Nicholas Ciarelli is an excellent journalist. Too bad. The poor kid’s liable to be bankrupt before he’s old enough to buy beer. All because he’s very good at what he does; and because he does it on the Net.
Boston Globe: Teen reporter pays price for Apple coverage
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I don’t think he will go bankrupt. He was only sued to reveal his source so he only has to pay the legal fees (though they are probably mounting).
Second, shame on Apple. The legal point is debatable but morally this is just plaain wrong IMHO.
Third, IANAL but why can’t he just ‘plead the fifh’, after all if his source has signed an NDA he would be an accomplice, right ? People can’t be forced to give testimony that would implicate themselves.
“Think Secret is also caught up in an Apple lawsuit against the actual leakers. Apple is trying to subpoena the site’s e-mail provider, in an effort to identify them. Apple’s on firmer ground here, because contrary to popular myth, there’s no First Amendment right of journalists to conceal the names of sources who may have broken the law. So it’s no surprise that on Friday, a California state judge approved Apple’s subpoena.”
Microsoft is awful, Apple is a disaster.
This is one of the big reasons why I don’t support Apple or any of their products. this is just one of the things they do, another example is with iPod and their non support for Real for instance and their way of just keeping people out of their products.
Sure their stuff look fancy, but if an apple user complains about MSFT and their tactics, they seriously are flawed…
Way to go Apple! Kill the community of enthusiasts, albeit annoying, that feeds you.
If that is so, why did a British journalist (Martin Bashir) use that hiding-place of law when he had to testify against Micheal Jackson in court last week?
“Microsoft is awful, Apple is a disaster.
This is one of the big reasons why I don’t support Apple or any of their products. this is just one of the things they do, another example is with iPod and their non support for Real for instance and their way of just keeping people out of their products.
Sure their stuff look fancy, but if an apple user complains about MSFT and their tactics, they seriously are flawed…”
Well, it’s there prerogative, isn’t it?
I’m not really sure how you can make any sort of honest comparison between Apple and Microsoft. It’s not as if they are strong-arming manufacturers to bundle iTunes or iPods, and only them, with all new PCs. Most people who actually research products before they buy them know that iPods are made to only work with iTunes. Guess what? My GameCube won’t play PS2 games either, boo-hoo for me.
Most people who actually research products before they buy them know that iPods are made to only work with iTunes.
Guess what, maybe they ought to market it as a “itunes only player” instead of mp3 player or music player or something then aye?
I’m just saying their tactics is worse than MSFT
I wrote to Apple and hope they will do something for this kid. Perhaps that if enough people write to them, they can handle things out of court now but the bad PR part is done now. Many people won’t buy their products because of this and people using their products are gonna ask themselves a few questions.
The kid has everything of the journalist except he’s doing his website for free but the facts remains, it’s the same kind of job. And many important affairs (political ones but not only) that allowed journalists to talk about it were tips sometimes given by people whom had to break the law to give them. You even have in the USA a law to protect whistle blowers (Europe is considering such a law, and the country I am in today also- as this is a good idea, break the law if it benefits the whole society by doing so and helping/saving lives).
Apple is just a company that will your ass like anyone else. And because they do cool products won’t have them be cool on court. Some people don’t like to realize that truth but their aim is to make cash. Even if this includes suing your ass off like any company you threaten the assets.
Let’s hope they do something for the kid and let’s go on.
“If that is so, why did a British journalist (Martin Bashir) use that hiding-place of law when he had to testify against Micheal Jackson in court last week?”
Well since I don’t waste a second of my time worrying about the Michael Jackson trial, you’ll have to fill me in about what you are talking about.
But, is it the same in any way to ThinkSecret trying to protect a source that willingly violated a legal contract with no underlying public interest?
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs loves his little surprises, and hates to be cheated of them. Maybe that’s why Apple in January sued Think Secret for daring to publish a variety of the company’s trade secrets over the past two years, including the Mac Mini scoop.
That apple has to be run by a very evil man
I’m not really sure how you can make any sort of honest comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
They are introducing changes in their software with the express purpose of breaking Real’s reverse engineered compatibility.
Exactly the kind of tactic Microsoft has used time and again. It’s legal, but it is still a way to put one over on the competetion.
“They are introducing changes in their software with the express purpose of breaking Real’s reverse engineered compatibility.
Exactly the kind of tactic Microsoft has used time and again. It’s legal, but it is still a way to put one over on the competetion.”
I believe this had little to with using a Real Player as a jukebox for uploading music, and a lot to do with Real reverse engineering FairPlay in order to upload Real’s DRM enabled content to an iPod without licensing the technology from Apple.
Now I understand that Apple refused to license FairPlay, but since I don’t work in Apple’s legal department, I have no idea if there are reasons beyond “they just didn’t want to.”
remember: both microsoft and apple supported software patents in eu. and so did ibm and novell and nokia and sony and sap… you name it.
marketing is the only difference here and red hat is the only major company i know who is publicly against software patents.
disclaimer: i am not using red hat’s products
explanation: because of poor package mangament system
This all sounds reasonable enough. He released trade secrets after soliciting them directly (“The site even posted a note to attendees at an Apple conference. ‘Did you hear something you weren’t supposed to . . .?’ the note read.”), and Apple is acting accordingly. Trade secrets aren’t as light an issue as most of you would seem to realise, and Apple aren’t doing anything morally wrong by protecting them.
