Perhaps I should clarify my thoughts on Apple's case against Think Secret.
I was actually aware, if only in passing historical memory, of the screw-ups regarding ATI and the Apple web staff. I can't argue with Apple's reactions to either. This, I can. Unless it can be proven that Nick DePlume explicitly incited those signing NDAs to break them,
is shooting the messenger
productive? Like any quasi-journalist
dealing largely in rumour, DePlume no doubt gets anonymous tips. Does he have a solemn duty not to publicize it? If he hasn't signed an NDA, I don't see that he's ethically in the wrong. I'm also still not convinced there's a valid claim anything in this
represents a trade secret. It's a compilation of previous statements, conjecture, and "expected" hardware specs, which could
be extrapolated from the anticipated market sector and the needs of the target consumers.
To focus on the publicizer rather than the legitimate injury done is to miss the point entirely. Apple has an airtight case against the leakers, who, having broken their side of a contract, are clearly in the wrong. Think Secret isn't, except possibly
on a difficult-to-argue technicality.
I'm not terribly worried about torrents of bad PR arising from this for Apple; I am aware the hammer's been dropped, and hard, before. But as a potential new customer drawn to the Mac via the iPod - theoretically one of the two new markets they're gunning for with the now all-but-certain new system - heavy-handed attitudes towards something that seems (again, to me, as a casual observer only semi-familiar with the running narrative of Apple vs. The Corporate Empire-Destroying Scourge of Rumours) not terribly harmful does tend to sap the goodwill I have for the company.