Journalism has NEVER been as idolized as it is now. News papers ALWAYS printed lies, were guilty of libel, selectively reported and prioritized stories based on their own ideology, and committed plagiarism on a day-to-day basis.
I didn't realize anything had changed with newspapers.
That's the bottom line right there. If Reuters released the sub500 mac story things would be way different.
That is sooo funny if you knew how Reuters works. Reuters is a news agency to which independent journalists turn in stories. They're renowned for publishing rumours and then recanting the story in a later report. I guess, not being a journalist, you don't know that but IME, I'd trust macosrumors more than Reuters for facts.
Nick would probably make more money selling stories to Reuters.
When we consider the collective knowledge and experience
of the hard core Apple enthusiast, including developers, engineers, administrators. advanced users and so on, this collective resource enables us to benefit from a highly educated guess. Nothing more.
So in effect what we have here is an attempt to suppress
And at any rate, people who have genuinely invested savings into on the basis of one article on a rumour site either
a) are compulsive gamblers
b) have money to burn
c) are deeply stupid and probably deserve to lose their money
Are you kidding me? The entire market is practically based on speculation and rumour - not long term but short term it;s reality. If there is a rumour about a company, depending on the strength of that rumour the stock will move. Sure it's going to go up and down no matter what, but no one needs rumour sites adding fuel to the fire.
It's seems that the only argument that Apple is in the wrong is because Apple is rich, and Nick is not. I'm sorry- that's pretty weak defence.
So if the whole market is based on rumour, how is one site (with an excellent track record on such matters) posting a rumour so terrible and irresponsible? And what about all the people who gain from buying and selling at the right time? not everyone can win. If you're investing in any stock, you have to make a judgement on the available information - and if you take rumour sites as gospel, then you're an idiot. It's a journaist's responsibility to report factually, accurately and within the bounds of the law. It's not their responsibility to look after the stock price of any corporation. The real irresponsibility is those journalists at large papers and news organisations who rewrite the rumour outside the context of a rumour site and then present it as fact.
So long as Nick has his facts correct and he hasn't broken any laws - which all the evidence suggests he hasn't, then of COURSE you should support the little guy - the situation is that Apple, while having no legal basis for their complaint (whether or not you believe they have a moral case) will be able to make Think Secret roll over because they have alot more money. Hopefully it wouldn't come to that though.
The eMac doesn't sell because it comes with a great big monitor.
I agree thats its one reason but its also slow and overpriced for the content. You have to REALLY want a Mac to pay $800 for a G4 1.25 and no monitor. Even $500 is a high. Why? Smaller is nice but if you do more than surf and e-mail its not all that impressive. IF the goal is to get people into the Mac family they need to price the last generation stuff like last generation stuff in a nice package. To me thats about $300 for the content and smaller package. I'm certainly not going to pay anywhere near $800 or even $500.
Excuse me? Writing is the act of writing something down.
From dictionary.com:
journalist
n 1: a writer for newspapers and magazines
2: someone who keeps a diary or journal
As for your other quote... why don't you take it in context so I don't have to repeat myself.
Quote:
And finally, and for the last time, upcoming products are NOT intellectual property! Given that the information given to Nick was a trade secret (which it might not be, technically), Nick would STILL not be the person culpable even if it was NOT given to him in good faith.
Mr. DePlume NEVER signed a NDA with Apple, and therefore CANNOT be held liable for the NDA being violated.
The NDA is simply a contract, facilitation of breach of contracts is not a crime.
The only violators of trade secret laws, if there were any, were the people who gave nick the information. The people who violated their NDAs to get him that information are the only ones who were under the umbrella of trade secret distributors.
Moreover, upcoming products barely even fit the definition of a trade secret, if they do at all (again, from dictionary.com):
trade secret
n.
A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.
Upcoming products is a real stretch there...
So in conclusion, Apple's stretching the law to sue this guy even though all it will do is cost him money, and possibly put him into debt.
Oh, you didn't realize the accusation can ruin lives, did you? If Nick doesn't have the money to put up a defense, he'll have to go into debt just to have his day in court, which will probably end up in the case being thrown out.