I also love this line:
“No, Apple decided to tee off on a 19-year-old kid, hoping to make an example of him.”
This isn’t the RIAA hunting down some 14-year-old Britney Spears fan caught up in the Kazaa craze, it’s Apple hunting down a 19-year-old website owner who is both a legal adult and well aware of his actions. Don’t vilify Apple just because the perpetrator isn’t old enough to drink beer.
hello apple,
i was going to buy an ipod and the new minimac as a small server .. but not any more. that pleasure will go to a nicer vendor.
Trade secrets aren’t as light an issue as most of you would seem to realise, and Apple aren’t doing anything morally wrong by protecting them.
Please go and get deprogrammed somewhere. Corporations are not governments and making money is NOT more important than individual liberty (including freedom of speech or press, take your pick)
It’s funny to me how Apple is being vilified just for using the only legal means it has for finding out who violated a contract. It’s not like they are suing this kid for damages.
If I knew who broke into your house and stole your television, I’m sure you’d want me to tell you who it was too.
Most people who actually research products before they buy them know that iPods are made to only work with iTunes.
Guess what, maybe they ought to market it as a “itunes only player” instead of mp3 player or music player or something then aye?
I’m just saying their tactics is worse than MSFT
And you are saying bullshit.
iPods also play mp3 and aac without DRM.
You can load an iPod with a miriad of products, not just iTunes.
It is a generic mp3 player all right. I NEVER used it for ITMS songs.
I use it with iTunes, though, but that is because I like it that way.
I also used Xplay (when I was using Win), Musicmatch (when I
first bought my iPod) and an open source Java loader.
So, your point exactly?
Don’t expect any sane reasoning in this thread. People will come here just to enumerate all the evil things (real or just in their opinion)Apple has done. The same people who is blasting Apple today for having sued “a poor young enthusiastic kid journalist” would have condemned them if they had chosen some other way to know who was (is) breaching the NDA. If Apple had monitored e-mails, listened to phone conversations, or whatever, they would be up on arms the same way, saying Apple is evil, should have used some other way. They’ll do it anyway. As for those who pretend they were going to buy a Mac, and because of that they won’t, well, …
If Apple had monitored e-mails, listened to phone conversations, or whatever, they would be up on arms the same way, saying Apple is evil, should have used some other way
All of the above are illegal in Belgium and probably the rest of Europe (in the US who knows these days). So yes, it would make them evil.
This all sounds reasonable enough. He released trade secrets after soliciting them directly (“The site even posted a note to attendees at an Apple conference. ‘Did you hear something you weren’t supposed to . . .?’ the note read.”), and Apple is acting accordingly. Trade secrets aren’t as light an issue as most of you would seem to realise, and Apple aren’t doing anything morally wrong by protecting them.
It’s not about wether or not Apple should sue people that break their NDAs. It’s about who they should sue. What did the 19-year old kid do wrong? Putting a note on his site that said: “hey, mail me if you heard something interesting”?
Any journalist worth his salt will call or mail people at Apple to solicit information. Customers sometimes go to the Apple Store, and ask if “Will the powerbooks be updated any time soon?” What’s so different about putting a note on your website soliciting information?
It is the employees job to know what he can and cannot say to the public, based on the contracts he signed. It is plain unreasonable to expect a journalist to follow NDAs he didn’t sign himself, or even never seen before.
Seriously, I like Apples products, but I’m not so sure about the company itself. I hope the will be laughed out of court, and that ThinkSecret will come out victorious.
If he was living were i am living, he would be able to buy a beer at a disco, from the age of 15.
The law say 18, yet no one is paying attention to it 😉
Yet, it is a shame that he will be so in dept, thus it is not fair for him… He only stated what the rumours are telling, and i feel really really REALLY sorry for him.
“Please go and get deprogrammed somewhere. Corporations are not governments and making money is NOT more important than individual liberty (including freedom of speech or press, take your pick)”
One of the few real jobs of government is to enforce contracts.
So what you are insisting is that an NDA contract doesn’t mean anything as long as you go through a third party who can hide behind the title of journalist?
I was about to order an ishuffle and a powerbook but I’m really reconsidering my purchase if the company doesn’t stop this silly witchhunt.
I mean it’s not this guy they should go after but their employees who leak this information.
I guess I’ll be looking into debian/ubuntu (or haiku when it comes out) as my main os as I don’t won’t any of this crap, not from Microsoft, not from Apple.
I think they loose more users with these actions than with the revealings of thinksecret, in fact that has probably even boosted sales.
remember: both microsoft and apple supported software patents in eu. and so did ibm and novell and nokia and sony and sap… you name it.
marketing is the only difference here and red hat is the only major company i know who is publicly against software patents.
disclaimer: i am not using red hat’s products
explanation: because of poor package mangament system
Oh yes they all did…. except for one… you know which one?
SUN MICROSYSTEMS DIDN’T!!!! This is one of the reasons why I love them. Did Sun use this in their marketing? No they didn’t… However they should’ve…
“I mean it’s not this guy they should go after but their employees who leak this information.”
And how exactly should Apple go after people who can only be identified by this kid or his ISP’s logs?
Corporations are not governments and making money is NOT more important than individual liberty (including freedom of speech or press, take your pick)
I wasn’t aware that this was a money issue. Ciarelli hasn’t been sued yet and the matter may still be handled out of court. If you’re talking about Apple protecting potential profits – they’re a company. That’s what they do. “Freedom of speech” really isn’t a valid argument when you’re talking about information covered by an NDA.
