DISQUS

Rikk · 2 years ago

On the other hand... Apple has every right to protect its interests. Think Secret (whom i've read for years) knew exactly what game they were playing and it was fun while it lasted.. but Apple as a South American dictator? What over-the-top nonsense. Surely journalistic and blogger exaggeration is just as chilling in that it too is the enemy of truth?

mathewi · 2 years ago

Exaggeration for emphasis -- even hyperbole -- is hardly as chilling
as shutting down an independent journalist. Why not go after the Wall
Street Journal or the New York Times? Same principle. Because Apple
knows they would have a fight on their hands, whereas a 19-year-old
will settle and get on with his life. That doesn't make it right.

Nigel Tufnel · 2 years ago

So a company has no rights when it comes to trying to protect their information? I'm OK with the site existing I guess (in fact, I've been there a time or two myself..), and I'm OK with them being able to publish what they choose (Anything less would be censorship, correct? And we don't want that.). But when Apple cornered them, they wouldn't say where they got their information from. As far as a journalist protecting his/her sources..come on guys, are we talking about Watergate-sized issues here, or a company's product lineup? Does the public 'need to know this'? Did I really 'need' to know whatever I went to TS to read about in the past? Somebody yell out "slippery slope!", but I can't give the same weight to this.

mathewi · 2 years ago

Nigel, I think you said it yourself -- they should be able to publish
whatever they choose (within the bounds of libel, of course) because
anything less would be censorship. So then why do you think it's okay
that the site be shut down? I realize that the intimate details of
whether the new iMac has a Firewire 2 port or not are hardly
earth-shattering questions, but the principles of free speech and
journalistic protection have to be defended in *every* case, not just
the important ones -- it's called setting a precedent.

Nigel Tufnel · 2 years ago

Mathew, just read your reply to Rikk.. I don't think it's any better when the WSJ does it either. Like most things in life, there is more grey here for me than black and white.

Matt · 2 years ago

Im sure Apple paid Think Secret a nice big price for the domain name and website .

mathewi · 2 years ago

I'm not sure of that at all, Matt.

bigbrother · 2 years ago

Wow you are a prize prick. I came across you recently and find what you write to be so pointless it makes good reading. Apple is a company that has every right to protect its private information. It has shareholders, employees and customers! Spotty teenagers and juvenile journalists think its one big joke and they have some right to say what they like.

mathewi · 2 years ago

Well, that makes two of us then, because your comment is pretty
pointless -- and it doesn't even make up for it by being funny. So
Apple should be able to squash whoever it wants, just because they
posted a rumour? You must be a lawyer.

Gary · 2 years ago

Apple has every right to protect itself. Apple is no different than any other company except, perhaps, they're more aggressive. In a perfect world, if Think Secret did nothing wrong, then there would be no settlement and Apple would have to take a hike. I'm not naive. I realize that Apple may have been able to shut them down simply because Think Secret couldn't afford the legal fees to fight Apple. But, then again, Apple may indeed have been in the right. Why does everyone automatically assume that Apple (or for that matter, any large company) is simply a bully?

mathewi · 2 years ago

Protect itself from what, Gary? You can't tell me that a rumour on
ThinkSecret is going to seriously impact Apple's business. Not even
Apple's lawyers believe that, or they would have taken it to court.

Shawn King · 2 years ago

Apple itself has pointed to rumors and rumor sites as having had a material impact on it's financials in the past - the most prominent example being the rumors surround the a Powerbook's release date:
http://www.atpm.com/6.02/jasonpismo.shtml

A more reasoned response to this issue has been posted here:
http://theshapeofdays.com/2007/12/20/think-secr...

--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com

mathewi · 2 years ago

So because Apple says rumour sites affected its financials, we should
just automatically believe it, Shawn? You're a pretty trusting guy.
But then, I guess because it's Apple, we're supposed to just assume
that its motives are pure.

And thanks for the link to the "more seasoned" response. My only
question after reading it is: seasoned by what? I can think of a lot
of things that post has been soaking in, and none of them are
complimentary. Bloggers "need to be chilled"? Journalism's moral
compass needs to be "un-stuck by the occasional high-profile lawsuit"?
What a load of bollocks.

Gary · 2 years ago

So, because Apple can't provide indisputable proof that they were hurt, they have no right to protect themselves? Or, that they have to wait until they've been hurt to take action?

First, this is similar to protecting intellectual property (patents, trademarks, etc.). You have to make the effort to protect yourself even if the violation has little or no effect on you. If you don't, from a legal point of view, it makes it harder to go after others who harm you. If you don't protect yourself from one guy, the courts often decide that you gave up the right to protect yourself altogether.

Second, are you saying that unless Apple is hurt (and can prove it), it's okay for someone to post their secrets? Is it okay to accept and sell stolen goods if the original owner can't prove they were harmed?

Third, you think we're gullible for trusting Apple. It's not that I necessarily trust Apple. But, why should I trust bloggers? Who are these people?

