All this Stevenote hoopla sure is distracting, doesn't it? Amid all the hype for the iPod shuffle, the Mac mini, iWork, the latest version of iLife, and everything else, it's all too easy to lose sight of what's really important in the world of Apple these days. And sticking the keynote announcements back-to-back with Apple's best quarterly earnings report in history isn't helping! What with record-breaking profits and revenue and Apple's skyrocketing stock price, why, we ourselves are finding it increasingly difficult to focus on what really matters: litigation. But we have to tough it out and keep our eyes on the prize, people, because these lawsuits aren't going to appreciate themselves.

We know it all happened pre-Stevenote and all, but do you remember that spate of trade secret lawsuits Apple filed over the course of the last few weeks to smack down those who dared leak unannounced product details to the press and public? Well, faithful viewer Kory informed us that something interesting has transpired in the most recent suit: according to an article in the Harvard Crimson, in the course of suing long-standing rumor site Think Secret (who published specifics about the Mac mini, the iPod shuffle, and iWork well in advance of the Stevenote), Apple has discovered that the "Nick dePlume" who has run it since its inception six years ago is, in reality, one Nicholas M. Ciarelli-- a nineteen-year-old undergrad at Harvard. (If you hadn't realized that "Nick dePlume" was a pseudonym, honestly, you're just not trying.)

The fact that the Big Evil behind Think Secret has turned out to be a teenager (and one who built one of the best-known and most accurate Mac rumor sites from the ripe old age of 13) is a plot twist worthy of mention, because the public usually forgets that Apple is compelled by law to protect its trade secrets by slapping these lawsuits around, or else it could wind up royally boned in the future, legally speaking. The Mac community at large, however, was already miffed with Apple for siccing its lawyers on someone who was clearly a Mac fan and "one of their own"; now that the target has turned out to be "just a kid" who can't afford a lawyer, we won't be surprised in the slightest if public opinion weighs even more heavily on Nick's side.

There's just one problem: as far as our non-lawyering selves can tell, Apple may well have an open and shut case. While Nick claims that he uses "the same legal newsgathering practices used by any other journalist," under California law, those typically "legal newsgathering practices" aren't legal if he specifically solicited information deemed to be corporate trade secrets-- and since the Think Secret site asks people with "insider news" to share it, he might well be liable as a "contributory infringer" for inducing others to leak. Moreover, even if Nick didn't induce anyone to reveal trade secrets, he's apparently in trouble simply for having knowingly posted them publicly. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it's "wrongful to acquire or publish without authorization information you know or have a reasonable basis to know is a trade secret of another." And if Nick tries to claim that he didn't realize that Mac mini and iPod shuffle specs were trade secrets, the jury may need medical attention by the time they finally stop laughing.

So we don't know how this'll all play out, but given the potential for bad publicity on one side and financial ruin on the other, we expect that a settlement is in the offing. Here's hoping that both sides emerge without too many bruises. And Nick, if you're watching: we can't offer any legal aid, but now that we know you're a local, maybe we can at least spring for lunch sometime. But promise us you won't talk shop, okay? The last thing we need is to incorporate a plot element that'll get us slapped in irons, too.