Maybe Apple was right to sue Think Secret?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
According to this report, Nick Ciarelli did sign an Apple NDA.



If that's true, I think Apple would have been right to sue him...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    But as far as I know, he's not being sued for breaking NDA, he's being sued for soliciting information from others that might break their NDA.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    That would give them cause, but if that's true I wonder why their suit essentially accused him of bribing insiders for information, instead of violating the NDA he would have signed if he'd joined the seed program.



    That would certainly have preëmpted the whole issue of journalistic practice and freedom of the press.



    I'll wait until I see confirmation of the unsourced allegation in that blog before I believe it. It doesn't quite fit.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    Well, no surprise here...

    I said it before, many times, - just for the record
  • Reply 4 of 11
    it doesnt matter what he signed. i think apple is right to sue here.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    it doesnt matter what he signed. i think apple is right to sue here.



    Of course Apple has the "right" to sue, the debate is whether Journalists should have to reveal their sources. What type of protections do they get. That's the legal battleground here.



    If Nick signed an NDA then my opinions change but without a NDA sig I believe that Apple has the right to sue but I don't expect them to come close to winning.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Of course Apple has the "right" to sue, the debate is whether Journalists should have to reveal their sources. What type of protections do they get. That's the legal battleground here.



    Yeah AFAIK it doesn't even get into revealing sources, it's about soliciting information. They have a notice on their website that they appreciate news tips, inside information, and feedback. It's an absurd lawsuit, IMO. You don't sue the press for reporting, even if it's just some kid with a website. I fully understand Apple trying to protect its secrets. But you can't sue people for publishing that information. It's a fundamental part of the way our country works.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Of course Apple has the "right" to sue, the debate is whether Journalists should have to reveal their sources. What type of protections do they get. That's the legal battleground here.



    If Nick signed an NDA then my opinions change but without a NDA sig I believe that Apple has the right to sue but I don't expect them to come close to winning.




    no i meant: apple has a case and they should win.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    I'll wait until I see confirmation of the unsourced allegation in that blog before I believe it. It doesn't quite fit.



    I totally agree, Nick would have to be pretty stupid to give Apple that kind of ammunition.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Yeah AFAIK it doesn't even get into revealing sources, it's about soliciting information. They have a notice on their website that they appreciate news tips, inside information, and feedback. It's an absurd lawsuit, IMO. You don't sue the press for reporting, even if it's just some kid with a website. I fully understand Apple trying to protect its secrets. But you can't sue people for publishing that information. It's a fundamental part of the way our country works.



    Try using that argument the next time you publish something pertinent to national security and see how it holds up The world works however is most profitable to the people making decisions at the time.



    The law currently protects IP and companies have a right to protect it. Knowingly facilitating a crime just makes you an accessory not an innocent.
  • Reply 10 of 11
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    Try using that argument the next time you publish something pertinent to national security and see how it holds up The world works however is most profitable to the people making decisions at the time.



    Well the Pentagon Papers got published, didn't they? And Judith Miller is currently not in prison, despite the government's attempt to put her there for not revealing her source for the identity of a CIA agent.



    I'm just really surprised that anyone would take Apple's side on this, both because we're all rumor mongers here, but also because of the larger issue of freedom of the press.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I'm just really surprised that anyone would take Apple's side on this, both because we're all rumor mongers here, but also because of the larger issue of freedom of the press.



    Agreed. It's not ThinkSecret's fault that internal employees broke their NDAs and spilled the beans on unannounced products. ThinkSecret did nothing illegal in obtaining this information and they should have a right to print it. It's Apple's fault they can't stop the leaks on their employees. They shouldn't be trying to obstruct freedom of speech because of their leaks.
Sign In or Register to comment.