Computing in the real world
SEARCH FOR: IN:
      
Welcome Guest  Register Log in

News 

[PSUs]
Thursday 6th January 2005
Apple sues Think Secret over iWork, headless iMac leaks 10:34AM, Thursday 6th January 2005
Apple has filed a lawsuit against leading Mac 'rumour' and news website Think Secret, alleging that the site has revealed certain of the company's trade secrets.

The suit, filed at the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, seeks to identify the individual within Apple who is leaking the information and to get an injunction to prevent further release of trade secrets.

'Apple has filed a civil complaint against the owner of ThinkSecret.com and unnamed individuals who we believe stole Apple trade secrets,' the company said in statement. 'We believe that Think Secret solicited information about unreleased Apple products from these individuals, who violated their confidentiality agreements
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT
with Apple by providing details that were later posted on the Internet.'

The lawsuit mentions three as-yet-unreleased products: 'a G4-based iMac without display' - the so-called headless iMac; iLife '05; and iWork.

The lawsuit notes that Apple has sent several letters to Think Secret over the past few years, requesting that the site removes information and identify the source. Such request have, says Apple, been ignored.

Think Secret has so far declined to comment.

Last month Apple subpoenaed Think Secret and other websites in an attempt to identify the source of another leak. The company has also sued three software developers for distributing pre-release copies of Tiger, the next version of Mac OS X.

UPDATE: Think Secret has responded to Apple's action: Think Secret 'confident' of beating Apple lawsuit.

Submit to: Digg  |  Slashdot  |  Del.icio.us  |  Technorati

Related News



Top 10 Broadband

150+ broadband packages

Compare 30+ mobile broadband deals

Powered by Top 10 Broadband


Columns

Prolog:

After eight years in a caring relationship, Tim Danton is falling for a desktop once again. › See full Opinion