Apple Sues Think Secret 451
Isaac Newton writes "Reuters is reporting that Apple Computer has sued website Think Secret for allegedly divulging trade secrets relating to its upcoming sub-$500 Mac desktop and office suite. The lawsuit is apparently giving legitimacy to the rumors."
Marketing ploy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The rumours might be accurate in part, but perhaps terribly inaccurate in other ways - and could significantly undermine the true products if they're seen as inferior to the imaginary ones. If that's the case, I can see why people at Apple would be upset...
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL but I always thought that the purpose of Trade Secret law is to protect a company against people informing competitors of TRUE information (i.e. Trade Secrets) not FALSE information. The legal defence against false information is Libel or Slander...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:3, Informative)
the responsibility is on the person who leaked the data, HE is the one who breached the contract he had. now, think* might be sued to reveal their sources, they could of course claim that it was an anonymous email from what seems like a webkiosk, or a post to their mailing list, or forums, or wherever - in which case they're not more responsible for t
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course lawsuits are bad press and one can question the efficacity of such a lawsuit but most likely it will be about strong-arming the community maintainers into divulging their sources so that Apple can take measures against the staff members who broke their agreement.
I don't believe for one second that Apple's Legal dept. has a grudge or is out to stiffle the community which so much loves the products their company produces.
Stinking differently every day...
Really ridiculous! (Score:4, Insightful)
No they don't.
This happens in any other field. Cars, designer clothes, politics, entertainment, everthing.
And sometimes that information is inaccurate. And sometimes it puts that company is a really poor light.
And nobody sues. Oh. Except apple.
The real joke is that Apple only sues little guys... the guys who are hard pressed to defend themselves.
If these guys had a decent budget, they could sue the hell out of Apple. I'm hoping someone does, because Apple only bullies little tiny websites. They stay clear of anybodhy their own size.
And then people like you defend them. I just bought 3 new Macs, but honestly, people like you are the least enjoyable part of the Macintosh experience, because you'd defend Apple no matter what. You sicken me.
My theory: How it all happened. (Score:3)
It's easy to guess how the lawsuit happened. Some Apple marketing person wanted to create a buzz about a new product, so he or she gave the information to someone sure to publish it.
Then, some Apple managers said to themselves, "This is our chance to act like Arnold Schwarzenegger! We will pretend that it's the end of the world, and only we can save it. May we'll even get on Slashdot, for free! We secretly believe that open source hardware is better anyway, so let's sink the company. We can always get jo
Re:Really ridiculous! (Score:3, Insightful)
You consider Microsoft little?
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:4, Funny)
Penality! Illegal use of misplaced alliteration by a Mac zealot wanting to disparage a 3rd-party! Only acceptable uses are "Windoze" and "M$"! 10-yard penalty! Repeat the down!
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:2)
First down and 5 puns to First Post.
- I.V.
Re:Marketing ploy? (Score:2)
The funniest headline... (Score:2)
"Apple confirms MacWorld rumors with fresh lawsuit"
And indeed, when you read the specifics of what they are complaining about, you wonder why they bother at all. I mean, if they really wanted to deal with this more effectively they'd wait until AFTER the 11th. As it is now, they are simply confirming the rumors.
Re:The funniest headline... (Score:3, Insightful)
> they'd wait until AFTER the 11th.
I think this is more than squelching a rumor so as to not blow Steve Jobs' "oh, one more thing" that he uses to introduce whatever is the centerpiece of the show. Investors and competitors pay attention to Apple's offerings, too.
If investors (or potential investors) hear a rumor of a possible Apple product, the price of AAPL can be affected (either positively or negatively). What if the rumor is mor
...also in The Independent (Score:2)
Suing your fans... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Suing your fans... (Score:2)
Where do you read "Apple Computer has sued a 19 year old iMac owner and an 80 year old PC user"?
Re:Suing your fans... (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple should make up rumors! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple should make up rumors! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple should make up rumors! (Score:3, Interesting)
> rumours...
I think they've done this before.
