5 ms·
The law is very clear that receiving and publishing stolen trade secret information is in itself a culpable act unless the publication is somehow protected by t
by grellas 17y ago
The law is very clear that receiving and publishing stolen trade secret information is in itself a culpable act unless the publication is somehow protected by the first amendment.
There is generally no first amendment protection for publishing confidential information about products, partnering relationships, strategy meetings, and the like.
My guess, though, is that the first-amendment angle made it just murky enough to cause Twitter to make a judgment call to "work with" TechCrunch to limit damage and try to be done with this.
I see it as basically extortion, however, with Twitter being coerced into giving grudging permission to let this stuff come out.
What a massive embarrassment for Twitter. I have worked with literally thousands of founders and entrepreneurs over the years, and I don't know one that would not be thoroughly red-faced at watching this sort of stuff being splashed about the web (not because the information is damaging in itself but in having allowed this to happen).
- jacquesm 17y agoSome of the information in that piece is definitely damaging for the relationships between twitter and 3rd parties, notably their attitude towards P. Diddy and the Google employees. Techcrunch must know that it is damaging, and that alone might be a reason for legal action. I know for sure that if I were in twitters position the long knives would be out if techcrunch would cross the line. For now, crime does seem to pay: http://alexa.com/siteinfo/techcrunch.com http://alexa.com/siteinfo/techcrunch.com
- eli 17y agoTrade secret law is more complex than you make it out to be (and depends on which state has jurisdiction), but assuming any of the documents they disclosed meet the legal qualifications for a trade secret, you may well be right.
- aschobel 17y ago@ev denied that they gave TC the "green light" '@TechCrunch @arrington "we have been given the green light by Twitter to post this information" What?! By whom? That's not our understanding' http://twitter.com/ev/status/2676203744 http://twitter.com/ev/status/2676203744
- breck 17y agonone of us know all the facts so it's hard to pass judgement. i think it really sucks for Twitter that TechCrunch published all that stuff. however, obviously someone without ethics has the complete set of 300 documents and is willing to send them around. maybe this soft release will make the blow easier to bear for Twitter--the lesser of two evils. it's a terrible situation and i hope they catch and prosecute the hacker.
- micks56 17y agoThe First Amendment doesn't apply here. The First Amendment Right to Free Speech only applies to the Federal Government, whereby it cannot restrict free speech. It applies to the states through the 14th Amendment due process clause. Publishing these materials are not protected in any way by the First Amendment.
- rjurney 17y agoAnd yet - it is important that they be published. This is newsworthy. Every paper in America would have printed this, if their audience would find it relevant. Does nobody care about journalism anymore? A free and independent press is vital to a functioning democracy. Techcrunch showed enormous restraint in their publishing of this data. They acted properly. All the outrage is misplaced. Be outraged at the cracker or disgruntled employee that stole the documents, assuming that is what happened. There are no trade secrets here, there are strategy secrets. I am shocked that such a smart group of people fail to understand the basic underpinnings of our society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...
- micks56 17y agoYour definition of trade secrets is different than most court's definition. The definition used by most jurisdictions is: 1. Not generally known or ascertainable by legal methods (TechCrunch violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to get the info.) 2. Must provide competitive value (Strategy plans provide competitive value) 3. Must be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (the password, while weak, probably does constitute a reasonable effort) edit: I see that you edited your post to include the New York Times case. The facts of that case are different than the one with TechCrunch. In NYT, the Federal Government tried to abridge the freedom of press. That triggered the 1st Amendment protections. Here, with TechCrunch, neither the Federal Government or any State Government are trying to prevent TC from printing the information. Therefore, the 1st Amendment does not apply.
- rjurney 17y ago