Slashdot Mirror
Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case
An anonymous reader writes: "In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. The San Jose news piece has the most detail on the ruling while Mac Daily News has some background on the case, and Gizmodo vociferously expresses an opinion on the lawsuit. We've covered the case in the past as well.
...but are these "three online publishers" journalists?
I'll vote 'No.'
But isn't there a law that says journalists can protect there sources?
...but it is Gizmodo not Gizmondo.
Not surprised
More power to Apple! --- http://onticfusion.sytes.net/
http://onticfusion.sytes.net/
It's not about journalism or blogging.
Agile Artisans
Talk about your potential PR disaster. Sue your most rabid fans, always a good plan.
Gizmondo is the new handheld console from Tiger Telematics, fool!
*mutters about the so-called 'editors' and their complete unwillingless to ever do any editing*
Apple Good, Microsoft Bad,
OS X Good, Windows Bad,
PowerPC Good, Intel Bad
everybody clear on this?
A crucial part of the wording here is that the judge "tentatively ruled" in favour of Apple. The article also says that it is a preliminary ruling and that the case is still being argued.
Treo + Kaffi = Traffi
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.
and...
Thomas Goldstein, a former dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism who worked as a reporter for the New York Times, filed a brief in support of the Web sites. "Just because Apple does not want these publications to report on its activities does not mean that they are not news publications," Goldstein wrote.
This is setting a very dangerous precedent. If this holds up (through many appeals, unless I miss my guess), then what's to differentiate between CNN and CNN.com? Just because it's on the web means it's not journalism?
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
Journalists sources are most definitely NOT protected. Journalists do not have a legal right to obstruct justice.
It's been a long standing tradition, but there is no federal law concerning it. This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill.
... Bush and the Democrats set up those free speech zones last year. Now I suggest they set up some free press zones.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
If they didn't win, then all NDAs are pointless because you could just put an anonymous post on some website and not get in trouble for it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I think you are referring to the shield law, but that applies to criminal and federal cases where the journalist can prove he may be at harm or be casued damaged if they reveal sources (even then - it doesn't apply to federal cases)
The law that does apply here is the UTSA - Uniform Trade Secrets Act - it specifically says you cannot report or disseminate information you know or can easily research and know is trade secret.
Really, copyright law applies here too - Think Secret was posting copyrighted/Patented information (that was not yet available at USPTO.GOV)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
l33tdud3 ( l33t__@hotmail.com )
in5id3r ( xdklt_312@gmail.com )
4pp1e_4ever ( jobs_is_best@yahoo.com )
Come on, does Apple think that people are using their real names when leaking confidental information to some online journal?
such protections apply only to "legitimate members of the press."
So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?
This is the beginning of an "authorized" press with greater freedoms than for anyone who dares to publish outside of it.
It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.
watashi wa bengoshi dewa arimasen!
Suing might be a good idea... Look at RIAA/MPAA. Look at all the filesharing of media it has stopped.
Oh wait, What is the torrent website? Hmm, doesn't look like it has hit IRC yet.
Okay, I take that back. Suing your customers is a bad idea. STUPID. STUPID!
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
It's not about journalistic integrity or freedom, it's about corporate espionage and the seedy underbelly of corporate WAR!
Employees usually sign all kinds of non-disclosure agreements when working in R&D, so for these leaks to be present, someone must be blabbing.
I imagine ThinkSecret is in less trouble for discussing the secret than obtaining it, and that's what Apple is after.
Daze
Microsoft wants to infiltrate every device bigger than a toothbrush, agreed. But how much worse would it be if Apple took over? (I realize this is verging way out into hypothetical land.) In Bizzarro Apple Land, only rich, Blaupunkt-owning, BMW-driving hipsters would be allowed to compute. Your Mac could be taken away by armed fashionistas roaming the streets. Every PC would cost at least $5,000 and developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System. Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses, and instead use elaborate abaci manned by legions of idiot savants.
At least, that's what Mistress Cleo says.
