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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Al said...
Right on, Laurie.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
PXLated said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Blue Balloon said...
*RUMOR*
Apple and Nintendo are work together to make super-cool video game system!
*RUMOR*
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Al said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Aled Davies said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Laurie said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Laurie said...
"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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Gerald Buckley said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Al said...
"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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Laurie said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
"Dissent is one thing.. Sabotage is another. I equate what ThinkSecret does with sabotage."
That's like my FAVORITE Beastie Boys song!!! OMG!!!
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
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
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
I agree with Rob. Laurie, you are wrong.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Laurie said...
"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."
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard (ok, maybe just the silliest today).
1) the public's source of information should be the actual source, in this case Apple. Apple will tell us what they have planned when they want us to know. Not good enough for you? Tough.
2) Entertainment value is not a good reason to break the law or encourage others to do so. Let's put it this way - and I'm going to be overly dramatic for effect - let's say a company that makes porn videos decides that the real money is in child pornography. Sure enough, there are adults who have no qualms about shooting or participating in videos that feature sex acts with kids. But one day the porn shop gets raided and amongst other things, the police demand names and addresses of every person who participated in the making of the illegal and sickening filth that someone somewhere considers entertainment. Of course if Mr Kiddie Porn hands over the names of these scum bags, he's going to have an awfully hard time getting any other sickos to ever work for/with him again on his next illegal venture, isn't he? And think of all those poor perverts who are being deprived of the entertainment they once enjoyed...
Give me a friggin break. TS doesn't have to publish illegally obtained trade secrets in order to be make money. Trust me - we don't work for free around here and we choose a different path. And if your life is so boring that you need to read rumors or advance news about a company that makes consumer electronics in order to have fun... then maybe you need to get out a bit more.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Kesey said...
It's funny how Apple can be perceived by some as the anti-microsoft. Anyone who's had Apple hardware fail with no Applecare surely sees them for the corporate america corporation that they really are.
Anyhow - point is - nobody would be surprised if Microsoft sued in this situation. Apple finally has the clout and doesn't stay true to its roots. They're like the dork that became cool in high school and made fun of the dorks.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Kesey said...
"And if your life is so boring that you need to read rumors or advance news about a company that makes consumer electronics in order to have fun... then maybe you need to get out a bit more."
Hello Kettle.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Joseph said...
And to further Kesey's point:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/04/27/0133247.shtml?tid=192&tid=187&tid=3
Apple is no different than any other bloated corporation with a big shot CEO.
Reply
6-16-2005 @ 4:17PM
Al said...
+1 Funny to Kesey (re: Kettle)
C.K., tell you what. You're so disenchanted with Apple, why don't you box up all of your neat little Apple gadgets and send them my way. ;)
Thanks for a lively discussion, everyone!
Reply