Anonymous: you raise some valid points re: the solicitation of information. I suspect that the victims of this latest action will be the employees in question and I doubt Ciarelli’s future will be in jeopardy. However, given the wording of his note, I suspect he’s aware of the dubious situation he finds himself in when publishing information that’s potentially covered by an NDA, and we can’t pretend he’s not responsible for making the information available by his own free will.
when the next freeloader starts harping on Apple.
This kid is either pretty stupid or making some good money outta this.
So what you are insisting is that an NDA contract doesn’t mean anything as long as you go through a third party who can hide behind the title of journalist?
No, the NDA breaker is clearly in breach of contract. But should Apple be allowed to force the blogger to give up this guy? If it was just a breach of contract the answer is a clear no, which is why they are going for the more serious “trade secrets”.
I don’t see why Apple should be able to involve others in what is basically a problem between them and their employee.
And I support the right of anyone to say anything (barring amoral things like nazi-propaganda) on his/her website no matter where they heard it without having to bend over for corporations.
“Freedom of speech” really isn’t a valid argument when you’re talking about information covered by an NDA.
Yes it is. Not for the employee who has waved his right, but for the kid. Apple is effectively outlawing rumor. Heard a juicy Apple rumor from someone? Apple can now sue you to find out who told you.
Free speech is being able to speak (or being able to not speak) without fear of consequences.
“No, the NDA breaker is clearly in breach of contract. But should Apple be allowed to force the blogger to give up this guy? If it was just a breach of contract the answer is a clear no, which is why they are going for the more serious “trade secrets”.
I don’t see why Apple should be able to involve others in what is basically a problem between them and their employee.”
1.) The government’s job is to enforce contracts.
2.) Somebody entered into a contractual agreement with Apple not to reveal certain information.
3.) This person has since violated this contract by passing information to the owner of a gossip website.
4.) Apple can only sue the violator if it knows who, and only this kid has the information that can show this.
5.) Apple is suing the kid to obtain the contract violator’s identity.
I’ll leave you to connect the rest of the dots.
Free speech revolves more around the government and politics than protecting rumour-mills. It’s thanks to free speech that you can protest the current government. But, to resort to cliche, try yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theatre and see how far your “free speech” defense gets you.
Even taking the First Amendment into account, “there’s no First Amendment right of journalists to conceal the names of sources who may have broken the law”. So Apple’s actions to find Ciarelli’s sources are legally sound.
By the way, there is a difference between receiving information and proceeding to make it accessible to others. I thought the subtle difference had made itself clear during the shared-music debacle.
… About how Apple should go about finding the person who leaked it’s Trade Secrets?
I see lots of talk about what they should NOT have done, but precious few suggestions about what they SHOULD do.
They have a right to protect their secrets, and a right to find out who broke their NDA contract.
Following the leak back to it’s source sounds reasonable to me.
What to others suggest?
Actually, you are certainly allowed to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater if there really is a fire.
But since all rights require responsibility, you are legally responsible for any damage or harm caused by exercising a right. So if you yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one, you are responsible for the property damage and potential injury or death that would be caused by having the crowd rushing to the doors trying to exit.
It is a PR horror. Now I will never (never, ever) going to buy MacHW. Sorry, but trashing a smart kid just because he outsmart us is just silly.
The only thing good about Apple is their OS. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t even bother. I’ve been using their products for years, and it seems that they’ve always been a bunch of stingy bastards.
OK OK I did it. I was so xcited I almost wet my pants so I had to tell someone. Forgive me and please buy my products. I want to make another Billion dolars, PLEASE!
S. Jobs
I remember this when it first happened, the kid was told to take down the artilce. Did he know, he was warned, but he decided then to take the results of it.
Again, Apple isn’t after rumour sites, but the obtaining of trade secrets.
Remember last week, PearPC and Cherry OS. LOL all those calling for Cherry to be sued out of existance.
Anonymous wrote:
“Guess what, maybe they ought to market it as a “itunes only player” instead of mp3 player or music player or something then aye?”
The iPod IS an mp3 player. True, you can only download music from the iTunes music store, but the iPod does play generic non-copy protected mp3 files. Also, Apple isn’t the only one to limit the purchase of copy protected music to their own branded source. The makers of many other mp3 players do the same thing.
Linux doesn’t listen to it’s users and Apple tries to kill them.
I don’t blame Apple for trying to keep certain things secret. I don’t blame Apple for trying to find people in its organization who don’t maintain proper professional discretion when dealing with corporate secrets.
I do, however, blame America for becoming the kind of place where journalism is becoming more and more difficult because our legal system and political systems are no longer geared to serving and protecting the people, but corporate entities. A free press, even if it is a 19 year old man at Harvard writing a web site (a rather good one, actually) is of the utmost importance to our maintaining a system that is even remotely democratic.
Unfortunately we now live in a country where a majority of high school students believe newspapers should be fined or otherwise punished if they publish news the government does not approve of.
I feel less and less proud of my nation with every passing day.
Apple have all the right to do what they did. rumors might be good for us but bad for the company,… then the iPod shuffle price when out the first thing on ppl’s mind were it was too expensive,.. why? because they compare it to think secret’s rumored price(which is cheaper). This is one of the reason why rumor is bad for a company.
Anonymous wrote:
“Linux doesn’t listen to it’s users and Apple tries to kill them.”
