Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Courts Businesses Government Censorship Apple News

Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case 711

An anonymous reader writes: "In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. The San Jose news piece has the most detail on the ruling while Mac Daily News has some background on the case, and Gizmodo vociferously expresses an opinion on the lawsuit. We've covered the case in the past as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case

Comments Filter:
  • by jarich ( 733129 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:50AM (#11843476) Homepage Journal
    It's about a company protecting their secrets from being rebroadcast on a world-wide medium.

    It's not about journalism or blogging.

    • by Skye16 ( 685048 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:58AM (#11843540)
      Wrong, it's about both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It's obvious you think that protecting secrets is of more import than speech, but don't be so dishonest as to say "it has nothing to do with journalism or blogging".

      I'm not saying you're wrong that protecting secrets is more important than free speech (and I'm also not saying you're right). I'm just saying "be honest about the situation or don't open your mouth". It's completely irresponsible of you to do otherwise.
      • by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:05AM (#11843600)
        You're both wrong. It's not about secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech. It's about breaking conctractual agreements, and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce".
        • Wrong again; these news sites/bloggers did NOT agree to any of these NDAs; as such, it STILL has to do with journalism and blogging, at the minimum, and protecting your secrets (which is the purpose of the NDA in the first place).
          • by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:13AM (#11843672)
            That's nonsense. The law does not care about "protecting your (corporate) secrets". This is only relevant because the NDA is a contract, and, like I already said, "Contracts are promises that the law will enforce"! (google for this sentence and see how often it occurs)
            The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
            • We aren't necessarily limiting the scope of our discussion to the law, but rather, what it should be. The first post in this thread stated that this situation had no bearing what-so-ever on journalism or blogging. I claimed that one has to admit that it does. Not necessarily in the eyes of the law, but in application to our society, it most certainly does. I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is slashdot, where we are "normal" people, not lawyers. Perhaps in a lawyer forum, you could automatica
          • by Anonymous Coward
            " Wrong again; these news sites/bloggers did NOT agree to any of these NDAs"

            You are right -- they didn't agree to these NDAs.

            But at the same time, encouraging folks to break the law is a grey area of legality. At least one of these companies has a toll free number that they claim is anonymous that anyone can call and leave anonymous tips to avoid being caught. This signifies that they are knowingly encouraging someone to break their contract. Beyond that, they are participating in this -- which pushes
  • by ralinx ( 305484 ) <> on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:54AM (#11843504)
    Apple Good, Microsoft Bad,
    OS X Good, Windows Bad,
    PowerPC Good, Intel Bad

    everybody clear on this?
  • Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kunwon1 ( 795332 ) <> on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:54AM (#11843510) Homepage
    Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.


    Thomas Goldstein, a former dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism who worked as a reporter for the New York Times, filed a brief in support of the Web sites. "Just because Apple does not want these publications to report on its activities does not mean that they are not news publications," Goldstein wrote.

    This is setting a very dangerous precedent. If this holds up (through many appeals, unless I miss my guess), then what's to differentiate between CNN and Just because it's on the web means it's not journalism?
    • Re:Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 )
      It's simple.

      If you're the representative of a large news organization that can

      a) Buy Laws
      b) Buy Politicans
      c) Destroy Politicians

      Then you're a journalist and entitled to their protections. If you're not a representative of an organization like this, you're not.
    • Re:Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tx_kanuck ( 667833 )
      Perhaps, but if CNN/FOX/Etc thought that were the case, then I would bet that they would be tossing their hats into the ring. They would not want even a small precendent set in the appeals courts saying the web is not a journalistic forum.
  • by varmittang ( 849469 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @09:56AM (#11843528)
    If they didn't win, then all NDAs are pointless because you could just put an anonymous post on some website and not get in trouble for it.
  • by coder.keitaro ( 861991 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:00AM (#11843559) Homepage Journal
    such protections apply only to "legitimate members of the press."

    So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?

    This is the beginning of an "authorized" press with greater freedoms than for anyone who dares to publish outside of it.

    It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.
    • by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:23AM (#11843748)
      >It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.

      you can have it back when you learn to spell it*.

      *and the answer isn't "I-T"
    • by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:50AM (#11843973) Journal
      We already have people to decide who is and is not a journalist - for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and so on. This is how real journalists get press passes, by the way - they join the associations, which check their credentials, and issue passes.

