Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Indeed.
...
There is a long history in this country of civil disobedience against unjust, unconstitutional, or wrongheaded laws. Just because corporate interest have the power to get laws like this passed, this does not make it right or constitutional.
I believe I made several references to that in my post, which you apparently glossed over or otherwise ignored. The point I was trying to make was that, regardless, the actions MAY BE ILLEGAL. Now, if you want to consider this civil disobedience to test laws you believe are unjust, fine. But the point is that there is a law, currently, that may have been broken by a third party (A "journalist"? So can anyone with a web site claim to be a "journalist"?) disclosing known-confidential information.
Also, from your attitude, it's clear that you feel that agreements employees make with employers in good faith are worthless and can be utterly ignored.
Rumor, estimation, clarvoyance, darned good guessing. The articles just need a slightlty different tone like "yunno, if we were Apple we would " blah, blah, blah. Then it would be Apple coming forward with any proof.
How is this Flamebait? Can no one answer the simple question of what constitutes a "journalist"? And if it's anyone, then what is the value of the distinction between "press" and everyone else (as has been presented in other posts in reply to my original)? Or is there no distinction at all, and anyone who puts ideas in print in any forum is now considered a "journalist"?
Gee, that's funny, the Washington Post did mention it:
3 7-2005Jan13_2.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A79
And since you apparently missed it, I'll repeat it here:
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."
Funny how it's completely relevant!
- Trade secret information likely protected by binding confidentiality agreement or NDA: check
- Third party disclosing that information: check
- Legal expert in Intellectual Property law saying it's relevant, and even that the first amendment doesn't always protect you, and that legal precedent is NOT on the side of "first amendment" arguments here: check
I await what is sure to me another insightful commentary!