Ok, so its not auto related, but after the Z06 fiasco and the camaro pdf file thing it might have an impact on down the line.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/technolo...logy-59882.htm

Harvard student sued by Apple for product leaks

By Jonathan Finer / The Washington Post


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Nicholas M. Ciarelli was not even old enough to shave when he started getting under Apple Computer Inc.'s skin.

As a 13-year-old middle-schooler, the New Woodstock, N.Y., native built a Web site in 1998 and began publishing insider news and rumors about Apple, using the alias Nick dePlume.

Three years later, ThinkSecret.com was first to report that the company would debut a G4 version of the PowerBook laptop series. The product launched soon thereafter, along with ThinkSecret's reputation among Apple's legendarily zealous fans, generating millions of page views per month.

But after a series of letters warning the Web site to stop publishing proprietary information, Apple decided enough was enough. When Ciarelli scored yet another scoop in late December, by predicting the arrival of a new software package and a sub-$500 computer rolled out at this week's MacWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco, the computer maker filed a lawsuit accusing him of illegally misappropriating trade secrets.

Ciarelli, now a 19-year-old Harvard University freshman, is part of a legion of Internet news gatherers whose influence is expanding as concern grows in some quarters about their accountability and journalistic standards. With the easy anonymity offered by online posting of tips and digital photographs, Web sites run by product buffs have caused headaches, and also generated valuable buzz, for companies in many industries - including automobile and cell phone manufacturers - by leaking product information.

Ciarelli said he originally chose a pseudonym because he doubted many people would take a teen-ager seriously. He was publicly unmasked as ThinkSecret's editor in chief by the Harvard Crimson newspaper, which reported on the lawsuit this week.

"I talk to sources, follow up on leads and get details confirmed," said Ciarelli, a somewhat atypical technology savant who knows little about computer programming. "I believe that like other reporters I am protected by the First Amendment."

Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., sees things differently: "Defendants' knowing misappropriation and disclosure of Apple's trade secrets constitutes a violation of California law and has caused irreparable harm to Apple," states its legal complaint, which was filed in California's Santa Clara County Superior Court.

A spokesman for the company, whose fortunes have been boosted this year by sales of its iPod digital music player, declined to comment on the case beyond a written statement. "Apple's DNA is innovation, and the protection of our trade secrets is crucial to our success," the company said in the statement.

Close followers of the company said Apple is unique among computer makers for the slew of fan Web sites that track its every move and compete for scoops. Though opinions of their quality varied - some reports are wildly off-base - many industry insiders monitor the sites regularly.

In part, that's because Apple chief executive Steve Jobs has a reputation for secrecy. The company's complaint against ThinkSecret.com is part of a larger legal assault on breaches of confidentiality. It's doubtful Apple knew it was targeting a teen-ager. The complaint names only dePlume and states that his "true name and identity" cannot be confirmed, though in earlier correspondence it referred to Ciarelli as the site's editor in chief.

The suit alleges that ThinkSecret.com induced tipsters to break non-disclosure agreements .

"This case raises legal issues and marketing issues for these companies because the providers of this information are their fans, people they don't want to antagonize, even though they may not want these things published right away," said Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School.

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," Beckerman-Rodau said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Ciarelli said he became an Apple enthusiast when his parents, a school administrator and a music teacher, brought home a Macintosh Classic more than a decade ago. He owns a PowerMac G5 desktop computer and a PowerMac G4 laptop.

"Sites like mine are good for Apple because they generate interest in its products," he said, in an interview on Harvard's Cambridge, Mass., campus. "At this point I really don't think I am doing anything wrong."

He said that he has yet to retain a lawyer, and that he has 30 days to respond to Apple's complaint, which calls for damages and the forfeiture of "gains, profits, and advantages" and asks for a jury trial.

The company he established when the site was launched, The dePlume Organization LLC, is registered in New York. It lacks the money to defend a case against a major corporation, he said.

So far, the front page story in the Crimson has earned him little notoriety. "It's reading week," he said, referring to the study period before final exams. "People are too busy sleeping and studying for exams."

