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
I believe trade secret status ceased to exist upon publication.
(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 - Also from the USTA:
\ufffd3. Damages
I suspect Apple would be hard pressed to prove enrichment due to this specific incidence of misappropriation, if there was any.
(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. - 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."