Ed Bilodeau

This weblog had moved: http://www.coolweblog.com/bilodeau/

# Notice (Oct 19/05): So ends my stay here on Blogger. This morning Google implemented an anti-spam 'feature' that forces me to answer a challenge phrase when I want to post to my own blog. No notice of the change, nothing. Worse is that it doesn't even work! I type the phrase, submit, "An error occured", post deleted. Damn you, Google. Chances are I will revive my blog somewhere else, sometime soon. I'll post the new coordinates here as soon as they become available. (BTW, I'm unable to post anything to my RSS stream, so I'd appreciate it if readers could spread the word and ask people to take a look at this notice)

Update (Oct 19/05, ~noon): After a frustrating few hours (and not just trying out alternatives to Blogger), I've decided that this is a good time to take a break from all this. A day? A week? Who knows. But I need to step away from it before I pass a heavy magnet over the whole mess.

Update 2: According to this post, the reason I'm seeing the CAPTCHA (challenge phrase) is that Blogger has classified my blog as spam. Thanks. User for five years and now I'm spam. I searched the Blogger site, but there is no mention of how to get the spam flag turned off. There is also no way of contacting anyone at Blogger. Wow. Spam they say I am, so spam I must be. Maybe it is time to take a break.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

# Daring Fireball: Plugging Leaks : John Gruber summarizes the case of Apple suing Think Secret for leaking info on upcoming products. Gruber's summary suggests that Apple doesn't really have a case against Think Secret, and that the lawsuit will only increase the buzz around the products in question.

You may disagree with Apple's vigorous pursuit of leakers, but this is not a case of big bad Apple putting the screws to a little guy. Fried's report at CNet makes it clear that Apple Legal has warned Think Secret (and, one presumes, other rumor mongers) repeatedly in the past few years. [...]

If Think Secret wasn't prepared for this, it's because they're foolish, not because they weren't fairly warned.

Can you think of any other company that could find public support for this kind of behaviour? Amazing.

Comments:

Do you think Gruber supports Apple? I got exactly the opposite impression. I don't think anyone supports Apple. Nevertheless, Think Secret should have been (and likely are/were) prepared for this - but that isn't a statement that supports Apple in any way.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:40 PM

As I read through the post, that is the same feeling I got, that he didn't support Apple. That only made his chastizing of Think Secret at the end that much more surprising, as if he wasn't able to lay the blame entirely on Apple.

I pointed it out because I think that Apple gets away with so much that other companies would be taken to task for. And I think that has everything to do with the power of the Apple brand.

# posted by

Quietloft : 3:48 PM

I don't think he was chastising Think Secret though - read it again. He was just stating the obvious, that they shouldn't be surprised about this with Apple's litigious history.

It's similar to my reaction to the people who engaged in "civil disobedience" at Clayoquot Sound years ago. They were "shocked, shocked!" at being arrested. Trouble is, getting arrested is the POINT of civil disobedience - if you don't get arrested you've failed. So complaining about it? Not the brightest thing in the world.

Same here. If you do the kind of thing that Think Secret does, you'd better be prepared for it. Apple IS going to sue you. For Gruber to say so isn't letting Apple off the hook, IMO, nor is it letting Apple get away with something other companies don't get away with. It's simply stating the obvious.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:56 PM

The difference is that Think Secret hasn't done anything wrong. They are not being disobedient, since they owe no obedience to Apple. They are well within their rights to publish the information that they do. As everyone seems to agree, Apple is using the legal system to bully them into giving up the names of the informants, which, as far as I know, they are under no legal obligation to do.

I agree that, esp in the US, anyone who pisses off the BigCorps can expect to be sued. And I agree that Think Secret should have expected the Apple to sue them. But that is such a minor point compared to the larger issue. It surely doesn't absolve Apple of anything.

Keep in mind that the only people hurt by any of this in any case are the Think Secret folks. Apple wins in all cases. I wouldn't be surprised if the legal fees for the case are charged to an advertizing account.

Wow, its snowing alot outside! :)

# posted by

Quietloft : 4:13 PM