digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at thinksecret.com

In settlement with Apple, Think Secret shuts down

thinksecret.com — Press Release from Think Secret.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • madcran, on 12/20/2007, -18/+207I really hope Nick gets far in his journalism career. GOOD LUCK NICK!!!!!!
    • Ireland, on 12/20/2007, -89/+10Go wank into a damp cloth child. Hearing that makes me want to vomit!
      • yutt, on 12/20/2007, -5/+69What the *****...
      • lazyeyesam, on 12/20/2007, -1/+29What the hell's a cloth child?
        • mrsteveman1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+13It's what happens when you fail to learn how to use the comma
          • Ryosen, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11Stay in school, kids.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2That would have been downright awful without a comma.
      • 16x9, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7I see Damp Cloth Children... I think I'll wank on them.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Why damp?
    • node3, on 12/20/2007, -3/+11While this whole ordeal was rather unpleasant, it does sound like Nick "dePlume" Ciarelli was paid, at least, as part of the settlement ("amicable settlement" and "positive solution for both sides").
      • parbjohal, on 12/20/2007, -1/+19maybe - to me it sounds like Apple we're trying to force him to reveal his contacts etc - he refused - they probably said they would sue, he can't afford that - Apple give him the option to shut up shop and they will not bankrupt him...

        Amicable because Apple get to cut off a source of leaks - and ThinkSecret get to go quietly into the night...
        • senatorpjt, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Is he forbidden from writing articles now? If not, can't he just get another domain name and keep doing what he was before?
          • badtzmartin, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Probably not. I suspect Apple settled with conditions that he not setup a similar site.
        • fkr3, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Sometimes not being sued into bankruptcy is just as good as being paid.
        • node3, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Don't forget, "positive solution for both sides".

          Staying where you are (dropping the case, but no compensation) does not sound "positive". In fact, in the end, that would be a negative, since he's not even staying where he was at, but is now down a very popular website, esteem from the community, and (presumably) significant ad revenue.

          Not to mention a formerly steady stream of juicy secret Apple tidbits.

          While the settlement terms are confidential, I'm highly confident he was paid. His case was too strong for his lawyers to just give up without demanding payment, and the issue was too important to Apple for them to balk at paying.

          One thing to keep in mind here is that Apple wasn't fighting against a news site for being a news site. What they were fighting against was leaks from within their own company. The unfortunate thing was they decided to use going after a news site as a way to stop the leaks. That was a big mistake (IMO). But my point being is that if they can buy him off, they would (or at least, they should) since their goal wasn't to harm him, but stop the leaks.

          And, while I deplore this specific tactic of suing a blogger, I can sympathize with Apple's dilemma. Leaks were, literally, sinking the company. It got to a point where "One More Thing" was already old news before the keynote even started. You could even hear the audience laugh/cheer ahead of cue, like watching a movie with someone who's already seen it.

          Now, leaks are *very* sparse. Presently, there's just this tablet/sub-notebook/thin MacBook-thingy that no one is sure is even ready, and those rumors aren't so much from leaks as from job postings and public sightings of actual prototypes, and iTunes movie rentals which are in strings from the iTunes app. You can be certain that there are numerous people who've known about these two products for many months, probably close to a year, and *none* of these people have spilt the beans.
          • farther, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1A little piece of independent internet journalism died today. Yet again corporations are ever-willing to piss on the freedoms we take for granted in our modern civilization, and we are ever-willing to let them do so. Good job. Another noble citizen has sold off his freedom of speech. Doubleplusgood crimestop doublethink.
      • GreatSunJester, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2Far more efficient from a corporate standpoint is to comfortably pay off the target and tie in strong non-disclosure agreements to the payout. You silence the person and ensure they will not talk about it. Now the only negative impact is conjecture from people who do not know any real information.
        Now for the conjecture from someone who knows no real information!

        Apple:We will pay you for 1. your domain 2.your silence on all past, current, future and potential Apple products and services and 3. the identities of your informants.
        Nick: 1 yes, 2 yeppers! 3 no.
        Apple: we will pay you more?
        Nick: no.
        Apple: OK
        Nick: OK.

        I truly hope he got enough to live on very comfortably!
    • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -23/+17What happened was an Apple Employee BROKE THE LAW by ignoring a SIGNED NDA and spilling the beans on a confidential product being developed internally at Apple. Think Secret published that information KNOWING it was under NDA and then refused to tell Apple WHO the leak was, this caused Apple to sue Think Secret. NDA's are serious business in the corporate world and are signed by persons ENTRUSTED TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.

      Think Secret effectively gave Apple the finger by not helping them to take legal action against the person(s) @ Apple breaking their NDA. What did anyone on digg expect Apple to do when Think Secret REFUSED to help? What does anyone think Microsoft would do?

      Think Secret was clearly in the wrong IMO. Nick was *playing reporter* and got totally burned. Good for him.
      • saggygrandma, on 12/20/2007, -9/+10I agree knuckles, especially with a company like Apple that relies on its innovations to keep ahead of the competition.
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -11/+58Uh, contracts are not LAWS. Companies don't get to make LAWS. What an Apple Employee broke was one term of a CONTRACT. Apple is not the GOVERNMENT. You are not a citizen of United Nations of STEVE. Stop SHOUTING *****.
        • cawpin, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6I hope you continue to be dugg up because your's is the only comment that is accurate.

          I'm sure the "settlement" said something along the lines of Nick will no longer publish Think Secret. Since another website doesn't exist yet, they can't tell him not to publish there.
        • blackmage439, on 12/20/2007, -5/+10Uh, think again. Whoever is digging you up has less of a clue than you do. Contracts are legally binding documents, if written correctly (which I'm sure Apple has that taken care of). Divulging corporate secrets, and knowingly passing on those secrets, is punishable by law.

          FAIL.
          • sholt, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Well, yes... but common law. And it's tried in a civil court, not a criminal one.

            No one would go to jail for this. But the source would likely be fired, any benefits immediately terminated, and good luck getting a recommendation or passing anything more substantial than a cursory background check.

            Of course, IANAL.
          • williamdyer, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4Unless I signed a contract I'm not bound by it. Apple can take their NDAs and ***** themselves with them.
          • andburn1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2@williamdyer
            You fool, it's part of the legal contract that is one's employment at Apple. However, it is a primary ethical principle of any journalist to protect his or her sources. I highly doubt Apple expected Think Secret to cooperate in that way. I doubt they pursued it.
          • farther, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Freedom of the press > corporate security. What about whistleblowers? If a corporation is up to no good, and an employee has signed an NDA even though the acts of the corporation covered by the NDA are illegal, is the employee required to stick to the NDA? One cannot sign a contract to commit or ignore a crime. Of course, this is not the case here, but this continues a chain of dangerous precedents that threaten the stability of the rule of law and the constitution, all in favour of the false rights of corporations.
        • TTURabble, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11If I remember from my law class, you cannot be forced to follow the contract if you do not want to. You will have to pay for the breach of contract, but they cannot "force" you to do anything you don't want to do. The way I see it, Think Secret has no obligation to divulge their source because they were never under an agreement with Apple, they can throw as much legal clout as they want but a good lawyer should be able to say "stfu apple, your employees, your problems"