      I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever. I'm curious as to how 'journalism' can be confused with some guy writing something and distributing it to the masses. If I print flyers and distribute them on the street corner, am I a journalist? No. If I tape posters to streetlamps and hydro poles, am I a journalist? No.

      Journalism is a profession that requires both skill and responsibility. To call bloggers 'journalists' is akin to calling an MCSE an 'engineer'. The word is far from the truth, and if being called a journalist requires nothing more than a voice, then the single most important career possible in an open and democratic society suddenly means nothing. When a loud voice and a sense of self-righteousness can be considered equal to understanding of ethics, unbiased reporting, and facility with the language, then 'journalism' is suddenly just a word, and all the respect it once deserved is lost forever.

      These people are not journalists, they are not reporters, and they are not worthy of anyone's respect. They are helping someone who broke an NDA escape due process, something that I doubt any good journalist would be willing to do - but then, any good journalist wouldn't have posted the details in the first place.

      This is not a free speech issue. This is a legal issue. Someone signed a contract saying they would not disclose the information they learned, and then they broke that contract. No one is speaking as to the blogger's right to post, they are only speaking as to the source's right to leak, which does not exist. This has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with contractual obligation, and the person who leaked this information should be revealed, as they can not and should not be trusted with sensitive information by any company, ever again.

      Here's an example to put this into perspective: my company deals with a lot of personal information for thousands of clients. Do I want to hire someone who has, in the past, broken their contractual obligations? Do I want them leaking the spending habits of important clients to the press, putting my company and my business in danger?

      Slashdotters are always talking about privacy issues, but the only things stopping me from leaking the (very) personal details of thousands of people onto the internet is my sense of ethics and an NDA. This person obviously does not have a sense of ethics, and if an NDA is worthless when hidden behind an 'anonymous tip', then you can all kiss your privacy goodbye.
      • by rjung2k ( 576317 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:29AM (#11844280) Homepage
        I wish I had mod points, because the parent post needs to be staple-gunned to everyone's forehead.

        Look, guys, I get a big hard-on for the Constitution of the United States, but I' getting sick and tired of all the critics following this case claiming that any sort of victory for Apple is a threat to free speech, or that there's no difference between and, yadda yadda yadda. Being a journalist is not just starting a web site and pronouncing yourself as one -- that's as meaningless as buying a box of bandages and starting a medical practice as Dr. Nick Riviera.

        If anything, bloggers and "news sites" might be comparable to freelance op-ed writers, free to write whatever they want on whatever topic they want. That does not automatically give them the rights and privileges of journalists, just like being the webmaster of gives you instant access to the White House Press Pool.

        (An exception, of course, is if you're a conservative shill using an alias and working for a fake news organization while moonlighting as a gay escort... but the Bush Administration clearly uses a looser set of ethics than the rest of us...)
        • Being a journalist is not just starting a web site and pronouncing yourself as one -- that's as meaningless as buying a box of bandages and starting a medical practice as Dr. Nick Riviera.

          Actually, Nick Riviera is a doctor, and somebody who starts a website is a journalist... they're both just getting started out and the quality of their output will be low for a while (well, maybe in Riviera's case it'll stay low). The point is, "being a journalist" is something that happens by degrees along a continuum

      • by kenthorvath ( 225950 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:55AM (#11844508)
        This is how real journalists get press passes, by the way - they join the associations, which check their credentials, and issue passes.

        Nowhere in the constitution does it establish any such association that officiates over who is allowed to become a member of the press. If I publish a newspaper, or an informational flyer of the same nature, I should be granted the same freedoms as any other. To do otherwise would be to claim that any citizens right to free speech can be denied because he or she was not a member of the Citizens for Free Speech Association, the likes of which may even be able to selectively deny membership. I would love to see this go to the Supreme Court. They usually have more sense over these sorts of issues.

        • by Caiwyn ( 120510 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @02:19PM (#11845932)
          Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a member of the press cannot be required to divulge their sources, either. Once again, Slashdotters are lecturing others on the first amendment without, apparently, reading it themselves. The constitution says:

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

          That is, Congress can't make a law denying the press the right to print information. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say anything about a reporter's ability to keep sources confidential in the face of a court subpoena. This is why 31 states feel the need to have shield laws that provide that very protection.

