What a shocker this is:
As reported by Slashdot.
"Nick dePlume has a name, after all. Apple filed a lawsuit against the pseudonymous founder and editor of Think Secret, who correctly predicted two just-announced Apple products and has been the subject of several cease-and-desist letters from Apple in the past; dePlume's identity has now been revealed. Reader willibeast writes "The Harvard Crimson reports that 'Apple Computer, Inc. is suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products, including two unveiled at this week's Macworld conference. Nineteen-year-old Nicholas M. Ciarelli '08, known on the internet as Nick dePlume, has run the site, thinksecret.com, since age 13.'"
I'm a little stunned by this revelation, but here's the real issue. Someone is feeding this kid. Someone who doesn't like Apple.
All of Think Secret's commentary seems to be negative spins on Apple and Apple financials.
I would not be surprised if we find out this guy's father was a fired Apple employee or someone involved in this reseller lawsuit [thinksecret.com]. Nick DePlume just seems to know this infomation to intimately.
There has to be some sort of bribery or maliciousness here, because I would consider Macrumors more of a premeir rumor site with MUCH wider base of followers and info providers.
Harvard Law Professor Lloyd L. Weinreb, said Ciarelli might have a difficult time defending his actions.
“If that student is inviting people to give him information that was violating a trade secret he might be liable as a contributory infringer,” Weinreb said. An infringer violates the law directly, but a contributory infringer knows about the infringement and facilitates it in some way.
Milgrim agreed, saying that even if Ciarelli had not solicited trade secrets but had simply posted them, he might still be liable under California law.
“California is one of approximately 44 or 45 states that have adopted [the] Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute makes it wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another,” Milgrim said.
“Just because you receive something on the internet does not mean you have a green light to do whatever you want with it,” Milgrim added.
Here's an insightful reply from Slashdot [to the issue of Nick having constitutional right]s:
"Please show me the constitutional ammendment that protects anoymous sources.
Oh, by the way. If I publish your social security number and all your bank account numbers on a web site, is that protected free speech, too? Or an evil invasion of your privacy?"