          What Think Secret did was give up, plain and simple.
          • sholt, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5To be fair; I would too, when confronted with Apple Legal's budget.
          • andburn1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Yeah... that's ridiculous. To call the settlement "plain and simple" defeat is an indefensible simplification of the issue. We don't know anything beyond a closely guarded press release. And I don't agree that any old lawyer could win that suit. Even if they could win, Think Secret would be financially devastated. And that's assuming they'd even have a shot, which I doubt, considering, as sholt says, Apple's wealth. Either way, Apple could make Nick's life all kinds of hell if they wanted to, and I think they understand that they can't force him to divulge his sources, effectively destroying his journalistic integrity and credibility. This seems like a fairly happy resolution, though, as I said, we don't know the facts.
      • chicagodigger, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Ahhh, you make sense and then you lose it by going off on a rant and RANDOMLY YELLING.
        No digg for you.
        • saisumimen, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Hey, no need to make fun of Jerry Lewis.
      • andburn1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I love the seemingly arbitrary capitalization. You aren't giving a rousing speech, ok, no need to get so impassioned.
    • Drizzit, on 12/20/2007, -4/+13It's sad though. This sets a precedent for corporations to squelch press they do not agree with. I wish the guy had the balls to enforce freedom of the press. Apple is happy to play the rumor game all the time. They should of had to show damages which I doubt were none.
      • barnett25, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Balls does not = Money
      • tba2287, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Well, doesn't this fall under Apple's right to protect trade secrets? Doesn't an unfinished product fall under this category?
      • vagarach, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Squelch press? This site does not qualify as press. They were reporting on rumours (which serve the public in no way whatsoever) about the products of a single company. Apple can do whatever they want with their marketing and their product line, and it was not a case of Apple not agreeing with their views, the problem was that their views were often CORRECT, when Apple makes great use of the secrecy surrounding each new release.
        • farther, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Any independent voice that conveys information or news is a form of the press. Update your definitions to fit with the postmodern information landscape - the Internet makes journalists out of any who wish to shed light on something in shadow, and who have the courage do do so.

          ThinkSecret sold their courage for comfort.
    • rebrad, on 12/20/2007, -6/+21Think Different, that is as long as it's Approved Thinking.
      Heil Jobs!
    • I010011010, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Why?

      He rolled over and let Apple bully him into shutting down. That's not a strong characteristic of a journalist.
      • gharding, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Lawyers are expensive. Ever had to afford a lawyer on a college kid budget? I'd roll over, too, to save myself from going bankrupt.
        • farther, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, corporations are all too willing to abuse their ability to acquire the services of the best lawyers by attacking those who cannot afford equal representation.
  • Ireland, on 12/20/2007, -73/+23Think Secret? More like... think how consistently inaccurate we were, really.
    • normalkid, on 12/20/2007, -6/+93ThinkSecret got sued because they were mostly right (at the time). Apple's not suing inaccurate sites for "disseminating trade secrets".
  • lukelucas, on 12/20/2007, -42/+17wow. i realize that, for the most part, they were wrong. about everything. but still... this just seems harsh.

    r.i.p.
    • BrianPower, on 12/20/2007, -15/+6Harsh?

      If "for the most part" they were wrong, then all they did was waste peoples time as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing harsh about what I said, it was a rumor website that was consistently inaccurate, "at least" 90% of the time - it's not your grandmother we're talking about here.
      • Ireland, on 12/20/2007, -12/+2I said it Brian, not you :P
      • BrianPower, on 12/20/2007, -11/+3Lol, my bad Ireland ;)

        You were right though. TS were "always" wrong.
      • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -2/+9If it was so inaccurate why did they get sued? I would love for other company's to think that I was developing something that I wasn't, while I actually developed something else.
        • monkeyrun, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8Actually Apple did leak some fake rumors just to see where's the leak.

          And I think Thinksecret reported on some of those.

          I would not surprised if the employee's already fired, they just need thinksecret as witness.
          • nickj6282, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Witness to what? You don't need "witnesses" to fire someone. Just tell them to leave.
    • RyeBrye, on 12/20/2007, -1/+24Clearly, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Think Secret was among the most accurate rumor sites. They were shut down precisely BECAUSE they were accurate.

      What's strange is the product they are getting shut down for leaking information on, Apple has yet to release.
      • monkeyrun, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10That so called "Asteroid" was a "bait" leaked by Apple on purpose, and frankly the code name is rather ... un-Apple like.

        http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=451
        "I was talking recently with an ex-Apple staffer who worked high up at the company for many years, often closely with CEO Steve Jobs. The programmer, who asked not to be named, was convinced the Asteroid product was invented, a figment of Jobs' imagination dreamed up to find the source of leaks — the old "canary trap." "
        • Thater, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5Did you even read the article you posted?
          "I highly doubt that Apple would go as far as to fabricate products in order to flesh out leaks. It takes far too much effort which could be better used in creating actual products. In the Asteroid case this would mean that Apple lied to the courts. In their court filings Apple claimed that they suffered loses as a result of the Asteroid leaks that were published and that they were damaged because competitors were given early notice about an unannounced product. I don't think that Apple would go to the effort of making up a product and lying to the courts, it's just not in their best interest."
          • redxxx, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2I love that you are getting dug down. That's great.
      • CraigJ, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Yoda?
  • jmonkey, on 12/20/2007, -39/+6@ Ireland

    Good one.
    • Ireland, on 12/20/2007, -25/+2Thank you for your "accurate" response :P
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1For a guy commenting about jerking off, the two of you appear to be doing a pretty good job at it with each other.
    • JudgeMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Wow, crap! What sorcery is this!? Somehow, Ireland wished to say something about jmonkey (BTW, WTF, you and I gotta have a chat! jk) and his comment appeared under, as if somehow attached, to jmonkey's post!

      He didn't even need to indicate that it was directed at jmonkey.
  • davymac, on 12/20/2007, -21/+16damn, that sucks
    • Dolomite, on 12/20/2007, -7/+1yeah, ad he is a pussy for doing so.
  • WiLLGT09, on 12/20/2007, -14/+67R.I.P. ThinkSecret! This was the first mac rumours site I stumbled across early in my Mac-owning life.
  • geezshock, on 12/20/2007, -7/+22ahh the good ol' days.
  • vacuum2440, on 12/20/2007, -33/+11well they could always try doing ThinkSecret Microsoft edition, I'm sure they would have lots of visitors....NOT!
    • rgov, on 12/20/2007, -8/+13Apple would just sue him again; it'd be the same content.
      • richardhenry, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13But with a five year time delay?
    • Gndoab, on 12/20/2007, -12/+6Oooooh a Borat comment. I see what you did there.

      you meant to insinuate that nobody cares about Microsoft products like people do about Apple products. Bravo, nobody has ever done that before. Ever.
      • Thater, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11Borat? if anything it's a Wayne's World comment. But I agree, it was a lame joke.
  • pak314, on 12/20/2007, -16/+39When will Apple sue all the market analysts who seem to leak all the product plans from Apple's suppliers?
    • monkeyrun, on 12/20/2007, -2/+11Most of those "leaks" are actually incorrect.

      And I vaguely remember that few years ago ATI got Steved because they leaked something before Apple's announcement.
      • pak314, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1What about the leaks that are correct?
    • solistus, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6They have, in fact, sued or discontinued partnerships with companies that leaked what they considered sensitive information about upcoming Apple releases.
  • TheTSArt, on 12/20/2007, -22/+277I love Apple, but this just seems wrong to me.
    • oepapel, on 12/20/2007, -16/+95It seems wrong because it is wrong.

      Apple stomped an independent website into the dust with a horde of lawyers. They did it because Apple didn't like what they were doing. If any other company had done this, there would be screaming from the rafters.

