Think Secret Owner being sued by Apple

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-01-15 05:20am

apparently the guy on thinksecret that leaked the info about apple's sub $500 system is being sued for illicitly gathering company secrets.

full story here

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 11:18am

Company secrets my ass. If apple can win this then the US media/legal situation is even worse than I could have imagined.

Corporate secrets take the form of confidentiality agreements, contracts, with employees. Unless this fellow had signed a contract himself with apple saying he wouldnt talk about their stuff they can frankly bugger themselves. Journalists have a right to report what they find providing they report it accurately and factually...or at least, I thought that was what the freedom of the press was meant to be about....

....I wonder these days, what with FOX winning a case on the grounds that lying in the news is legal.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-01-15 11:30am

These kind of corporate atrocities really pissed me off. IMHO, corporate vampires are acting more and more shamelessly these days. If this trend continues, probably someday Microsoft would actually sue us for criticizing their products. Although probably, in their point of view, saying "Windows is inferior" would fall into the category of disclosing the company's deepest secret.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-01-15 11:38am

Keevan_Colton wrote:....I wonder these days, what with FOX winning a case on the grounds that lying in the news is legal.

Because FOX is a vampire. Remember; vampires are legally allowed to do anything they want as long as they have the right lawyer, while individuals, not to mention consumers, are always free to be fucked.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 11:52am

Old news. This happened nearly a month ago!

But you've really simplified it.

ThinkSecret found out several of Apple's secrets ahead of time.

But it's not just hearing RUMORS. They released a spec sheet, told everyone the exact dimensions, etc. It's rather obvious they had an insider, who would be illegally breaking their contract. If ThinkSecret was offering something, that would be incentive to break the law, and ThinkSecret would have been breaking the law themselves.

ThinkSecret isn't just a rumor site. They make MONEY off the rumors. They're a FOR-PROFIT organization. It's one thing to sue a non-profit rumor site. It's quite another to be suing a for-profit organization THAT IS MAKING MONEY off illegally releasing company secrets which could very well hurt the company.

BTW, it wasn't just the Mac Mini, ThinkSecret also told about the iPod Shuffle, iLife 05, iWork, and some kind of audio box Apple is working on.
They are definitely breaking the law, making money off of selling Apple's secrets, therefore, they SHOULD get sued, and SHOULD lose.

I would be against them if they were suing a site like MacRumors that makes no profit. But TS is a different thing.

Keevan_Colton wrote:Company secrets my ass. If apple can win this then the US media/legal situation is even worse than I could have imagined.

Corporate secrets take the form of confidentiality agreements, contracts, with employees. Unless this fellow had signed a contract himself with apple saying he wouldnt talk about their stuff they can frankly bugger themselves. Journalists have a right to report what they find providing they report it accurately and factually...or at least, I thought that was what the freedom of the press was meant to be about....

....I wonder these days, what with FOX winning a case on the grounds that lying in the news is legal.

So you know, the people working on this stuff HAD signed a confidentiality agreement, and ThinkSecret apparently paid them off to break it. TS is NOT equivilant to a news site- news sites don't bribe company officials and make money off of releasing confidential company secrets

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-01-15 12:29pm

Praxis wrote:Old news. This happened nearly a month ago!

But you've really simplified it.

ThinkSecret found out several of Apple's secrets ahead of time.

But it's not just hearing RUMORS. They released a spec sheet, told everyone the exact dimensions, etc. It's rather obvious they had an insider, who would be illegally breaking their contract. If ThinkSecret was offering something, that would be incentive to break the law, and ThinkSecret would have been breaking the law themselves.

ThinkSecret isn't just a rumor site. They make MONEY off the rumors. They're a FOR-PROFIT organization. It's one thing to sue a non-profit rumor site. It's quite another to be suing a for-profit organization THAT IS MAKING MONEY off illegally releasing company secrets which could very well hurt the company.

BTW, it wasn't just the Mac Mini, ThinkSecret also told about the iPod Shuffle, iLife 05, iWork, and some kind of audio box Apple is working on.
They are definitely breaking the law, making money off of selling Apple's secrets, therefore, they SHOULD get sued, and SHOULD lose.

I would be against them if they were suing a site like MacRumors that makes no profit. But TS is a different thing.