What the hell does this mean?
Sorry to sound naive but what does telling people about a soon to be released product have to do with protecting trade secrets?
Freedom of the press has NOTHING to do with allowing private individuals to publish potentially damaging or inflammatory information about another without consequence. Try using that argument the next time you get fired for putting on your website how big of an a**hole your boss is. Michael Moore didn’t seem to get this point either when he cried about freedom of speech because Disney didn’t want to release his movie last year.
Freedom of the press exists to prevent a government from suppressing political dissent. That is all.
“hello apple,i was going to buy an ipod and the new minimac as a small server .. but not any more. that pleasure will go to a nicer vendor.”
Well, I’ll buy two of each to make up for your ignorance.
There has been a lot of misinformation (mostly Apple-bashing) going on around this. Apple hasn’t sued the rumors sites saying that they did something illegal. They sued them to get the names of their sources who have very likely committed illegal actions. This is the same as the reporter getting sued to reveal who in the Bush administration committed treason by revealing an undercover CIA opperative. Should journalists be allowed to keep their sources who commit illegal actions private? Well, the law says no whether you think so or not. Further, rumors sites often solicit for people to break their NDAs and illegally give them trade secrets. One could easily argue that the rumors sites are guilty of this. Sure, they don’t go around saying “give us illegal information”, but they do say things like “got dirt” or “if you have information. . .” They are most definitely soliciting for information – most of which would have to be illegal by the nature of it.
Of course, Apple isn’t making that argument (yet). Apple isn’t threatening free speech. They are going after people who did illegal things. If I know someone has committed a murder, can I decline to testify in court if I blog that I know who did it? No. Reporters don’t have an exemption from testifying against people who commit illegal acts.
Renaldo’s previous post about going after Apple’s employees, who are in breach of contract makes sense…it is a shame they have to go after that kid though…still think they could be less stingy of a company overall…don’t like their attitude, very inflexible to their customers concerns and problems until it becomes something that’ll bite them in the @$$…
So…someone who submits articles to a newspaper is a journalist? ha! Just because he was part of a student newspaper, doesn’t make him a bonafide journalist, and he does not have protection under the law. He is just a geek that started up a website, period. I can do that. — wait I have.
NDAs are NDAs, if I were a corporation, or business, or individual with patents and I was ready to come out with new products I wouldn’t was a little twit ruining my day.
Get over him, sue his hardvard undies off, let him hang out to dry!
The first thing to keep in mind is that it is not neessarily illegal to post “Trade Secrets.” It is illegal in California (and other states) to actively solicit another to release trade secrets that they do not own. Either way though there is nothing protecting a source if he broke the law in giving the information. Apple has been somewhat tolerant over the last few years with rumour sites but I think the leak of Asteroid made them decide to stop the inside leaks rather than turning the other cheek. This is less a message to DePlume and the other journalists as it is to the insiders leaking the information. The flip side is that Apple should have done an internal investigation to find the leak before issuing subpeonas to the three reporters. They might have done an investigation but there is no evidence of this and this is the main fault I can find in Apple’s actions.
The article linked to is a little sensationalist, which I suppose is why I stopped reading the Globe. Moby Dick? Surely he could have come up with a better literary reference. At one point he refers to DePlume as the little guy, the next an unstoppable juggernaught?
While is has little to do with laws and more my personal view, if it turns out that the insider was paid for information that knowingly violated his NDA I have little sympathy for him or the reporter involved. I am not sure about the others but DePlume seems to be a very bright individual, more than capable of deducing that certain information is in violation of Apples well publicized NDAs. The mini and asteroid were both projects without so much a peep until someone spilled the beans from inside Apple or a contracted company, almost certainly in violation of their NDA.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with what Apple is doing. Obviously, somebody who had signed an NDA has revealed Apple’s inner doings in a way that he or she shouldn’t have. Apple is suing to find out who inside their company, or 3rd party company, is revealing things they shouldn’t.
Somebody in this thread compared this to Microsoft, suggesting that Microsoft is bad but would never stoop to such things, however, when I worked at Microsoft, they did exactly this sort of thing on at least a couple of occasions that I can remember. So have other companies that I have worked for.
The bottom line is that whoever revealed Apple secrets to this kid was in breech of contract and should be handed over to Apple. In my opinion, people lie or break their word all to often in this life and blaming Apple for somebody else breeching their contract seems a bit silly to me.
Apple is a small player and they survive partly because of their secrecy, I think. I don’t think it is fair for Mac fans or anybody else to deride them for enforcing a contract that somebody else freely signed and then freely broke.
>The only thing good about Apple is their OS. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t even bother.
… That and their providing a fairly cheap PowerPC-based platform on which you can run Linux, BSD, OpenDarwin, etc… I mean, I’d love to have me a 24-way NUMA POWER5 RS/6000 from IBM, but I’m fairly certain I’d have to sell off one of the minor countries in my posession to afford it.
apple was planing a private army for some reason and the info got dumped on the net? should then apple be able to get hold of who did it?
this is a gray area between freedom-of-speech and the right to keep trade secrets, if there is a right like that.
just look at what israel did to the man that aired their secret nuclear weapons program? even now that he is “free” he is more or less under house arrest.
if apple cant find out who the source was from internal investigations, tough luck. they should not go talking a judge into trowing away one of the basic elements of freedom-of-speech on the grounds that the info may have hurt their bottom line.