      Steve has lost my respect forever. He used to be about fighting the man and big business (i.e. IBM). He has become what he despised. Karma is a bitch.
      • ajwinder, on 12/20/2007, -3/+15Um, a lot of people were upset with this, mac users included. I'll live in a world without macs, I'd rather not live in a country without free speech or freedom of the press.
        • Lyph5, on 12/20/2007, -9/+2I don't mind, ThinkSecret's 'stories' were just blind guesses most of the time.
        • Elranzer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2"He used to be about fighting the man and big business (i.e. IBM)."

          You mean like how he partnered with IBM for the PowerPC processor?
          • consonance, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1IBM is big business, but since they're heavily involved in open source and Linux they might be considered benevolent.
      • daines88, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3That's how life works. People start out fighting for what the believe in, but they always end up turning into what they hate.
      • tba2287, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0Honestly, I don't think it's the end of the world for Apple if someone leaks word of the nature of a future product. Pictures of the current generation Nano were leaked weeks before the product was formally revealed and it didn't stop the current generation from being a success.
        Bad move on Apple's part.
    • MrTito, on 12/20/2007, -10/+3Meanwhile, in other news, Steve Jobs was spotted driving a truck full of money to Nick Ciarelli's door. Sources for both sides can neither confirm nor deny this development based on the agreement reached to settle the lawsuit.
    • m00n1, on 12/20/2007, -7/+21It is wrong. There's another story on digg about Apple becoming Microsoft. In some ways, Apple is way worse than Microsoft. Microsoft has this reputation as a ferocious legal beast. Every time I hear that meme I ask people to name one example. I've yet to get a good answer.

      Microsoft is extremely open, and encourages a conversation, and accepts that means people will say bad things. Apple is secretive, defensive and reclusive.

      Sure, apple might kick butt in the products, but when it comes to business practice, I would choose the modern Microsoft over Apple any day.
    • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -23/+7What happened was an Apple Employee BROKE THE LAW by ignoring a SIGNED NDA and spilling the beans on a confidential product being developed internally at Apple. Think Secret published that information KNOWING it was under NDA and then refused to tell Apple WHO the leak was, this caused Apple to sue Think Secret. NDA's are serious business in the corporate world and are signed by persons ENTRUSTED TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.

      Think Secret effective gave Apple the finger by not helping them to take legal action against the person(s) breaking their NDA. What did anyone on digg expect Apple to do when Think Secret REFUSED to help? What does anyone think Microsoft would do?

      Think Secret was clearly in the wrong IMO. Nick was *playing reporter* and got totally burned. Good for him.
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3You again? Congratulations on mastering the use of the clipboard. I hope whoever is paying you to SHOUT ***** is very proud.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Damn, you sure seem pissed, were you in charge of keeping it a secret?
    • frostieDude, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8Violating an NDA isn't against the law. Also, Apple "shut down" Think Secret by offering them money.
    • sotopheavy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Why pay money to shut down a website when 50 more will pop up?
  • funkytaco, on 12/20/2007, -29/+12The term 'sellout' comes to mind.
    • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2Who Apple?
    • aldenhg, on 12/20/2007, -2/+30He shut down so he wouldn't have to reveal his sources - i.e keeping them employed. How, exactly, is that selling out?
    • AceTracer, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Or it could mean that he's happy he doesn't have to pay any damages himself, and is lucky to get out by the skin of his teeth.
  • paradexes, on 12/20/2007, -39/+317Well chalk one up to Apple. Great way to squelch A: Free speech and B: free publicity and hype. I can bet this comment will get negative diggs. No surprise.
    • paradexes, on 12/20/2007, -15/+10lol glad I did not actually gamble on this. I woulda lost :P, Still stand by what I said tho. Free speech gets sued out of existence (aka bribed). Big companies are going to start abusing this even more than they have been now. Apple certainly does think differently, by different I mean finding ways to keep their iToilet secret and prevent people from talking about it. Whoops. I spoke about the iToilet. Quick Apple. Give me 50k. I won't spill the beans on the iToilet.
    • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -14/+67PLEASE learn what free speech is all about before making yourself look foolish again.
      • paradexes, on 12/20/2007, -17/+6Please learn how to see the bigger picture. A settlement like this basically sets a legal precedent that other large corporations can use to pay off people who say things about their product that they do not like. They will pay off OR sue into oblivion. At some point that will also turn into legislation. So before making yourself look like an idiot look at the much larger picture of what this could potentially turn into. Hence why my comment B: is still accurate.
        • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -5/+13Doesn't matter, moron. Freespeech is about the GOVERNMENT not allowing its citizens to talk. It has absolutely nothing to do with private corporations and hteir trade secrets. (Which by the way, it not protected speech anyway.)
        • solistus, on 12/20/2007, -1/+15This suit had nothing to do with ThinkSecret merely posting things Apple did not like. They leaked private information that they could not have obtained legally. In order to protect their sources within Apple, they shut down.
        • Fabozz, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4"Freespeech is about the GOVERNMENT not allowing its citizens to talk."

          And indeed it's the GOVERNMENT that shut down ThinkSecret. Apple's ability to sue ThinkSecret didn't just appear out of nowhere; Apple was able to sue because of the government. You can say that this is a legitimate curtailment of First Amendment rights, but you can't say that the First Amendment is silent on this issue, because it's not.
        • ajwinder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Seriously? The lunatic Scientologists have been doing this for years, whenever a reporter starts digging ***** up on them, they sue them for random ass *****. Just to pile on additional charges, even if they're *****, they still do it, the intent is totally ***** that person's life up. So don't act like Apple's laid some kind of blueprint here, the most slimey of society authored the blueprint years and years ago.
        • r3zonance, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3@Fabozz

          But Apple isn't the GOVERNMENT, so it's a moot point.

          A very tenuous link you made there to it being the governments fault.
        • insllvn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Everyone digging him down, what do you think the courts are? Oh right part of the government. Who made the laws that Apple cited in their case against Think Secret? Oh right a legislature, part of the government again. It IS a free speech issue.
    • paradexes, on 12/20/2007, -11/+1@bingobongony
      Please learn how to see the bigger picture. A settlement like this basically sets a legal precedent that other large corporations can use to pay off people who say things about their product that they do not like. They will pay off OR sue into oblivion. At some point that will also turn into legislation. So before making yourself look like an idiot look at the much larger picture of what this could potentially turn into. Hence why my comment A: is still accurate.
    • superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -3/+48Free Speech != industrial espionage

      Can I "free speech" all the passwords to your bank from your house too and share those on the internet?
      • ThirdPrize, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3If it was a political story then he should have stuck to his guns. As it was only computer related then he should have squealed and kept his site. Then again no one would trust him with stories now.
      • insllvn, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Did he spy on Apple? If h did, he is guilty of espionage, but if he was given the info by a leak, or was in trouble for protecting the leak as it sounds like, then it is a matter of free speech, as well as freedom of the press.
      • paradexes, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1That is just it he did'nt spy. Someone gave him the info (he protected his sources). Spying implies he went in and got the information or was an employee himself, which it turns out he did neither. Someone (or someones) was an informant. If that was somehow made illegal, guess what, the Government and otehr Corporations can follow suit and basically keep quiet the things we should know about but don't.

        A settlement certainly helps the informants, but can be used as a precedent in future cases. It is weak but it can be used.
    • fugazied, on 12/20/2007, -4/+22How is leaking trade secrets free speech?
      • elliam, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8The right to Free Speech only means that the Government is not allowed to censor you.
        • insllvn, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Who made the laws, and who runs the courts?
        • kettlechips, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Well thanks for clearing that up. I'm looking forward to having corporations censor me in my future.
          • elliam, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1A body can only censor within it's sphere of control. The govt's sphere of control is everyone, thus the provisions for free speech.

