Think Secret, a student-run web site that has been embroiled in litigation with Apple Inc., is shutting down as a result of that lawsuit's settlement. Although Nick Ciarelli, the Harvard student who ran the site, says that the "settlement is a positive solution for both sides," the blogosphere is up in arms over the possible chilling effect that this might have on free speech. The general sentiment is that Apple has behaved like "some power-crazed South American dictator, the kind who can't stand it when the media reveal government secrets and so arrests the entire press corps."
By way of background, Apple sued Think Secret for divulging trade secrets and Think Secret was part of a separate lawsuit by Apple filed against several sites seeking the names of their sources of information. Think Secret's big crime was to post information on a "Mac mini" that Steve Jobs had planned to announce at Mac World in 2005. The blog stole a little bit of the super-secretive Apple's thunder.
I haven't followed the amazing amount of litigation surrounding Apple's lawsuits against bloggers, but there were wins and losses in the courts for both sides. It's hard to say how the settlement will impact bloggers and free speech because we don't know what the settlement entailed aside from the fact that Think Secret will shut down and no sources have been revealed to Apple. In the end, then, Apple didn't get what it wanted from Think Secret even if Think Secret will no longer exist.
Apple very well could have come out the loser in all this but demanded the shut-down of Think Secret as a face-saving condition. This litigation, after all, was a stupid strategy on Apple's part, one bound to give the company a very public black eye. I would also argue that Apple would not have prevailed in the end.
One scenario I can envision: To prevent a very bad legal precedent that would reverberate against the company for years to come, and to end the embarassing litigation, Apple paid Ciarelli a ton of money...with the condition that Think Secret shut down. It's just impossible to say because the settlement, like most settlements, is confidential.
One thing I can say is that Nick Ciarelli deserves a tremendous number of kudos for even standing up to Apple and surviving the years-long torture that litigation brings. He is just a student and Apple is a $161 billion corporation with nothing but money to throw at attorneys whose sole job was to crush Ciarelli in any way they could.
Even if Ciarelli had support from public interest groups and free speech advocates, litigation is one of the worst things that can happen to an individual, behind only death, disease and death of a loved one. The torture of litigation is magnified by some geometric multiple when a giant corporation guns for a sole person. It's like aiming a nuclear warhead at a mouse. If you haven't been there, you simply can't know the kind of day-to-day horribleness that a mega-million dollar company, with its hordes of $500/hour attorneys, can inflict on an individual.
That Ciarelli was able to withstand the brutality, constant threats, mind-numbing motions, anxiety and possible financial devastation that Apple inflicted upon him, and that he was able to bear up all the way through to a settlement he describes as "a positive solution," says a lot about him. This guy has guts and stamina.
Although I agree that Apple behaved horribly and should be condemned for aiming its warheads at mice, the outcome of this dispute should actually inspire other bloggers to stand up to malicious litigation by deep-pocketed companies. If Ciarelli can do it, they can too.
Cynthia Brumfield at 9:38 AM|Comments(5)
"For a company with an amazing focus on being consumer friendly and reveling in its role as the underdog"
That's all marketing fluff. The "consumer friendly" aspect is smart because that's where the most money can be had and the "underdog" role is simply where they find themselves. Look at where Apple is *not* the underdog - iTunes/iPod - and you'll see them pushing their weight around. LIke any smart corporation would.
"Apple comes across as malicious and corporately cold."
I would disagree with the "malicious" part but "corporately cold"? Yes - because they *are* a corporation.
Lost in all of this sturm un drang is the fact that Apple is *just* another company - they are not your favorite uncle or a kindly neighbor doing good deeds for old ladies. The are simply a company doing what they feel is best for their shareholders. Anthropomorphizing Apple is what leads to people being upset when Apple does things against their own personal values.
"The real story, which we will likely never see, is why Apple did what it did."
Because it's what corporations do - try and protect their assets/trade secrets.
--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com
Posted by: Shawn King at December 21, 2007 11:38 AM
"Apple...demanded the shut-down of Think Secret as a face-saving condition."
Why do so many bloggers assume facts not in evidence? Maybe Nick found himself a girlfriend. Maybe he’s looking to the next chapter.
Nick is graduating Harvard next year. If you look at the recent stories on the site, you can see that Nick has been in the long, slow process of winding down for quite some time. He hasn’t broken major news in months and has been supplanted by AppleInsider, among others, for most people looking for *real* dirt on Apple.
Maybe Apple did force him to shut down (again, not proven by you or anyone else) but Nick himself says on his site, “I’m pleased to have reached this amicable settlement…” Why not take him at his word?
And yet, you also say, "It's just impossible to say because the settlement, like most settlements, is confidential."
So if it's "impossible to say" why do you assume you know Apple "forced" ThinkSecret's closure?
--
Shawn King
Host/Executive Producer
Your Mac Life
http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com
Posted by: Shawn King at December 21, 2007 10:19 AM
I have not followed the story closely, but what I do not understand is why this obviously intelligent person would delight in revealing a company's product secrets just because 'he can'? Well it appears he has received what he wanted, here's hoping it was worth it and bending laws or working within them to fit one's agenda is what makes the American Consitution what it was meant to be??
Posted by: mp at December 21, 2007 9:47 AM
Cynthia,
Good post. It is really amazing and puzzling to see why Apple went to such lengths to shut down TS. For a company with an amazing focus on being consumer friendly and reveling in its role as the underdog, Apple comes across as malicious and corporately cold. The real story, which we will likely never see, is why Apple did what it did.
Posted by: Mark Evans at December 20, 2007 4:37 PM
I, too, salute Nick for his educational website, which was an excellent source of information. However, he did cross the line. If only Nick could have stayed a journalist, rather than becoming a spy, all would have been fine. Apple had no choice but to pursue legal action -- any manufacturer would - and should - so the same thing.
No manufacturer can stay competitive when its new products are disassembled and shared with the public before official release. Dell, HP, and other hardware manufacturers must have loved the opportunity to get the head start on copying Apple's designs. All Nick had to do to stay in the right is wait to publish until after Apple released final hardware for sale.
Cynthia, you're entirely wrong to state that Apple went about this incorrectly. In the present competitive marketplace, manufacturers have no choice but to use legal tools to defend their position. If some competitor with insider information was able to patent an Apple innovation before Apple did, then millions of dollars would have been lost for Apple and its shareholders around the world. I respect Apple and all manufacturers who innovate "secretive"ly -- because we all benefit from their hard work.
Thank you, Nick, for your dedication to the truth. Unlike many internet pundits and bloggers, you continuously published objective and accurate, well-researched, useful data. But you have to publish this information with manufacturer's permission.
Posted by: Mac User at December 20, 2007 3:04 PM
Blogs We Read
