EFF Joins Fight Against Apple Lawsuit

sutterpants writes "The BBC is carrying a story on the legal battle between Apple and free press advocates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has joined in the fight to protect journalists from revealing their sources. Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?"

Comments

UTSA and other considerations

[daveschroeder]

Funny how almost no story or commentary about this ever mentions that current, in-force US laws may have been broken in the publication of this information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Apple doesn't really care about these web sites. They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to web sites (such as Think Secret). And no, it's not information that's "known" elsewhere. Some of these sites have got very reliable moles, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.

Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe these sites "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)

If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting these sites from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe the EFF challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.

I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. This is not about the Seymour Hershes of the world and the Pentagon Papers. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, which involves a corporate entity, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, a

Re:UTSA and other considerations

[daveschroeder]

Wow, um, did you like, read my post or anything?

I'll repeat, just in case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html

But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements. [i.e., an NDA]

"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."

Just because you don't agree with the UTSA doesn't make it disappear. It remains to be seen whether the UTSA can be legally asserted by Apple, as they haven't publicly commented on this case beyond saying "Apple's DNA is innovation", etc., but the fact of the matter is that a law may indeed have been broken in the publication of information reasonably known to have been protected by a confidentiality agreement, period.

Re:UTSA and other considerations

[daveschroeder]

No laws are broken but you can be sued using this contract.

Wrong. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act law(s) in various jurisdictions may have been broken. Sure, it may all revolve around civil and contractual issues, but that's somewhat irrelevant. The reason this law *exists* is to prevent people from skirting NDAs by simply leaking information to a 3rd party.

In this case Think Secret is a 4th party and is NOT subject to the NDA.

How do you figure Think Secret is a "4th" party? It is extremely likely that Think Secret is getting its information directly from people who are themselves bound by confidentiality agreements. How does that make them a 4th party?

This is an "Apple leaking info" problem.

Yes. And it still may violate statutes to disseminate the information that was obtained. That's what the legal system will determine, eh?

If Apple wants to "out" the leaks they should create "special projects" and place their suspects in that project.
Then watch the Think Secret web site...

That's one way to do it. And they may have even already done things along those lines. But there are laws that exist that may have been violated, which you're choosing to conveniently ignore.

Re:The question is "harm"

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not believe in petty lawsuits over cigarettes that kill or McDonald's coffee that was too hot when spilt into the lap while driving. What I do believe in is accountability for one's action and that is where the issue truly lies.

I'm glad you think Third Degree burns are petty.

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck's attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m cdonalds.htm

Why is the EFF getting involved?

[dr.badass]

Neither the BBC piece nor any of the comments I've seen indicate why the EFF is getting involved in what seems like a pretty simple trade secret case. So I went to the EFF and found out the real reason:

After initially threatening to subpoena reporters directly, Apple sent subpoenas to Nfox.com, the email provider for PowerPage publisher Jason O'Grady. By forcing Nfox to hand over O'Grady's email, Apple hopes to find out who told the journalist about an upcoming product code-named "Asteroid."

"Rather than confronting the issue of reporter's privilege head-on, Apple is going to this journalist's ISP for his emails," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.

In its request for the protective order, EFF points out that reporter's privileges protect the anonymity of sources regardless of whether third parties hold a journalist's records.

Aha! Now that is something a bit different, and I'm glad the EFF isn't (as the story comment implies) saying that trade secrets shouldn't be protected, because that would stupid. Apple isn't wrong for protecting it's trade secrets, but I would agree that this "innovative" approach isn't fair.