            The problem with ThinkSecret is that it's sources inside Apple have certainly signed non disclosure agreements and are thus is breach of contract when giving up information.

            /obvious
      • photoguy416, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3I think you need to learn what a "trade secret" is. Printing that there is a new imac design or that the iPhone is true is not a trade secret. Posting the internal chip design and the manufacturing process to make it, is...
    • techlinks, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3I'm tempted to throw out my iMac and buy a different PC.

      Umm...but not really.
    • EvilAnimator, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1You don't know what the ***** you're talking about. If he had a first amendment right to disclose trade secrets, this lawsuit would have been dismissed in 2005.
    • ThreeDee912, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Neaveru Comment Statistics says this post has gotten 37 buries, and 306 diggs.
    • paradexes, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Ok what specs where leaked? Only a new product releases and sometimes guesses (as ThinkSecret was not always right). From a marketing standpoint this happens all the time depending on the industry. It is just more visible because Apple has such a strong and rabid fanbase as well as exposure. Fact is I can understand the reason Apple would want to stop this. However who the hell is competing with them at their level? Dell? HP? Gateway? Lenovo? I don't see Michael Dell going out on stage and annoucing the latest XPS Dell or the Ubuntu Dells and having the Dell reality distortion field effect. Do you?

      So the only real reason I can see Apple doing this is to quiet people who don't play by THEIR rules. Can you imagine how something like this could be extended if someone "leaked" information about things our government does? They have even more resoruces and could bring the hammer down. And in many cases do. What I am saying is that this settlement sets a precendent that will embolden corporations AND the government alike to go after citzen journalists. They can settle and under terms of a settlement (something most people don't think about) you are effectivly shut up from talking about a particular subject, or be sued into poverty which essentially achieves the same effect, as it will likley be ruled against you (if you lose the case) and then it becomes law and precedent. So this case in general is a win (corp/govt)- lose (us) no matter how you slice it.

      The only way is to muster more legal power than the plantiff (apple) And that obviously did not happen. The danger here is the legal precedents that this settlement has. Basically leaking info was the problem. That is not the authors fault. That is Apple's fault for letting the info get leaked. If they kept a tighter reign on their employees, this would not be an issue. The leakers obviously do not have the same loyalty for the products internally that Apple fanbois have outside the company.

      There are far more reaching implications than just shutting down a site. It is sad to see so many people are too shortsighted to see that.
  • UrbanOne, on 12/20/2007, -20/+70Why am I feeling like this is just wrong?
    • falese, on 12/20/2007, -11/+6probably because your hand is on a little boy. sicko.
      • Archon810, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1I lolled. Yes that's laughed out loudly loudly.
    • unloud, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1I can't answer for you, but for me at least it never seems like rumors hurt Apple, unless you count the company pride. I just hope that Nick didn't give Apple any source names in exchange for the agreement.
    • sotopheavy, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Cause it is. Apple is slowly slipping into Microsoft territory
  • vwvan, on 12/20/2007, -3/+22the replacements will be far less civil. you just can't beat that disgruntled employee feeling.
    • MacParrot, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Wasn't that a song by the Righteous Brothers?
      You lost that disgruntled employee feeeeeling!
  • cowboy77061, on 12/20/2007, -19/+208way to treat your hardcore fans Apple. :(
    • coldfusion1970, on 12/20/2007, -8/+19Apple arent doing anything to their fans.
      • pentalive, on 12/20/2007, -3/+9When I used an apple, I read think secret all the time. Apple is too doing somthing bad to their fan base, taking away interest.
    • superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -5/+8Fans are just fine. People who leak tuff they signed an NDA to protect... not so much.
    • madholepunch, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1get it? core? LOL
  • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -47/+15Apple's a joke anymore. Their computers are overpriced. The only thing they have is the ipod. They haven't developed much in years. Everything they get is stolen or bought from someone else. The fanboys are retarded. It's just a company that is focused on what is hip rather than what really works. A computer with the same computing power as others shouldn't cost more just because it's mixed with fruit.
    • tolkan, on 12/20/2007, -14/+9Apple doesn't cater to unintelligent people who can't make sentences, sorry buddy, wrong demographic.
      • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4As usual when the apple fanboy doesn't have an argument, he changes the subject to something else. For the record I'm posting this from a Mac. I have no problem with them. They're just not all they're cracked up to be.
        • MacParrot, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2OH! Well, as long as you're posting from a Mac it's OK to be able to not form a sentence...
    • xtc46, on 12/20/2007, -9/+7buying apple is buying an experience, not a computer. you get a good piece of hardware, with a good OS, with good software. It is highly controled to guarantee you will have the same good experience as the majority of apple users. They have developed a lot in year, just not the stuff you like apparently. They have done worlds of good for human-machine user interfaces, and have designed some of the most intuitive product available. And while their hardware is more expensive, their software is significantly cheaper. To build out the same "total solution" I would spend more on a MS based machine (assuming you dont use open source software since the average consumer wont) then I would on an apple.

      besides, you should be expecting to pay around 1k for a computer, and thats what you pay for an iMac. those 300 dollar emachines are crap.
      • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -5/+9Um, actually I can build a better "total solution." My post from the mac vs. hackinstosh benchmarks:

        1. 2.4 Ghz Quad Core Xeon Processors = $268.17 x 2= $536.34
        http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=XEON3220BX&c=fr&p ...
        2. 2x4 GB DDR2 Corsair 800Mhz ram= 54.99 x4= $219.96 after MIR (8 GB Ram total)
        http://shop3.outpost.com/product/4960001?site=sr:S ...
        3. ASUS DSBV-DX Dual 771 = $209.99
        Couldn’t find your price but am using it anyway. From the other person that posted this price.
        4. Radeon HD 3870 512MB GDDR4 =$219.00 (price listed at this site)
        http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/15/amd-launches-at ...
        5. Apevia X-Cruiser-BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case= $64.99
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
        6. Rosewill RX950-D-B ATX12V V2.2 950W Power Supply= $219.99 with free ram.
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
        7. Seagate Barrcuda 500 GB HD x 2= $289.98
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
        8. Toshiba SD-H903A HD DVD Burner =$199.99
        http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/05/toshiba-unveils ...
        9. Gyration GO 2.4 Cordless Mouse and Keyboard= $99.99
        http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Gyration-GO-2-4-Ser ...
        10. Leopard OS= $129.99
        11. iLife 2008= 79.99
        12. Hanns-G 19 inch 5ms widescreen LCD monitor= $159.99
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...