This is why we should adopt a "loser pays" system in the US, but that's another thread on another forum.
In the meantime, support the PR war against Apple for this crap, and try not to get sued.
dePlume is not a member of the press. Using both your definitions - who isn't a journalist?
er, People who don't write for newspapers and magazines and those that don't keep diaries or journals. ie. almost everyone.
You don't need to be a card carrying member of the National Union of Journalists or whatever you have in the USA to be a 'member of the press'. Dictionaries, even online ones, also tend to be fairly conservative in their definitions and that one would appear to be behind the times. It doesn't even mention TV journalism never mind online journalism.
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
If Nick in fact solicited that information, then it's up to a judge to decide if that is under the umbrella.
[/B]
There's nothing illegal in soliciting information. It goes on all the time in the press. Or do you think people give information to newspapers for free all the time and never ask or get offered money? It'd be nice for publishers at least.
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
trade secret
n.
A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.
Upcoming products is a real stretch there...
What are you talking about, upcoming products completely fall in that category.
Totally irrelevant anyway. Publishing trade secrets isn't against the law and Nick wasn't under any civil obligation to keep them a secret if he wasn't under an NDA. Nick isn't the bad guy here - it's the other guys giving him trade secrets whilst under NDA.
Those answere's are ridiculous. Apples lawsuit was a last resort after years of warnings. Nick chose to ignore those warnings, and this is what he get's for it. As mentioned, Adobe threatened to sue Appleinsider, so this cannot be unexpected.
Those answere's are ridiculous. Apples lawsuit was a last resort after years of warnings.
Well there's something we can all agree with. Apple warned him and warned him, but he knew he was within his rights so he ignored them.
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Nick chose to ignore those warnings, and this is what he get's for it. As mentioned, Adobe threatened to sue Appleinsider, so this cannot be unexpected.
Just because it works doesn't mean it's legal or right. I have a feeling that Nick has more tricks up his sleeve to get out of this.
Regardless of what you think, Apple is really losing the PR war on this one.
Edit:
This is an edit because I don't want to bump this thread up just for this, but here are some recent journalistic foul-ups. That's just what they got caught for. Kind of makes think secret look like a holy book.
Ah, but the key here is to put the smackdown now, because of not what's coming in January, but to keep hush-hush that which will be coming in May/June. And that, I must say, is going to be so big, and so unbelievable (for Apple), that even you all are going to be floored.
You don't think I forgot about this statement over a year ago, do you?? How in the world did you become the Ultimate Insider and predict the Intel Switch?
So Apple's employee breaks his contract and deplume won't disclose his name, and suddenly deplume gets sued? What if nick didn't know who it was?
Doesn't matter if he's the one disseminating protected information.
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
I hope they burn the employee who screwed up, but why sue Nick DePlume?? This is a freedom of speech issue! Just because some corporation says this information is confidential, all of a sudden talking about it becomes illegal?
Yes, if the talking is based on proprietary information obtained by breaking an NDA. No if it's just speculation. Guess which Apple claims is the case?
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead It's OK for corporations to ruin people's lives and infringe on their free speech to protect their stock price?... not to me.
Free speech rights don't give you the right to spread legally protected information.
Comments
Originally posted by slughead
Journalism has NEVER been as idolized as it is now. News papers ALWAYS printed lies, were guilty of libel, selectively reported and prioritized stories based on their own ideology, and committed plagiarism on a day-to-day basis.
I didn't realize anything had changed with newspapers.
Eric
SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE
[ANONYMITY GUARANTEED]
how is this different than seen anything you shouldn't have?
If apple was poisoning the planet and TS published the info that would be reporting but it would also violate the NDA
News is still news. What you are all arguing about is the size of the story.
Originally posted by slughead
That's the bottom line right there. If Reuters released the sub500 mac story things would be way different.
That is sooo funny if you knew how Reuters works. Reuters is a news agency to which independent journalists turn in stories. They're renowned for publishing rumours and then recanting the story in a later report. I guess, not being a journalist, you don't know that but IME, I'd trust macosrumors more than Reuters for facts.
