Who do you really have a problem with? Apple or the Court?
Apple. This is not an issue that needs to be in federal court. It needs to be handled internally. If you don't like your trade secrets publicized then protect them. It's Apple's choice to be so secretive that they create demand for information.
Quote:
That's the key difference here - reporting on lawbreaking or at the very least unethical behavior, versus reporting on trade secrets.
Slippery slope JYD. You're trying to base everything on moral relativism but Trade Secrets do contain information that the public should know for instance the tobacco/nicotine information that came to light. Many think its unethical of Apple to allow someone to purchase an older computer at full price days before the new models arrive. There's good and bad in everything. The far easier solution is to merely hold Journalists to an ethical standard which means that they do not willfully break the law in gathering their information. Note I said break the "Law" not NDA.
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Sorry, but it's clear he is conspiring with the leakers. Try again.
Sorry, but it's clear he is conspiring with the leakers. Try again.
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
The question is why should Apple's right to keep their trade secrets private trump your free speech?
I'd just like to say that this is NOT a cut and dry case, as evidenced by the fact that there are many complex issues at hand, and clearly our own team of crack(ed)-lawyers on these forums can't settle it. Debate issues, quote constitutional law, spend some time and dig up relevant case law, but let's try not to sink into "D'uh, it's SO obvious, why can't you see it my way?" (not that we're quite there yet...)
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
We do have a Lawer/Judge on the boards in OBJRA10. I myself realize that the case isn't open/shut in fact I really need to look at he filed paperwork and see exactly what points Apple is going to build their case around.
I've recently changed my focus of study from Computer Science to Integrated Studies in the hopes of having Law School as an option. As you can see a lawyer will not have diminished opportunity in the US for work if she/he is good. We are only becoming more litigious.
I love law, I watched my mother go through college and law school and practice for 15+ years now. We discuss issues all the time and in this case it's clear that there are potential precedents and ramifications that extend beyond this case. Just who shall we extend journalistic protection in the age of the internet?
Let's face it people the Constitution is a beautifully written document but it is far to contradictory and wide in scope. Thus the attempts to make it a living document are met with court battles like we have now.
I think Apple's problem is that Nick Ciarelli "is" in fact a budding member of the future of journalism. He's clean cut, goes to Harvard and is an editor for their paper. Apple will need to prove that he crossed the line of journalistic ethics to get his info.
I think it is quite well established that TS is the best rumour site out there.
Yes, but they only throw out 1-2 articles a month though.
AI puts out severeal each week, and articles like this (iPod Mini tidbits) is really good! I enjoy reading them, and would rather have 4 of these each month, than one of TS'.
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Not only is reporting news from NDA breakers civil law, but it goes without saying in the rumor world. We should be the last ones to bitch, you know how many people break NDA's every day on these websites? Like it or not but you should be supporting Nick even if you do not agree with him. You visit Thinksecret? Do you think the rumors magically appear? No... an NDA was broke. So if you think this is SOOOO wrong, you're looking at the wrong websites.
Not only is reporting news from NDA breakers civil law, but it goes without saying in the rumor world. We should be the last ones to bitch, you know how many people break NDA's every day on these websites? Like it or not but you should be supporting Nick even if you do not agree with him. You visit Thinksecret? Do you think the rumors magically appear? No... an NDA was broke. So if you think this is SOOOO wrong, you're looking at the wrong websites.
I think it's wrong, and therefor do not ever go to the ThinkSecret website. I think if some day you get burned by an employee leaking company info, as I have with a business I owned myself, you will have a change of heart.
As for reading rumors, surely you understand there is a very large difference between a) violating the law by breaking your NDA b) violating the law by willfully publishing information from a source you know to be breaking the law and c) simply reading what the law breakers have disclosed. You aren't participating in or condoning their actions, you're simply examining info that has now entered the public arena. Laws clearly state this to be no violation whatsoever.