        $2430.20 This is with a high priced keyboard and a lcd monitor. So if you want to bitch just take about $210.00 off for taxes. If I had $2500 in hand right now I would build this than any Mac at the same price. It would easily outperform anything in the same price range as a mac. As the links don't work at this point, you can look up the stuff yourselves and find similiar prices
        • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Btw, This is the base price for the Mac pro. For these similar specs Apple charges 6500 dollars. Over half of these things have 2-5 year warranties. Go ahead and digg me down. Because we know the truth hurts. For a company who prides themselves on "thinking different." They do anything but that.
        • edicius, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1None of your links are correct, not to mention that if you built that computer, it wouldn't actually run OS X or iLife. Also, who want's to deal with 10 different companies for warranties and repairs? You are paying for more than just hardware and/or software when you buy a computer, you are paying for the research and development costs. You are also buying a service agreement. If my iMac stops working for any reason, (hard drive, RAM, motherboard, etc.) I can take it to any of the Apple stores and wait for them to fix it. I don't have to send it off and be without a computer for five weeks while they fix it.
        • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Um, actually it does in fact support OSX86 and iLife. It would benchmark higher than anything Apple makes within 4000 dollars of that price. Check the hackintosh vs mac posts. I run those along with linux and windows on my XPS. I stated that none of the links work. I copied and pasted it from somewhere else where I posted it. Almost all of it you can look up the model numbers to. You can see where the links go for the most part. Sure you can take it to the Apple store but the warranties on these things last longer. I have no idea how much time it takes but I highly doubt its 5 weeks. Apple is overpriced. That's the point. They don't have Apple stores everywhere either.
        • BOFH2, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I applaud you for building these types of machines. I only have built 2 high end PCs like these in the 100s that I have built. I stopped building for now since most people just want to take the computer out of the box and have 24x7 support. I have only received about 100 phone calls regarding my systems but tell the average user to stop downloading from e-mule and other virus laden sites and they just look at you funny. Now I just ask what they want to do with it and point them either in Dell or Apple's direction.
        • jmreid, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Cowboy86... no one is stopping you from buying what you want. Why do you feel the need to tell people no to buy what they want? It doesn't affect you in the slightest bit what they do.
        • Lou3000, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1You know, some people don't mind a few hundred extra dollars to be able to pull the computer out of the box, turn it on, have great service, and own a great looking computer. The people who build their own computers are such a narrow demographic that you are inconsequential to the computer manufacturers.

          The same argument could be made for owning a Porsche vs. a Subaru. You can modify the Subaru to be faster than the Porsche and a lot cheaper, but then again, you are still driving a Subaru.
        • edicius, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1OSX86 is not OS X. A "hackintosh" is not a Mac. You have yet to explain why you went to the trouble of posting links that do not work.I never said that Apple stores were everywhere. You are an idiot trying to make a bad point. I am done wasting my time on you.
      • StoneLox, on 12/20/2007, -1/+0windows based software is actually really cheep....its all free
    • solistus, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4Wrong decade, bud. Do a price comparison; Apple systems are highly competitive at their price points and feature sets. Find me a cheaper laptop that can do everything a Macbook Pro can do with similar specs, weight, size and battery life.
      • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3 Nobody is talking about laptops. But I'm sure I could find one with similar specs, throw a few upgrades on and make it faster and probably still cheaper. Try reading my other replies in this thread.
        • Anevilweasel, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1when is the average computer building moron going to learn that the average person isn't going to build their own computer...sorry, just fact. Most people will buy one for any number of reason from time to fear of making a mistake. WoW, you can build a computer cheaper than a mac...no *****. Comparatively purchasing a mac is competitive with purchasing from another vendor. Go build your machines...most everyone else doen't want to.
      • cowboy86, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3You had me looking so here you go:
        dell xps m1710
        many of the laptops from sager.com
        alienware area 51's
        • jmreid, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Cool, you found yourself a laptop. Feel free to purchase it.

          Sometimes a computer is more than Ghz and GB matching. Some people want a Mac for other reasons. Some people might not want to mess with installing OSX86 and dealing with no support from Dell or Apple with it. I couldn't see my mother doing that.

          You need to get over the fact that the majority of people in the world are not like digg folk. They aren't techy at all. If something works the way they want it to, they're happy to pay for it. They're not on a crusade for or against anything. This is the majority and it shows with sales from Apple. Regular people are buying Macs to use around the home and they are happy.

          I'm willing to bet that less then 1% of them would bother installing OSX86. The rest would glaze over once you started explaining it, and say... "So, I could buy a $799 hp laptop, $129 Leopard, $79 iLife, cobble them together and save a few bucks? With no support? No thanks. I don't have time for that."
      • LucasKane, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Um I'd rather get an acer aspire latop for 900$ with a 17 inch screen and better specs then a macbook pro :]
    • Twoodge, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Yep, in the UK Apple hardware vs Dell hardware works out consistently at 30-40% higher price. And though a lot of Americans seem to think disparagingly of Dell, that company is actually excellent in the UK.
  • DemsFTW, on 12/20/2007, -14/+3They'd have to pay me:
    "Dude, give me $50,000 and I'll shut the whole site down. Seriously."

    I'm sure thinksecret will make a comeback under another name.
  • Raian, on 12/20/2007, -13/+86Apple's bad PR demon is back
  • snugglebear, on 12/20/2007, -25/+18Its amazing how everyone talks about how great Apple is until this kind of ***** comes along. Then its just ignored
    • coldfusion1970, on 12/20/2007, -5/+1What does it have to do with Apple being *****, when someone is leaking company secrets that affect their core business?
    • WatchDogX, on 12/20/2007, -6/+4Why dig him down?
    • Nerys, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Thats called JOURNALISM you dingbat Coldfusion1970
    • solistus, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5Yes, the front page of Digg is really getting ignored.
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2I wish i could ignore you to death. Over 500 diggs at the time of writing you wanker.
  • creanium, on 12/20/2007, -14/+9Bummer. One of the very few reliable Apple rumor sites not full of fluff.

    It will be sorely missed ...
    • macdude20, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3You're kidding, right?
    • solistus, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Reliable? A long time ago, maybe. They're worse than AI now.
    • blackjack75, on 12/20/2007, -0/+9Did you just use reliable and rumor in the same sentence?

  • oriondr, on 12/20/2007, -11/+49Seriously, trade secrets? If he knew about it it obviously wasnt a secret anymore. You shouldn't be able to take away someone's money just because you cant keep secrets. Plug the leak, and stop whining. ***** apple.
    • techroach, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3Yeah. Apple is wrong !!
    • nusblog, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2are you sure you want to risk the wrath of apple's PR with a comment like that?
    • r3zonance, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7The fact isn't whether or not it WAS STILL a secret. The fact is that is SHOULD STILL have been a secret. Nobody other than "the proper channels" within Apple had the right to release that information.
      • dynamojoe, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Why should a news site be responsible for an agreement that it was never a party to?
        • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1It's not. Apple requested the name of the leak from Think Secret because they KNEW Think Secret had it. Apple could care less about the rumor itself, the fact is that Apple has people that work for them internally who have signed NDA's. All they wanted was the name so that they could plug the leak, but Think Secret refused to help which left Apple with no choice but to charge Think Secret with the act of willful corporate espionage.

