Apple Agrees to Hold Off on Subpoenas

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.

Comments

Protecting One's Sources

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Astoundingly Inaccurate

[smart2000]

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.

Re:Enough

[Moofie]

"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.