Are you serious? There is a big difference about whistle blowing against a company and breaking an NDA for personal gain/gratification. That is the whole point about the shield laws.
If in the U.S. there was a program that threatened the welfare of the people then the reporter would be protected to some extent. If Apple were amassing an army or building macs with WMD in them for a coup d’etat then the reporter would definitely be protected because this to protect the common good.
Revealing confidential information about a future product that is not a threat to humanity is another story entirely. (Pardon the pun.)
if apple cant find out who the source was from internal investigations, tough luck. they should not go talking a judge into trowing away one of the basic elements of freedom-of-speech on the grounds that the info may have hurt their bottom line.
???? The idea that for whatever reason Apple should not use the law when it’s possible to know who broke a NDA seems ridiculous. I believe that all those who think Apple is wrong should protest because the law allows Apple to do so, not because Apple is doing so. Why dont you write to your congressmen to change the law. Who or what is wrong exactly ? Apple because it sued ? The judge because he thinks Apple is right ? The law because it is not exactly what you want ?
“if apple cant find out who the source was from internal investigations, tough luck. they should not go talking a judge into trowing away one of the basic elements of freedom-of-speech on the grounds that the info may have hurt their bottom line.”
Hello? Apple is not doing anything against Freedom of Speech. ThinkSecret is still up, Apple did not prevent Nicholos from doing his thing.
What Apple IS saying is “Go on and reveal our secrets, but you have to tell us who told you!” (Nothing about freedom of speech in there, see?)
—-
and the “private army” bit is also completely irrelevant. Building a private army is, I think, quite illegal. Therefore, anyone who informs the public about this illegal action would not have to be afraid of the law.
However, developing the MiniMac is clearly not illegal. Therefore, somebody breaking the NDA is in a completely different situation.
Apple is definitely a bonehead company by doing things like this. These are the type of people that’s at their base-core. Instead, they should stop, take a laugh and be more careful next time. If they kill this site, they will definitely loose millions, which I don’t think will be good. I personally couldn’t care less about what Steve Jobs or his mother come out with at their little deadheads gatherings, if it wasn’t for sites like these. Hence, you threaten the site, you kill the interest in the products.
Well i’ll think twice the next time before buying something Apple..
You are all vacuous in your arguments and reasoning. Plain and simple.
The gentleman is not protected by freedom of the press because he was protecting sources who broke trade secret laws. The gentleman is also not acting under the whistle blower laws (I find this the most stupendous argument). Whistle blower laws are meant to protect insiders who come out and give information to the public because the information is in the public interest. such information includes tobacco coverups, toxic waste dumping, and corporate collusion on things such a gas prices and utility prices.
Apple’s product releases are NOT in the public interest, though they may be a fascination to a group of people.
tell the truth. stop coming up with garbage responses and excuses for this man. Stop claiming that you “were going to by their stuff but now you are not” because you are so astounded that they would protect themselves.
If you truly feel as strongly as you do about corporations protecting their assets via the law, then I suggest you only shop at farmers markets and mom and pop shops. Heck… even in there you get the big name brads. might as well become a self sufficient person and live off the land then because there is NO corporation that would choose not to protect its assets in this situation.
Here are some facts about this case BTW. The man in question is not liable finically. He is not ordered to pay any damages. He got free council. He will have no legal bills.
What all you people harping “free speech” don’t quite understand is that if this loser of a kid reveals his sources, they will let him off the hook. Once they know the person or people at fault, there will be internal punishments and other people in the company will be less likely to spread information while under an NDA.
While there are other ways to find these “moles,” this kid revealing what he knows is the quickest and easiest way. The only other way I can think of is for Apple to give all of their teams a new but fake project to work on, and if info is found on the net concerning on of these projects, they will have effectively narrowed the search down.
However, the best way would be for the actual perpetrators to give themselves up.
“me”, I fully agree with you regarding CherryOS, heaven forbid somone crosses the almighty GPL, but if Apple does something not 100% supported by so called fans, there is hell to pay.
Stop it with the “Poor little 19 year old”. For cryin’ out loud, the man is an adult. I bet half of you whiners that live in the US, support Bush and he sure as hell doesn’t seem to mind sending 18+ year olds to another country to die in a war for money. So, that is a silly point, and I certainly don’t want to talk about that. I am just making a point about the age thing.
This 19 year old guy helped in what he should have known to be illegal. So, that’s it. Fork over the source.
Oh yeah, I posted this. I must be a journalist too and be outraged. Not.
Poor kid, i think Apple is being a bit to harsh on him.
http://bitsofnews.com
Apple’s rabid fans kept it alive during the dark days of the 1990’s. Now Apple has decided to screw over one of those fans precisely because he is an enthusiast. I love Apple’s products, but its corporate behavior here is disgraceful. It is no different than the RIAA Gestapo that sues little kids for downloading a song. Apple should drop this immediately, beg forgiveness for its fans, and get to work on a PowerBook G5 instead of wasting time on this nonsense.
Stop it with the “Poor little 19 year old”. For cryin’ out loud, the man is an adult. I bet half of you whiners that live in the US, support Bush and he sure as hell doesn’t seem to mind sending 18+ year olds to another country to die in a war for money
Not to mention that in some states of that medieval country (America, that is), not only they have the death penalty but they also enforce it on offenders starting by the age of 15.
I mean, yeah, a real f****n beacon of liberty.