Back in 1998, rumor sites started talking about a new product Apple was going to launch dubbed "Apple Media Player", with a code name of "Columbus". Eventually mainstream news outlets picked it up. For example, C|Net wrote an article "Apple stakes future on new device" [com.com].
Re:Apple should make up rumors! (Score:2)
Like M$? How long is your horn? (Score:2)
When Apple sues the rumor mill is because they broke cardinal rule #1: They got *specific* about features for value.
M$ USES the rumor mill to pre-empt and choke off the competition (whatever's left) by claiming something *changed*. Apple can't do that.
Bad Apple. (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple probably was the messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies often provide information about product launches ahead of time with non-disclosure agreements. Perhaps it was a member of the press or some other non-Mac employee.......
And then paragraph 3 of TFA... claiming that Think Secret had induced these individuals to breach confidentiality agreements that they had signed with Apple. Perhaps that's what it was...
Re:Apple probably was the messenger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple probably was the messenger (Score:2)
TS guy: Is apple going to sell a sub $500 computer?
MAC guy: I cannot tell you that because it would voilate the NDA.
TS guy: Hmm, ok. Will this $500 computer have an office suite?
MAC guy: I cannot tell you that because it would voilate the NDA.
TS guy: Will it have a monitor?
MAC guy: I cannot tell you that because it would voilate the NDA.
TS guy: Thanks for your time.
Re:Bad Apple. (Score:2, Informative)
Apple couldn't find the internal leak, so they're shooting the messenger.
Yeah they have. Those are the unnamed individuals named in the suit
Re:Bad Apple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless, of cour
Re:Bad Apple. (Score:2)
Re:Bad Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, this is not some human rights violation or political scandal. Apple seems to be trying to prevent damage to their business from stock price inflation and consumer disappointment, which in my opinion is a worthy goal. In any case, if someone signed an NDA and spilled the beans then they should be punished.
Furthermore, ThinkSecret is profi
Re:Bad Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)
ThinkSecret may be free to express anything they like (and are), but their source is not.
Then why sue ThinkSecret? Oh, for the skeevy legal maneurvering of discovery. ThinkSecret isn't guilty of anything, but sue them to get information.
Furthermore, ThinkSecret is profiting from this secret information, so it's not as if they are some altruistic, pro-consumer reporter. If Apple can demonstrate that ThinkSecret profits from information that ultimately causes damage to Apple's business, then they may
step away from the computer, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Christ man, you're talking about a computer rumor site relaying information from people with NDAs. This isn't exactly Valerie Plame. If a "journalist" gets involved in a lawsuit regarding sources, the question becomes one of ethics based on the public trust/greater good not some absolute, "I wont tell you who murdered that couple because I'm a journalist!!!" If you can't see the difference betweeen Watergate and Think Secret its time to step away from the computer for a long, long time.
Like the grandparent posted lawsuits like these are started to help the discovery process to find those who did break the NDAs. The manufactured outrage of "Big company goes after little guy" is paper thin and on par with the false outrage of the RIAA actually suing people for giving away their songs.
I'd much rather see a system which goes after unethical people because the alternative is to go after the technology itself. What I dont need is bittorrent made illegal or having special licenses to run a web server because a few rotten apples are ruining it for everyone else.
Not to mention Think Secret is a commercial site (it serves at least three ads on its pages) and its business model is to coax people to break NDAs and post them on the web soley for profit, not for greater good or whistleblowing, but for money and ego inflation. Not exactly Woodward and Berstein here.
How is this a trade secret? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap PC's already exist... so where is the competition that they are afriad of? Who can take advantage of this "trade secret"?
As far as I can see (not far having not RTFA) this is just good journalistic work, and good promotion for Apple.
Re:How is this a trade secret? (Score:2)
Say a lot of people who wanted to buy a lot of eMacs won't do so now and wait for the cheaper "cheapMacs"?
No sorry it does not make any sense to me either. You must be right.