Also, visting AppleInsider hardly equates to support for law breakers.
Reports on Appleinsider break NDA's as well. However, visiting the forums does not.
But you're respectable, since you don't visit TS. I personally have been f'd over by leaked information. But that was my fault more than anyone elses. I take full responsibility for it. Apple is an inventing company for the most part. So its understandable to have the secrecy they do on "NEW" products.
Every site that reports on one of apple's new products that is unreleased has gotten information from a broken NDA.
Every webmaster knows they are dealing wiht people on a daily basis that are breaking NDA's to release information. If these people didn't break the NDA's, then this inside information WOULD NOT EXIST. The drive for this information from readers exists for many reasons. But a lot of the drive comes from the fact that this is our only roadmap for whats coming.
Now a site like Macrumors doesn't really break them, because they just reiterate what was stated on other rumor sites.
What I said was that visitng the site doesn't mean you support law breaking, not that they haven't broken any laws.
I don't look down on people that do visit sites like ThinkSecret, I just choose not to go there myself. My situation with AI is a little different though, because I come here mostly to engage in political discussion in Political Outsider, and have also been tasked with moderating that forum.
AI offers several reasons to visit their site, rumors being one of them. Perhaps TS does as well, I honestly don't know.
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Yeah it would seem to change things drastically. I guess I just assumed that corporate law-breakers are considered criminals - bad assumption.
Apple. This is not an issue that needs to be in federal court. It needs to be handled internally. If you don't like your trade secrets publicized then protect them. It's Apple's choice to be so secretive that they create demand for information.
Apple is protecting their trade secrets. They are trying to find out who they are. Not doing it internally is an unsubstantiated statement. They likely are, and maybe haven't been that successful. That they take a legal course of action, it's not surprising. It's a way to catch a leaker. It's been done before, and will be done again.
My point of view is that all parties know the stakes. The leakers know what they are doing. ThinkSecret knows what they are doing, they only ask for anonymous inputs afterall. And Apple knows what it is it doing. The rules of the rumors game are all known.
If the leakers don't want trouble, they shouldn't break their NDAs.
If the rumors websites don't want trouble, they shouldn't publish the rumors.
If Apple doesn't want their future plans made public, they know what to do. All avenues are open to them.
All parties know that legal options are on the table. I'm not going to pin fault on doing something wrong. If Thinksecret is force to reveal its sources, or has a penalty placed on them, that should be the price it pays for its ethics.
Slippery slope JYD. You're trying to base everything on moral relativism but Trade Secrets do contain information that the public should know for instance the tobacco/nicotine information that came to light. Many think its unethical of Apple to allow someone to purchase an older computer at full price days before the new models arrive. There's good and bad in everything. The far easier solution is to merely hold Journalists to an ethical standard which means that they do not willfully break the law in gathering their information. Note I said break the "Law" not NDA.
How do trade secrets affect the public, besides potentially saving them money? Like I said earlier, the case of nicotine levels was clearly in the public interest, and was immoral/unethical (probably) and not simply a trade secret. If Plume was reporting on Apple secrets like, "spill coffee on the keyboard and it will electrocute you to death!" then I don't think Apple would have a leg to stand on.
How do trade secrets affect the public, besides potentially saving them money? Like I said earlier, the case of nicotine levels was clearly in the public interest, and was immoral/unethical (probably) and not simply a trade secret. If Plume was reporting on Apple secrets like, "spill coffee on the keyboard and it will electrocute you to death!" then I don't think Apple would have a leg to stand on.
That's because when you break your NDA to report on the cover up of information that places consumers at risk, you are covered under whistleblower laws and are therefor not subject to the terms of your NDA.
This is not the case with leaking information about upcoming new products and/or updates.
You're right, Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But that has NOTHING to do with the ThinkSecret situation.
note: I'm reinforcing your postion, not arguing it
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
The question is why should Apple's right to keep their trade secrets private trump your free speech?