I’m one of those Apple fans who kept going strong through the “dark days” of the mid 90’s, and believe me, I’ve never felt the urge to illegally solicit trade secrets from Apple employees.
If you’ve been to the ThinkSecret site, you’d notice how he plasters ad banners everywhere. He’s not doing this for fun or fandom, he’s doing it for money, which is even worse.
He’s malicious in his intent, is showing no remorse.
When he posts detailed specs ahead of time, Apple loses in every way imaginable, such as when the ThinkSecret prices for a new product are lower than Apple’s intended price. Also, Apple has to entice developers to attend WWDCs, and theres less motivation for that if you already know what will be announced there.
Apple has a RIGHT to protect its interests, and they’re not suing ThinkSecret for money, just names. Being that he’s get pro-bono counsel, its not costing him a dime.
Also, if Apple DIDN’T pursue this, they’d have to answer to their shareholders as for why released trade secrets went unpunished.
Oh, and I’m glad you’re around to tell Apple where to direct their product lines.
don’t say that! you’ll get the “you’re only jealous” and “we saved you from the war” comments 😉
Please go and get deprogrammed somewhere. Corporations are not governments and making money is NOT more important than individual liberty (including freedom of speech or press, take your pick)
This is a case of one person stepping on the rights of another. Making money has nothing to do with it. Freedom of speech etc.. doesn’t include taking the rights away from others. This guy went to far so now he can pay for it. For those that signed the NDA they need to be fired. What if this information were national secrets? they hang execute people for that.
This is exactly what everyone else has been doing, and what Apple should NOT have done. Is there ANY company in the world left that isn’t going after their customers with a lawyer?
is he a customer?
he was asked to take the article off his website, he refused. He acted big and matcho then, now he gets to take his medicine like a man
Agree with anonymous, from the article above one might think this is a poor naive kid but if you actually check thinksecret.com you’ll see it’s a full fledged website, with banners and everything.
So the kid knew very well what were his risks, and too bad, it didn’t turn out good.
The “The poor kid’s liable to be bankrupt before he’s old enough to buy beer” part is a cheap try to bias the reader. It’s not like Apple will destroy the kid’s life, but he knew he was playing with fire.
I would like to know if Apple sent any requests for the guy to take the site out of the web first, though. That would be fair.
How would all you morons complaining about what Apple is doing (which is entirely legal and moral) like it if YOU were the owner or stockholder of the company that had such trade secrets that can greatly affect your ability to make money leaked by someone or group of people that’s going out of their way to get the information, knowing it is illegal?
The fact of the matter is that product details of what something can do (or even close) and when it will be out, with projected prices, can do irreparable harm in the market to that company. Whether the information is 100% accurate or not (things often change right before release) at the time it was given doesn’t always matter: it creates expectations which are often false, and people will often penalize the company that’s affected if things don’t live up to their expectations based on rumor or disclosed information. People may, if they feel the information is accurate, make their decisions to buy something else without ever evaluating the product that’s coming out.
And of course, the one thing I’ve not seen mentioned thus far is what sort of advantage this gives to the competitors. By knowing details of what a company is releasing ahead of time, and the price, they can trump them in the market by adjusting their prices or (if they’re nimble enough) beating them to market with a suitably competitive product, and steal their thunder, and their earnings.
This “kid” is old enough to enter into and understand what an NDA is, and what the legal ramifications are. He has no excuse whatsoever. He’s living dangerously, and I would never hire him where there was any information available of a sensitive nature, based on his history. I expect I’m not alone in that, either. He’d be wise to never apply for a job anywhere with sensitive information (there are a lot of them) because he’d need to leave a big part of his resume blank, or lie about it. “What did you do during this time?” they ask, and he’ll have to say (honestly) “I published trade secrets covered by NDA that I solicited, knowing that it was illegal, and revealed them to everyone that wanted to visit my website!”
Now, he likely has a great future at a tabloid
Everyone wants to bash apple for going after this site. Wake up people, things like this happen all the time in the corporate world, and Apple is actually being nicer about it that a lot of companies. The law favors Apple on this, if you don’t like it, don’t blame Apple for it.
How many Apple employees do you think will be willing to break their NDAs now?
50 years of post-war [well, the second big one at least
] edumecation by the Central Intelligence Agency and we still haven’t learned our lesson.
*sigh*
When you’re spilling the beans and you don’t want to be held liable, what is your greatest asset? Say it with me:
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
It’s like American Express: don’t leave home without it.
Floji, the US Supreme Court ruled that death penalty for minors was unconstitutional. the US is hardly midevil.
Most of you are flat wrong and few are right…
This is not a David vs. Goliath even when it looks that way.
This is not a freedom of the press issue.
This has to do with NDA. If your not in product development and have not signed an NDA you just don’t understand.
Apple has to go after this kid to find the leak! If this dishonest person within Apple (or vendor for Apple) is giving this stuff out weeks before the big show, what is stopping him from giving the information to competitors months before the announcement or early in the product development.
People this is very serious stuff and Apple better get after him and others to stay competitive and profitable. If you don’t understand this, your too stupid to be talking about this topic.
wmd
I must be one of the few, but I think Apple was in the right to do this. If I spent millions on R&D in hopes of millions more for the ROI, I’d be a littled ticked off too if someone told the world about my plans. It has the potential to cost Apple money.
You people that say your never buying Apple products because of this crack me up. We both know your full of it. The products you are going to buy are out on the market now, this incident had no effect on that.