Or maybe it's just that Steve Jobs is an exhibitionist and wants the crowd to oooh and aaah even louder when he unveils the new products?
Re:How is this a trade secret? (Score:2, Interesting)
But all I see of this Apple world is Steve trying to sue its customers and most loyal fans. I don't think I'm intersted anymore...
Re:How is this a trade secret? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they were about to release a $600 Mac. Now, there will be great disappointment when they charge more than the rumours said, and they will have to defend themselves by saying "We never said we'd release a $500 Mac", but the damage is already be done.
Bad Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
But things like this really piss me of (excuse my language).
Doesn't Apple recognize, that sites like Think Secret actually help Apple? Just think about how many stories there are on the web about rumours that immanate from these kind of sides and how much exposure these stories give to Apple.
Ah well, but judging from experience, the Apple advocates on
Re:Bad Apple (Score:2)
I think this reinforces two lessons of the early 21st century:
There is no such thing as a "nice" company.
There is no such thing as a responsible legal department.
(Companies, after all exsit to do _nothing_ but make money, legal departments can only demonstrate their performance in "amount of litigation participated in" - Its a brave new world, friends!)
Re:Bad Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
In time, certainly, good companies will come to measure success in terms of successful litigation.
We are in the here and now; and that is PATENTLY not what current legal departments are aiming at. They are very evidently "trigger happy" at the moment.
Costly losses, or embarrassing negative publicity from their over-eagerness is required to _sink in_ to upper management's minds before the goal will change.
Basically if SCO (etc) lose, badly, and either go bankrupt or see (the
Re:Bad Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but if the rumours are wrong, they can damage how any real products might be perceived.
Okay, I'll invent the next iPod rumour - it's going to have full video capability, an 18 hour battery life and the top model will have a 220GB hard disk. You can connect up a digital camcorder to its Firewire port, or a camera to its USB port, and use it to store all your photos and video, for syncing into the next-generation iLife suite.
If someone picks up on that rumour, and if it gains legitimacy, people may be disappointed by the next real iPod.
I've got an iBook, and while it's a great machine I still look on with bemusement at some of the more fanatical followers of Apple. As, I imagine, do some of the levels of Apple management - why, when Fred Smith worked at Dell, he didn't have www.DellSecrets.web posting distorted rumours about the latest products...
Re:Bad Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I'll invent the next iPod rumour - it's going to have full video capability, an 18 hour battery life and the top model will have a 220GB hard disk. You can connect up a digital camcorder to its Firewire port, or a camera to its USB port, and use it to store all your photos and video, for syncing into the next-generation iLife suite.
You see the problem here, though? Because that rumour isn't accurate, it is
Re:Bad Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
They will blast a movie even after $250 million has been invested.
Audience listens to critic, half the amount of people end up seeing it, affecting the bottom line.
Apple need to wake up. Think Secret did not sign any NDAs and the right for free speech will prevail.
Re:Bad Apple (Score:2)
Wow, I was about to buy an Ipod, but I think I'll wait until this one comes out. I know, it might be a week, a month, maybe even a year, but I can keep my plastic in my
Amusing... (Score:4, Funny)
Try that with another company.
Also, whenever Steve Jobs is on the stands and giving a presentation (sometimes with questionable accuracies...), the audience seem to clap their hands every so often.
Maybe these are explained in the book "The Cult of Mac"?
Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a fanboy as well. But Apple are right in doing this to one of the best rumour sites on the net. What if this information is false but because of it, their share price goes up and there is a geniune interest from investors. Only for the rumour to be false and thus they get hit by it.
Thats not to say however that they will succeed, I think they are after the people who leak information to TS. Im not up to date on american law, but wouldn't TS be protected by some sort of freedom of speech law.
In any case, I don't think Nick Depulme is bothered, he's still posting rumours on his site, even after the lawsuit! TS have just confirmed the ipod micro rumour.
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely if the rumour was unfounded, it would leave the lawsuit without a basis, and Apple would still lose out?