Ok, I'll talk. I got a call from a guy who said his name was Steve Jobs, and he told me all this stuff. He sent me an email (see, the "From:" line says "SteveJobs@apple.com"!) with the pictures and stuff. I figured he should know, right? What? The headers say the email comes from an anonymizer in the Netherlands? Sorry, I don't know what that means.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The article didn't state it explicitly, but I was wondering if maybe they overheard the information.
I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
This was posted the last time we discussed this topic (which feels like just 20 minutes ago...):
(6) "Professional journalist" shall mean one who, for gain or livelihood, is engaged in gathering, preparing, collecting, writing, editing, filming, taping or photographing of news intended for a newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association or wire service or other professional medium or agency which has as one of its regular functions the processing and researching of news intended for dissemination to the public; such person shall be someone performing said function either as a regular employee or as one otherwise professionally affiliated for gain or livelihood with such medium of communication.
New York State Consolidated Laws, Article 7, Section 79-h (a) (6) [findlaw.com]
I'll vote that O'Grady's Powerpage is DEFINITELY NOT! That site has tanked in the past few months-year.
And talk about freedom of speech? When The PowerPage readers started challenging what O'Grady was posting on his website and just spitting out rants about how Apple sucks, he ended all comments - now you can't comment on articles any more.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
sorry but judges enjoy throwing a journalist in jail in an attempt to force them to revela their sources.
this is nothing new.
judges get all pissy when someone tells them no.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
As another poster noted, there is no federal journalist shield law, and only some states have them, and in only some cases.
Anonymous sourcing was designed to protect individuals from retaliation and give a whistleblower a chance to live a normal life.
At this point though, with how our culture has developed, anonymous sources are a scourage in my opinion. There are numerous cases of anonymous sources being up and out fabricated, and used a cover for rumor and gossip by journalists.
If people want rumors and gossip, fine. Let journalists give it to us straight: this is what we heard at a cocktail party, or at a bar, or what I dreamed up in the shower, or what seems likely given the circumstance.
It's such a game now in other areanas that anonymous "tipsters" argue over the exact wording of how they will be credited "an insider with years of service" or "a high-ranking government offical" etc.
The assumption that journalists are protected is, really, not right in most cases!
Apple is entitled to a level of privacy with their unreleased products (among other things). A lot of people seem to totally ignore this though for sake of personal entertainment.
I feel a bit ashamed of my Hardware and Software manufacturer of choice. Bad move, Apple.
And Dan Rather is?
I'm about to reference a Daily Show here, but it still is a fact. Recently, CNN (along with other major "journalism" places) broadcast a story they claimed to be breaking when what they were really doing was reading someones blog.
Face it, If you can publish to the web, and report information which has been given to you/you find, you are a journalist. If you do not fact check and post everything you get, then you are a bad journalist, but still, a journalist.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
I can appreciate that a journalist should have the right to protect their sources identity... for criminal cases (eg. robbery's, murders, etc) - these people are at risk of retribution (amonst other risks) should their real details become know.
In this case (for example), Apple has invested significant time, money and effort in developing a product(s) that is a key part of their business development.
In a market where being the first out with a new product can have sometimes significant impact on sales/income, leaks such as these can damage the company financially. I don't believe that these "sources" had any right in revealing the privileged information they held.
I can appreciate that there are times that the situation can be ambigious of a fashion - it is here that the courts/judges come into play, to decide if the situation warrants a jouranlist revealing their source. In this situation, I think that they have done the right thing - there is no need to protect the source's identity(s).
I know that this will most likely have reprocussions for the source - ie. loss of job, being sued, etc. However, in making the decision to reveal confidential information, this is a risk that they have chosen to make. Although I do feel sorry for them, and the consequences they have to face
I love my gadgets (and oh how I do!). However finding what's coming up is interesting, but there's something nice about reading all the speculatory (new word?) posts leading up to a new product announcement
in determining that bloggers are not "journalist" and are not afforded the same protection. I'm glad blogging is more respected and considered an aspect of the media now, but it is not journalism, it is criticism. I would also contend that Apple is protecting trade secrets and facts that have impact on it's market value and ability to sell product. If a typcial "journalist" were to violtate an NDA they would be punishable by law, why should a blogger be excluded?
