Filed under: Cult of Mac, Odds and ends
Wired weighs in (again) on Apple vs people who break the law
Let me start by saying I haven't yet read the article, but according to Jason O'Grady, the May issue of Wired Magazine has an article that once again makes Apple out to be a belligerent Giant bent on ripping Jack's beanstalk out by the roots.Tom McNichol writes:
"Nick Ciarelli is the kind of guy Apple is supposed to love. At age 6 he began using his parents' Mac Classic and quickly became a zealot. At age 13 he launched a Web site devote to all things Apple, especially upcoming product releases, Now 19, Ciarelli has turned his site, Think Secret, into a must read for true Apple fans.
So why is the company trying to squash him?"
Tom, like so many others, continues to ask the wrong question. It's not why is Apple trying to squash its so-called fans - it's why are Apple fans so intent on hurting Apple?
Adam Penenberg, writing for Wired News, wrote
an excellent article (mentioned by Scott
last month). In the piece, he quotes from the Judge's decision to deny
the EFF attorneys motion for protective order, seeking to prevent
guys like Nick - and Jason O'Grady - from having to reveal the sources
who provided the information that Apple considers to be trade secrets.
On the subject of free speech, which McNichol's article says Apple is trying to subvert, and whether or not the defendants in the case should be considered journalists, the judge said whether they are or are not journalists, "This is not the equivalent of a free pass," he wrote. "The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."
And that sums it up pretty well. A crime was committed here and Apple has a right to investigate the crime against them. They deserve the respect and cooperation of their fans. I'm still baffled as to why I am so alone in this assessment because it seems like a no-brainer to me. People online and off need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop whining when they get caught doing something wrong.
As I said, I haven't read the aricle. But I will. And if I am wrong about it, I will say so. Based on the excerpt I've seen so far, however, I don't hold much hope that it does anything to right any wrongs or help the so-called healing to begin. And that, my friends, is where the real tragedy lies.
On the subject of free speech, which McNichol's article says Apple is trying to subvert, and whether or not the defendants in the case should be considered journalists, the judge said whether they are or are not journalists, "This is not the equivalent of a free pass," he wrote. "The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."
And that sums it up pretty well. A crime was committed here and Apple has a right to investigate the crime against them. They deserve the respect and cooperation of their fans. I'm still baffled as to why I am so alone in this assessment because it seems like a no-brainer to me. People online and off need to start taking responsibility for their actions and stop whining when they get caught doing something wrong.
As I said, I haven't read the aricle. But I will. And if I am wrong about it, I will say so. Based on the excerpt I've seen so far, however, I don't hold much hope that it does anything to right any wrongs or help the so-called healing to begin. And that, my friends, is where the real tragedy lies.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Al said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
Right on, Laurie.
Reply
PXLated said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
You have the right angle on this. And you aren't alone in your views.
It's just a bunch of MM journalists and "A" list bloggers trying to turn it into more than it really is.
As you mention, it's simple, a crime was committed (theft) and it's being investigated and accessories to the crime being held accountable.
Reply
Blue Balloon said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
*RUMOR*
Apple and Nintendo are work together to make super-cool video game system!
*RUMOR*
Reply
Damien said 11:26AM on 6-28-2005
Apple has this whole thing the wrong way around. And, I fear, so does this post (above).
Apple has a huge body of insanely loyal fans out there, who live for new product updates. I, for one, have actively followed all the rumours and announcements with great interest. I'm writing this post on my PowerBook, connected to the net with an Airport Express base station, there's an iMac in the corner, I've got two iPods and an IPod shuffle, and my copies of Tiger should be here on Friday. All these purchases were made with reference to the rumor sites, either to see when things would be coming out, to get reviews, or to be sure that whatever I bought wouldn't be updated next week.
So why does Apple consider it criminal to want this information? Apple doesn't lose out commercially by managing this. Any real Intellectual Property issues are handled as such- through patents, Non Disclosure Agreements and the like. If "Asteroid" is such a great product, then the pre-announcement buzz will only help it get more attention (I'm thinking about Project Ginger and the Segqay scooter here).
Apple should be putting their time (and money- lawyers don't come cheap) to managing the rumours sites and networks, keeping them going. I know they have brought me closer to Apple as a company, and the current stance against them sickens me.
Reply
Al said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
Damien, Apple doesn't consider it criminal for people to want this information.
Apple considers it criminal for their employees, who are bound by NDAs, to leak information about future products.
Can we say "trade secrets", boys and girls?
Reply
Sejuru said 2:53PM on 9-07-2005
Laurie, kudos for this thoughtful post. Your position on this issue is emminently reasonable, and I fear at odds with the types of selfish opinions held by many other Mac afficiandos *cough* CK *cough*.
Reply
Aled Davies said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
That is the crux of the issue that almost everybody and their dog in the blogosphere is ignoring. Apple isn't suing Thinksecret et al for printing the rumors, they are suing to find out who leaked them to Thinksecret, because those people broke the law in leaking them.
While the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. It does not absolve the press of responsibility of its actions in obtaining information for its stories. The judge that ruled in the case seemed to totally understand this and ruled accordingly.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
I disagree. Apple is going about this all wrong as they are dealing with internal problems by going after the external results of those problems first.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
Also, if you actually *read* the article, the point is that "Think Different" isn't a rule that Apple as a business works under. It's marketing and we all fall for the sucker-punch.
