RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Comments on this Item:

I can't believe Apple would sue a person not under an NDA. He had no obligation to keep Apple's secrets. It's the person who told him (assumeing someone told him) that they should be going after. What's especially appalling is that this guy is a big fan of Apple. I guess it just goes to show that Apple isn't as nice and as much a victim as people think it is.

# posted by David 8:33 AM

Wozniak was the cute, loveable, fuzzball to Job's sharp stick in the eye at Apple.

# posted by Bill 9:30 AM

If the domain name says "thinksecret" and his entire intention is to disclose company secrets that could damage or embarrass Apple directly or indirectly, clearly with the aid of someone who's leaking secrets from Apple, Apple has every right to sue the little sh*t.

The word "accessory" comes to mind.
1 a : a person not actually or constructively present but contributing as an assistant or instigator to the commission of an offense -- called also accessory before the fact b : a person who knowing that a crime has been committed aids or shelters the offender with intent to defeat justice -- called also accessory after the fact

# posted by Jason in Oregon 2:12 PM

Who cares about APPLE?

RANMAN

# posted by Anonymous 5:06 PM

I think they'd have a hard time proving that he actively sought out the information. It's more likely that it was handed to him via an anonymous tip on his website. Without knowledge that the material he was given was covered by an NDA I don't see how they can pin anything on him. Heck, I could go submit a tip to the website saying that Bill Gates was going to stage a military coup and take over Apple and rename it to Orange and it would have a chance of being published. The site relies on anonymous (supposedly) sources who probably don't tell the owner who they are and how they know what they know.

# posted by David 5:44 PM

Bill, Bill, Bill....what a pile of @#$% you are by misstating the charge. The First Amendment doesn't apply.

This Hahvahd student (without $!; pull the other one!) violated one of the numerous revisions to the Copyright Act. You know, that law that says you and Alice have "Intellectual" property rights.

Whatever else, he most cetainly violated the No Electronic Theft Act codified at both 17 U.S.C. (civil) and 18 U.S.C (criminal).

See the original act here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2265.ENR:

Then ponder the criminal standard:

(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--

`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

`The term `financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'

Thinksecret is supported just like this blog.... and even a $0.01 donation is "financial gain" - but wait - the law doesn't require tangible gain - the expectation of receipt of anything of value - will suffice. This boy is DOWN BY LAW.

Of course, criminal copyright infringment under Title 17's non NET act provisions are pretty nasty as well....with $250k fines and 20 years in the federal slammer the standard. . .

Yep, this is an excellent test case. Let's send Nicholas M. Ciarelli (a/k/a prisoner #34521312) up the river for 20 years and take his tuition fees (Hahvahd is about ~$50k/yr) as the fine. An excellent cash recovery for the DOJ, a good slap at snotty Ivy League -the law doesn't apply to me- types.

A good deal all around: he will be a fairly easy prisoner to warehouse and he will make a good example of why the Copyright Act under the control of the IP lobby has become far more nasty than anything Draco could have imagined.

Bill, if you think stealing copyrighted material without having signed a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" is legal, then it is time for the FBI to pay a visit to your hard drive.

Go back to shooting up with Rush and let the hanging judge do his/her job without all that ignorant nattering. Right wing types (that would be you) love criminal law. Law and order types. Throw the book at the criminals. No mercy. Teach 'em who the boss is. Roll out more Scalias and Thomases...we can't have a democracy (er, Republic) with all of these law-breakers scoffing at our laws.

Todd still loves you - Rush can't hear you and the local AUSA wants to talk to you about aiding and abetting.

# posted by Anonymous 6:31 AM

The problem with that is that this is not a copyright infringement case. He was dealing in rumors that really did not have much to do with any copyrights held by Apple (things like the price, release timeframe, and general specs). These were corporate secrets. That's why Apple has brought *civil* charges against him instead of criminal ones.

# posted by David 7:09 AM

Ok mister long winded anonymous talking bunk behind closed doors. Lots of name calling but no sustance < got to be a Democrate >. Now the person was dealing in rumers, just like Spencer F Katt from EWeek fame. JUST RUMERS. Now if the rumers turn out to be partly true, not compleatly but partly, you left coast winny butts start crying foul.

Apple wanting to sue the kid is going to look bad in the publics eye. They still have to deal with the public in an open honest way. The market place will deal with Apple and hide behinds like you.

# posted by JD 8:20 AM

My understanding was that Apple accused him of violating trade secrets, when in reality revealing a product announcement early is more like a PR leak or NDA violation (which he didn't even do) than taking design blueprints and diagrams and handing them to a competitor. Apple has very strong language in its employee agreements about confidentiality and has fired people for leaking information.

In my book, the only thing they can do is police their own staff to contain leaks. If an Apple employee sends you details of a new product, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to report it. It's not like he broke into the company headquarters and attended a meeting in disguise to get the info.

# posted by Alice 11:01 AM

Here's a couple of quotes from the Think Secret website (along with the appropiate web pages), that I believe point to the reason behind the lawsuit:

http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/

Think Secret appreciates your news tips, inside information, and feedback. This form will forward your anonymous message to us, allowing you to contact us under complete anonymity.

http://www.thinksecret.com/contact/contribute.html

Contributing Editors (Insider News). Do you have quality sources? Exclusive insider information or software sneak-peeks that we won't be able to get anywhere else? Whether you continually have the latest dirt or if you've just stumbled across something truly great, we're interested in talking. If you're interested in becoming a regular contributor, please provide us with some information as to the quality and quantity of your sources, and any experience you may have.
-----

Looks like the burr under Apple's saddle was that he was openly soliciting insider information. (Otherwise, why all the stress on anonymity?)

Personally, he strikes me as less of a fan of Apple than just somebody dying to crow "I know something you don't know!"

# posted by Captain DaFt 10:29 PM

Post a Comment