Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:22 UTC
Legal As we say in Dutch, de kogel is door de kerk: Think Secret will cease all activities after reaching a settlement with Apple in a lawsuit Apple had filed against the website. In exchange for closing down Think Secret, Nick DePlume, its owner, will not have to reveal its sources to Apple. The press release on the Think Secret website reads: "Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published." My take: I have respect for the way DePlume protected his sources; very commendable. I have, however, little respect for Apple in this case (I have written, rather controversially, about it before), and it just scares the living daylights out of me that a company can exert this much power over independent websites.
Thread beginning with comment 292518
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Timing...
by MattPie on Thu 20th Dec 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Timing..."
Member since:

I don't always agree with your views on technology and such, but on this one I whole-heartedly commend you. Trying to placate net brats is an exercise in futility.

Hear hear! To the original poster, your submitted Java 6 article may have been intensely interesting to you, but all Java 6 means to me is the IBM HMC management tools stop working when I use it. This article is much more interesting to me, and based on the comments, most other people.

As for Apple and this case, I see it as:
- Apple sues ThinkSecret to get the identities of people who have breached a contract (NDA) with Apple.
- Think Secret refuses to divulge those sources.
- Apple and ThinkSecret come to an mutually acceptable agreement.

There are no 'laws' involved per se, since this is all civil court stuff. It doesn't seem to qualify as whistle-blower status since there isn't a law being broken (or even something evil-but-legal going on). I have a tough time believing this stuff is in the public interest, since the public interest isn't necessarily something the public is interested in, but something that affects the *welfare* of the public.

Edited 2007-12-20 19:36

Reply Parent Score: 1