What makes someone a journalist? Is it circulation in the millions? Is it a press pass? Is it a crumpled fedora? These days any hack with a blog can wrap something in HTML, slap a google ad on it, and call it journalism. Does that make it so?
Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection - not just your own free speech, but the ability to quote or reference facts from anonymous sources with impunity? That would be a great loophole, the Internet equivalent of "touching base" -- you caaan't get me.
As for these sites, IMO they were established news organizations, and likely deserve such protection given their reputation and audience. However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Business and its reporting are a completely different animals than what the first amendment and its interpretations are meant define. It should be no surprise that the judge ruled in favor of Apple. It should not be the right of individuals to publish private information just because an unethical person released it--and the employee who violated that confidentiality should be held accountable.
But, if the sites reported the leak from other sources, Apple shouldn't have a leg to stand on. C'est la guerre.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
those publishers might say that they could be sued back for telling who leaked the informations since they can't proove the origin. Then, if they are forced anyway, tell the judge it's steeve :)
journalist
n.
1. One whose occupation is journalism.
2. One who keeps a journal.
journal
n.
1.
1. A personal record of occurrences, experiences, and reflections kept on a regular basis; a diary.
2. An official record of daily proceedings, as of a legislative body.
3. Nautical. A ship's log.
2. Accounting.
1. A daybook.
2. A book of original entry in a double-entry system, listing all transactions and indicating the accounts to which they belong.
3. A newspaper.
4. A periodical presenting articles on a particular subject: a medical journal.
5. The part of a machine shaft or axle supported by a bearing.
So what is going to be the legal definition of 'Journalist' ?
Personally anyone that is 'reporting' either facts or opinions to the public should be considered a journalist.
Will this become yet another 'club' that takes either lots of cash, or special friends to join?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you want to avoid being sued, act reasonably to avoid harming others. You don't have to know every state's laws as long as you wonder whether it's unreasonable to interfere with the employment contracts of others by requesting that they break their confidentiality agreements -- which it is. Nick knew he was risking a suit when he solicited info from Apple employees.
NDAs prevent you from exploiting the information covered by the NDA - not from revealing it by, say, leaving a copy or 2 of the covered material on a bus, or posting it anonymously to some website or other. Where NDAs are concerned - the implementation does not meet the specification.
==========
Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore ?
The news came as a letdown for those running ThinkSecret, but their spirits were picked up when Apple served their final notice on nice metallic gray paper, in a design that could only be called "compact, simple, elegant, and effective."
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
There is nothing about the release of Apple's internal plans that was 'for the public good'. The only good was for Apple's competitors. They could now see what Apple was planning and react to it.
These publishers and their sources should be hammered by the court IMHO.
So in the US you can force journalists to cough up the names of people who leaked Apple product specs, but you can't force them to cough up the name of the Bush admin shill who outed a CIA agent. Fucking fantastic.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
- There is no blanket shield law for journalists in the US. Nothing along the lines of doctor-patient or lawyer-client privelege. There are some laws for more specific cases, but nothing generic.
- This is not about "freedom of the press". You are free to publish (ie: the government can't sell publishing licenses), but you are still responsible for your actions, just as with speech.
- There is a federal trade secrets act that says publishers can be found liable if they knew, or should have known, that information was a trade-secret being leaked.
I am aware that there is a large proportion of Mac fanboys here on Slashdot, but Apple's antics lately have borne a striking resemblance to some of those from Microsoft, and I see no particular reason why they should be applauded.
"At this point though, with how our culture has developed, anonymous sources are a scourage in my opinion. There are numerous cases of anonymous sources being up and out fabricated, and used a cover for rumor and gossip by journalists."
Yep, like those irresponsible journalists Woodward and Berstein, or the journalists who took Karen Silkwood's anonymous work to the public, or how about the Bush Administration leak to Rober Novak that outed a covert CIA agent?
You may not like anonymous sources, but they have always served a purpose. See a brief history here.