          I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I am absolutely floored that no-one on digg understands the importance of signed NDA's.
    • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2Apple WANTED to plug the leak and kindly asked Nick to supply the name of the Apple employee (who had signed an NDA in order to KNOW that level of information) and Nick refused - taking the higher moral ground that he was a journalist. *****. Nick is a fool that printed confidential information that caused Apple harm ( this *harm* has been described in a number of sites around the web that disagree with Nick printing information he KNEW was under NDA ).
      • ThirdPrize, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2if he had grassed though no one would trust him with their stories would they.
      • polymyxin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Information under NDA or meant to be kept secret is reported all the time. Consumerist publishes internal documents and phone/mail lists, just about every media outlet publishes leaked information from the government, Black Friday mailers show up on the Internet long before they're supposed to, etc., etc. Reporters and journalists are not party to and are not bound to non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements. It's the responsibility of Apple, not reporters, to plug leaks. Of course harm is often caused by disclosure of information that a company wanted to keep under wraps, but that's the whole point, isn't it? The job of reporters and journalists isn't to repeat press releases and TV ads, it's to bring you information you wouldn't otherwise know. Nick isn't somehow not a legitimate journalist just because he's on the Apple beat.
  • ESPO, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3i absolutely love press releases following a legal battle that results in the kabosh of a rumor site. it wasn't the end result, it was the laughable wording of the statements. it was the funniest moment of my night. somebody made a point when they said the rumor-mill is what keeps the apple hype factory pumping on all cylinders. is this really a crime? hell, i dig their products myself. what a trip.
    • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1In this case it WAS a crime. Think Secret published highly sensitive information that only Apple Employees with a signed NDA had access to. It was NOT a just some silly random rumor, this was VERY specific data about a real product yet to be announced. And had Nick supplied the name of the employee WHO BROKE THE LAW then none of this ***** would have fallen on Nicks head.
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3Lies again. The ***** that would have fallen on Nicks head for caving to Apple's request for information he is not in any way obligated to give them (legally OR contracturally) would have been a lot more. In fact, what ***** has fallen on Nick's head?
      • dynamojoe, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Why should a news site be responsible for an agreement that it was never a party to? If it's your job to keep a secret, and you tell me, it's not a) my fault you told me and b) not my responsibility to keep the secret. That they didn't divulge the leaker is good on them. It's a shame it's costing Nick his site.
      • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1This story in general is a testament to how little digg users understand, or appreciate, singed NDA's. I hope you all start up a company around an idea only to have it stolen from you and leave you with nothing but worthless signed NDA's. Maybe THEN you'll understand how the corporate world works.
  • suprememilo, on 12/20/2007, -2/+43dude, I hear apple is releasing something next tuesday, but it might be the one after that, or after that.
    • seamushc, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2is it the much rumored iDildo???
      • edicius, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2No, apparently you have already released.
        • seamushc, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1I resent being called an apple product.
  • breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -8/+9Can someone explain to me what thinksecret was and why apple is in a settlement with them?
    • Raian, on 12/20/2007, -3/+27Thinksecret was a rumours site that reported on unreleased Apple products. If my memory serves me correctly... Thinksecrete reported on something called 'meteorite' which was an interface or an audio in type product that tied in to garageband.

      Apple had a fit, and demanded to know the sources stating that the author or site was not journalistic and he was not a journalist. That caused a large sensation within the journalistic community because it was precedent setting, and made Apple seem very arrogant. Apple ends up uncovering the guy running the site was merely a young man in college-- and they try to settle out of court. five years later this is the result. The whole thing is pretty bastardly.
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -13/+2can someone tell me what wikipedia is?

      breezy - why not search for yourself you retard.
      • breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,136,802 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

        It's pretty sweet, basically.
    • knuckles, on 12/20/2007, -12/+3What happened was an Apple Employee BROKE THE LAW by ignoring a SIGNED NDA and spilling the beans on a confidential product being developed internally at Apple. Think Secret published that information KNOWING it was under NDA and then refused to tell Apple WHO the leak was, this caused Apple to sue Think Secret. NDA's are serious business in the corporate world and are signed by persons ENTRUSTED TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.

      Think Secret effective gave Apple the finger by not helping them to take legal action against the person(s) breaking their NDA. What did anyone on digg expect Apple to do when Think Secret REFUSED to help? What does anyone think Microsoft would do?

      Think Secret was clearly in the wrong IMO. Nick was *playing reporter* and got totally burned. Good for him.
      • breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4Think Secret didn't sign the NDA. What they do with the information is their business and their business alone. Think Secret is also not legally obligated to refer apple to the source.

        This is just an example of a corporation attacking its customer base. The case would have never held up in court because think secret did not break any laws. Thus, think secret and apple settled out of court, and not in court... the case had no legal merit to begin with.

        Nick didn't get burned, he probably got a huge settlement... but we'll never know because it was settled out of court probably complete with an NDA.....
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Third time you've posted the same thing over again. You need to get a new job.
      • polymyxin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Nick isn't somehow an illegitimate reporter just because he's on the Apple beat. Consumer tech reporting is a legitimate field. Under your standard, every reporter who receives a leaked piece of information, all the way from an advance copy of a Black Friday ad to the Pentagon Papers, should turn in their source to the wronged company or agency. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

        Nick wasn't "playing reporter," he was a reporter. He cultivated inside sources, wrote stories about upcoming developments from Apple, and created a fairly widely-read publication covering Apple. Clearly you don't like his choice of subject, but that doesn't magically mean he wasn't doing any reporting.
  • manicallday, on 12/20/2007, -7/+18"In a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published. Nick Ciarelli."

    This is what people consider positive? I don't see the positive for both sides. I see one loser and one winner. Maybe he got a sack of cash or something. Otherwise, the right to produce a website is not a positive.
    • mediaphile, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3I guess it's better than having to pay Apple. I hope he did get some cash at least.
      • techroach, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Yeah. Lawsuits are expensive. I mean, what do you want ? Your life or your site ? Poor dude.
    • superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5Positive as in, no one is going to the Big House.
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2yeah? you ***** do it then.
    • elliam, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7Exactly. Nick protected the people that had provided him with information, thus saving their jobs. In exchange, he has to stop publishing Think Secret. Decent trade, and it shows his integrity.
      • tito184, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I was thinking the same thing. Thats a lot of credit that he can use later if he tries to start another site or if he goes to work elsewhere. Also, sources will feel more comfortable with him rather than someone else.

        Being able to keep your sources secret, not matter what, is one very big point of pride with journalists.
    • jarklejam, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3I think you're onto something. "Amicable" = Sack of cash.
    • Flashman, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2He's positively shut down.
    • samuel514, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1hope he get in the 6 digits cash to shut down the site... :-/
  • juckru, on 12/20/2007, -9/+4the replacements will be far less civil. you just can't beat that disgruntled employee feeling.
    • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5You can say that again. (Maybe under a third ID you are using.)
  • truspect0r, on 12/20/2007, -16/+7FU. A P P L E
  • SamVR6, on 12/20/2007, -1/+14Im sure he was well compensated for it.

    • blackjack75, on 12/20/2007, -2/+14With lawyers involved it's rather: you'd be in debt of 25 millions if you try to resist. So if you comply we'll leave you at zero and it'll be like you had won 25 millions. Sign here.
    • joel8x, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I think his compensation came in the form of putting a large amount of ads on the site just for this press release.
  • lukas2k, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4Is he obligated to NEVER open a website about anything related to Apple again ??? Money looks good when you get some... but when it's all dried up... you understand that you got a rotten deal...
    • bingobongony, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2Is that the only thing he can do with his life?
    • HaMMeReD, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1When the money is gone material possessions will be in it's place, and that is our goal in life. Money early on only helps. There was a time when I would have been typing this on a 14" crt screen, now I type on a 24" widescreen lcd. People create websites to sell out. Sure a few might do it for the news, but I'm sure the thinksecret dude is totally basking in 30" apple cinema display glory.

      what are you spending money on? crack?
      • skinturtle, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0"...material possessions will be in it's place, and that is our goal in life."
        Your mentality is a cancer that infects this planet. One day all your material possessions will be taken away and you'll be left with nothing.
      • tito184, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I feel bad for you.

        Sometimes the things you own, end up owning you.
    • joel8x, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1He would be lucky if that was all. I hope he can do any kind of journalism!
  • Po0py, on 12/20/2007, -18/+56If Microsoft did this people would be up in arms.
    • techroach, on 12/20/2007, -9/+24Absolutely correct. U nailed it. I think Apple is losing their philosophy. I think Apple is going Microsoft. If that happens, I'm on to the Linux community.
      • div2n, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Apple is pretty much already there with the exception that their products lately don't usually suck (although the latest OS X release seems to strain that a bit).