          So ultimately, it will be California's shield law, not the U.S. Constitution, that determines whether or not the proprietors of the websites in question are part of the "press," and whether or not they can be forced to divulge sources. If you want to read up on the specifics, check out this site [].
      • Unfortunately this assumes 'the press' or 'free speach' is limited to a selected club. It can't be or the 1st amendmant is meaningless.
        The minute you start having special rules and liscences to define who is the press or who gets free speach, those rules quickly become "those who only say what we want them to say"
        I can't honestly believe so many people have failed to understand the 1st amendment. It was specifically meant to EXCLUDE the sorts of things being said here, namely government definition o
  • by Lemurmania ( 846869 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#11843581)
    This sort of behavior has a lot to do with why I never moaned about Microsoft taking over the desktop. As a longtime Mac user, I've seen Apple's weird paternalistic culture close-up for a couple of decades.

    Microsoft wants to infiltrate every device bigger than a toothbrush, agreed. But how much worse would it be if Apple took over? (I realize this is verging way out into hypothetical land.) In Bizzarro Apple Land, only rich, Blaupunkt-owning, BMW-driving hipsters would be allowed to compute. Your Mac could be taken away by armed fashionistas roaming the streets. Every PC would cost at least $5,000 and developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System. Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses, and instead use elaborate abaci manned by legions of idiot savants.

    At least, that's what Mistress Cleo says.

    • by pandrijeczko ( 588093 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:18AM (#11843717)
      But how much worse would it be if Apple took over?

      No, it would be better.

      If only because the sight of Steve Jobs skipping up and down a stage with sweaty armpits screaming "Developers" over and over again would probably not be now giving me such bad nightmares...

    • by mj_1903 ( 570130 ) * on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:34AM (#11843839)
      In Bizzarro Apple Land, only rich, Blaupunkt-owning, BMW-driving hipsters would be allowed to compute

      So like the target market of the Mac mini?

      developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System

      So those free developer tools?

      Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses

      So like super computing?

      I think you are basing your ideas off the Apple of old run not by dreamers but by boring businessmen. Apple has and is changing and at quite a rapid rate. They want everyone to experience and enjoy their products, a quick look at the drop in prices of all their product lines would indicate that. Not to mention of course that Mac OS X is the most accessible operating system out there now, no funky 3D interface, not strange and bizarre "elite" windowing system just plain system Desktop metaphor with reasonable consistency for joe user.
  • Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:03AM (#11843583) Homepage
    Ok, I'll talk. I got a call from a guy who said his name was Steve Jobs, and he told me all this stuff. He sent me an email (see, the "From:" line says ""!) with the pictures and stuff. I figured he should know, right? What? The headers say the email comes from an anonymizer in the Netherlands? Sorry, I don't know what that means.
  • by Hussman32 ( 751772 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:04AM (#11843593)
    The article didn't state it explicitly, but I was wondering if maybe they overheard the information.

    I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.
  • by fprefect ( 14608 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:11AM (#11843655)
    What makes someone a journalist? Is it circulation in the millions? Is it a press pass? Is it a crumpled fedora? These days any hack with a blog can wrap something in HTML, slap a google ad on it, and call it journalism. Does that make it so?

    Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection - not just your own free speech, but the ability to quote or reference facts from anonymous sources with impunity? That would be a great loophole, the Internet equivalent of "touching base" -- you caaan't get me.

    As for these sites, IMO they were established news organizations, and likely deserve such protection given their reputation and audience. However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
  • by gt_swagger ( 799065 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:20AM (#11843731) Homepage
    The news came as a letdown for those running ThinkSecret, but their spirits were picked up when Apple served their final notice on nice metallic gray paper, in a design that could only be called "compact, simple, elegant, and effective."
  • Great . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by theparanoidcynic ( 705438 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:24AM (#11843757)
    So in the US you can force journalists to cough up the names of people who leaked Apple product specs, but you can't force them to cough up the name of the Bush admin shill who outed a CIA agent. Fucking fantastic.
  • A few things: (Score:4, Informative)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:24AM (#11843761)
    - There is no blanket shield law for journalists in the US. Nothing along the lines of doctor-patient or lawyer-client privelege. There are some laws for more specific cases, but nothing generic.
    - This is not about "freedom of the press". You are free to publish (ie: the government can't sell publishing licenses), but you are still responsible for your actions, just as with speech.
    - There is a federal trade secrets act that says publishers can be found liable if they knew, or should have known, that information was a trade-secret being leaked.
    • Re:A few things: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:45AM (#11843927) Homepage
      "- There is no blanket shield law for journalists in the US. Nothing along the lines of doctor-patient or lawyer-client privelege. There are some laws for more specific cases, but nothing generic."

