Apple’s Lawsuits to Guard Its Secrets Leave Mac Faithful With Bitter Taste
Rumormongering about the latest creations from Apple Computer Inc. is as much a part of the Apple experience as the one-button mouse.
The notoriously secretive company is trying to change that by suing website operators that publish confidential details about unreleased products -- and that may spur a backlash among techies who have admired Apple’s unconventional style.
“You come off looking like a bully doing stuff like this,” said Robert Thompson, a professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University who has studied the social effect of Apple products. “You come off looking like the evil emperor.”
Jason O’Grady shared that view. O’Grady runs Powerpage.org, one of countless websites devoted to chronicling every turn and wrinkle in Apple’s product lines.
“I’m getting messages from people saying they’re not going to buy any more Apple stuff,” he said. “They can’t believe that Apple is going after its biggest fans.”
Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple is riled that details about the latest iPod music players, Mac computers and other items were meticulously described on the website ThinkSecret.com before Chief Executive Steve Jobs announced them at the MacWorld conference in January.
Apple filed a lawsuit against the website and Nick Ciarelli, the Harvard University freshman who runs it.
The company also filed two other lawsuits in December, both against unnamed individuals -- accusing one group of divulging details of an unreleased music-related device code-named Asteroid and the other of posting code for Apple’s upcoming operating system, dubbed Tiger.
In the Asteroid case, Apple is seeking to issue subpoenas to Think Secret, Powerpage.org and AppleInsider.com to determine the source of their information about the device, which reportedly connects musical instruments to personal computers.
An Apple spokesman said the company wouldn’t comment on pending litigation.
In December, Apple said in a statement that it was taking action against people “who we believe stole our trade secrets and posted detailed information about an unannounced Apple product on the Internet. Apple’s DNA is innovation, and the protection of our trade secrets is crucial to our success.”
Apple is cherished by loyalists as a feisty, iconoclastic company with a nonconformist philosophy and imaginative products. Some now view Apple like a star turning on his fans, as if, say, U2 or Tom Cruise tried to shut down their fan clubs.
“They have an air of arrogance -- ‘We don’t need to be concerned about the existing fan base, because people are going to buy our products anyway,’ ” said Powerpage’s O’Grady, who has owned Apple computers since 1984 and works as a computer consultant in the Philadelphia suburb of Abington.
Darcy Travlos, an analyst in New York who follows Apple for CreditSights, an independent research firm, can see it both ways.
Travlos said she had heard that some former employees of Apple with inside knowledge were responsible for the leaks, “and in that case Apple needs to protect its innovations and ideas that are coming out.”
Nonetheless, she said, “it was surprising that they came out so vigorously because it’s part of life in the technology world -- press releases are frequently reported on before they come out.”
And enthusiast sites should be distinguished from rumor mongering sites, whose main purpose is to expose unpublicized news about Apple, said Jason Snell, executive director of MacWorld magazine.
The latter “don’t exist for people to share their warm feelings about the Mac,” Snell said. “These sites exist to do the equivalent of peeking under the wrapping of a Christmas present.”
In January 2004, for instance, when Apple’s Jobs stood up before the faithful at the MacWorld conference and unveiled the $250 iPod mini, a slimmed-down version of the wildly popular iPod music player, he wasn’t exactly making news.
“It’s a fantastic product, but it was seen as a disappointment because of rumors of a $99 or $199 iPod,” Snell recalled. “When it came out, there was some disappointment that it doesn’t turn invisible and cost 20 cents.”
Last week, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg said he would consider arguments by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for online rights, that Apple should exhaust all other avenues before subpoenaing website owners.
The group’s lawyers argued that the websites’ sources and unpublished material are protected by both California’s shield law and reporters’ protection under the 1st Amendment.
“The idea of reporter’s privilege is absolutely fundamental, and it’s generally agreed that reporters’ sources are protected unless absolutely essential,” said Annalee Newitz, the foundation’s policy analyst.
Ciarelli, the website owner being sued by Apple, on Friday filed a motion with the Santa Clara County court to have the case against him thrown out.
“Apple’s lawsuit is an affront to the 1st Amendment, and an attempt to use Apple’s economic power to intimidate small journalists,” he said in a court filing. If a mainstream newspaper had published such information, “it would be called good journalism; Apple never would have considered a lawsuit.”
In an interview, Ciarelli said he should be treated as any other reporter.
“I use the same news gathering that any journalist uses,” he said, “and Think Secret publishes newsworthy information of interest to readers.”