If forced, I'd refuse to comply. Yes, doing so will park you in jail. Blogs are publications and are often widely syndicated; they're often used as sources for major broadcast and dead tree news stories. ThinkSecret is as legitimate as the Talon; well, bad example on the latter.
Trade secrets are not national security. ThinkSecret and the other folks weren't trafficing in them (selling them to competitors) which would be industrial espionage; they were writing news articles about them.
Is The Register a legitimate news service? Is Tomshardware? Is Slashdot? Is Democracy Now? What about al-Jazeera? Fox News? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" and an "illegitmate" news agency?
kunwon1 brings up a hugely valid point here. I'm intensely curious as to the outcome, and how lawmakers will learn/craft new laws based on this issue - regardless of who "wins". Judges/lawmakers need to realize that journalism is certainly valid in other forms of media besides paper/print/TV/radio.
...but are these "three online publishers" journalists?
I'll vote 'No.'
Bullshit. What is a journalist? ANYBODY can be journalist.
Software Wars
if it was possible for an individual to establish credibility and publish work anonymously, this kind of situaion would not arise. is this possible?
is it really necessary for publishers to be known to be credible?
perhaps someone could publish anonymously, but sign the content with his private key -- readers would know that this is the same writer of previous works as confirmed by using the public key.
Fucking Jesus, aren't there truly significant free speech issues that deserve the attention wasted on this BS? I can't play Don Imus as Rev. Billy Sol Hargis and one sacred chicken to go on the radio without fear of fines for broadcasting 'offensive' material. National Geographic is allowed to air naked aboriginal breasts yet Janet Jacksons teat is forbidden. Pigz eating banannas are censured because some fat ape is 'offended'.
Where's Lenny Bruce when you need him.Fucking MORONZ
Many social scientists have gone to jail to protect their sources. Interesting to me that the code of ethics that many of us (social scientists) subscribe to require us to protect our sources from harm. Of course hopefully we would have forseen the danger to our sources and not published it in the first place...
But, the implications for all sorts of research are a little freaky.
- Sighuh?
everybody would be up in arms bashing them about how they want to control everything. But since this case is the glorious Apple... ahhh it doesn't matter anyway.
The case is in California. I don't think New York State Consolidated Laws apply there. On the other hand, California has a Shield Law that provides persons connected with news organizations with an immunity from being held in contempt "for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for [public dissemination]... or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.", that may or may not apply.
First, it is not up to any judge to rule on who is or is not a journalist, because there is no legally defined standard for what makes someone a journalist. Journalists are not some specially annointed group apart from society, although many think they are.
Second, "journalists" are not afforded any special legal privilege to withhold information from a court, aside from those that any citizen would have, such as fifth amendment protection. Attorneys, clergymen, and I think medical professionals such as psychiatrists do have certain privileges in certain circumstances. A serial killer can confess his crimes in lurid detail to his attorney, and a court cannot compel the attorney to reveal it in court. It's called "attorney-client privilege".
OTOH, there is no such think as "journalist-source privilege". If there were, then journalists wouldn't be routinely jailed by judges for refusing to reveal sources.
I vote 'Yes'. That is, unless you can convince me otherwise with some back up to that statement.
You chose an interesting example, considering that Robert Novak refused to reveal his source, and no one offered a legal challenge to force him to do so.
Anyway, sure, journalists cannot obstruct Justice. So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Journalists' sources are, of course, *not* protected when laws have been broken, as seen in these
cases. The obstructing journalists in question weren't protected, either.
1) This is not a Federal case
2) This is being tried in California
3) California has an specific law protecting journalists from this kind of thing, the Shield law:
"California enacted a shield law in 1935 and, in 1980, incorporated it into the state constitution. The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."
I don't know if it aplies to this case, but the law exists.
Notice how the title just said "Apple". If it had been Microsoft doing the suing, I'm willing to bet the title would've been: "Your rights online: Microsoft against freedom of speech".
So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
They did. A lawsuit would be require the loser to pay damanges. Notice how the judgement here is that they must reveal their source, not pay money to apple. All the Slashdot stories saying "Apple Sues Blogger" are misleading.
