Think Secret -- Possible Scenarios
For those of us who have been lucky enough to make a career out of writing about this wacky world of technology, we know (generally) what the limits are and how far we can go before a company will find fault in what we did or come at us for something we wrote.
Most times, those boundaries will be crossed when a writer makes intentionally loaded remarks about the company or she leaks material that shouldn't have been leaked, thus creating an issue where "trade secrets" are made available to the public at large. And while neither may seem too egregious, the latter has sent Think Secret -- a popular Apple rumors site -- into oblivion.
In case you haven't been following the case, Apple sued Think Secret and its owner Nick Ciarelli in 2005 for posting Apple trade secrets on the website. In a statement to CNET back in 2005, Apple said that the company's "DNA is innovation, and the protection of our trade secrets is crucial to our success."
"Apple has filed a civil complaint against the owner of ThinkSecret.com and unnamed individuals who we believe stole Apple's trade secrets," Apple said in its statement. "We believe that Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet."
Amazingly, after two years of legal jockeying between the organizations, Ciarelli has announced that he will close shop due to a settlement reached between the companies.
"I'm pleased to have reached this amicable settlement," Ciarelli said in a statement. "And will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits."
And while this creates a dangerous precedent for all future Mac rumor sites, what really happened here? Obviously both companies have very little to say about the matter and neither will divulge the true terms of the settlement, so we're all left guessing. But if you ask me, it could have gone down in two ways.
Scenario 1: The Almighty Dollar
In the statement on Think Secret, the site's publisher claims an "amicable settlement" was reached that's a "positive solution" for both sides. Later on, Ciarelli told Engadget via email that he was "very satisfied with the settlement."
And while none of these statements are the smoking gun we're looking for, what would really make Ciarelli happy? Simply put, we just don't know.
But if you ask me, it could have gone something like this: Apple's high-powered lawyers called up Ciarelli asking for his sources. After refusing through his lawyers, the company had to make a decision. Should it go to court just to stop leaks that date back two years or should it find a way to make this guy go away? After about 5 seconds of deliberation, they probably called Ciarelli up and said, "Look, here's the deal. We'll pay you this sum of cash as long as you agree to shut your site down so we won't have to worry about leaks anymore."
The company has tons of cash in the bank, a portion of which surely must have been tempting. After all, the benefits would be two-fold -- he could save his sources by not divulging their names and he could walk away with some cash. And let's face it, if he didn't accept the offer, Apple would have surely mobilized their lawyers and made his life miserable.
Scenario 2: Fear
Of course, there is one other scenario here. Instead of using money as a bargaining chip, what if Apple used its power to scare Ciarelli into an agreement? Once again, we have no idea how it happened, but what if something like this went down?
Apple and its lawyers are discussing how to handle this situation and how to make sure it never happens again. The company has no intention of sending this guy some cash and regardless of whether or not its case is tenuous, it knows that it has the best lawyers at its disposal and can probably win the case through attrition more than anything else.
Armed with that knowledge, they call up Ciarelli and ask for the sources. After saying no a bunch of times, they arm up and say, "OK, listen. We won't ask for your sources, but we want you to shut down. If you don't, we're taking you to court and you'll be forced to pay far too much for far too little."
Backed into a corner, Ciarelli has no other alternative and accepts the agreement, content that he didn't need to give up his valuable sources.
Regardless of how it went down, Think Secret's closing sets a dangerous precedent going forward. Armed with an open and shut case, Apple can go to any rumors site it wants and bully them into closing. After all, who can stop a massive company if all you're doing is relying on advertising revenue every month to pay the bills?
Let's just hope that doesn't happen.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
I'd say your #1 is more accurate. Ciarelli was on the winnnig side of the argument. He didn't sign any agreements with apple and the people he spoke with probably didn't say "these are apple trade secrets". If he was on the losing side he would have quit the case 2 years ago under a different settlement. Apple had the resources to keep the case alive but perhaps finally got the brains to ask themselves "what happens if we chase this case down to the end? If they win they crush a fan, if they lost (and they were going to lose based on Ciarelli's staying power) they lose face with the other companies like AT&T who they need to have a leg up on.
