The dePlume Organization LLC , publisher of Apple rumor site Think Secret , has filed a movement in California Superior Court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Apple allege the Web site disclosed confidential information . The motion effectively halts Apple ’s case in its tracks until mid - April , when a jurist is expect to dominate on the motion .

From Think Secret ’s lawyer ’s linear perspective , the consequence is about the First Amendment , virtuous and simple . “ What Think Secret did is what journalist do all the clock time , ” the organization ’s lawyer Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky LLP , told MacCentral . “ They require for information , and if they get it , they publish it . ”

Blocking a SLAPP

call back Secret ’s move cites California ’s own anti - SLAPP lawmaking . SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation . Under California jurisprudence , defendants can contribute motions to sack their cases if they believe that the lawsuit has been bring in off to restrict their costless language . Gross said that the burden is now on Apple , Apple must show the judge that they have a fair probability of success to prove their allegations against Think Secret .

Gross say there are plenty of common law to insist his claim that cogitate Secret was plainly exercising its First Amendment rights , date back to the Pentagon Papers — often cited as a landmark case on freedom of the press .

In 1971 , Daniel Ellsberg , an employee of politics contractor Rand Corp. , find a transcript of a secret government study document the decision - fashioning of the United States military during the Vietnam War . Ellsberg leaked the paper to aNew York Timesreporter .

Both theNew York TimesandThe Washington Postbegan to print excerption from the papers , and the Union government sue both to prevent further issue . A federal appellate court finally ruled in thePost’sfavor ; TheTimeswon a ruling by the Supreme Court .

Based on that and other decisions over the years , Gross say , “ I ca n’t opine [ the motion ] is not going to work out . ”

No trade secrets here , lawyer exact

primal to Apple ’s line is that Think Secret has engaged in “ tortious interference ” by coercing soul who have bless non - disclosure agreements ( NDAs ) with Apple to disclose what they know by providing methods for them to do that anonymously . That does n’t hold any water for Think Secret ’s lawyer .

“ Reporters are barren to ask for entropy , ” Gross say . “ Under the First Amendment a journalist ca n’t be arrest nonimmune for selective information the journalist licitly obtain . ”

Apple ’s suit alleges that Think Secret disclosed confidential information about Apple ’s Mac mini , iWork software package suite , and an update to its iLife suite . Think Secret posted newsworthiness about those products before they were formally announce at Macworld Conference & Expo in San Francisco this past January . pure disputes that what consider Secret did was damaging to Apple .

“ These were n’t protectable as trade secrets for a number of different reasonableness , ” said Gross . “ Most of them had already been disclose . Apple ca n’t really show any damage that happen here . ”

In paperwork filed to abide the motion , Gross notes that various other publications had long hinted that Apple might be produce a miserable - monetary value Macintosh , or had published vox populi editorial piece support such efforts .

What ’s more , Think Secret tipped Apple ’s manus only a few calendar week before the products were officially announce , said Gross . The specifications were n’t detailed enough or offer far enough in advance for Apple ’s rival to get a leg up on the new offerings — none of this adds up to trade hugger-mugger misappropriation , as far as Gross is concerned .

“ What Apple ’s confused about here is that they were n’t able-bodied to control the culture medium , ” Gross said .