I see. If that's the case, lets the profit-makers kill each other then.

But of course, it still has to be proven that they actually paid an insider to get such information.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 01:12pm

So, would you support banning newspapers (a for profit enterprise) from reporting information that they get a hold of?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 01:12pm

Yeah, but that's what they're being sued over if you check the article carefully.
Apple probably has evidence. If they DON'T have evidence, it'll get thrown out of court or Apple will lose.

However, I find it hard to believe one of the higher-up people at Apple would just march over to one of the most viewed rumors website and jump out and say, "Hey, I'm under contract not to say this, but who cares about my job and my contract! Do you want to know what Steve's surprise is?" without being offered anything.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 01:21pm

To make it clear, TS are not party to a contract with apple...the apple employee that released the information they could sue, the people that took the information and released it to the public, no.

I do not care at all for the precedent of suing a journalistic endeavour for releasing information a company doesnt want released.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-15 01:29pm

DISCLAIMER: In no way am I condoning Apple's decision to sue Think Secret. I have better things to do than be an Apple apologist.

Think Secret may actually be liable for industrial espionage under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

18 USC § 1832 wrote:(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.

This is criminal and not civil law, but may be applicable. IANAL (so go ask Stravo if you want better advice).

Praxis wrote:Yeah, but that's what they're being sued over if you check the article carefully.
Apple probably has evidence. If they DON'T have evidence, it'll get thrown out of court or Apple will lose.

With several billion dollars of hard cash Apple could simply be pressuring TS not to do this in the future.

Keevan_Colton wrote:So, would you support banning newspapers (a for profit enterprise) from reporting information that they get a hold of?

That's a strawman, Keevan.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:I see. If that's the case, lets the profit-makers kill each other then.

But of course, it still has to be proven that they actually paid an insider to get such information.

AFAIK, they don't have to prove that TS purchased this information, only that they may have profitted from that information. TS is not a non-profit organization.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 01:36pm

phongn wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:So, would you support banning newspapers (a for profit enterprise) from reporting information that they get a hold of?
That's a strawman, Keevan.

Hardly, a newspaper profits from all information it obtains. The fact is though a newspaper generally has the pockets to make action against them in the US system a fairly pointless gesture.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:I see. If that's the case, lets the profit-makers kill each other then.

But of course, it still has to be proven that they actually paid an insider to get such information.
AFAIK, they don't have to prove that TS purchased this information, only that they may have profitted from that information. TS is not a non-profit organization.

Which is exactly what I'm objecting to. It limits media, which is what this is, to what a company wants released about its products etc. That isnt in the best interests of the public, only the company.

Also, the fact is the law there is the line "and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret" which this would appear to fail to meet.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 01:47pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: So, would you support banning newspapers (a for profit enterprise) from reporting information that they get a hold of?

To make it clear, TS are not party to a contract with apple...the apple employee that released the information they could sue, the people that took the information and released it to the public, no.

I do not care at all for the precedent of suing a journalistic endeavour for releasing information a company doesnt want released.

If TS was bribing the employee to break the contract, then they are breaking the law.

Let's put it this way. I go out and hire a hitman to kill your entire family. He succeeds, but you find out who did it and catch me and him.

Who gets in trouble? The guy who did it, or the guy who paid him to do it? Both, correct?

If a newspaper bribed some guy who worked at the US military to release top-secret plans and released them to the public, do you honestly think the newspaper wouldn't get in trouble?

And btw, ThinkSecret is NOT part of the press.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 01:48pm

Also, the fact is the law there is the line "and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret" which this would appear to fail to meet.

Not necessarily. This kind of stuff CAN hurt a company if competitors find out.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 01:58pm

Praxis wrote:If TS was bribing the employee to break the contract, then they are breaking the law.

Let's put it this way. I go out and hire a hitman to kill your entire family. He succeeds, but you find out who did it and catch me and him.

How about if you pay someone that's promised not to talk about me to tell you what I'm getting for someones christmas present.

Murder is a damn site different from information.

Who gets in trouble? The guy who did it, or the guy who paid him to do it? Both, correct?

If a newspaper bribed some guy who worked at the US military to release top-secret plans and released them to the public, do you honestly think the newspaper wouldn't get in trouble?

