Is Apple Taking Its Secrecy Too Far?
from the who-broke-the-law? dept
Last month, we wrote about Apple suing some people for releasing secret information about future products. Everyone knows that Apple is pretty secretive, and that they get upset when product info is released outside of Steve Jobs' big announcements. However, the latest info shows that they're suing ThinkSecret as well. ThinkSecret is one of the sites that published the info. They didn't take the info -- they simply published the info that someone sent them. Court rulings have shown that simply passing on information does not make you liable for its contents. Apple may have a real complaint against whoever internal at Apple revealed trade secret information. However, suing the site that publicized the info is an over reaction, and is more based out of a desire to intimidate such sites than to actually protect their trade secrets. On the flip side, this may be another example of the Streisand Effect. By pointing out which articles on ThinkSecret were problematic, Apple effectively shined a big bright spotlight on the info they wanted to keep quiet.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given by DT on Jan 5th, 2005 @ 7:49pm
If ThinkSecret actively encouraged an employee or person with restricted knowledge (ie. under NDA - ie. a contract) of future Apple products to break that contract and disclose that information to ThinkSecret for publication, then Apple has a case against ThinkSecret themselves - in addition to the persons who actually provided the information.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by b0b on Jan 5th, 2005 @ 10:50pm
thinksecret is nothing more than a rumor troll. They should know better about publishing stuff like that anyway - prototypes/etc are covered under non-disclosure agreements & trade secret laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Trade Secrets? by Steve Mueller on Jan 5th, 2005 @ 11:42pm
So? I'm sure the Pentagon Papers published back in 1970 were covered by national secrecy, but the New York Times published them, probably knowing they were secret. If ThinkSecret didn't sign an NDA, didn't work for Apple and didn't encourage anybody to break NDAs or other contracts or laws, why shouldn't they publish the information?(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Trade Secrets? by Mike on Jan 6th, 2005 @ 12:27am
Yeah, I'm with Steve on this one. ThinkSecret has no agreement with Apple not to publish this stuff. If they receive it, they can publish it. It's whoever leaked it that should be in trouble.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given by Anonymous Coward on Jan 6th, 2005 @ 5:24am
Or perhaps its all just a marketing ploy to bring about this 'Streisand Effect'? They seem to have done this in the past...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Streisand effect by DV Henkel-Wallace on Jan 6th, 2005 @ 9:23am
I think Anonymous has it right. I've always assumed these lawsuits are a way of building escitement before Macworld. Notice how they always happen shortly before "the big announcement?' Very rarely do they happen for products that are years away. And how do these things end up? Apple drops them, right? You might think that Apple would have a bigger impact if they could really surprise people with the macworld unveiling, but that's too risky -- what if people don't immediately see the impact? Instead, by leaking it early they get people starting to think about why the new announcement is important, which gives the reporters something to write about after the product finally is announced. I am a happy Mac user, have been for years, and encourage many other people to use Macs. But the Mac "fanatic" thing is a real turn-off, quite frankly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Perhaps it's not Think Secret that they want by Ted Brown on Jan 6th, 2005 @ 11:05am
Jon Gruber at http://daringfireball.net/ notes that, if Think Secret fight this in court [an expensive proposition], it's quite likely that the sources of these leaks will have to be named in the settlement. Then Apple can proceed to sue the sources of the leaks, and Think Secret won't be considered a safe haven anymore.
It's a good read.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Revealing Sources by Steve Mueller on Jan 6th, 2005 @ 11:33am
I didn't read the daringfireball story (because this is the 21st Century and you didn't post a live link), but I doubt ThinkSecret would have to reveal their source. If they're considered part of the "The Press", they can hide behind the precedent that journalists don't have to reveal their sources.
Apple would still require a preponderance of evidence that ThinkSecret did something wrong, a more difficult task if the source isn't known. If they can't show any wrongdoing without the source, Apple could be out of luck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Revealing Sources by Ted Brown on Jan 8th, 2005 @ 11:18am
Sorry, didn't realize that we still had to hard-code links on message boards in the 21st century. :p
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Live Links by Steve Mueller on Jan 9th, 2005 @ 1:00pm
Which is why you should always preview a post (especially if it's a system you're not familiar with).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment