Apple suit tests First Amendment

(continued from previous page)

its business interests and not to free speech.

"Apple does not seek to discourage communication protected by the free-speech guarantees of the United States and California constitutions," Apple said in the suit. "These constitutionally protected freedoms, however, do not extend to defendants' unlawful practice of misappropriating and disseminating trade secrets acquired through the deliberate violation of known duties of confidentiality."

Apple noted in its suit that Think Secret goes out of its way to solicit inside information, posting calls on its Web site and offering anonymous voice mail and Web forms to garner dirt on Apple's machinations.

"Think Secret openly proclaims its purpose is to misappropriate and disseminate Apple trade secrets," Apple said. "Think Secret promises accurate prerelease information--including exact specifications in many cases--for upcoming Apple hardware including PowerBooks, iMacs, iBooks and Power Macs."

But Grabowicz said that seeking dirt is what journalists do.

"They are very publicly doing what reporters do all the time," Grabowicz said.

Westman doesn't disagree with that assertion, saying the practical reason that there aren't more lawsuits against media outlets is that most companies want the publicity about their products.

"Most organizations crave the attention," Westman said. "That's the practical reason that you don't see this very often."

Whether or not Apple has a legal case, Grabowicz said that ultimately he believes it is bad publicity for Apple to be suing what, in essence, are sites run by its fans.

"It strikes me as, No. 1, picking on the little guy, and No. 2, counterproductive from a public relations front in hurting the people who buy their products," he said.

Grabowicz said he has been considering a switch from Windows PCs to Macs but may rethink it. "I don't think it's going to change my decision, but this is the kind of thing that gives me pause."

[volterwd]

freedom of speech?

*** does this have to do with freedom of speech. freedom of speech to me has nothing to do with divulging company secrets

If all Corps nice to Apple Computer, Trade secret...

If all Corps are being nice to Apple Computer, Trade secret won't
be issued at the Apple Computer. Apple Computer surely will
share all of its trade secrets with corporations and developers.
Unfortunately, as matter of fact, they ALWAYS try to sell new
innovations from Apple. If they successfully steal Apple's
secrets, Apple's product would not be in the market anywhere. I
support Apple's decision to protect its trade secret against
corporations and developers.

Cool?

[frankz00]

My Bet: Apple drops the suit

My bet is that this lawsuit is just a diversion to drive up speculation about this 'headless' PC. Apple is going to drop the suit after Steve Jobs makes his announcements. None of which will have anything to do with this non-existent 'headless' PC.

Give me a break!

What would you think of the guy who comes out of the early
showing of "Psycho" and announces to those standing in line to
see the late showing, "Hey, everybody, Janet Leigh gets killed in
the shower and Norman Bates is his own Mom. Enjoy!"

Freedom of speech? Maybe, but it's the ******* thing to do.

What ThinkSecret divulged is what everyone is waiting for
tomorrow to hear. If Apple were using slaves in third-world
countries to assemble Macs or were misappropriating corporate
funds to crack ******, that's important for us to know and even
if it meant violating some secrecy rules. Blabbing Apple's
intentions a few days early is not at all equivalent. It's just the
******* thing to do.

[Jonathan]

always err on the side of free-speech rights

That should be the goal of any court. Too bad our system is so FUBARed at this point that nothing short of the Supreme Court would actually see it that way. Justice may be blind but it also is incredibly stupid.

PR or self-defense?

The timing of the leaking of this story, in combination with musicians' claims that this particular product is nothing revolutionary, leads me to believe that the leak was intentional, to create more "buzz" just one week before the public release of the product. Jobs is a master at creating buzz.

However, if the leak really wasn't secretly authorized, Apple truly does have a serious problem. Because I do believe they ARE wizards of marketing, they must know that the negative publicity of suing the messengers, rather than attacking the leaks at their source, wouldn't be good for Apple. So I too believe that Apple will drop the suit.

What I'd be interested in seeing is whether they send another, and more effective, message to their employees by mass-firing the ones they suspect. Here, too, they may have lawsuits on their hands (firing without proof); but it would send shockwaves throughout the company as a warning that Apple takes its proprietary information seriously. The cost of those lawsuits would probably be far less than the cost of suing the bloggers; and it would probably end the leaks once and for all.