A. Nixon and his thugs broke the law. The leakers and media exposed criminal acts. TS is not exposing any criminal behavior on Apple's part, or even immoral or unethical behavior.
B. You bring up a good point as to whether trade secrets should be permitted at all. In an optimal society, I'd argue that all product info would be public domain, "open source". But we are in a capitalist society and for capitalism to function, trade secrets are required. There's not much profit incentive to innovate if your competitors can just steal your ideas that took years to develop.
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
Lawyers? Who needs a lawyer to bloviate about shit he doesn't know a thing about? <checks out MSNBC, CNN, FOX> Yeah, I'm pretty sure being a lawyer has nothing to do with it - it's all about how confident you sound and how loudly you talk over your opponent. Throw in a few well-timed commercial breaks, and you win! /snark
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
Ridiculous. Apple has done nothing illegal - so there is no point linking this case to a company that is doing something illegal. If Apple was doing something illegal, this would be entirely different. But they aren't so your point is entirely moot.
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
So? That's why Nick won't go to jail when he is found guilty. You don't have to commit a criminal effence to break the law.
It's Apples job to find the leakers, and that is what they are doing. Leakers may have communicated to Nick through TS's servers, and Apple is obtaining information from those servers to try and find the leakers. It is Nick's fault for allowing that information to be traced.
This is a 1st amendment issue which takes precedent over whatever flimsy complain Apple has.
Don't get me wrong. I feel for Apple dut to their inability to plug their leaks but I'm not willing to sacrifice 1st amendment freedoms for the sake of a leaky corporation.
It's not a 1st amendmant issue. You can't publish stolen trademark information. Nick isn't uncovering illegal activity, so he has no defence to hide behind.
Comments
Originally posted by THT
That's what Apple is doing.
Who do you really have a problem with? Apple or the Court?
Apple. This is not an issue that needs to be in federal court. It needs to be handled internally. If you don't like your trade secrets publicized then protect them. It's Apple's choice to be so secretive that they create demand for information.
That's the key difference here - reporting on lawbreaking or at the very least unethical behavior, versus reporting on trade secrets.
Slippery slope JYD. You're trying to base everything on moral relativism but Trade Secrets do contain information that the public should know for instance the tobacco/nicotine information that came to light. Many think its unethical of Apple to allow someone to purchase an older computer at full price days before the new models arrive. There's good and bad in everything. The far easier solution is to merely hold Journalists to an ethical standard which means that they do not willfully break the law in gathering their information. Note I said break the "Law" not NDA.
Originally posted by Arty50
Now if Nick broke into Apple HQ himself and stole documents, I would understand your argument. As it is, the information is being passed on to him. The person who passes on the info is in the wrong, not Nick. He's just a willing reporter. And as long as he didn't commit an illegal act (ie. breaking and entering) in the process of gathering and reporting the information, then he is protected by the First Ammendment. You quoted it yourself. Thanks.
Sorry, but it's clear he is conspiring with the leakers. Try again.
Sorry, but it's clear he is conspiring with the leakers. Try again.
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
The question is why should Apple's right to keep their trade secrets private trump your free speech?
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
We do have a Lawer/Judge on the boards in OBJRA10. I myself realize that the case isn't open/shut in fact I really need to look at he filed paperwork and see exactly what points Apple is going to build their case around.
I've recently changed my focus of study from Computer Science to Integrated Studies in the hopes of having Law School as an option. As you can see a lawyer will not have diminished opportunity in the US for work if she/he is good. We are only becoming more litigious.
I love law, I watched my mother go through college and law school and practice for 15+ years now. We discuss issues all the time and in this case it's clear that there are potential precedents and ramifications that extend beyond this case. Just who shall we extend journalistic protection in the age of the internet?
Let's face it people the Constitution is a beautifully written document but it is far to contradictory and wide in scope. Thus the attempts to make it a living document are met with court battles like we have now.