I understand OK, but I don’t think the end justifies the means.
es·pi·o·nage Audio pronunciation of “espionage” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sp–näzh, -nj)
n.
The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.
THIS PERSON WAS BREAKING THE LAW and the last time I heard someone regardless of their age breaking the law, they were punished.
IF HE’S SUCH A KID, THAN WHERE WERE IS PARENTS? Shouldn’t they be the liable ones than?
My favorite quote from the article:
“Did Microsoft chairman Bill Gates buy 51 percent of the company, and forget to tell us?”
Somehow, that says it all….
If he was “good at what he does”, then he would have understood his rights, and been aware that a potential consequence of his work would be legal action. I’m sure that this case is nothing out of the ordinary in the history of journalism, and I’m sure that better journalist would have been aware of exactly how to approach it.
When initially approached by Apple, he had a choice to either fight it out in a court, or look at the evidence and disclose the source. He chose the former, and accepted the consequences (i.e. the costs). He should have listened to legal advice on the evidence and disclosed.
After thinking this all through it all comes down to ideology…basically whether your left of center or right of center…the funny thing is Jobs is definitely left of center, so he really isn’t practicing what he preaches in this case. If Apple was not the big bad corporation here you know he’d be on the side of the kid, assuming he is consistent with his political beliefs. I have to say after bashing apple that I am a bit ticked off at them for more personal reasons so that’s why I initially jumped on them for going after the kid, thinking things through I still don’t care for Apple’s treatment of their customers, based on my personal experience, but more so I think Jobs is a “do as I say, don’t do as I do” sort of guy, and to me that the utmost least desirable trait a person could have.
While I have little sympathy for his opinion Mr. Ciarelli/DePlume is a fairly good writer. I think he also has a considered stance, just not one I agree with. He knowingly enticed people to break their NDAs, and then reported upon what information had had obtained. He knew, or should have known, that the information he obtained was a secret and that Apple had gone to some measure to keep it so. From what I have read he does not feel that it is wrong.
He may or may not be wrong on what is legal to do in pursuit of a story. That does not make him a bad journalist, merely a poorly advised one.
First Amendment is not being abridged here. He, or anyone else, can say or print what they want. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences when they skirt on the edges of what can be done legally.
From http://www.IPwatchdog.com
“information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”
So the information was leaked, tell me Apple where’s this mythical loss you suffered. Replies with empirically valid data only please.
I see this coming up more, this argument that “Well, Jobs started out making blue boxes! What a hypocrite!”
First, blue boxes aren’t comparable. Jobs & Woz were creating a way to subvert the outrageously expensive phone fees of the time. Not exactly legal, but they believed in what they were doing. This kid? Ad banner revenue. Period.
Second, blue boxes? that was 30 years ago, and he grew up.
He has stock holders to be held accountable to.
His employees need to support their families.
Besides, Apple has had a long history of defending their technology, this is nothing new. Someone was profitting by stealing Steve Jobs’ personal thunder, so political beliefs don’t enter into this.
Know why I still support them? Because of their products, thats the bottom line.
Tyr, I think it’s more about prevention than the actual leaking of future OS features. The thinking here is, if employee Joe Blow can’t be trusted with keeping future OS features/unreleased products a secret, than they definitely can’t be trusted with keeping more vital stuff a secret.
I think Apple’s completely in the right to go after this guy in an effort to find out where the leak is.
(And I’m sure Apple has an ongoing internal investigation.)
The real issue here is why doesn’t the Judiciate consider this guy a legit journalist and afford him the sort of protections (flimsy as they are) that somebody from the NYT would get?
Because, frankly, I’d say this is a classic example showing how behind the times a lot of the Judiciate (and the Law) are.
Journalism does not = paper.
I call bullocks. I took a P2-400 and installed geexbox (http://geexbox.org/) and it runs right as rain. I use it as my DVD/Divx/Xvid/Real/everything player.
You missed my point completely. I’m taking about the relationship between corporations and the general public, which in this case is represented by Jobs (the corporation) and the kid (the general public). Now Jobs personal opinions due enter into this, because it is his beliefs, norms, value system, worldviews, that actually influence the decisions he makes in regard to Apple, these views are directly tied into his political beliefs. So now we have political beliefs via Job values and norms influencing company behavior and decision making. From a broader view these beliefs and values via political orientation put one left of center, center, or right of center respectively. So when I see Jobs throwing his self proclaimed beliefs out the window, assuming that he is consistent in his beliefs, for his own personal gain, I can only assume that he is inconsistent, and that the views he expects others to follow do not apply to him. So basically his personal gain, the action he is taking, is superseding the values and norms he would claim to show in almost an identical situation that didn’t directly involve him… -> i.e. (Big Bad Company XYZ vs John Doe)
“I understand OK, but I don’t think the end justifies the means.”
This has nothing to do with the “end justifies the means”. You still don’t understand. Apple has a right to defended it self within the laws! If that means taking a college student to court to get the information legally, then do it. If Apple was doing things illegally than the judge would of tossed the case out.
Apple could of hired a number of big strong guys to force the information out of this student, than I would say the end does not justify the means.
wmd
I guess I fail to see how politics enter into this for Jobs.
He has a financial investment in seeing Apple succeed, and that means protecting trade secrets.
The idea that protecting trade secrets belongs to either “the left” or “the right” sounds kinda flame-bait-ish to me, but I’m assuming thats not you’re goal.