I dare say that the litgation would cost Apple less than some more conventional advertising. But I'm cynical
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:2)
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:2)
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you will find that Apple is suing somebody for breaking an NDA somewhere. By your rational, because its Apple, they should let people say whatever they want without being sued?
Btw, I don't remember MS or SCO suing somebody for breaking an NDA, normally its an IP rights issue or because some kid has a website like "mikerowsoft.com". If you're going to troll, you should click "Post Anonymously" and get a clue.
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:2)
NDA? What fucking NDA are you talking about??? Why would a website sign an NDA with Apple?
Btw, I don't remember MS or SCO suing somebody for breaking an NDA, normally its an IP rights issue or because some kid has a website like "mikerowsoft.com".
Exactly. MS or SCO sue someone because they stole their source code (not
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:2)
You forgot to click "Post Anonymously" again because you're still trolling. Your first sentence clearly shows the level of understanding you have.
You can't get +27 Insightful either, trust me, I've tried.
Re:Before the fanboys start screaming (Score:2)
The NDA signed by an Apple employee. Apple is alleging 1) that ThinkSecret got its information from an inside source at Apple who was contractually obligated *not* to divulge the information, and 2) that ThinkSecret knew that their source was illegally divulging the information.
There is no crime.. (Score:2)
It's a civil matter between Apple, the leaks, and Think Secret, thus the lawsuit.
What would the founding fathers think (Score:2, Funny)
More to discuss... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the price point wasn't firm yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe the price point wasn't firm yet... (Score:2)
They could, but they won't. I'm betting the price will be between 700-800 dollars also.
Re:Maybe the price point wasn't firm yet... (Score:2)
then take a look at apples monitor prices.
subtract the equivalent size monitor price from the g5 imac.. and think WTF??
(obviously, if they didn't have the astronomical markup on their lcd monitors the sub 500$ mac could be done easily)
Re:Maybe the price point wasn't firm yet... (Score:2)
My guess is they've gone and built a computer that they can make a comfortable profit on at $500.
And now they're currently trying to work out how much extra they can charge for the first 6 months or so while demand is high.
$100 extra x 1 million units buys a lot of black polo neck shirts.
Re:Maybe the price point wasn't firm yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Jobs tells crew to make a $500 iMac.
2. Apple personnel set out to design and produce a cheap iMac with that goal in mind
3. Rumor leaks to press
4. Everyone gets excited
5. Apple sues a website for publishing the rumour.
6. Everyone gets pissed.
7. Court rules in favour of Apple
8. Everyone gets scared to post bleeding edge material.
9. Only strong and financially viable media have the finacial backing to be able to risk reporting news that is not sanctioned by large coope
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Partiality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partiality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Partiality (Score:2)
So, while there is a fair amount of anti-MS feelings here on /., your what-if-MS-had-done-this analogy fails.
Re:Partiality (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a heads up. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just a heads up. (Score:2)
Re:Just a heads up. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Informative)
That guy is either a complete moron, or he's just looking for a quick buck an
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
I still question the idea of purchasing music as a pre-comressed data file, DRM'ed files at that. I'd much rather patronize my local used CD store, that way I don't get rights that might disappear if the computer or iPod crashes and I can't revoke its authorization. The files I can back up, sure, but if I hit my authorization limit then I'm screwed.
A Post from January Third: (Score:5, Funny)
An Anonymous Coward posted the following [slashdot.org] in regards to the rumored Apple office suite on January 3rd, 2004:
As with all rumors, there's no need to believe it until Apple starts taking legal action against the rumor sites. Until then, you can assume that they probably missed the mark.
The posted was modded +5, Funny (60% funny, 20% insightful, 20% underrated).
Suing the wrong source ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe this is why IANAL
Where's the damages? (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought the rumors were helping... I had decided to hold on to my money in case these were real instead of building a video edit station for my home movies. I love my old B&W G3, but its just too slow to use on a daily basis for video editing. I would rather use iMovie on a $500 G4 at 1.25 GHz and I'm hoping it happens. Otherwise I've got stuff to order from newegg.