I think Apple's problem is that Nick Ciarelli "is" in fact a budding member of the future of journalism. He's clean cut, goes to Harvard and is an editor for their paper. Apple will need to prove that he crossed the line of journalistic ethics to get his info.
Originally posted by Anders
I think it is quite well established that TS is the best rumour site out there.
Yes, but they only throw out 1-2 articles a month though.
AI puts out severeal each week, and articles like this (iPod Mini tidbits) is really good! I enjoy reading them, and would rather have 4 of these each month, than one of TS'.
Originally posted by Arty50
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Not only is reporting news from NDA breakers civil law, but it goes without saying in the rumor world. We should be the last ones to bitch, you know how many people break NDA's every day on these websites? Like it or not but you should be supporting Nick even if you do not agree with him. You visit Thinksecret? Do you think the rumors magically appear? No... an NDA was broke. So if you think this is SOOOO wrong, you're looking at the wrong websites.
Originally posted by emig647
Not only is reporting news from NDA breakers civil law, but it goes without saying in the rumor world. We should be the last ones to bitch, you know how many people break NDA's every day on these websites? Like it or not but you should be supporting Nick even if you do not agree with him. You visit Thinksecret? Do you think the rumors magically appear? No... an NDA was broke. So if you think this is SOOOO wrong, you're looking at the wrong websites.
I think it's wrong, and therefor do not ever go to the ThinkSecret website. I think if some day you get burned by an employee leaking company info, as I have with a business I owned myself, you will have a change of heart.
As for reading rumors, surely you understand there is a very large difference between a) violating the law by breaking your NDA b) violating the law by willfully publishing information from a source you know to be breaking the law and c) simply reading what the law breakers have disclosed. You aren't participating in or condoning their actions, you're simply examining info that has now entered the public arena. Laws clearly state this to be no violation whatsoever.
Also, visting AppleInsider hardly equates to support for law breakers.
But you're respectable, since you don't visit TS. I personally have been f'd over by leaked information. But that was my fault more than anyone elses. I take full responsibility for it. Apple is an inventing company for the most part. So its understandable to have the secrecy they do on "NEW" products.
Every site that reports on one of apple's new products that is unreleased has gotten information from a broken NDA.
Hrm appleinsider doesn't break NDA's? Asteroid
Every webmaster knows they are dealing wiht people on a daily basis that are breaking NDA's to release information. If these people didn't break the NDA's, then this inside information WOULD NOT EXIST. The drive for this information from readers exists for many reasons. But a lot of the drive comes from the fact that this is our only roadmap for whats coming.
Now a site like Macrumors doesn't really break them, because they just reiterate what was stated on other rumor sites.
I don't look down on people that do visit sites like ThinkSecret, I just choose not to go there myself. My situation with AI is a little different though, because I come here mostly to engage in political discussion in Political Outsider, and have also been tasked with moderating that forum.
AI offers several reasons to visit their site, rumors being one of them. Perhaps TS does as well, I honestly don't know.
Originally posted by Arty50
Once again, breaking an NDA is not illegal in the criminal sense of the word. It violates civil law, not criminal law. This changes things drastically. It's up to Apple to figure out who broke the contract, not the courts.
Yeah it would seem to change things drastically. I guess I just assumed that corporate law-breakers are considered criminals - bad assumption.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple. This is not an issue that needs to be in federal court. It needs to be handled internally. If you don't like your trade secrets publicized then protect them. It's Apple's choice to be so secretive that they create demand for information.
Apple is protecting their trade secrets. They are trying to find out who they are. Not doing it internally is an unsubstantiated statement. They likely are, and maybe haven't been that successful. That they take a legal course of action, it's not surprising. It's a way to catch a leaker. It's been done before, and will be done again.
My point of view is that all parties know the stakes. The leakers know what they are doing. ThinkSecret knows what they are doing, they only ask for anonymous inputs afterall. And Apple knows what it is it doing. The rules of the rumors game are all known.
