitary confinement.

    ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!

    The only event in which this *would* be protected speech would be if the stolen information exposed some crime in Apple, in which case whistleblower laws would protect the informants. Get a clue, gentlemen: the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to broadcast whatever you want. It does not protect you from having your trolls deleted by forum mods, or your letter to the editor from being thrown away unpublished. It protects you against being censored by the **government** for spreading your political and/or religious beliefs, even if they are contrary to what the govt. is promoting. THAT is your freedom, not the right to post warez, not the right to break your NDA, and not the right to take a handoff from somebody that breaks THEIR NDA and make a pocketfull of cash on it. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this; paying any attention in High School Govt. class (for US citizens) should be background enough.
  • by rbird76 (688731) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:00PM (#11424895)
    Apple wants its leaker, so they decide to sue because a website editor in a place not friendly to them revealed a "trade secret" that Apple would reveal publically not long later. For its lawyers' fees, Apple gets...

    1) publicity for its opponents' website.

    2) a black eye for going after people who don't like them

    3) no leaker if he took any sort of precautions.

    So, for the cost of some lawyers, Apple gets to publically crap on the 1st Amendment while not getting their leak plugged. Slick move, guys.

    As another poster suggested, why not use a Canary Trap to tag the leaker - change a few decimals in specs before publication. If there's only one source, then the editor of ThinkSecret has to use the numbers he's given (numbers that are really vague won't get him any hits), and the numbers will reveal sets of sources that can be narrowed down. You don't spook the leaker, and you can dispose of him at your leisure. Another alternative might be to sue for potential stock value losses due to the timing of the leak - but that probably will neither look much better or have a better chance of winning.
  • by Senjutsu (614542) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:05PM (#11424948)
    Ah. A publicity hound. That explains it.

    Indeed, just look at those cases. I mean, who could forget the high-profile highjinks of the OJ Simpson fiduciary misconduct suit against Lawrence Schiller, Robert Kardashian, Project 95 Production Inc., and Does 1-40?

    Surely the unforgettable tale of the Republic of Cuba and its agencies and instrumentalities in their desperate struggle to avoid garnishment by Marlene Alejandre over debts owed to a Cuban telecommunications company will live on in the hearts and minds of the millions who followed it for years to come?

    And certainly few cases have dominated headlines and generated as much publicity as the brave fight of Susie Carter and AlaskaMen magazine in their brave struggle to avoid editorial domination by Media Mix Marketing of Hollywood.

    Cleary the law firm of Gross & Belsky LLP is nothing but a pack of publicity crazed attention whores, moving from one incredibly well known, high profile case to the next. The only wonder that is he hasn't yet made Time's list of the 50 most influential people in America.
  • by nsayer (86181) <[moc.ufk] [ta] [reyasn]> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:09PM (#11424990) Homepage
    Even if the actual theft were theoretically illegal, how could one prosecute if the person disseminating your private information had a legal right to protect the identity of the thief?

    That's easy: Journalism shield laws protect sources of information that are newsworthy. The fact that Apple is going to ship the mac mini? Newsworthy. My prothrombin time test results from last week? Not newsworthy. Why not? Two excellent reasons: I am not a public figure, therefore nothing about my daily life is newsworthy, but even if I were a public figure, the law carves out exceptions for personal *detailed* medical and financial information that imposes a duty on *everyone* who gets ahold of them.

    Anyone who thinks Apple should win this should consider the question: at the core, how different is Nick dePlume's journalism from what Woodward and Bernstein were doing to uncover Watergate?

  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:18PM (#11425100)
    Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)

    What remains to be seen is what, if any, of these laws apply, and whether or not the laws of Massachusetts, California, federal, etc., can be applied to this case.

    And, as many people have said, they don't really care about Nick Ciarelli (yes, for those who don't know, he's 19 year old [washingtonpost.com] Harvard student [thecrimson.com]). They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to Think Secret. And no, it's not "known" elsewhere. He's got a very reliable mole, or a set of them, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.

    Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

    And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe Nick "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)

    Just some things to think about.
  • by monkeyhouse (756719) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:29PM (#11425268)
    This is different in that posting the next Harry Potter book or Star Wars release would be distributing copyrighted material (and let's not get into THAT argument here, please).

    Posting an article with the specs for a new product is not (unless said article is accompanied by copyrighted text and/or pictures), even though Apple tried to slap Think Secret with a C&D anyway. Not having seen the offending site, I can't say for sure if he had posted such materials or not.

  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:45PM (#11425487)

    they don't have a case against him

    You are very likely incorrect. First, many states have laws against revealing information that you know is a trade secret without permission from the owner of the secret. Next Apple has a pretty iron-clad case that "John Doe" broke the contractual NDA. They have every legal right to subpoena ThinkSecret for his name given that ThinkSecret cannot plead the 5th since this case is not criminal and since whistleblower laws to don't apply since their was no public health or criminal activity on Apple's part. You are correct that this is pretty open and shut, but incorrect about who will win. This is a simple contract violation with basically no mitigating factors. Any news source is legally bound to answer a subpoena unless they are accused of a criminal violation and would be incriminating themselves, or unless whisteblower statutes apply.

