From today’s NewsScan, another free daily e-mailer service I highly endorse:

APPLE SUES STUDENT FOR DIVULGING SECRETS
Nicholas Ciarelli launched what has become one of the most influential Apple-focused Web sites when he was 13 as a hangout for fellow Mac enthusiasts, but his penchant for posting trade secrets has gotten the now-19-year-old Harvard student, who publishes online under the name Nick dePlume, in hot water. Apple filed a lawsuit Jan. 4 against ThinkSecret.com and its unnamed tipsters, charging: “Apple is informed and believes that Defendant Nick dePlume is an individual who uses the pseudonym ‘Nick dePlume’ but whose true name and identity cannot be confirmed at this time.” Apple, known for its highly secretive culture, says it believes ThinkSecret obtains its information by illegally soliciting information about unreleased Apple products from individuals who violate their confidentiality agreements. In fact, on Dec. 28 the site correctly predicted Apple’s debut of its $499 Mac Mini and a low-cost iPod. In response to Apple’s accusations, Ciarelli replies, “I didn’t do anything wrong. My reporting practices are the same that any journalists use. I talk to sources, I confirm details, I follow up on tips and leads that I get.” It will be difficult for Apple to prove that Ciarelli’s coverage has violated its trade secrets, says an intellectual property attorney, noting that trade secrets usually refer to the formula behind products, not simply the details about their release. (Wall Street Journal 14 Jan 2005) (sub req’d)

So this is the anticipated counter – the guy says he’s a journalist, and my best guess is that this one will go away. I don’t see how Apple has a case, unless, as the blurb here indicates, it can somehow demonstrate that product announcements and release dates are themselves trade secrets.

Some thoughts:

1: Unless Ciarelli broke the law in the process of acquiring this information (and so far I see no accusation that he hacked Apple or burgled their offices, so there’s no reason to assume wrongdoing), what we have here is basic reporting, and speaking as a prof in a university journalism program, let me suggest that it was pretty good reporting, too.

2: Now, Apple is trying to allege criminality on Ciarelli’s part with this tasty little nugget: “…illegally soliciting information about unreleased Apple products from individuals who violate their confidentiality agreements.” Ummm, no. I ask you a question that you’re legally bound not to answer, and you answer it, you have committed a civil offense against whoever you have that non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with. I haven’t done anything wrong at all. Now, if I put a gun to your head or blackmail you, or find some other way to inflict undue duress on you, maybe then I have broken the law. But unless Apple knows something that isn’t in evidence here, this is 100% lawyer crap. There might well be Apple employees who are in some hot water for leaking the information, but that’s the company’s problem, not the reporter’s.

3: So why is Apple doing it? Three possibilities spring to mind. First, they don’t know where the leak is and they want to use their massive legal army to intimidate a kid who can’t match their resources in a court fight into revealing his source(s). Second, they want to chill others who might be tempted to break a story a little early in the future. Third, as Pat Vecchio, a long-time newshound and my colleague on the J faculty here suggest, this may all be an elaborate publicity stunt designed to keep the lights trained on the recent Apple product announcements in question.

4: My money is on some combination of those first two – I think Apple is now in the process of making a pretty significant PR mistake by hammering a dedicated brand ambassador who’s spent the last six years running what I take to be a free booster operation for their products. We’ll have to wait and see how that plays in the fanatically (and often irrationally) loyal Apple user community, but if Steve Jobs wants my opinion, this is one argument that his lawyers need to lose, and yesterday.

5: I feel for Apple’s PR group. The brave new world of Web sites and blogs makes orchestrating these kinds of big splashes a lot tougher on the PR types. I assure you, traditional news orgs knew all about this announcement in advance, and they were working with Apple under embargo. But Apple’s PR didn’t account for this guy, perhaps because there’s just no way to engage all the people out there with relevant Web sites. Or maybe it’s because they haven’t yet made themselves understand that a 19 year-old with a Web site can be a real reporter, too. I don’t know, but it’s a fun thing to contemplate if you like irony. At any rate, this Apple’s failing, and it doesn’t make Ciarelli a criminal.

Here’s hoping whatever judge this winds up in front of lands on Apple with both boots, stomps the lawyers until his feet hurt, then punts their cynical asses all the way back to Cupertino.
_______________________
(Thanks to Pat Vecchio and John Hanchette of the St. Bonaventure School of Journalism and Mass Communication for their contributions to this entry.)