[ShawnKing]

sucks that Apple forced them to not exist though. It's really offensive that Apple did that.

Whoa...wait....who said *Apple* forced TS to close? There's been no indication of that and, if you look at what is written on the TS web site, Nick says he's "pleased". Doesn't sound "forced" to me at all.

 

[ShawnKing]

For me, Think Secret was actually an asset to Apple.

Apple sure didn't think so.

It gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling that Apple continued on the path of new and innovative products while at the same time supporting their existing base.

Apple does that whether or not TS reports dirt on them.

Having said that, I actually found Apple Insider better; I wonder if they're on the chopping block net.

Not unless they do something stupid like TS did.

Shrouding themselves in secrecy as Apple does is not always a smart move - I'm sure Apple knows that.

Its worked for them up til now.

 

[ShawnKing]

If by that perhaps you mean that Apple was able use Think Secret--creating a bogus product ("Asteroid") and letting it leak to TS so Apple could track down and fire a corporate mole.

In your scenario, why would Apple need to pursue a lawsuit? They would have known who the mole was by the information that was leaked.

Conspiracy Theories are more fun when they actually make sense.

 

[ShawnKing]

For one, this lawsuit Apple launched against TS has been going on for several years - how can it have been a real issue for Apple if they didn't pursue it?

Just because we don't see Apple in court every day, doesn't mean they weren't "pursuing" it. Lawyers bill hourly - the longer things drag on, the more they make.

What stupid things did TS do that AppleInsider didn't?

TS had displayed (and still does) this graphic:

You are not legally allowed to induce someone to break the law. That was one of Apple's arguments. AppleInsider isn't so dumb as to be so blatant.

 

[ShawnKing]

News to me that someone at Apple was actually fired because they leaked info to TS.

It's happened several times in the past.