Post #189,218
1/6/05 12:28:40 PM
|
Go Apple Go
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #189,233
1/6/05 4:19:51 PM
|
Or Not
[link|http://www.casp.net/cyberslapp.html#character|SLAPP-ed silly]
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #189,244
1/6/05 5:51:44 PM
|
excellent link, thanx!
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #189,311
1/7/05 12:20:14 PM
|
Its not free speech
Its trade secrets and ThinkSecret is dealing in stolen (intellectual) property for personal gain.
I absolutely do not buy the free speech argument.
Suppose a certain fried chicken recipe using seven herbs and spices was published in the NY Times food section. That's intellectual property and there are financial implications and real damages to be claimed.
If that's free speech then I'm going to go to the movies and yell "fire".
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #189,338
1/7/05 5:37:47 PM
|
You can not steal information
[link|http://www.legal-definitions.com/theft.htm|http://www.legal-def...ons.com/theft.htm]
You're throwing around terms that have specific legal definitions and implications, and you're not using them correctly.
[link|http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml|http://www.gnu.org/p...phy/not-ipr.xhtml]
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #189,344
1/7/05 7:07:38 PM
|
You can destroy its value
which amounts to depriving its owner of it.
[link|http://www.legal-definitions.com/IP/trade-secret.htm|http://www.legal-def.../trade-secret.htm]
a trade secret can be almost any piece of information/technical or otherwise, that is not a matter of common knowledge in the field or trade; has some recognizable value and is or can be used continuously to competitive advantage; has some degree of definiteness or concreteness; and reasonable steps have been taken to maintain its confidential or secret nature.
which - with your definition of theft:
the taking of someone else\ufffds property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it.
seems to fit. The disclosure of the trade secret which has recognizable value - obliterates the secret and deprives its owner of it which amounts to theft. Who profits from the the theft? The publisher of the secret. Transfer of value is quite clear.
Legal definitions don't cha know.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #189,385
1/8/05 2:27:02 AM
|
Try a different definition -- misappropriation
Disclosing a trade secret you have a duty to protect is misappropriation, not theft. I'm not saying that makes it acceptable, but it's different. Anyway, I've just done some research. I no longer think this is a clear-cut issue. - According to [link|http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/90781CA8-0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D38-90A2A9A60C6FD618|this] list, California has enacted a version of the [link|http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm|Uniform Trade Secrets Act], but New York has not. Apple is in California, Think Secret is in New York. Apple has filed in California, I expect Think Secret to request a change of venue since their contributory misappropriation, if any, would have taken place on their servers in New York.
- According to the [link|http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm|UTSA]:
\ufffd2. Injunctive Relief
(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist I believe trade secret status ceased to exist upon publication.
- Also from the USTA:
\ufffd3. Damages
(a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. I suspect Apple would be hard pressed to prove enrichment due to this specific incidence of misappropriation, if there was any.
- According to [link|http://www.thetso.com/Info/fail.html|this] (admittedly biased) article:
Defendant must know, or a reasonable man in defendant's position should know, prior to the infringement, that the information owner considers the information a trade secret. The courts have also found that all information in a company's possession cannot be designated to have trade secret status. Failure to differentiate will result in a finding that none of the information has trade secret status. And right [link|http://news.com.com/Apple+suit+foreshadows+coming+products/2100-1047_3-5513582.html|here] that's just what Apple is doing.
The more I read about it, the more I believe Think Secret will win this one ... if they can afford to fight it. And that caveat is why I sympathize with classifying this as a SLAPP. But then I read [link|http://news.com.com/Apple+suit+foreshadows+coming+products+-+page+2/2100-1047_3-5513582-2.html?tag=st.next|the second page] and see this: The suit points specifically to a posting made after Apple's World Wide Developer Conference in June. "Think Secret's request stated, 'Did you hear something you weren't supposed to at WWDC? We appreciate your insider news and Mac gossip. E-mail us or use our anonymous e-mail form." And I think, "Damn, they did openly solicit violation of confidence."
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #189,391
1/8/05 6:35:43 AM
1/8/05 6:44:08 AM
|
Labels and semantics
Misappropriation, theft, midnight requisition, vandalism, whatever.
Its still wrong, causes harm, and deserves punishment.
And no, its not valid free speech. As you noted, once it's disclosed it's not a secret anymore. So something of value has been willfully destroyed. Seems like that value ought to be recoverable.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #189,485
1/9/05 1:45:35 PM
|
I guess I've been mostly talking about "in general"
In this specific case I think there's even less reason to sue. As several of the articles pointed out, suing Think Secret -- and pointing out which articles contained their trade secrets -- actually confirmed the rumors. It's a rumor site. There is no confirmation of anything that's on it. If a particular rumor seems more believeable than others, it's because it's not disclosing anything a reasonably observant person wouldn't have already predicted.
Any site dedicated to discussing the future direction of a company, whether the source of the discussion is leaks, wishes, educated speculation or complete fantasy, can't be used to competetive advantage. If competitors change their strategy on unconfirmed reports from a rumor/leak site, they will react to false or inaccurate reports, too. If they only react to reports they believe to be credible, based on their own research, then they are setting strategy based on their own research.
To the extent that knowing Apple is planning a headless box represents a true competitive advantage, the lawsuit does more to confirm that report than the report itself. Case in point: I'm not a Mac guy, I don't normally follow Apple. If it had not been for the lawsuit stories, I wouldn't have ever seen the original report.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #189,516
1/9/05 6:38:32 PM
|
Reason to sue
is not about "this time".
Secret is out. Harm done.
Now how to keep it from happening again? Negative reinforcement seems to be the best bet. Punish the perps as an example to others.
Incidentally, this stuff doesn't even have to be true. Apple under Jobs has long made systematic use of misinformation to provide wrong fact "signatures" that make hunting down leaks easier.
So this stuff may or may not even be completely true.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #189,536
1/9/05 10:00:21 PM
|
Makes it harder to prove their case then
You can't fault someone for leaking a trade secret if it's not true. You also can't claim you didn't want the information leaked if it was an intentional falsehood designed to identify leaks.
If your characterization is correct, it seems like a decent practice to identify leaks. It seems like a terrible basis for prosecution.
And as for negative reinforcement, the defendant in this case isn't the leak. If they are pursuing litigation as a punishment, that's the very definition of a SLAPP case.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #189,647
1/10/05 6:24:27 PM
|
Oh, I'm sure there's a true one in there too
Some of its true, some of it might not be.
Prosecute on the true part.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|