        I've heard from some pretty lifelong Mac fans that admit that Apple has lost their way and shows signs of becoming the next Microsoft.
      • vulapine, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Perhaps, eventually, the Linux community will turn into a billion little Microsofts.
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -6/+11I think you are a tit. Have you read the comments here - I think you will find people are 'up in arms' you retard.
      • Po0py, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Dugg up for calling me a tit. I love when people call me a tit.
        • joel8x, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Seriously, how is such a wonderful thing considered an insult? I was thinking he might be English until the "you retard" line.
    • clackerd, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2po0py please.
    • vulapine, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Yea. Nobody is making harsh comments here. Not a single comment asking Apple to do something physically impossible. No comments trying to insult Steve Jobs. Nope. A total apple love fest.
    • combatchuck, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Because if Microsoft did it... I got nothin. I don't even care enough.
  • dezent, on 12/20/2007, -11/+10before i buy a new computer i check the apple rumors sites.. that's because it sux to buy a new portable computer without knowing if its twice a fast next week for the same money.. i did this 3 month ago when i got my macbook pro
    2.4ghz all maxed out.. next time I'm going for a laptop and this crap continues ill maybe get a Sony vaio.
    • lost.sync, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4have fun with vista...
    • Ap0x, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1sony doesn't update their laptops too?
    • virtualball, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2That's a stupid argument... if you want the damn computer, you shouldnt care if it's .05 GHz faster in two weeks... I have a MacBook (first gen) and love it despite the many upgrades.
    • moisie, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1If you're using these rumour sites to time your purchase you'd never buy anything. They're constantly talking about some mythical new products that apple are launching and then shortly before any sort of even the speculation gets increasingly wild, then when something is launched they highlight the points that were basically common sense as some proof that they were right.
    • frostieDude, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1You want to buy after a model has been out long enough to have as many of the problems worked out as possible. Electrical engineers are constantly making little tweaks to the motherboards. After a model has been out six or eight months is a good time to buy - don't be the first guy in line. Believe me, I've been a professional Apple developer for 12 years and I've bought enough Apple hardware to know what I'm talking about.

      I bought my MacBook Pro maybe a month before the Santa Rosa versions came out. I'm glad I bought it at that time - I've had no problems. A friend bought a Mac Book Pro the first week they shipped. Nothing but problems. I've had that experience at least 8 times with Apple hardware over the years.
  • frederoil, on 12/20/2007, -9/+2you sell out!! you sell out!! I've got to yell so you can hear me over the roar of your new Ferrari you just bought with Apple's money.
  • mediaphile, on 12/20/2007, -8/+10Does anyone have any useful contact information where I could shoot off an e-mail to someone worthwhile? The contact information I was able to find listed on Apple's website is all sales or technical support, nothing about general feedback. Not that they're going to do anything after the fact, but I was looking for someone in PR or someone to whom the public's opinion might matter.
    • ddcrandall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4sjobs@apple.com
    • The_Dude, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Just look up the company information at Yahoo finance. That will get you some other numbers.
  • cduquette, on 12/20/2007, -11/+4People always attack Microsoft for being an bad company, but I think Apple is much worse. They release locked down hardware and applications that don't work well with other competing technologies. They also seem a little lawsuit happy.
  • happyseamonster, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4This is strange. He writes, "As part of the confidential settlement..." So, shutting down is something he's permitted to reveal (everyone will know anyway). What did he settle on that he's not permitted by Apple to reveal? What is it he must do that he can't reveal? Very unusual. They must've really had him by the short hairs, legally, for them to get him to shut down his whole site. "We won't take every penny you have, just shut down the site". Apple gets from this a big warning to other sites like TS not to copyright infringe- or there will be hell to pay. Journalists really need to investigate this... for theirs and the publics good...
    • happyseamonster, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2I wrote, "copyright infringement" when it should have been "trade secret law violation". I'll bet he agreed not only to shut down TS but also not to continue that type of reporting in the future. Reading his Wiki, this guy is another Charles Foster Kane. Okay, maybe not- but still. One way they had him was even the site's name implicated him in his intentions to violate trade secret law... that, plus having a false identity. On the one hand, he's a little genius- on the other- he's an advenurous youth! We need more people like him! I hope he continues to cover tech and Apple particularly. Just follow the law, Nick (mostly). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Ciarelli
    • superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -6/+3Journalists have never been protected in being part of a crime (and let's be clear, breaking NDA is a SERIOUS crime). This guy is lucky he's not in jail, and doesn't have his wages garnished until the end of time.

      Play with fire, you get burned.
      • HaMMeReD, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Breaking a NDA isn't a crime, it's contractual law. The exact value of the action of breaking it would be decided by the courts or in settlement.

        Also, I doubt apple would risk the backlash of openly f'in the guy in the ass. Look how much heat the kane and lynch firing caused. Trust me this guy is happy. And he is a well known internet journalist, if he did get *****, I'm sure his story will come out.
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Lets actually be clear, breaking NDA is substantially less serious a crime than anything that actually might hurt someone. It's so obviously unserious that I have to question your motives for using such doublespeak.
    • lost.sync, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3it's not really that unusual for the terms of a settlement to include a non-disclosure agreement of some kind. clearly, there was money involved. of course apple doesn't want it published that nick got x$ to not run his site anymore.
      • vulapine, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Isn't it odd that the whole problem started with the violation of an NDa, while the conclusion involves a whole new NDA.
  • techroach, on 12/20/2007, -10/+5Always thought Apple was good and non-evil. Guess its a epidemic that affects a company when it gets big :( What happened b/n these 2 ? Any news resources, anyone ?
    • blackjack75, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Companies are not good by definition. They are machines built to make money at any (human) cost. The only good things that can come from a company depend on the people running them.
    • happyseamonster, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3I don't blame Apple Inc. for pursuing this. An employee (or other partner) violated a non disclosure agreement that should have protected business plans that fall under trade secret law. If they can't stop leaks, they can try to discourage people from reporting on those leaks. This is not the same as information that is in the publics interest/right to know and reporting it is done merely for profit not for the public good. Maybe we don't think the Mac Mini is a big deal, but some things are and it effects stock prices etc. What if a large share holder wishes to leak something (good or bad) so he can move accordingly? They have to act. Also, it shows that it wasn't the company's policy to leak for this purpose.
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I always thought you were a tard. I'm right. Shut up.
  • milliamp, on 12/20/2007, -7/+22You know, almost every time I think about getting an Apple computer, something stops me.
    Apple may not have a monopoly, but are they really any less controlling than MS? It seems like Apple is always on the legal offensive against people using their icons/look and feel/leaking products etc.
    If Apple had a ~95% OS market share would we be better off?
    • superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -13/+5Apple may not have a monopoly, but are they really any less controlling than MS?

      Looking back over last decade....

      Hell yes.
      • milliamp, on 12/20/2007, -2/+12Well I suppose someone should do research and write a proper article comparing them, but I think Apple is actually worse than MS.

        http://www.tuaw.com/2007/05/23/apple-legal-not-amu ...
        http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/101007 ...
        http://www.tech2.com/india/news/smart-mobile-phone ...
        http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/01/15/mi ...

        In that last link, Apple even sent a cease and desist letter to a blogger who was covering an iPod skin (he had screenshots).
        BestBuy was recently burned at the stake over a Slashdot the same crime recently: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/12/19 ...