Finally, it looks like Think Secret is happy with the outcome. They're claiming victory over Apple (see here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?...).

mathewi · 2 years ago

Yes, Apple should be able to provide indisputable proof that they were
hurt -- stifling free speech should have a pretty high bar set for it,
don't you think? And yes, they should have to wait until they've been
hurt.

As for the argument that you have to sue every now and then just to
show that you care, that seems to be a justification for just about
any lawsuit Apple or any other company chooses to launch -- if that's
the world you want to live in, you're welcome to it.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone compared what
Think Secret did to accepting stolen property. News flash: corporate
"secrets" -- including ones that Apple was planning to release anyway,
which as far as I'm concerned means they don't really qualify as
secrets in the first place -- isn't even remotely like stealing
physical property. I assume you got that argument from the RIAA, which
loves to compare copyright infringement to theft, with about as much
success.

And whether or not ThinkSecret is happy or not is irrelevant. Not only
are they probably not allowed to criticize Apple as part of the
settlement, that isn't even the point. See my latest post -- I'm sure
you'll find lots to get angry about in there too.

Gary · 2 years ago

"As for the argument that you have to sue every now and then just to show that you care, that seems to be a justification for just about any lawsuit Apple or any other company chooses to launch" -- You may have misunderstood me. The fact is, that if you don't protect yourself against one foe, the court often considers that you've given up your right to protect yourself against any other foes. No, this isn't exactly the world I care to live in, but it is the world we all live in. And, so we (and Apple) have to play by the rules until we can change those rules.

Also, I'm not defending Apple (though it may sound like I am). I'm just saying that I (nor most of us) know enough about this to know if Apple has or hasn't done anything wrong. However, there seem to be a lot of people who automatically assume that since Apple is a huge corporation, and ThinkSecret is the little guy, that Apple must be a mean bully. The thought is that the people at ThinkSecret are a group of honest, well-meaning people that don't even make money at what they are doing. They are doing what they do for the benefit of mankind. Face it. They are most likely like everyone else and are doing this to make money.

Nigel Tufnel · 1 year ago

Wow. Copyright infringement isn't theft? Maybe it isn't technically considered theft (admittal of ignorance here; I honestly don't know), but it sure feels that way to me. If you didn't pay for the rights to keep that song/movie on your hard drive, then I don't think it should be there. Your 'close personal friend' on the other side of the globe may graciously allow you to download it, but that doesn't make it OK.

mathewi · 1 year ago

In fact, copyright infringement isn't theft, legally speaking -- at
least according to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's because intellectual
"property" isn't really property; stealing your car deprives you of
the use of your car, but copying a song doesn't deprive the artist of
anything but the theoretical revenue from a theoretical lost sale.

Shawn King · 2 years ago

"So because Apple says rumour sites affected its financials, we should just automatically believe it, Shawn?"

Do you have any reason *not* to believe it? And as I "lived through" the period spoken about in the referenced article, I know many people who did not buy Powerbooks based on those rumors.

"You're a pretty trusting guy." You don't know me very well. I barely trust my wife. :)

And as to "seasoned by what?", you've got to agree he makes a better argument than "What a load of bollocks." :) Care to detail exactly what was bollocks? I'm all ears.
--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com

mathewi · 2 years ago

As I mentioned to someone else, there should be a pretty high bar set
for squashing free speech, and "Apple says some blogger really hurt
their sales" just isn't good enough for me, I'm afraid -- nor is your
anecdotal "evidence."

Detailing all the problems in the blog post you linked to would take
too long, but here's a start: Harrell's argument begins by saying we
give journalists a long leash when it comes to committing crimes --
but Think Secret didn't commit a crime. Having a blog that posts
rumours doesn't qualify as "tortious interference," no matter how many
times he says it does.

And the term "trade secrets" doesn't extend to things you were
planning to reveal soon anyway, at least not in any ruling I've ever
seen. KFC's special recipe is a trade secret -- what colour the new
iPod is going to be just doesn't qualify.

Harrell also says that Think Secret wasn't "engaged in journalism in
any meaningful sense of the word." So free speech should be suppressed
unless it meets some standard of "important" or "meaningful"
journalism? That's a nasty road to go down. That's more than just
bollocks -- it's idiotic.

As for the argument that bloggers "need to be chilled" and journalists
should be sued from time to time to "un-stick their moral compass," I
only said it was bollocks because words failed me -- and continue to
fail me. It's so asinine it's difficult to come up with a cogent
response. What Think Secret did wasn't "immoral" in any way that makes
sense, so I'm not even sure what Harrell is driving at. Companies
aren't moral entities, and so revealing their "secrets" couldn't
possibly be immoral, or even unethical for that matter.

It's just a big, fat truckload of stupid.

Tyler Hurst · 2 years ago

Why is this bad? It SHOULD be illegal to reveal company secrets. It's not like Think Secret was a whistleblower for illegal government practices.

Duke · 1 year ago

Someone should pick this up, call it Think Stealthy or something.

com2 · 5 months ago

EyeThink Secret