Actually, yes...because the paper didnt promise to keep the secret, they've just offered a trade for something.

And btw, ThinkSecret is NOT part of the press.

Do you know what the press is?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-15 02:18pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Hardly, a newspaper profits from all information it obtains. The fact is though a newspaper generally has the pockets to make action against them in the US system a fairly pointless gesture.

I'm arguing that it should be taken on a case-by-case nature rather than one blanket "must have free press" statement.

Which is exactly what I'm objecting to. It limits media, which is what this is, to what a company wants released about its products etc. That isnt in the best interests of the public, only the company.

Is it really so bad to limit information on the new release of a product? This isn't Ford and the Pinto here.

Also, the fact is the law there is the line "and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret" which this would appear to fail to meet.

It could be argued in court that releasing this information could have harmed Apple in some way, shape or form. Pre-announcement sales may have gone down in the meanwhile, for example, which is fiscal harm to the company.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 02:19pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Praxis wrote:If TS was bribing the employee to break the contract, then they are breaking the law.

Let's put it this way. I go out and hire a hitman to kill your entire family. He succeeds, but you find out who did it and catch me and him.
How about if you pay someone that's promised not to talk about me to tell you what I'm getting for someones christmas present.

Murder is a damn site different from information.

Of course it's different, but it's still a crime. If someone pays someone else to commit a crime, they get in trouble.

Who gets in trouble? The guy who did it, or the guy who paid him to do it? Both, correct?

If a newspaper bribed some guy who worked at the US military to release top-secret plans and released them to the public, do you honestly think the newspaper wouldn't get in trouble?
Actually, yes...because the paper didnt promise to keep the secret, they've just offered a trade for something.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the analogy of a newspaper. I'm fairly certain that people can be sued for incentive to commit a crime, and bribing an Apple worker under contract counts.

And btw, ThinkSecret is NOT part of the press.
Do you know what the press is?

TS is a privately owned company that makes money off selling Apple's trade secrets and possibly bribing Apple workers to get these secrets. That's not the same thing as a newspaper or reporter.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 02:26pm

Praxis wrote:Of course it's different, but it's still a crime. If someone pays someone else to commit a crime, they get in trouble.

The difference between conspiracy to commit murder and breach of contract is so staggering I cant grasp you even comparing to two.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the analogy of a newspaper. I'm fairly certain that people can be sued for incentive to commit a crime, and bribing an Apple worker under contract counts.

They are not party to that contract. Breach of a contract should always be a civil matter, and as such offering an incentive to break a contract is not an offense to sue someone not party to the contract over.

For example, lets see Mr X had a contract to work for company Y, Company Z offers him money to quit Y and come to Z. Can Y sue Z for anything or can they simply sue Mr X for taking up the offer?

TS is a privately owned company that makes money off selling Apple's trade secrets and possibly bribing Apple workers to get these secrets. That's not the same thing as a newspaper or reporter.

I'll take that as a no then.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-15 02:31pm

phongn wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Hardly, a newspaper profits from all information it obtains. The fact is though a newspaper generally has the pockets to make action against them in the US system a fairly pointless gesture.
I'm arguing that it should be taken on a case-by-case nature rather than one blanket "must have free press" statement.

I'm arguing that the case of a company not wanting information about an upcoming product released is not one where the good of the company should over rule the freedom of the press. I'm quite happy with some of the other restrictions on the press which exist for legitimate reasons, such as those regarding state secrets (which are often a matter of life or death) or slander (as lies have no place in the press)...but laws designed purely to protect secrets runs counter to what the idea of a free press is all about.

Is it really so bad to limit information on the new release of a product? This isn't Ford and the Pinto here.

Suing someone for talking about your upcoming product and informing people what it is according to their information...that's so bad.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-15 04:09pm

You seem skeptical that this is a serious thing. These rumor sites DO hurt Apple. They build up anticipation, and if that anticipation is unfounded, Apple's stock plummets after the Expo. Check the charts.

Furthermore, other companies that find out about this stuff can also hurt Apple.

This isn't challenging TS's right to PUBLISH information. It's saying that the information was obtained illegally. There's a difference, you know. Inciting someone to break a NDA is a crime. Conspiring with someone to break a NDA is a crime. Tortious interference with Apple's legitimate business interests is also a crime.