It would have been well worth Apple to never have take up the case, but once done the best outcome was a non disclosure agreement and a lot of money and/or other compensation thrown Ciarelli's way to keep a smile on his face and his lips shut.
I've noticed that trade secretes are an excuse in many things anyway. (eBay said they would not give me the email they recieved from Microsoft asking for a DCMA take down of an auction for some unused & unisntalled software I had for sale because of "trade secrets")
Apple wanted a rumor website shut down. It happened. How did it happen? We don't know, but we do know that the rumor sites writer is pleased with the "amicable settlement" they arrived at. So, does that mean that other rumor sites will reach a pleasing and amicable settlement with Apple? There certainly seems to be an incentive to do so. Whats going to stop rumor sites writers from cashing in on this by selling out? How much is Apple willing to invest to quiet the key players?
Seriously though, Apple is far worse than MS ever was.
And to Mr Reisinger, you twice mention "dangerous precedents". What would those be?
"Apple can go to any rumors site it wants and bully them into closing." Apple has done that in the past, long before this case and will undoubtedly do so in the future. This case hasn't closed the loop on that issue.
--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com
Ah yes, the quintessential Windows fanboy fantasy. Give us a break will you. This case was not about "news", first amendment rights or anything else. The guy was offering STOLEN property to the public. If it had been an automobile he'd already be in jail. Possession of stolen property (in this case corporate trade secrets) is a crime in most states.
Dangerous precedent? Only in your self-important "journalist" mind.
The NY Times and the Toronto Star published "reviews" of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a couple of days before the trade embargo was lifted. They claimed it was a privilege of the media and that as journalists they were allowed to protect the identity of their "sources". At a time when even the "dirty" U.K. tabloids shut their mouths out of respect for their readers (a large part of whom are Potter fans as well), the Times chose cheap publicity over character and restraint. On receiving a large number of written complaints about this from readers, the Times posted a generic and rather RUDE answer. Something that basically said, "Screw You".
The "Rowling conglomerate" didn't pursue this much further as publication was a few days away, suing would mean confirming the Times' "revelations" held some truth, and the fact that readers would still buy the book.
Of course, the "conglomerate" had previously gone after individuals who had accidentally been sold copies before the embargo was lifted. They had even obtained a "John/Jane Doe" injunction against "revelations/spoilers". Honestly, if it weren't for the fact that they were dealing with the Times, they'd have sued the **** out of someone.
How did this not involve revealing "trade secrets"?
For the same features and specifications MacBooks are $800-$1000 more expensive than PCs. My $3500 MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM, 200GB HD, and 2.6GHz Core 2 Due is great. I'm very happy with it. But it is overpriced. My wife's Lenovo ThinkPad T61 is just as good but is much cheaper. So be it.
Just because Apple can do something doesn't mean that it should. Maybe they should figure out how to plug their own leaks before going after a fanboy. Jobs ought to be happy that people are so interested in what Apple has in the pipeline. It sets a bad precedent and actually is rewarding the behavior they allegedly want to stop.
That's exactly what Apple was doing - going after leaks. As to "fanboy", someone who sells ads on their web site, has millions of hits per month and makes thousands of dollars per month from the information people sent him is hardly a fanboy. At the very least, Nick was a business man.
"It sets a bad precedent..."
I keep seeing people say that - where's the precedent? What precedent is being set?
"and actually is rewarding the behavior they allegedly want to stop." How is Apple rewarding bad behaviors by suing/shutting down web sites?
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com
-
by mcooper13
December 21, 2007 3:08 AM PST
- You don't think handing over a bunch of cash (a likely scenario according to this column) is rewarding the bad behavior they want to stop?
-
Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)Sounds like a get rich quick scheme: set up a web site to **** off Apple and get them to take you down with a major cash incentive.
Think Secret only published leaks given to it - most likely by Apple employees.. Apple needs to go after these internal leaks or it will have many more Think Secrets to deal with.