From a forum post at Macrumors:
"...for those who have forgotten the First Amendment issues involved in the case. So, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation and please tell me how anyone can support Apple's position in this matter."
There isn't a single 1st ammendment right involved in this case. The EFF also supports two Apple hate sites
What used to be www.itunesisbogus.com is now hosted here: http://downhillbattle.org/itunes/?P...5a872359c395cd7
Tell me where in this sentence (below), you have the right to receive stolen property (business plans = trade secrets)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Post on Macrumors.com:
"...our First Amendment right to publish about what corporations are up to"
Is there such a right? Point it out to us in the actual law above.
Where in there, do you see that business plans are even speech? You can't transform property magically into something that's free domain. By this logic, I could do this.
If I go to your garage (compare to Apple Campus/Apple contractor/employee), steal your lawnmower (compare to business plans/trade secrets), publish in a paper (loosely compare to Think Secret) that I have it my possession, do a review of it (post precise details as TS did), publish it's specs and profit off the review and notariety(Think Secret's ad revenue SKYROCKETED). I can keep the lawnmower because you have no way of proving it was yours. (I'm hiding behind the "without a reasonable doubt" clause for court proceedings as Think Secret is hiding behind the 1st Ammendment)
Some people say Apple should be at fault because they should be keeping it tighter internally. Did you secure your lawnmower completely? Did you write down the serial number or any other distinguishing identification for it? Simply saying it is yours or producing a receipt isn't enough evidence. You'd have to sue me to get something as untraceable as that back from me.
Tell me where in this law Think Secret had the right to publish this information
...the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act" ("the Act") to prohibit the misappropriation or improper disclosure of trade secrets. This Act has been adopted by the majority of states. It does not change the law but does codify it in one comprehensive statute.
The Act defines a trade secret broadly as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that 1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known, and 2) is reasonably protected as confidential.
Misappropriation is defined to include the "acquisition of a trade secret by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means." Misappropriation also includes the disclosure of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent.
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined under the Act. The Act also provides for monetary damages if the misappropriation is willful and malicious. A party wrongly accused of misappropriation may recover attorney fees if his accuser acted in bad faith.
The Act specifically provides that a court shall preserve by reasonable means the secrecy of an alleged trade secret during the course of litigation.
Here's another law that may apply:
"(copyright law) prohibits the substantial use of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner"