11 comments

• 

  Rex Hammock

  1 year ago

  The "he got paid so it's okay" argument has confused the heck out of me. Fanboy comments on my blog yesterday and some rather spewing e-mails has led me to believe there are many out there who think Apple can never be wrong -- on anything. I've decided to stop arguing the obvious fact that Apple's design brilliance does not extend into its legal department.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I share your frustration, Rex :-)
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  I said much the same thing in a post yesterday (http://www.winextra.com/2007/12/20/a-sad-day-fo... ) and was taken to task for it by Shawn King of Your Mac Life where he basically said that ThinkSecret was never a part of the "Mythical Mac Community"
  
  So I guess that makes it alright then that Apple gets to hound some-one and play legal games to the point that it's easier to cut and run than to fight. Sure Nicholas may have won on one hand where he didn't have to give up the source but in the longer run bloggers may have lost something a little more important.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I agree, Steve -- and Shawn King and I have been having a
  back-and-forth about it in comments on my previous post :-)
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  1 year ago

  guess that is where I am headed as well :)
  reply
• 

  dd

  1 year ago

  Bull.
  
  You don't know the inside details, and neither do I. Let's look at some other things....
  
  (1) That "18 year old kid" had an inside tie into Apple. And guess what? That inside tie happened to have signed an NDA that would have hurt him or her. And it got serious. How serious? Enough that Think Secret had to pick between two extremes - help out a not-so-innocent bystander or let that person hang.
  
  (2) Think Secret was knowingly making their name - I believe at one point it was Nick dePlume - knowingly, willingly, and yes, with forethought. That does NOT, in ANY way or shape, absolve Apple from their ations. But hey, guess what? It does place blame for what and who Think Secret was properly. On your favorite 18 year old kid.
  
  Look, it's a sad day when lawyers get involved. Shut down something that was primarily simply a fun thing to read. BUT - when you feel the need to point out that this was some "18 year old kid"... implying that he was totally innocent and being unjustly ailroaded by "The Man"... well, let's make sure we're being fair.
  
  Nick (whatever-his-real-last-name-is) is and was fun to read. He also had his moments when he was wrong. And he also knew what he was doing by risking the eventual lawsuit that came about.
  
  There's nobody in this who is clean. Period.
  reply
• 

  lucidthinker

  1 year ago

  I think that everyone is missing the point of the suit. It was about free speech. But, about Nick Ciarelli getting information that was protected under a NDA. An NDA is a legally binding agreement. People who sign them and then choose to break them are breaking the law. Period. There are numerous valid reasons why Apple chooses to keep information about it's future products secret. Many other people on the web have written about those reasons. Apple is well within there rights to take legal action. The paper tiger of saying that the public has the right to know is bogus. The public has the right to know about future Apple products?!!?
  
  This doesn't constitute a "whistle blower" type situation where revealing information about a company relates to issues of fraud or other harm the company is committing unknown to the public.
  
  Matthew and commentators of his ilk need to grab some common sense and a large dose of perspective.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  If Apple wants to go after people who break its NDAs, then it should
  do so -- but using journalists (and I include Nick in that group) to
  do an end run around the legal system is an infringement of free
  speech, regardless of what he is writing about or whether you think
  it's important.
  
  I never said the public had a right to know about Apple's products --
  I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. That's a
  completely different question. Freedom of speech doesn't only refer
  to speech that is considered important or useful.
  reply
• 

  PXLated

  1 year ago

  -- I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. --
  I think that's where you're getting derailed. He may not have had the right depending on what he knew about the source or the information. I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, the Apple employees broke the law because of their NDAs. If Nick knew they were Apple sources and under NDA, then he broke the law also. What exactly did Nick know, we don't know.
  Your Walt Mossberg thing is just ridiculous. If Walt broke the law, the WSJ would fight, loose, and probably just pay the fines. In Nicks case, we know no details, we don't even know if he really got paid off, it could just as easily be that he's happy with the settlement because he's not going to jail.
  Need facts man and there are none.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  It's a fact that journalists use information from insiders within
  technology companies all the time -- maybe not Walt, but plenty of
  others. Obviously, the trade secrets law and the first amendment are
  in conflict. I for one would rather side with journalism and free
  speech than a company's interpretation of what a "trade secret" is,
  and its right to prosecute those who reveal them.
  reply
• 

  Daniel

  1 year ago

  While it is undeniable that Apple legal is sometimes overly litigious I think they did the right thing in this instance and used the legal system properly. Someone revealed a trade secret , probably while under an NDA and they went to court to find out who it was. Fair enough.
  The imbalance between the legal resources of large corporations and 18 year old students is definitely an issue with the American legal system but I think by settling Apple avoided going too far. This time.
  reply