The response has been more forthcoming on dozens of Apple and technology-related Internet sites, where discussion of the case has raged for days.

"I fear this is just an attempt by a big business to spread fear and intimidate Web sites," said a correspondent on O'Grady's PowerPage.

ThinkSecret.com, which is a take-off on Apple's former marketing slogan "Think Different," has a stripped down, mostly text-based design; it features a number of advertisements placed by technology companies.

The ads "pay for the Web hosting and have helped with a little of my tuition," he said.

A visitor who clicks on a box labeled "Got Dirt?" is taken to an e-mail form, below a note that reads in part, "Think Secret appreciates your news tips and insider information." There is also a phone number listed for tips.

Tim Bajarin, president of the Silicon Valley high-tech research and consulting firm Creative Strategies, said he believes the real target of the suit is whoever has been breaking non-disclosure agreements by leaking information.

"Apple is after the source," Bajarin said.

On that subject, Ciarelli is circumspect, though he denies speculation that a friend or family member works for Apple.

"I employ the same legal techniques as other journalists," he said.

 

what camaro pdf thing?

 

If you are rich, you can afford to do anything, even sue forum owners. There is a lot of nonsense bills/laws in the States that makes me wonder what the representatives are really representing - certainly not the people, and from the looks of it, they represent the interests of the rich and powerful. It's wrong to develop P2P applications, yet it's OK to make tobacco products. In the first instance, it has the potential to harm intellectual property, in the latter case it definitely harms the health of smokers AND non-smokers.

Then there is DMCA and Patriot Act, which give many corporations excuses to obtain things they wouldn't otherwise have obtained. And unfortunately, there's a lot of pushing going on and telling what to do, simply because the wealthier company can afford to make life miserable to private individuals.

I am not advocating complete abolishment of any sort of control, but the way corporations get that control makes me wonder what truly is happening to the "freedoms" of the people.

 

The one that was on this site for a few hours before the Mods deleted the link. I was interesting.

I doubt it will have any effect as what is stated at the end is true, all the companies are after is the leak. In this case they couldn't find the leak, and just going after the only source to hide their secrets again. If this guy breaks and reveals his sources, I am sure that Apple would drop the suit.

 

proof

 

Yes, it will impact sites like these....

 

GM already went after the supposed person of the Z06 pics and told him that GM would spend money to make his life a living hell. This aint no big deal.
People act like leaks are something new. Only thing new about them is the use of the internet to spread pictures and info across many sources so fast.

 

Yeah, they tracked down where he lived and sent guys to his house to question him

 

This is what got things hot around here.....and should cause pause to many other sites.

LS2.com, et. al. flat out seemes to snub their nose at this, but when push comes to shove, this is why Jason made a strong stand.

Yes, it will have a chilling effect, but it'll be interesting to see what the courts really do about it......but how is this any different than the trade magazines and their so called "scoops"?!?

 

It all depends on how the law is interpeted. For me to be liable I would have to go to a GM emplyee and pursude him to tell me something he shouldn't because he has a non-discloure agreement with GM. Alot of what we do is guess work and third hand rumors....so in reality it would be something very hard to pursue for GM. Something else to note, is that Apple asked this kid to remove stuff several times, and he refused. On the other hand, if GM has something they don't want us to publish...we generally remove it. Also, they should probaly target Autoweek before they target anyone else...since they always seem to have stuff from "insiders". Also, it is commical to think GM is worried about Toyota or Honda picking up info from sites like this. Toyota reportedly has a industrial espionage network that would make an ex KGB spy blush. Hell....they probaly know what kind of underwear Bob Lutz wears. Really all websites like these do by breaking news a little early (as in the Z06) is steal thunder from autoshows and a mag covers. I personally think GM has gotten way more press on the Z06 than they would have had they just released it normally at NAIAS. For a month it was the focus of the GM world...where at NAIAS it would have been drowned out with GM's other debuts.

One other thing to think about is that GM's biggest leaks come from the supplier network, not GM itself. Sueing some websites is not going to solve that problem.