  • Re:heh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by numark (577503) <jcolson.ndgonline@com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:45PM (#11425489) Homepage Journal
    Regardless of whether you define the issue as one of "freedom of speech," it doesn't matter in the end. Freedom of speech when abridged by the government is against the Constitution, but there's nothing against companies limiting speech. Indeed, by signing an NDA, you voluntarily gave up your option to freely speak about whatever the contract covers. In return, you get yourself a job. If you speak about something covered under the NDA, you lose your job and get sued in civil court. There's not a thing I can find illegal about that.
  • by Intrinsic (74189) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:47PM (#11425507) Homepage
    Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)



    Sometimes its nessasary to break the law to get it overturned. Secondly, what reason should I have to follow a law that does not have the publics interest at heart? Laws are made to protect the public good, personally I dont see this law as something that protects my rights as an individual. its just another step in the chain of events that takes away freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Companies dont have a god given right to the protection of profits.

    Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

    Ethically? please. its legally wrong but thats about it. Laws like this are created to give the wealth power and they directly take away from the interests of the public. Whats more important? Interests of Profit or Public? Its the wellbeing of people, and free exchange of ideas, that should always come before Profit. Why the hell would anyone want to obey a law that does not benifit the public is beyond me. Ohh I forgot, business interests come first right? sorry but I could care less about corporate interests, its just money.. they have to compete in an age where information cannot be controlled, so learn to work around it or die.

  • Nope ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:54PM (#11425589)
    "but isn't this just like those persistant photographers following new cars not yet revealed to the public?"

    Nope. It's like a blogger encouraging an engineer from the car manufacturer to break his NDA and send him pictures of the new car which are then posted on the internet.
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:57PM (#11425615)
    You see it as a zero sum game, don't you? It's either Public, or Profit, and nowhere in between. No information should be kept secret, and all information should be free.

    I hate to tell you this, but there's a balance. And sometimes the concept of "Profit" of "Corporations" - those who employ the Public - is good for that same Public. Sometimes the protection of the mechanisms that make us a prosperous society and protect the concept of fair competition are good for that same society.

    Don't talk about information as if it's some fanciful abstract thing that should fly free as red breasted robins now that we have the amazing Interweb. You make a gentleman's agreement with your employer to not leak his secrets to the world, you fucking keep it. You don't surreptitiously break it, secretly leaking private information that you have been TOLD is private, and asked not to leak, as a condition of your employ, for years to feed your own sense of selfishness, or self righteousness, or self confidence.

    Just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Please tell me how it is inappropriate for a business to want to keep its own ideas secret. If you're just one of those anti-corporate anti-business types, or think all information should always be free and unlimited under all circumstances, then you needn't reply, because we'll be in fundamental disagreement.
  • Re:Crapintosh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by valkraider (611225) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:57PM (#11425620) Journal
    Right. Because everyone who has ever worked with / on linux or x86 products is a pure freaking angel.

    Grow up moron. All companies are out to $make$ $money$ period. Even the ones that hawk Linux and Linux wares.

    If the Mac is a better computer with a better OS you are only hurting yourself. If the PC is a better computer with a better OS then you have made a good choice.

    But they all have lawyers, and they all use them, and the ones on top are way way richer than you or I. No matter which computer you buy.

    So why do so many support Apple (or Apple products?) Because we use them ourselves. And if more people use Apple computers, more stuff will be made or sold that works with and runs on Apple computers. We win. None of us actually care about how rich Bill or Steve or whoever are getting. We all know they are on top. But in the end I want to use my computer the best way possible, and I support anything that helps me do that...

    And Apple is cool. ;)
  • by digitalgimpus (468277) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @05:59PM (#11425641) Homepage
    I've got mixed feelings on this.

    From one point of view, I agree Apple is being a bit of a hardass about this. This isn't the only site leaking news. As I recall Hitachi leaked that Apple signed to purchase 60GB mini drives (now used on iPod photo). One of the IC manufacturers said that Apple signed on some flash memory technology... etc. etc. etc.

    I didn't see big lawsuits on those. And lets not forget about Time revealing the new iMac.

    on the other hand...

    I do believe that Think Secret has been itching to get accurate insider details. And in recent years have had way to much accuracy.

    Take a look at their contact page for a great example of how eager they are:
    http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/ [thinksecret.com]

    voicemail, fax, email, online form, postal...

    any method under the sun. I can't think of any other news organization so willing to cater to potential informants.

    A company does have a right to use Non Disclosure Agreements to keep trade secrets. Every company does it. It's normal business. I can't think of one company that doesn't do it. Even non-profits have to do it.

