Think Secret Sued!

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Gareth Slee, Jan 5, 2005.

  1. Gareth Slee

    Gareth Slee Guest

    Gareth Slee, Jan 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gareth Slee

    Mike Guest

    Mike, Jan 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. They're also doing what's required (not possible, not recommended, but
    required) to maintain ownership of their IP.

    You're missing a major implication: People broke signed, legally binding
    agreements. They literally cannot allow that to pass unchallenged.

    G
     
    Gregory Weston, Jan 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Gareth Slee

    R. Tang Guest

    Most Internet yahoos don't know or care about that. Business and
    legal matters are literally quite beyond their grasp.
     
    R. Tang, Jan 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Gareth Slee

    Guest Guest

    from what i've read, apple's claim is not that thinksecret broke an
    nda, but that thinksecret solicited others into leaking information.
    i'm sure apple is more interested in who *those* people are.

    i'm also not convinced that asking, and even soliciting for information
    is illegal. anyone can ask anything they want. depending on the
    question, answering may be illegal.
     
    Guest, Jan 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Inducement _can_ be illegal. Even if any of us here are lawyers (IAN)
    it's almost certain that none of us here know enough details about this
    particular case to say what applies here.
     
    Gregory Weston, Jan 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Sure. Apple sues ThinkSecret to try to force ThinkSecret to give them
    names. ThinkSecret refuses or claims they don't have the names. The
    rumors themselves are confirmed by the suit. Meanwhile, if Apple
    finds the people responsible they fire them. Business as usual.
    Unfortunately, "intellectual property" is the root password to the
    first amendment. Many states have laws against attempting to obtain
    them and there's torts like inteference with a contract which can come
    into play.
     
    Matthew Russotto, Jan 6, 2005
    #7
  8. If these are Apple's most rabid fans, I hate to imagine their enemies.
    Rumor sites publish clearly proprietary trade secret info. Given that,
    they had best not act surprised when Apple comes after them to find out
    who stole said information.

    Apple has the right to track down people who upload Tiger seeds to file
    sharing networks, at least if the uploaders have signed the NDA that all
    ADC members have. Similarly, they have the right to find out how their
    trade secrets left the Apple campus, and if it was via theft, to
    prosecute. If via carelessness by an employee, to terminate that
    employee's contract and quite possible apply civil penalties.

    Suing Think Secret is a part of that - TS likely knows who did the deed,
    or at least has information like email headers, and may well be
    accessories, depending on how they acted afterwards.

    We live in a world where a company is allowed to protect its trade
    secrets, patents, and copyrights using the law. We should not act
    surprised when a publication dedicated to publishing violations of NDAs
    or employment agreements gets sued to find the person who broke their
    contract.

    We may or may not like patents, trade secrets, and copyrights, but it is
    worth remembering that the people at the wrong end of the legal gun are
    more than likely not people who violated a real, written contract. Not
    one of those shrink wrap license agreements, but an honest to God legal
    document in many cases.

    (FWIW, I am in favor of strictly limited patent and copyright
    protection, but I still am scrupulous with proprietary data sent to me
    by clients. It seems like just good sense, as well as the right thing
    to do.)

    Scott
     
    Scott Ellsworth, Jan 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Gareth Slee

    Bev A. Kupf Guest

    I thought "conspiracy to take a leak" referred to fathers, brothers,
    and significant others leaving the darn toilet seat up. :)

    Beverly
     
    Bev A. Kupf, Jan 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Conspiracy requires coordinated planning/effort by multiple people.
    Seems to me there's a stereotype about one gender going to the restroom
    in pairs.

    G
     
    Gregory Weston, Jan 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Gareth Slee

    Bev A. Kupf Guest

    You're so right. The requirement for coordination, planning or effort
    would certainly rule out my suggestion :) :) :)

    Beverly
    /written in jest, mostly
     
    Bev A. Kupf, Jan 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Gareth Slee

    Tom Stiller Guest

    I've often wondered why it's so much more difficult for mothers, sisters
    and significant others to put the seat down before use than it is for
    fathers, brothers, and significant others to put it down after use. :)
     
    Tom Stiller, Jan 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Right. And return it to its proper, upright and locked position.

    Er, although I felt badly once when a friend got up in the dark to pee,
    and fell into the bowl, as she didn't check, and had a rather skinny
    derriere.
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Have you ever got up in the middle of the night, stumbled to the john,
    and sat down on a toilet with the seat up?
     
    Michelle Steiner, Jan 8, 2005
    #14
  15. Dunno about you, but around here we have electric lights that pretty
    much eliminate that problem.
     
    Tom Harrington, Jan 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Gareth Slee

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    Don't know about others but I was brought up in a family where the convention
    was that one put both the seat and the lid down after using the toilet.

    -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
     
    TaliesinSoft, Jan 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Gareth Slee

    Van Bagnol Guest

    Has anyone gotten up in the middle of the night, stumbled to the john,
    and peed on a toilet whose lid was down? :)

    Anyway, the optimal strategy is to leave the lid the way you used it. In
    a household with m "lid-up" members and f "lid-down" members, the
    probability of already finding the lid up is m/(m+f), and finding the
    lid down is f/(m+f), the same proportion as the household population. If
    the groups use the toilet with different frequency, probabilities would
    be freq(m)*m/(freq(m)*m+freq(f)*f) and freq(f)*f/(freq(m)*m+freq(f)*f),
    still the same proportion of actual usage. If there's a serial
    correlation to toilet usage (e.g, a greater chance of consecutive "f"
    events), the results are even better.

    You could also liken it to the degenerate case of the LRU algorithm
    where the working set size is one and swappable pages is two.

    Van
     
    Van Bagnol, Jan 9, 2005
    #17
  18. Just about every woman. But men have to sit down a substantial amount
    of the time they go potty.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Jan 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Dunno about you, but around here we have electric lights that pretty
    much eliminate that problem.[/QUOTE]

    Stumbling, half asleep in the middle of the night, with an urgent need
    to void often results in not enough time and/or energy for groping for
    the light switch. Then there's the matter of the light waking up anyone
    sleeping in the adjacent bedroom.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Jan 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Gareth Slee

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Yes. So what? Have you ever sat down on the lid?

    In our house the theory is that a closed lid keeps
    hides the stains and keeps flying toys out.

    As long as we're telling bathroom stories, one time I was
    thinking to myself, "Wow, this urinal sure is high."

    Then I woke up enough to recognize the sink.

    What does this have to do with Macs (or even
    with Sue's Secret) ?
     
    Wes Groleau, Jan 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.