Story: 2005: Apple's 1984?
Posted by: George Whitaker (Wednesday 19 January 2005, 9:02 PM)
I think you are missing the whole point of the law suit. What Apple wants is to force ThinkSecret to provide its source for what has now been shown to be very accurate pre release informatin of new products. This information could only have been provided by someone inside apple. If this Apple employee is providing this information to a rumor site, he/she is also intentionally or unintentially providing it to Apple's competitors. In some cases photos of advance products were provided. Having a camera or recording device inside of company property is not only prohibited by Apple, this is industry standard to protect intelectual property. I work for an aero-space company, and I would never even consider taking a camera in to one of there facilities and taking pictures of competitive new products and releasing them to the press. I would expect any one who got caught doing that to be fired. This is about personal integrity of a companies emploees and protection of comptitive trade secrets.
Full Talkback thread
Story: 2005: Apple's 1984?
-
Your spin doesn't alter the facts - an NDA is an N... flintwall -
flintwall wrote, "An NDA is an NDA..."
This i... ST -
Re:flintwall wrote, "An NDA is an NDA...... Anonymous -
Apple being a bully...bull-roar! Anonymous
-
I guess if its in the name of good PR its OK to co... Anonymous
-
The 19 year old kid has been making up stories sin... Anonymous
-
A FUD-ridden, Geocities-level RANT. That's all thi... MacDuff
-
The kind of journalism I've come to expect out of... Anonymous
-
Oh, puh-leez. Apple's not "bullying" poor teenager... Anonymous
-
Apple, I believe was correct in doing what they di... Nate
-
2005: Apple's 1984?
Here is what the headline shou... Zato
-
People,
where are you getting your informatio... Anonymous
-
This article is pure bull-oney.
NDA, and the prote... Anonymous
-
On his site, he solicits and reports company trade... Anonymous
-
From the "teenager with a strong journalistic stre... Anonymous
-
What business does this kid have posting anyt... Anonymous
-
How can a publicly owned corporation have an "atti... Anonymous
-
This arrogant insignificant pissy web site can alw... Anonymous
-
This Harvard "penniless" pantsy is no journal... Xklbrr
-
"This arrogant insignificant pissy web s... Zato
-
Bottom line, I did not like what Think Secret was... Phil K.
-
Thieves are also not cool. That is the point of A... James Katt
-
If he can afford Harvard, he can afford a lawyer!!... James Katt
-
Does anyone actually care about the rumours?... Anonymous
-
Why is Apple a bully when others are in the clear... Anonymous
-
While I agree that Apple should just get over it a... Anonymous
-
I think you are missing the whole point of the law... George Whitaker -
OK, so you, ZDNerds and other advocates of th... Norm Jiles
-
This "penniless" kid is from Cazenovia\,... Ed Knittel
-
Nonsense! Utter nonsense.
The freedom is speech do... Anonymous
-
While the NDA is between Apple and the leaking emp... Anonymous
-
"Beware of Geeks bearing gifts."
Okey. Let's make... Anonymous
-
Stealing trade secrets or knowingly publishing the... Phillip Carruthers
-
ZD-Microsoft strike again.
This site is now on my... Anonymous
-
On one level Apple is right. Someone broke an NDA... Steve J
-
Mac fans are such idi*ts
When does it become obvio... Anonymous
-
So if you run a bakery, and your baked goods are a... jackee bleu
-
More Communism. AL GORE, the Environmental Communi... Anonymous
Back to: 2005: Apple's 1984?