        Apple's great public image allows them to get away with the kinds of things people would be outraged at MS over.
        • milliamp, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Sorry, digg the $300 million Web 2.0 platform of the future won't allow me to paste hyperlinks without truncating them.
          First link was tuaw.com/2007/05/23/apple-legal-not-amused-by-igasm/

          The rest I don't feel like getting again.
      • frostieDude, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3People keep saying that. But the fact is that Apple, right or wrong, believes in the concept of intellectual property - just like Microsoft. Apple's "offenses" have mostly been an effort to protect their intellectual property and keep their moves secret. Microsoft's misdeeds (the ones I care about, anyway), have mostly been things like:
        - stealing a competitors source code and putting it in their product. (In my opinion - this is the worst thing they ever did).
        - changing their OS to break a competitor's application. (This is pretty bad - it is why they got convicted for anti-trust. "DOS isn't run until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run" was a saying at Microsoft in the late 80s/early 90s. They did the same to Netscape.)
        - threatening to cancel Office for Mac to extract concessions from Apple. (This one could be seen as just playing hardball except it they used it to get Apple to drop the case where they stole Apple's source code.)

        The things I've heard people complain about Apple:
        - trying to enforce their employee NDAs.
        - trying to enforce trade dress protections on their products.
        - trying to get web sites to take down pictures of unreleased Apple products.

        To me, these are legitimate things for Apple to do. They invested a lot of time/money in creating products that have a certain appeal to them. They count on being able to get the free publicity from the press covering new products as part of their advertising strategy. Apple's trying to make products people want and trying to sell them. They do this by investing R&D dollars. No serious person has a problem with Microsoft trying to do the same.
    • clackerd, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0i can't believe people base buying decisions based on how many websites a computer company has shut down. i bet mostof the anti-apple crowd here are the same people that posted "enough of teh iphone rumors" from back in the day.
    • stalman, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1No one should have 95% of the OS market, as with any market. However they've often used their closed systems to produce better products. Microsoft, not so much.
  • MaceSoul, on 12/20/2007, -12/+90Internet Explorer 8 passes the Acid2 test on the same day Apple crushes a lone blogger promoting their products.

    I think that bitch threw the hammer the wrong direction.
    • buddhistMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -4/+14There's a not-too-fine line between promoting Apple's products, and misappropriating trade secrets, which is a federal crime under the U.S. Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Apple has many billions of dollars invested in their trade secrets, and it's certainly within their right (and from a shareholder's perspective, it's their corporate duty) to seek enforcement of the federal laws protecting their intellectual property from illegal disclosure.

      For the record, too, Apple's Safari already passes the Acid2 test, and it's available now. Internet Explorer 8 will be out when, exactly? 2009? I'll believe it when I see it.
      • shorn, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Extreme hyperbole. Until a leak ends up provably costing Apple money, nobody has harmed anyone. I think you'd have to jump a pretty fscking huge legal hurdle to get something as trivial as an early leak of a forthcoming product announcement prosecuted as a misappropriation of trade secrets. It's just civil contract law until then.
  • mp3dog, on 12/20/2007, -14/+5The guy who owns Think Secret is hereby declared a pussy and a sellout.
    • lost.sync, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1i think it sucks too but lets see you say that again when apple's lawyers are after you.
    • presserkun, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Who are you to say this? Do you know him? Have you even met him? Do you know the terms of the settlement? Think before you speak instead of reacting from the cuff.
    • yacks, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Everyone has their price.. Everyone.. even you.

      If I offered you $10 million dollars to jump up and down on one foot, would you do it? If you say yes, you are a sellout if you say no, you';re just too freakin' stoooopid!
  • adinu79, on 12/20/2007, -7/+1I wonder if this is not some kind of hoax.
  • morphie, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5rrriight. Think Secret shuts down, and that's called a "settlement which is positive for both sides"? I bet he got a fine compensation for this decision.
  • Porch, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1We really need someone to make a good laptop, with perfect open source hardware support. I keep looking, but I have yet to find it. My Dell had a Broadcom wireless that has bad support and a stupid screen problem. My new MacBook also has wireless issues under Linux.
  • ivanov, on 12/20/2007, -7/+23Fascinating comment. Firstly, we are only hearing the spin from the Think Secret/Nick Ciarelli side. Secondly, we have no idea what the judgement really was. Thirdly, we don't know the full circumstances of the case. And yet the comments flow in support of Think Secret and denigrating Apple.

    Nick Ciarelli appeared to be immune from prosecution: screen shots galore of software that developers were not permitted to distribute, and information on products which others were told to take off their websites - yet he still persisted, even though he knew that he was violating non-disclosure agreements. That is neither professional or ethical.

    No doubt I'll be digged down for this: it's not all about free speech, but some people believe that trade secrets are not worth protecting either by law or action.
    • milliamp, on 12/20/2007, -4/+6violating non-disclosure agreements?? They didn't even know who he was till they sued him, what would lead you to believe he'd ever signed an NDA?
    • zongamin, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1'spin'???? Are you ***** drunk? All it says is that he's reached an agreement and that he won't publish the site anymore. Wheres the spin in that you idiot?
    • u2wedge, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2you have to be a part of a non-disclosure agreement before you can violate it. Joe Q. Public can disclose whatever he wants to.
    • Lou3000, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1You are an idiot, that is why you will be dugg down. Trade Secrets are protected by law, so long as you keep them secret. The only person that is liable in an action for Trade Secret misappropriation is the person who breached confidence or stole the information. And, as the others said, only the parties to an NDA are violating the NDA.

      I don't know what happened here, I'm not sure what was in Apple's complaint. My guess is that he didn't take down something that their legal team asked him to, or maybe copyright infringement, but there wasn't a judgment here. He settled, the guy is a college student and probably freaked out when Apple actually took him to court.

      Shame on Apple for using lawyers to scare someone into settling when they may have not even had a case, but that is how the game works
  • happenchance, on 12/20/2007, -4/+8Apple MUST have bought him out... good on you mate, take the money and run!
    • yesurbius, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Buying him out would be in unethical. They probably paid his college debt, gave him a whackload of Apple Hardware / Software, and slipped in a good word with Walt Mossberg.
  • jt28, on 12/20/2007, -5/+0This is pretty sad to here, however much i love the loveable white forbidden fruit this doesn't add up for me. Think Secret has probable done more for their sales in recent years than most. Its certainly hard to digg it but i will if only to make people aware of it
  • jt28, on 12/20/2007, -8/+2this is pretty sad to here, however much i love the loveable white forbidden fruit this doesn't add up for me. think secret has probably done more for their sales in recent years than most. Its certainly hard to digg it, but i will if only to make people aware of it.
  • imac79, on 12/20/2007, -6/+2That's sad.
  • ladbroke, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6Am I the only one thinking that he probably wanted to get out by this point? I can list 5 Mac rumors sites just off the top of my head. ThinkSecret wasn't giving me anything that I can't get elsewhere either more eloquently or with better information. He became something of a celebrity at Harvard when he was outed as the brains behind the site. He's got great name recognition, and after he's done with school, his career is set. He didn't have anything to lose by getting out.
    • happyseamonster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Could be and he comes out looking special. Also... with all the notoriety over this, he can now sell that domain for a gazillion bucks.
  • unloud, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3I kind of brushed on this in a comment of mine up above, but I really hope part of the settlement wasn't Nick giving Apple names of employees who gave him info. Information going out to rumor sites has really died in the past two months, and that could really coincide with the firing of a few big leaks.
    • ifjake, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1No, he listed in his "press release" that part of the agreement was that he would not have to release his sources. It's not too bad of an arrangement for the guy, given that the kid was like 14 or something when he started the site, and now actually has to go do college and stuff. Hopefully another site will step up to replace it. He was often the first site with info other blogs and sites would link to.
  • Asshate, on 12/20/2007, -17/+4***** APPLE! JOBS IS A SODOMITE!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.