Ummmm.... (Score:2)
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.
The rest of the computer industry learned that lesson very well - especially Apple.
Does CowboyNeal Sleep? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Does CowboyNeal Sleep? (Score:2)
$149 iPod flash on the way (Score:4, Informative)
$149 1GB iPod is coming [thinksecret.com]
Oh no, free advertising! (Score:2)
And since when am I not able to speculate on technology?
Here's a secret for you all...nVidia is working on a top secret graphics card right now. Rumor has it, it will cost around $500, and will be 30% faster than the top of the line cards on the market!
You heard it here first...I have insider contacts and know all of the secrets! No wait, I made that up. Can
Welcome To the Big Leagues (Score:3, Insightful)
Being prepared to defend your right to keep your sources secret and to defend your right to publish is a cost of doing business of any new publication. Think Secret and other online publications don't get a free pass, but neither should they be exempted from the same standards that apply to and protect traditional publications.
Rumour sites (Score:4, Insightful)
But... MS rumour web sites must be pretty boring. Not only do most rumours come from Microsoft themselves... most of them
They could also be 100% wrong (Score:2)
As I said before - Apple is a high margin low volume company. They make $400 iPods they are probably not going to make iCraps for a 100 bucks more.
About Think Secret (Score:5, Interesting)
Their rumor accuaracy is amazing and it seems they like to steal any thunder they can from Apple.
They take any good news and put a negative spin on it such as; iPod sales. It is predicted that Apple will sell 4 million+ iPods this quarter
I have also believed that Think Secret's knowledge of the reseller lawsuit brought on MacAdam & Elite Computers is a little too intimate. It's almost like THIS is who's running the show there.
I think Apple should go after them for more than just "trade secret revealing and developer coercing" but also libel and malicious intent.
By The Time It Got To The Other End Of The Room: Notes About Apple Rumor Sites [jackwhispers.com]
Tell me again how non-evil Apple is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm, so what? We're not dealing with government secrets, only private enterprise. The press "induces" people to spill secrets all the time. And thinksecret is the press here. If Apple has the right to sue anyone, it's the people who broke their confidentiality agreements. Not the press. I hope ThinkSecret gets a good legal team and shoves this right up Apple's ass. One wonders if free speech organizations will get involved with this, such as the ACLU (or do they only deal with the goverment? I don't know...). What we have here is a corporation trying to intimidate a news outlet. Pure and simple. Of course, Apple can do no wrong...
Re:Boycott Apple (Score:3, Funny)
You need to take a reality pill as boycotts are all but dead in this day and age of consumerism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sosumi (Score:2)
If there's anything to complain about with the iTunes Music Store in the UK, it's the pricing - it's still £0.79 (US$1.48) a track over here...
Re:That's pretty stupid (Score:2)
Re:hallelujah (Score:2)
However to really be mass market they'll need to get a lot more game developers on board and raise it's profile with the gaming comunity (Games are pretty much the only thing my 2 brothers do with their PCs)
Re:hallelujah (Score:2)
positive impressions of the iPod and encouragement of windows users to
migrate to OSX by their technical friends), support for new games will
become more common.
Also, since porting games to OSX is not significantly different from porting
to Linux, the increased popularity of Linux should help Macs get new games
too.
Anyway, that's my theory.
Re:hallelujah (Score:2)
You have no idea what you're talking about. Porting games to the Mac is nothing like porting games to Linux. There is no market for X Windows based games for the Mac. One could argue that there's probably not much of a market for commercial X Windows based games for Linux, either, but Mac users aren't going to windely adopt even free games that don'
Re:and people will still complain (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm kind of worried about this theoretical iMac -- enough posters have been positive about it that it may fail.
Re:So, do these phrases mean anything to you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello oranges... Meet kumquats. (Didn't want to add to the confusion by saying "apples and oranges" in the middle of an Apple story.)
You make several points, all of them wrong:
1) Think Secret isn't "Dealing" in anything, they are journalists reporting the news. First amendment protected their right to publish--regardless of Ap