      It's called the First Amendment.

      This situation is simple. The judge believes trade law overrides the First amendment, as well as 200+ years of journalistic tradition.

      This is becoming increasingly common. Americans don't understand and don't care about their civil rights. And when judges become so pro-business that the First becomes a null, we've gone over the top at last.

      All the more sad that so many Bush judges are now on the bench. The current situation is only a precursor to the next fifty years of amazing new findings by rightist judges. The legal atmosphere will be unrecognizable to anyone freshly imported from the 20th century.

      And I am ashamed, horrified that Apple, of all companies, is doing this. I'm reconsidering my future purchases of their products.

      Getting scooped on your product launch is part of being a free society. Any NDA's one has with one's employees is NOT the journalist's problem. A major part of journalism (pre-Bushism) is the cultivation of secret sources that reveal things their bosses don't like revealed. And Thinksecret is a news outlet, in the Ben Franklin tradition. If a gay call boy can get a daily pass under a fake name to the White House FOR TWO YEARS to be an undercover shill, and not be charged, and Robert Novak can out a CIA agent along with an entire CIA front company to ruin a White House critic without being arrested for treason, a man can report on an Apple product without being ruined.
      • Re:A few things: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:45AM (#11844427)
        Again, the first ammendment protects the right to speak and publish, not the right to be immunte from responsibility for your actions.

        Respectfully, if you view the constitution as absolute, and feel that any speech and any sort of publishing should be completely protected, I can see your point. That's not how things currently work, though, so is the topic for a different discussion.

        Getting scooped on your product launch is being part of a free society, yes, but we are also a society of laws. What good are NDAs if employees merely have to drop a note to any journalist who is free to publish it, and never say who leaked it? Any sort of secrecy would become impossible.

        Every type of protection has exceptions. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room and claim freedom of speech. We have laws against slander and libel. You are free to speak, but responsible for your actions.

        Soliciting someone to break the law is illegal. If the journalist knew that the source was breaking the law by telling him this, he has a moral and legal responsibility to society to behave correctly.

        Contracts are a matter of law. Unless you claim the NDA was invalid or something (which you could do), this is fairly clear.

        Now, if the greater public good were at stake, if this were about pollution or other threats to people's lives, or livelihood, I can see a need to protect, however, leaking confidential product releases isn't one of them.

        This man wont be ruined, this man could simply give up his source.

  • by Sean Clifford ( 322444 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @10:26AM (#11843784) Journal
    It ain't over yet. In the interim, I'm sure there will be an appeal and nobody will be forced to reveal anything until the appeal is decided. The judge is still hearing from Apple and the EFF.

    If forced, I'd refuse to comply. Yes, doing so will park you in jail. Blogs are publications and are often widely syndicated; they're often used as sources for major broadcast and dead tree news stories. ThinkSecret is as legitimate as the Talon; well, bad example on the latter.

    Trade secrets are not national security. ThinkSecret and the other folks weren't trafficing in them (selling them to competitors) which would be industrial espionage; they were writing news articles about them.

    Is The Register [] a legitimate news service? Is Tomshardware []? Is Slashdot? Is Democracy Now []? What about al-Jazeera []? Fox News []? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" and an "illegitmate" news agency?

    • by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:03AM (#11844079) Journal
      Slashdot is not much of a news agency. It's more of a community, one that is spurred into discussion via news aggregation. Except for the occasional interview, /. editors put very little effort into creating content, they don't research, they don't break stories, they don't fact-check.

      National Security is not the only reason that something should be held secret. Private information, whether it belongs to a person or a corporation should generally be considered private, especially when ones source is of questionable legality.

