Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the avoiding-a-pr-nightmare dept.

ido writes "Apple has agreed to hold off on serving subpoenas related to their John Doe civil suits against some free press journalists to reveal sources releasing Apple's "trade secrets." This is related to a previous article." The original story has some more background info as well. While Apple is notorious for its secrecy before MacWorlds, Apple probably figured out that dragging people into court usually does little for one's popularity.

4 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Protecting One's Sources by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Informative

    Closely related: Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are going to have to go to jail if they don't reveal their sources in the Valerie Plame affair.

    We wonder if AppleInsider and Think Secret staff will do the same.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Re:Apple makes the right choice again by blanks · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Sometimes, when I feel most let down by Steve Jobs for doing something that just seems to be contrary to the very Apple-nature of the company, he makes a decisive reversal of tack and makes everything all right again."

    What are you talking about? It didn't say they were dropping the subpoenas, they are holding off because the EFF is filing for a protective order for its clients. If The EFF succeed then Apple fails and is still evil. If the EFF fails, Apple with get their subpoenas and is still evil.

    --
    TruePunk | Games
  3. Astoundingly Inaccurate by smart2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The article, along with most of the responses and "facts" are astoundingly inaccurate. I should know, I'm the person who was served the subpoenas. They have already been served (as in, they are in my hot little hands). What has been stayed is the production. "Stayed" is a $5 lawyer word for delayed. In this case delayed while the EFF and Apple work out their differences between themselves or in front of a judge. If the EFF is successful in quashing (another $5 word) the subpoena, then Apple will get nothing.

    Please keep in mind that the entire linked article is based on spin from a policy analyst for the EFF. Also contrary to what was reported in MacWorld and in the documents filed by the EFF, no email has been turned over to Apple.

    --
    To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire
  4. Re:Enough by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

    "dirty tactics to supress the first amendment."

    Private entities cannot, by definition, suppress the first amendment. The first amendment binds the government, not citizens or corporations.

    It might be not very nice, but it's not unconstitutional.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!