If there is a non-financial reason Jobs is going after ThinkSecret, I’d say its more for the “oh, and one more thing…” suprise at MacWorld Expos and WWDCs.
Personally, I know I’d hate it if someone ruined a speech like that for me.
I was wondering what YOU guys will do if some 17 year old kid was leaking information about YOUR secret product. I am sure if you suspect it will damage your product lunch you will sue, subpoena and shut down everyone you can.
All Apple is doing, and rightfully so, is to protect their products. You and I would do the same thing if we were in Apple’s shoes. Its not about hating their customers or being a dick, its all about money.
You have to understand Apple is business.
Something nobody else seems to have picked up on.
Who gets to vet this guy’s email?
If there are Apple employees/associates that mailed with non-NDA breaking pieces of information then handing over those emails is going to lead to them being treated with suspicion by Apple.
What happens if the source isn’t breaking an NDA themselves, but are passing on information they received from a 3rd party that HAS broken their NDA?
What happens to all his personal emails that have nothing to do with the case at all?
Apple might have the right to try and identify the source, but do they really have the right to scoop up all the guy’s email and go on a fishing expedition?
ah, I see what you mean in that sense. The issue I have is the means to get to this, as the other poster mentioned. The intention of protecting trade secrets, is most likely neutral to political orientation, unless of course you believe there should be no secrets or competition in business, that everything should be equal, kind of a communistic approach, very extreme I know, but no so uncommon in the views of academia. Anyway I think Jobs is being inconsistent with his approach of fighting this off, then again it’s probably the only means necessary to protect his secret. Yet I feel, based on even the characteristics of people at this board that probably are of the same political bent as Jobs, that if it were any other company defending it’s trade secrets and going after a kid to do so, the company would be viewed as the bad guy.
Don’t you just hate propaganda? Ooh bad, bad apple is suing little boy for willfully and knowingly using (ms spy) apple employee info to promote his own ego/status/gain…. Get real, 19 years old! not so long ago 19 year old “boys” fought in the vietnam war for peet’s sake. Maybe apple should just have quitely kidnapped this “boy” and threatened him with a sharp instrument, or maybe put him in michael jackson’s care until he talked… WE HAF WAYS UND MEANS OF MAKING YU TALK, HAHAHA…. Stupid propaganda.
Old saying: if you do not want to get burnt, don’t play with fire.
The real problem is that web journalism the kind practiced by “Think Secret” “Slashdot” and this very site is not considered protected by the same laws print media is.
If a newspaper had done the same things these Mac fan sites had there would never bee a question of the ability of the journalist to protect his source. The judge ruled that websites do not have this same kind of protection. It doesn’t seem to matter to this judge that many of these sites have more faithful readers than some newspapers, for him it has to be in print to be legitimate.
I think this ruling deserves some legal review and thought. When does a website gain enough legitimacy to be extended the same privileges as print media? Do all web authors and bloggers deserve protection? Where does free speech end and the rights of companies begin? Do individuals with few resources deserve more protection than large companies? Do they deserve special protection from those companies?
What you are clearly ignoring is that this guy stopped being amongst the general public when he actively solicited NDA-breaking material for personal financial gain. If it were just you or me asking, “Hey, you know anything about what Apple is doing next? Thanks, that’s neat info!” then that would be “the general public” and not nearly as likely to cause a meaningful problem. We (in this example) aren’t doing it with any intent other than satisfying our personal curiosity, as human nature tends to have us want to satisfy. This guy, however, wants trade secrets so he can broadcast to whomever wishes to know about them, with the intent on making money off of his broadcasts.
It’s irrelevant what the medium is: it’s all about the money/fame he’s seeking, and about the harm and potential harm he is doing to the victim in this case, which is Apple. The people breaking the NDA are also clearly in the wrong, and that’s what Apple is trying to fix. Considering at this point Apple is not sueing him for financial loses (perceived or actual, I don’t know how you can put a concrete value on things in a free market, because observation modifies reality) and appears to not be charging him for the legal fees (it’d be within their right to do so, considering) Apple is treating this twit with kids’ gloves on. This twit is and has been making money on the work of others without their permission and without the right to do so: this kid is a thief, as are the people who knowingly gave him information protected by an NDA they signed. That you can’t readily put an absolute value on the losses caused is irrelevant to the fact that what has been stolen has value to the original owners, as well as others, and that money has been exchanged between this twit and the NDA-signing twits, making this an exchange of stolen goods.
Now, think about that for a bit, or maybe 64 of them….
Here is the story about telltale johnny. He was told by billy that stevy was organising a surprise party for all the little trolls of globinia. what does the little snot nose wanker go and do. he goes and tells all the trolls of stevy’s plan. Poor old stevy’s surprise was ruined. Oh we love that liitle telltale so! But stevy’s hurtin and billy cannot be trusted now either. Who is that billy anyway? I think johnny would know, and since he is a telltale, well…
You made me spit soda on my keyboard
Let’s say YOU invent a carburetor that converts dirty cooking grease to fuel, and a janitor for your company (who has signed a NDA) reveals to a publication a picture or blueprints of the mechanism that makes the conversion.
It is published.
Think about that.
Are you going to argue the janitor has a right to do this?
You’re going to find the leak.
You’re going to prosecute.
Nick will be finded $1.00 US, he’ll pay for the laywer.
Nick was stupid.
Please argue with this, then everyone will know you flunked ethics.
hylas