      For an only partly applicable analogy (a better one doesn't come to mind), the patterns on my underwear is not a matter of national security, but it's not really anyone's business either. I don't care for the whole world to know about it. But if you decide you want to write a story about it, how you get your information is a pretty significant part of your job. If you ask me, or maybe my girlfriend, and one of us cough up the info, then fine, run with it. If you're courting people who you think may have broken into my house and rifled through my dresser, well, that's a bit sketchy. And when I read the article you published, and realize you probably know who it was that broke into my house and went through all my stuff, I'd expect you to tell me who it was. Otherwise you're basically aiding a criminal.

      Now in Apple's case, it's a little different, but someone broke an NDA, a legal-contract that they willingly signed, and Apple wants to know who it is so that they can take actions against them that they feel appropriate. ThinkSecret can play dumb all they want, but with as long as they've been around, they understood that they were soliciting information that they're only going to receive if someone breaks an NDA. By not giving up their sources, they're helping someone who broke the law get away with it. I don't understand how that is defensible.
  • by HuguesT ( 84078 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:06AM (#11844100)
    Obviously Apple is silly to be angry at ThinkSecret.

    They can only be angry because TS reports are sufficiently accurate to be believable, and this can only happen if there is some kind of inside source close enough to Apple blowing the whistle.

    What Apple really wants are the names of the whistleblowers, so they can be at least fired, if not slapped with a lawsuit themselves so that no further leak ever happens.

    Unfortunately this will not work. At the very worst TS will be compelled to reveal their sources. They can only be found "guilty" of conveying a message. AFAIK TS have not signed any contract with Apple and are therefore breaking no law in publicizing what they know (or think they now).

    If the TS sources were smart, they were anonymous, and therefore no data at all for Apple at the end of this rigmarole.

    If the sources are not anonymous then Apple will indeed fire and sue a couple of guys, and promptly the next round of leaks (for leaks will not stop, indeed they will become hotter and more valuable each time Apple tries to squash them) will indeed be anonymous, encrypted, whatever. Apple will be back to square one only this time when they sue the next round of leak sites those people will be better armed to tell Apple to take a walk.

    There is no way Apple will end up doing something productive about this business. In the meantime they are burying themselves into a nice PR hole.

    Why don't everybody who think Apple is making a mistake tell that to Apple []?
  • by Pac ( 9516 ) <> on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:13AM (#11844136)
    People should pay attention to what rabit Apple is trying to pull from the hat here. If you read the article,
    "In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to 'legitimate members of the press.'"

    So basically Apple is saying bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and the judge (tentatively, meaning it is a preliminary ruling) agreed. If this holds water, the consequences can be huge. Some questions will need new answers: Who is a legitimate member of the press? What is a "news organisation"? If an online presence is not enough to caractherize such an organisation, what is? A paper? A radio?

    This a fine new front in the "us against them" battle for the Internet.
  • by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:33AM (#11844324)
    The idea behind protecting a journalist's sources is so that people will talk to reporters in confidence, particularly about scandals that need to be exposed to public view, so that a journalist and his sources can be free to expose all the gory details without fear of legal retribution. That's all very laudable.

    This is somewhat different. Here the leak itself is the scandal. Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - fame, revenge, to make himself feel good, whatever. For goodness sake, "Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets. This case has nothing at all to do with protecting sources who are putting themselves at risk to expose a dark secret that the public needs to know about.

    This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so. If a person can be labelled a journalist (with legal source protection) just by creating a web site containing trade secret information, then the legal protection for trade secrets exposed in this way is weakened considerably.
    • "Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - fame, revenge, to make himself feel good, whatever. "

      if it's unknown, then why do you list those examples? Perhaps there are other reasons? but that doesn't matter, because whistle blowers often do it to make them selves feel good, or some sort of personal gain.

      ""Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets."

      reports solicit people for secrets of one sort or another all the time, it's there job.

      "This case has
    • This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so.

      Why not? The legal definition of who can exercise freedom of the press in the States and in California is quite broad. Further, their motives in this matter are irrelevant. Exposing other peoples' secrets is a legitimate press activity when the secrets are relevant to the public good (Apple's marketing strategy easily falls under this).

      In summary, I believe these site

  • by Nick dePlume ( 164783 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @12:46PM (#11844988)
    Hi --

    I just wanted to point out that the San Jose Merc news article that's linked is not about Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret. It's referring to a separate suit against "John Does," as part of which three sites, including Think Secret, received subpoenas. They're completely different suits.

    Nick dePlume
    Publisher and Editor in Chief
    Think Secret

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken