Think Secret: RIP

There's no problem that I know of speaking rumors or guesswork. Trading in stolen information is something else.

But, wasn't Nicks problem that he published proprietary, internal Apple documents rather than just the rumors? From what I've read, that crosses the line and might for you also. It's not the same protections as for releasing govt. docs where there might be a public good. Would your legal department let you do that?

Why exactly is it wrong for Apple (or any company or organization) to sue for the release of sources who allegedly violated their non-disclosure agreements? As I understand trade secret law (state laws vary), third parties cannot solicit trade secrets, nor distribute such secrets if they know or have reason to know that it is a trade secret. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe journalists (or even bloggers) are not exempt, except in cases involving vital public interest (fraud, abuse, crimes, etc.). Trade secrets are private property, the theft of which can be a crime and a tort. Is private property no longer to be respected? Trade secret laws involve a balance between two things we hold dear in country, private property and free speech.

While I understand the free speech fears of the blogging community and the journalistic community,I don't think ThinkSecret was a good test case for their cause. The alleged fencing of private property by ThinkSecret is not a good poster child. Now, if a whistleblower informs a reporter of some nefarious (and maybe even illegal) actions by Apple, then the company should have no expectation of privacy. Otherwise, unreleased product information remains the private property of the owner, and a third party who receives stolen goods, knowing that they are stolen are liable to the owner.

This does not go into the other question of whether bloggers are journalist. I would imagine this is something the journalist profession will work out over time.

Thanks.

Well, with the general flattening of our First Amendment rights--not to mention the subtle shift toward fascism--in the US over the past half-decade, it doesn't surprise me that Apple would be able to interpret our Constitutional rights as it sees fit, and force out of publishing anyone it doesn't like.

Disappoints, but doesn't surprse.

Guess I won't be wasting any money with those snobby clerks at the Apple Store any time soon...

i-phone pricing fiasco.
Constant i-phone lockout software updates.
Suing bloggers.

I detest the ethics of Apple as a company.
I own a mac.
That could change.

I do think the lines may appear blurred, however, like was stated before the difference between taking something that is 'proprietary' and outing it publicly is different from opining rumors. To take internal documents and publish them outside of the spectrum of Apple's corporate news for publication is a violation of 'intellectual property' rights. And that is a big difference from quoting someone who knows someone who had this problem or found that bug...