Friday, December 21, 2007

Nick Ciarelli of Think Secret: "See I Really" Messed It Up For Everyone Else!

Daring Fireball summarizes Larry Angell on the Think Secret / Apple Deal:

Larry Angell:

"Anyone who thinks Nick at Think Secret didn’t get a big, fat check from Apple is naive."

John Gruber (Daring Fireball ):

That was my first thought, too. Those of you who are convinced that Apple cruelly forced Ciarelli to shutter the site against his will should re-read the cryptic press release. Could be a forced shutdown. Could be a payoff. Totally unclear from the press release. Some sort of deal that involved a reasonably-sized payoff, however, strikes me as more consistent with the tone of the press release and the brief comments Ciarelli and his attorneys have made.

The irony, of course, is that a site whose entire claim to fame and raison d’être was the exposition of “Apple secrets” has itself agreed to a secret deal with Apple.

---------- FIX YOUR THINKING COMMENTARY ----------

I don't know how to tell all of you that this is wrong in so many ways. First off, Apple WILL use this negotiation in the future with other websites; shutdown, settle, or suit. I imagine most websites will choose the first option. This means that my most favorite website may choose this option some day; MacRumors. (Eventhough I think Arnold Kim, MacRumors founder, is very careful with his site and researches his posts well.)

This settlement shows what little integrity Nick Ciarelli had and only goes to show what little respect he has for his fellow Mac bloggers. If my case set blogging ahead; this settlement took it WAY WAY back.

I have been of the opinion a long time ago that Nick was paid off by the retailers that have sued Apple for anti competitive practices with the Apple Store. Maybe one day Nick will reveal this to be true in a tell all book.

MacRumors reports:

Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP told Computerworld, "The First Amendment has prevailed and every Internet journalist should feel some strength from what's happened", claiming that it was clear that Apple was going to lose if they continued to pursue the case. Gross goes on to state that it was settled because Nick Ciarelli was ready to move on to other projects after running ThinkSecret for the past 9 years, since age 13.

Gross challenges that he "would have loved for Apple to go forward on this" and that "Apple would have caved."

In an earlier statement to MacRumors, Ciarelli had said, "I'm very satisfied with the settlement".

Statements like these make me hate the EFF. Apple would have won and won big, and most likely ruined the life of Nick Ciarelli. Nick was lucky the EFF was able to obtain this settlement for him (and most likely some legal fees for them) and then able to put this spin on the settlement.

One of the biggest factors in this settlement is Apple's good will. NIck Ciarelli is young and this lawsuit makes them [Apple] look like bullies. I wish Apple had not chosen this route, but I see it as very strategic, and very dangerous.

The only thing this case did was prove to the detractors of blogs is that blog journalism is for sale. I stood up for my site and could have offered from the beginning to exchange a large sum of money to take the article I posted here down, but I didn't.


Don't Bidzirk Me

Evidence Of Think Secret's Loss

Think Secret's Secret Out In The Open

* I also wanted to say that Nick Ciarelli spammed this site with troll comments late yesterday evening - further advancing the "he's just a kid" defense.

* Everyone seems to think Apple may have caved ... just know ... Federal court procedure DEMANDS that you have pre trial mediation.


Anonymous said...

Well, I hate to have to be the one to tell everybody this, but it is the Blogosphere that has to fix it's thinking. And here's why: a jounalist can have a blog; but NOT ALL BLOGGERS ARE JOURNALISTS. The fact that somebody has a blog DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT entitle them to the legal protections of REAL JOURNALISTS who KNOW THE LIMITS and respect them. I don't care how the EFF or anybody else cares to spin it, Nick Ciarelli was NOT a journalist, and by taking part in criminal activities (the breaking of NDAs, knowing reception and public dissemination of said illegally obtained information), he was BREAKING THE LAW. Ergo, the first California court had it right, and the Appeals Court had it wrong. The question everybody in the blogosphere who thinks Nick was an innocent victim of a bullying corporation should ask themselves is whether or not they themselves are willing to take a similar case to the Supreme Court. I know a lot of people think that any and all information should be readily available on the Internet, but the law does not back up this view. I don't work for Apple, or any part of the marketplace involving Apple, and I'm not a lawyer. But this case really is cut and dried. Nick and the EFF are wrong, and so is the blogosphere that supports them in this case. Nick got off lucky; but maybe the next blogger who tries to challenge NDAs and the law won't.

FYT said...

I agree with 99% of what you said - however some bloggers can be part time journalists. I think nick is/was a journalist.
No one , not even journalist is allowed to break the law - had I done such in my case with Bidzirk I deserved to be convicted of an injustice/crime