Nick would probably make more money selling stories to Reuters.
of the hard core Apple enthusiast, including developers, engineers, administrators. advanced users and so on, this collective resource enables us to benefit from a highly educated guess. Nothing more.
So in effect what we have here is an attempt to suppress
FREEDOM OF THE GUESS
Originally posted by the cool gut
And at any rate, people who have genuinely invested savings into on the basis of one article on a rumour site either
a) are compulsive gamblers
b) have money to burn
c) are deeply stupid and probably deserve to lose their money
Are you kidding me? The entire market is practically based on speculation and rumour - not long term but short term it;s reality. If there is a rumour about a company, depending on the strength of that rumour the stock will move. Sure it's going to go up and down no matter what, but no one needs rumour sites adding fuel to the fire.
It's seems that the only argument that Apple is in the wrong is because Apple is rich, and Nick is not. I'm sorry- that's pretty weak defence.
So if the whole market is based on rumour, how is one site (with an excellent track record on such matters) posting a rumour so terrible and irresponsible? And what about all the people who gain from buying and selling at the right time? not everyone can win. If you're investing in any stock, you have to make a judgement on the available information - and if you take rumour sites as gospel, then you're an idiot. It's a journaist's responsibility to report factually, accurately and within the bounds of the law. It's not their responsibility to look after the stock price of any corporation. The real irresponsibility is those journalists at large papers and news organisations who rewrite the rumour outside the context of a rumour site and then present it as fact.
So long as Nick has his facts correct and he hasn't broken any laws - which all the evidence suggests he hasn't, then of COURSE you should support the little guy - the situation is that Apple, while having no legal basis for their complaint (whether or not you believe they have a moral case) will be able to make Think Secret roll over because they have alot more money. Hopefully it wouldn't come to that though.
The eMac doesn't sell because it comes with a great big monitor.
I agree thats its one reason but its also slow and overpriced for the content. You have to REALLY want a Mac to pay $800 for a G4 1.25 and no monitor. Even $500 is a high. Why? Smaller is nice but if you do more than surf and e-mail its not all that impressive. IF the goal is to get people into the Mac family they need to price the last generation stuff like last generation stuff in a nice package. To me thats about $300 for the content and smaller package. I'm certainly not going to pay anywhere near $800 or even $500.
Originally posted by slughead
Excuse me? Journalism is simply the act of writing something down.
Excuse me? Writing is the act of writing something down.
Mr. DePlume NEVER signed a NDA with Apple, and therefore CANNOT be held liable for the NDA being violated.
That's not what he's being sued for. He's being sued for soliciting trade secret information.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Excuse me? Writing is the act of writing something down.
From dictionary.com:
journalist
n 1: a writer for newspapers and magazines
2: someone who keeps a diary or journal
As for your other quote... why don't you take it in context so I don't have to repeat myself.
And finally, and for the last time, upcoming products are NOT intellectual property! Given that the information given to Nick was a trade secret (which it might not be, technically), Nick would STILL not be the person culpable even if it was NOT given to him in good faith.
Mr. DePlume NEVER signed a NDA with Apple, and therefore CANNOT be held liable for the NDA being violated.
The NDA is simply a contract, facilitation of breach of contracts is not a crime.
The only violators of trade secret laws, if there were any, were the people who gave nick the information. The people who violated their NDAs to get him that information are the only ones who were under the umbrella of trade secret distributors.
Moreover, upcoming products barely even fit the definition of a trade secret, if they do at all (again, from dictionary.com):
trade secret
n.
A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.
Upcoming products is a real stretch there...
So in conclusion, Apple's stretching the law to sue this guy even though all it will do is cost him money, and possibly put him into debt.
Oh, you didn't realize the accusation can ruin lives, did you? If Nick doesn't have the money to put up a defense, he'll have to go into debt just to have his day in court, which will probably end up in the case being thrown out.
This is why we should adopt a "loser pays" system in the US, but that's another thread on another forum.
In the meantime, support the PR war against Apple for this crap, and try not to get sued.
From dictionary.com:
journalist
n 1: a writer for newspapers and magazines
2: someone who keeps a diary or journal
dePlume is not a member of the press. Using both your definitions - who isn't a journalist?
The people who violated their NDAs to get him that information are the only ones who were under the umbrella of trade secret distributors.
If Nick in fact solicited that information, then it's up to a judge to decide if that is under the umbrella.
trade secret
n.
A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.
Upcoming products is a real stretch there...
What are you talking about, upcoming products completely fall in that category.
Originally posted by the cool gut
dePlume is not a member of the press. Using both your definitions - who isn't a journalist?
er, People who don't write for newspapers and magazines and those that don't keep diaries or journals. ie. almost everyone.
You don't need to be a card carrying member of the National Union of Journalists or whatever you have in the USA to be a 'member of the press'. Dictionaries, even online ones, also tend to be fairly conservative in their definitions and that one would appear to be behind the times. It doesn't even mention TV journalism never mind online journalism.
Originally posted by the cool gut
If Nick in fact solicited that information, then it's up to a judge to decide if that is under the umbrella.
[/B]
There's nothing illegal in soliciting information. It goes on all the time in the press. Or do you think people give information to newspapers for free all the time and never ask or get offered money? It'd be nice for publishers at least.
Originally posted by the cool gut
trade secret
n.
A secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.
Upcoming products is a real stretch there...
What are you talking about, upcoming products completely fall in that category.
Totally irrelevant anyway. Publishing trade secrets isn't against the law and Nick wasn't under any civil obligation to keep them a secret if he wasn't under an NDA. Nick isn't the bad guy here - it's the other guys giving him trade secrets whilst under NDA.
Bye.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Those answere's are ridiculous. Apples lawsuit was a last resort after years of warnings.
Well there's something we can all agree with. Apple warned him and warned him, but he knew he was within his rights so he ignored them.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Nick chose to ignore those warnings, and this is what he get's for it. As mentioned, Adobe threatened to sue Appleinsider, so this cannot be unexpected.
Just because it works doesn't mean it's legal or right. I have a feeling that Nick has more tricks up his sleeve to get out of this.
Regardless of what you think, Apple is really losing the PR war on this one.
Edit:
This is an edit because I don't want to bump this thread up just for this, but here are some recent journalistic foul-ups. That's just what they got caught for. Kind of makes think secret look like a holy book.
Originally posted by Louzer
Ah, but the key here is to put the smackdown now, because of not what's coming in January, but to keep hush-hush that which will be coming in May/June. And that, I must say, is going to be so big, and so unbelievable (for Apple), that even you all are going to be floored.
You don't think I forgot about this statement over a year ago, do you?? How in the world did you become the Ultimate Insider and predict the Intel Switch?
Originally posted by slughead
My sources say....
APPLE WILL RELEASE A 3GHZ G5 WITH A 6800 AND 9 GIGS OF RAM INSIDE OF A 3 INCH CUBE AND WILL SELL IT FOR $45...
I'll take a dozen, thanks...!
;^p
Originally posted by onlooker
This thread is over a year old. Why did we dig this up?
I'll still take a dozen...!
Originally posted by onlooker
This thread is over a year old. Why did we dig this up?
Look at Louzer's post (see my post a few above this one). He did everything but spell out the intel transition.
Originally posted by slughead
So Apple's employee breaks his contract and deplume won't disclose his name, and suddenly deplume gets sued? What if nick didn't know who it was?
Doesn't matter if he's the one disseminating protected information.
Originally posted by slughead
I hope they burn the employee who screwed up, but why sue Nick DePlume?? This is a freedom of speech issue! Just because some corporation says this information is confidential, all of a sudden talking about it becomes illegal?
Yes, if the talking is based on proprietary information obtained by breaking an NDA. No if it's just speculation. Guess which Apple claims is the case?
Originally posted by slughead It's OK for corporations to ruin people's lives and infringe on their free speech to protect their stock price?... not to me.
Free speech rights don't give you the right to spread legally protected information.