If the leakers don't want trouble, they shouldn't break their NDAs.
If the rumors websites don't want trouble, they shouldn't publish the rumors.
If Apple doesn't want their future plans made public, they know what to do. All avenues are open to them.
All parties know that legal options are on the table. I'm not going to pin fault on doing something wrong. If Thinksecret is force to reveal its sources, or has a penalty placed on them, that should be the price it pays for its ethics.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Slippery slope JYD. You're trying to base everything on moral relativism but Trade Secrets do contain information that the public should know for instance the tobacco/nicotine information that came to light. Many think its unethical of Apple to allow someone to purchase an older computer at full price days before the new models arrive. There's good and bad in everything. The far easier solution is to merely hold Journalists to an ethical standard which means that they do not willfully break the law in gathering their information. Note I said break the "Law" not NDA.
How do trade secrets affect the public, besides potentially saving them money? Like I said earlier, the case of nicotine levels was clearly in the public interest, and was immoral/unethical (probably) and not simply a trade secret. If Plume was reporting on Apple secrets like, "spill coffee on the keyboard and it will electrocute you to death!" then I don't think Apple would have a leg to stand on.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
How do trade secrets affect the public, besides potentially saving them money? Like I said earlier, the case of nicotine levels was clearly in the public interest, and was immoral/unethical (probably) and not simply a trade secret. If Plume was reporting on Apple secrets like, "spill coffee on the keyboard and it will electrocute you to death!" then I don't think Apple would have a leg to stand on.
That's because when you break your NDA to report on the cover up of information that places consumers at risk, you are covered under whistleblower laws and are therefor not subject to the terms of your NDA.
This is not the case with leaking information about upcoming new products and/or updates.
You're right, Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But that has NOTHING to do with the ThinkSecret situation.
note: I'm reinforcing your postion, not arguing it
Originally posted by hmurchison
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
The question is why should Apple's right to keep their trade secrets private trump your free speech?
A. Nixon and his thugs broke the law. The leakers and media exposed criminal acts. TS is not exposing any criminal behavior on Apple's part, or even immoral or unethical behavior.
B. You bring up a good point as to whether trade secrets should be permitted at all. In an optimal society, I'd argue that all product info would be public domain, "open source". But we are in a capitalist society and for capitalism to function, trade secrets are required. There's not much profit incentive to innovate if your competitors can just steal your ideas that took years to develop.
Originally posted by concentricity
I enjoy seeing the different views on this issue, and if I have the time I'll chime in with mine. Oh yeah, are any of you guys actually lawyers? Just curious...
Lawyers? Who needs a lawyer to bloviate about shit he doesn't know a thing about? <checks out MSNBC, CNN, FOX> Yeah, I'm pretty sure being a lawyer has nothing to do with it - it's all about how confident you sound and how loudly you talk over your opponent. Throw in a few well-timed commercial breaks, and you win! /snark
Originally posted by hmurchison
And where does it say you can't conspire with leakers? Hell Nixon was felled because of leakers. Does anyone think that he should have been allowed to sue every journalist in a vain attempt to find out who this leaker was?
Ridiculous. Apple has done nothing illegal - so there is no point linking this case to a company that is doing something illegal. If Apple was doing something illegal, this would be entirely different. But they aren't so your point is entirely moot.
So? That's why Nick won't go to jail when he is found guilty. You don't have to commit a criminal effence to break the law.
It's Apples job to find the leakers, and that is what they are doing. Leakers may have communicated to Nick through TS's servers, and Apple is obtaining information from those servers to try and find the leakers. It is Nick's fault for allowing that information to be traced.
This is a 1st amendment issue which takes precedent over whatever flimsy complain Apple has.
Don't get me wrong. I feel for Apple dut to their inability to plug their leaks but I'm not willing to sacrifice 1st amendment freedoms for the sake of a leaky corporation.