Three Lawsuits And Counting (1/6/05)
SceneLink
 

So apparently it wasn't just a year-end legal blowout after all-- but you could hardly blame us for thinking that, right? After all, Apple's lawyers did go on a wild trade secret suing spree right at the end of 2004; in mid-December the company sued a John Doe for leaking info about its upcoming Asteroid audio interface, and mere days later Apple smacked down a trio of developers for allegedly leaking prerelease Tiger builds to the 'net. Honestly, it was like Apple had a slew of use-'em-or-lose-'em Frequent Litigator miles that were going to expire at the end of the calendar year and the company was just trying to redeem them all before the big ball dropped.

Of course, we now know that that wasn't the case, because as we mentioned briefly yesterday and as reported by CNET, Apple has filed yet another quit-leaking-our-secret-stuff lawsuit (in 2005, mind you), this time against heavy-hitting rumor site Think Secret. And just like the first lawsuit had to mention specifics about the Asteroid rumors, thus essentially confirming that it was all true enough to sue over, this latest suit reportedly contains explicit references to Think Secret's recent articles on Apple's imminent sub-$500 displayless cheapMac and the someday-it'll-grow-up-and-crush-Microsoft-Office-into-dust productivity suite supposedly called iWork. So if you didn't believe the rumors before, folks, now's the time to gear up to start crankin' out memos in iWork's Pages app on your soon-to-be-new, costs-less-than-some-iPods thriftyMac.

Ironically enough, if Apple had just kept its lawyers holstered, the Asteroid, headless-iMac, and iWork rumors would most likely have been totally ignored by the media at large-- and even by the vast majority of Apple's customers, most of whom, we're told, are not obsessive drooling freaks who reload every dodgy rumors site in existence until their clicking fingers bleed so much they pass out from the blood loss. (Sounds crazy, we know, but we're assured that most people don't do that. Sickos.) But legally speaking, we suppose Apple's hands were tied, since if the company doesn't file to protect its trade secrets now, it loses all legal protection for said secrets in the future.

Besides, suing people is fun. We hope to do a lot of it ourselves, someday-- maybe when the kid's off to college and we're looking for stuff to do. We're already studying a very informative pamphlet called How To Get Hit By Cars for Fun and Profit (Mostly Profit).

And anyway, it's not like Apple's lawsuit has changed anything over at Think Secret, right? Faithful viewer Juho Kaivosoja informed us that the site is still up to business as usual, having posted details confirming next week's intro of the long-rumored flash-based iPod. Reportedly they'll come in 1 GB and 2 GB versions for $149 and $199 respectively-- so forget about the whole "screenless" rumor, because no one's going to flip through 500 songs with only "previous" and "next" buttons. While the details of the human interface on this thing remain shrouded in mystery (dang that's a fun phrase to say!), apparently it will have a screen-- one just like the iPod mini's, but "two lines shorter."

Oh, but wait; we don't know if any of this stuff is true! Guess we'll just have to wait and see whether Apple files another lawsuit or not. Or, uh, we could also just wait until the Stevenote on Tuesday. But where's the fun in that?

 
SceneLink (5120)
And Now For A Word From Our Sponsors
 

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

 

The above scene was taken from the 1/6/05 episode:

January 6, 2005: Apple sues Think Secret over reports on the imminent sub-$500 headless iMac and iWork productivity suite. Meanwhile, some joker sues Apple because buying anything at the iTunes Music Store "forces" you to buy an iPod, too, and Apple slashes prices in the UK even as Ireland finally gets an iTMS of its own...

Other scenes from that episode:

  • 5121: Buy An iPod Or Die Horribly (1/6/05)   Who says karma's not real? He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, and the company that lives by the lawsuit gets vaguely annoyed by the lawsuit. In light of Apple's suing frenzy of the past three weeks (in which it's filed no fewer than three suits against people and sites it's accused of leaking trade secrets), is it any wonder that payback has arrived in the form of Apple playing defendant in what is quite possibly the most frivolous lawsuit we've ever had the good fortune to giggle at?...

  • 5122: What's On In The UK/Ireland (1/6/05)   And in the constantly shrinking non-lawsuit-related world of Apple, what say we quickly get caught up on recent advances over there in the British Isles? We know, we know-- it's not exactly a regular thing we do...

Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast...

Vote Early, Vote Often!
Why did you tune in to this '90s relic of a soap opera?
Nostalgia is the next best thing to feeling alive
My name is Rip Van Winkle and I just woke up; what did I miss?
I'm trying to pretend the last 20 years never happened
I mean, if it worked for Friends, why not?
I came here looking for a receptacle in which to place the cremated remains of my deceased Java applets (think about it)

(1287 votes)
Apple store at Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

DISCLAIMER: AtAT was not a news site any more than Inside Edition was a "real" news show. We made Dawson's Creek look like 60 Minutes. We engaged in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here was "inspired by actual events," but so was Amityville II: The Possession. So lighten up.

Site best viewed with a sense of humor. AtAT is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. Keep hands inside car at all times. The drinking of beverages while watching AtAT is strongly discouraged; AtAT is not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers."

Everything you see here that isn't attributed to other parties is copyright ©,1997-2024 J. Miller and may not be reproduced or rebroadcast without his explicit consent (or possibly the express written consent of Major League Baseball, but we doubt it).