 

where? pm me .

 

I'll say it like this. GM is watching the outcome of this story right here. If it doesnt go "our" way. "Our" being people who work with/run/pay for enthusiast sites then we can all expect somethings to go down when the next big leak occurs.

It was not forwarded along to me by somebody inside GM for nothing. I'm keeping my eyes on it that's for damn sure and so should other people.

 

I wonder if GM will sue the car mags...since stuff like Motor Trend's "Future Product Forcast" is made up with inside information. How about Autoweek? They have a ton of inside info.

 

Why wouldnt Apple go after the same types of web-sites then? Why wouldnt they target the Autoweek equivelant, or the Motor Trend of computer information? It's simple, because 9 times out of 10 the magazine scratches the company's back and the company does the same for the mag.

It's no secret that automotive journalists are bought and paid by companies. I heard it for my own ears at the C6 debut last year. I won't name names, mention mags or mention which other automakers were involved but the fact is, one company was going to scratch somebody's back if a "glaring review" was given of a vehicle when it was time to test it.

Do enthusiast sites really care if they **** off a few people inside GM for telling it like it is? Nope not really. I know if I write something that gets somebody on the inside thinking about the product then my job is done. At least they are thinking what can they do different.

Also, magazines have lawyers and can fight the fights that the little guys can't. Nobody here could afford an attorney to fight off General Motors if they came knockin in our doors. And, regardless of what you may think no attorney is stupid enough to give free service. All GM would have to do is call many things to the courts on a daily basis costing the attorney lost revenue, thus making it impossible to offer free legal advice to a client.

It's all just a game.

And one other thing. GM cracked down on AutoWeek for covering a "chopped" z06 on their cover of their weekly issue (where a few sites were singled out as rogue GM sites...by GM!). They did not allow AutoWeek their chance at a silver z06. If they can (and did) do that to AutoWeek for a chopped images, what makes you think they cant, and won't do worse to you or I?

 

Reason this Apple sites is being targeted is because it is breaking major news, but basic rumors. The stuff they are breaking would be the equivelent of getting the complete specs on the new Camaro with pictures in our industry.

The reason I singled out Autoweek is because they consistantly more news "from inside sources" than anyone else. My basic problem with the idea that GM could sue a site like mine or yours is that there are much larger publications out there that have news more consistantly.

This is the exact reason that GM will be laughed out a courtroom if they sue a website. If over a 6 month period you showed how many articles about GM that had info from "GM Insiders" or without named sources were published in Autoweek (which is more than any internet site)...then you showed that Autoweek has a website that gets many more hits than the sites GM is suing, plus print cirulation...GM's case against a small website simply has no basis.

The fact of the matter is, GM works certain parts of the media/internet when it is conventient...then acts like it's the end of the world when **** hits the fan. GM has invited both me and you to events, and paid for things in the last year. Do you think a judge is gonna buy "that we are enticing GM empoyees to break confidentiality agreements", when GM itself is inviting us to events all expenses paid? If anything, it looks like GM is trying to influence what we publish (though it doesn't). Apple never did this with the website kid.

Also, I know it was a few years ago, but Blueovalnews.com was sued by Ford for publishing actual copyrighted internal Ford documents that it had aquired from Ford employees. This is a bit more serious than anything we do.

What was the outcome of that lawsuit?

http://www.blueovalnews.com/lawsuit_ford/index.htm

So while this may have precedent with Apple....it has happened in the automotive community before.

I have no doubts that GM contacted you and said to watch the case....but I really think it is them trying to scare you with a bit of doom and gloom. Considering all the stuff GM has going against it that I listed above....what really do they have to gain by sueing an enthusiast website? Especially when leaks are still gonna happen, and they will still be published in other larger publications? The kicker is the law they would attempt to sue you under has already been ruled unconstitutional in Federal Court?

There are lawyers out there looking to make a name for themselves all the time. I am sure BON did not pay thier lawyer a lot to defend them. The guy who leaked the Z06 pictures had lawyers willing to defend him, so I would imagine someone would step up.