    Soliciting someone to break it isn't ethical. That's the bottom line. And it's not really freedom of speach.

    Encouraging someone to commit an illegal act or break a legal agreement isn't good.

    Someone who hires a hitman to kill his spouse isn't any better than someone who does it themself. Encouraging people to do your dirty work doen't make you any better than the guilty party.

    IMHO this is a pretty simple case... and will likely be settled out of court. I can't see ThinkSecret standing up in court... they have no real defense. This isn't freedom of speach anymore than saying you have a bomb on a plane.

    They will settle on undisclosed terms, ThinkSecret will walk away with it's tail between it's legs covering it's severed ball-less scrotum.

    Thinksecret will re-invent itself a bit, and stay clear of this activity... all will be happy.

    There not going to court. ThinkSecret can't be that stupid. They have no defense that won't cause a judge to (literally) laugh at them.
  • by catdevnull (531283) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @06:04PM (#11425698)

    If anything, I think Steve does not like anything that ruins his mystique as the giver of all things "Ooh and Ahh." As "punishment" to the rumor-mongering hordes of the internet, Steve banished the entire lot of 'net users from viewing his keynote at Macworld.

    Three simple rules for "How NOT to get sued by Steve's Apple machine":
    • Don't steal Steve's thunder (case in point of this thread)
    • Don't post pictures or anything else that might be "trade secrets" (or unreleased Apple products).
    • Don't make a product that looks anything like an Apple product

    He's not the world's richest man, but he has lawyers and a penchant to unleash them on people who f**k with his world.

    It might be one's right to contradict the above caveats, however, beware: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should and just because you think you should doesn't mean you're right. Of course, this axiom goes both ways, but good luck when dealing with a megalamaniac who runs a large company with lots of cash.

    Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daytrip00 (473461) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @06:06PM (#11425722)
    California has special protections for journalistic sources. I suspect those override the trade secret laws.
  • by Otto (17870) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @06:13PM (#11425788) Homepage Journal
    What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet?

    Well, for one thing, those would be protected by copyright law.

    ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!

    The question is whether this sort of information is protected information. If somebody off the street comes up to me and tells me "hey, apple is coming out with a new flash player device called the iPod Shuffle" and I post this infomation online, have I done broken the law? Certainly not copyright law, because information cannot be copyrighted, only actual text and photos and such can.

    Now, some laws exist to prevent the release of trade secrets, this much is true. However these laws might be superceded by freedom of the press. And the press is defined as anybody reporting information to the public, like it or not. He has every right to argue that he was publishing as a journalist. Whether he makes a profit on it or not is irrelevant. The New York Times sells advertisements and subscriptions, after all.

    And it's really quite debatable whether the knowledge that Apple is making any particular product is indeed a "trade secret" or not under the definitions used in the law.

    If he had posted copyrighted material, he'd have no case. As it is, he does have a case.
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2005 @06:19PM (#11425838)
    Here's an example where Apple did this before [politechbot.com]. If you're such an expert in this, 99 Bottles, let us know what happened in these cases from Auguest 2000. Was it open and shut in Apple's favor as you so hastily claim? Or does this precedent, actually involving one of the same litigants (Apple), over the same issues, tell us something different about how court's view the First Amendment, Journalism, and lawsuits meant to discourage publication of anonymously-sourced news?
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 20, 2005 @06:31PM (#11425952)
    From your link:

    Yet that was not the case of it -- the "crime" the eleven were arrested for had nothing to do with Bible reading but everything to do with being disruptive of the peaceable assembly of others to the point that it looked like they were attempting to incite a riot.

    Unfortunately, the small group of eleven self-proclaimed Christians chose not to be peaceful in their protestations against homosexual people. And, by disobeying police orders, this small group of eleven self-proclaimed Christians got in trouble with the law. Don't like it? Talk to your government representative about changing the laws which require citizens in public to obey police orders (no matter how unreasonable those orders may be). Btw, the incident was caught on tape in case you want to review what really happened that day.
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Infamous Grimace (525297) <emailpsc@gmail.com> on Thursday January 20, 2005 @09:26PM (#11427545) Homepage
    ...Apple has a pretty iron-clad case that "John Doe" broke the contractual NDA. They have every legal right to subpoena ThinkSecret for his name...

    See, the problem with this is that it presumes that ThinkSecret and Nick DePlume (love that alias) know the identity of "John Doe". What if the leak clicked 'Post Anonymously' (or whatever)? There may be no way for Apple to obtain the info it seeks because it is simply unknown.

    (tig)
  • Re:Trade secrets (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Soldrinero (789891) on Thursday January 20, 2005 @10:31PM (#11428049)
    There is a similar case to this going on with a NYTimes reporter. The story is here [nytimes.com]. Interestingly, a lot of very educated journalists think the government is wrong in that case. If ThinkSecret is considered a news source, this is practically identical. That may not bode well for Nick de Plume, but he will have the journalistic community on his side.

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond

Working...