Reply
Rob said 7:42AM on 7-15-2005
Sure, Apple has a right to enforce its NDAs. But Think Secret never signed an NDA. You can go after Think Secret to try to find out who violated the NDA, but then you make a victim out of Think Secret (and every other blog that ever published something covered by someone else's NDA). Given that Apple, probably more than any other IT company, exists only because of a loyal fanbase, and that Think Secret and the like are pretty common and mostly harmless expressions of fandom, this seems like bad business.
It's not as though the trade secrets in question are existential for Apple, or give their competitors some kind of edge. For Apple to pee in the bathtub over an issue like this is unwise and makes me think less of them; I gather I am not alone. They can do it, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Reply
Laurie said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
You're wrong on this C.K. Apple is dealing with internal problems by pursuing external channels because those external channels have given them no choice. Employees aren't publishing trade secrets using fridge magnets in their kitchen so that only their cats can read about it - they are publishing where all the world, including the competition, can see. Dissent is one thing.. Sabotage is another. I equate what ThinkSecret does with sabotage.
Think Different doesn't mean Act Stupid. Maybe you're a sucker for marketing without substance and innovation, but I spend my money on the latter and I don't appreciate sites like ThinkSecret undermining Apple's strength on those areas.
Reply
Laurie said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
"It's not as though the trade secrets in question are existential for Apple, or give their competitors some kind of edge."
That's nonsense. Who are you to decide that?
Reply
Gerald Buckley said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
Laurie -
Should Apple sue Amazon for posting specs before announcement as they did with the new G5s? How about Staples stores seeding Panther copies yesterday ahead of schedule.
Or do they not have NDAs/distribution agreements with Apple?
I think Apple has a responsibility to its VARs, its customers, and we insanely loyal raving nutball fans to act consistently in these matters.
It might have been better all around if Apple had kept the dirty laundry inside and used other methods for smoking out their troubles.
GB
Reply
Al said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
"Sure, Apple has a right to enforce its NDAs. But Think Secret never signed an NDA."
Ok, let me explain this ONE MORE TIME.
Bloggers want protection as members of the press.
Fine.
However, under the Constitution, members of the press are only afforded protection rights for their sources if the information was obtained in a legal fashion. It doesn't matter if you're a 60 Minutes reported with a guy on the inside of a tobacco company, or a blogger with a scoop from an Apple employee. If the employee broke an NDA, the press has no protection for keeping their names a secret. This has alreay been decided for other media (TV, papers, etc.), but bloggers want to think that they're special and above the law.
The only, THE ONLY, circumstance where, if a source broke the law to give information to the media, the press would legally be able to shield the informant would be in a case where the public interest is served by the release of said information. Examples include toxic waste dumping, unethical accounting practices, or political corruption. They do NOT include information about a technology product that has not been released.
How is this hard to understand?
Reply
Laurie said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
Gerald -
"Should Apple sue Amazon for posting specs before announcement as they did with the new G5s? How about Staples stores seeding Panther copies yesterday ahead of schedule. Or do they not have NDAs/distribution agreements with Apple?"
If they did it KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY - then YES! If it was an honest mistake, then no. People do tend to get fired when things like this happen. The two situations are not similar.
"I think Apple has a responsibility to its VARs, its customers, and we insanely loyal raving nutball fans to act consistently in these matters."
And they do act consistently.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
"Dissent is one thing.. Sabotage is another. I equate what ThinkSecret does with sabotage."
That's like my FAVORITE Beastie Boys song!!! OMG!!!
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
OK. Seriously, though: Dissent? Sabotage? Apple isn't a military force. It's a company. And the "trade secrets" leaked weren't any sort of top secret thing that Apple competition was going to roll out with the next day upon seeing the news. The leaked info was rather run of the mill specs on products that was not leaked that far ahead of the actual announcement. All the info leak did was drum up more attention to the announcement. I defy you to point to one negative side effect of this info appearing on a site that says RUMORS in the title.
So why sue a teenager into non-existence over that? Answer: b/c we are a big evil company like every other big evil company, no matter how we may spin ourselves 24/7. Is there anything wrong with that? Not in business.
But I still think it's the wrong move to make.
Reply
Rob said 7:42AM on 7-15-2005
"That's nonsense. Who are you to decide that?"
Are you seriously suggesting that leaking a product announcement a few days ahead of time is going to sink the company?
Reply
Rob said 7:42AM on 7-15-2005
"However, under the Constitution, members of the press are only afforded protection rights for their sources if the information was obtained in a legal fashion. It doesn't matter if you're a 60 Minutes reported with a guy on the inside of a tobacco company, or a blogger with a scoop from an Apple employee. If the employee broke an NDA, the press has no protection for keeping their names a secret."
Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper will be very distressed to hear this, as will Seymour Hersh and every other reporter in Washington.
But moreover, you seem to have missed the point of my post, so let me explain it. One more time.
Think Secret has the same problem as Miller and Cooper. If TS reveals their source, nobody will ever talk to them again. If nobody talks to them, they have nothing to report, TS goes away, either effectively or in fact, and the public loses a source of information. That is a bad thing for Think Secret. It's also a bad thing for the Mac fans who read TS.
Now Apple may have the legal right to compel Think Secret to do this, as you argue. But given that Apple's success is built on people like the ones who run Think Secret and who read it, it doesn't seem like a good idea.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
I agree with Rob. Laurie, you are wrong.
Reply