Grandparent must be smoking crack to try to apply a New York State Law to a California State court case.
This isn't about ThinkSecret or any other web sites ability to publish stories. This is about someone signing a NDA then violating it. People sign contracts then bitch and moan about it all the time.
I bought a condo, when I agree to purchase the place I agreed that my front door would always be blue and a certain shade of blue at that. So are they violating my freedom of expression? Maybe, but I'm the one who decided to live there under those rules.
If you don't agree with the terms of contract or ULA don't sign. If you don't like the idea of a NDA go find somewhere else to work, if you don't like that a company tells you what you can or can't do with a purchased song don't give them your business.
People really need to start taking responsible for the things they do.
They used to say somewhat cynically that the freedom of the press only applied to those who owned one.
..... and then since the mid-1990s, when everyone who was anyone went on the 'net, no need for centralised printing anymore.
Today, many, many people have the ability to publish information to a wide audience. Ever since the late 1970s, when someone found that a dot matrix printer would punch stencils for a Gestetner machine, personal computers have been instrumental in the dissemination of information. Since then we have seen photocopying become the dominant method for short-run printing, printing quality get better
Nowadays everyone who wants to be is potentially not just a journalist, but the editor-in-chief of their own newspaper. Nobody controls the media anymore.
At least, that was how it was until this ruling. Now, the old scandalum magnatum law is well and truly back on the statute books. In fact, there's an idea for a protest: Walk around with a receipt pinned to yourself, because you've been sold to the corporations.
{And please, please, please don't kid yourself that it's OK for Apple to behave this way because of who they are. The same laws apply to everyone. Next time someone throws their weight around, it might not be someone "nice" like Apple. Microsoft have just sent their Second XI in to bat, is how you should see this.}
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
But this is a question of trust, a anonymous source is not aways trusted. But a high rank journalist, that do have a name, is less likely to trust a john-doe with some important matter. It is the same as me (someone fell people know virutaly, much less in person) sending a patch with a root kit to red hat and expect them to publish it.
I believe that anonymous whistle blowers are important. And I certainly believe that apple is shooting their own feet. This rumors and leaked pictures is a free publicity and or a free market research for them. They should know how to use this events to their advantege.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
The news came as a letdown for those running ThinkSecret, but their spirits were picked up when Apple served their final notice on nice metallic gray paper, in a design that could only be called "compact, simple, elegant, and effective."
:D
so spot on
apple really sucks - who cares about their crappy hardware anyway? they should stick to mp3 plaers for yuppies, and stop harrasing decent people - seems like the only thing they have managed to do right...
I dont think they are irresponsible, I think they should have published their sources.
I am well aware of the history, I just think the danger is overblown.
With todays culture the killing or harming of a source would be a huge scandal, especially by the government.
There really is no reason other than deception for a journalist to protect sources. More often than not the source has an ax to grind.
When you facilitate people with an agenda you are not a journalist anymore, you are a participant in an agenda.
In cases like this, and in mostly all cases in which a judge requires handover of a person's name, the "journalist" has to determine whether he will violate his own personal ethics and let someone else be hurt, or whether he will go to jail to protect someone. So far as I know, there is no law involved, only precedence.
One does not have to have a printing press, or a press pass to be journalist. A 'blog' is a journal, by definition. These journals are published to the public. These three people have expressed their views, and told a story from what appears to be from some VERY accurate sources. These three publishers have no agreement with apple computers, and are not bound by any promise by others who have made promises to apple. If a judge said to you, "change your vote, or go to jail." Would you?
Not to sound like a troll or anything, but isn't this court case also partially the web sites fault? They were the ones publishing trade secrets, and they could have turned over their sources voluntarily, rather than forcing a court case with dangerous implications. I don't think it's really fair to place all the blame on Apple here. They have to do something to eliminate their information leaks. I think it's safe to say that if they've resorted to this, they've exhausted all their options with regard to internal investigations.
Apple is more interested in stopping the leak.
Anonymous sourcing is bad journalism. Almost always the person doing the leaking has an agenda. If a journalist wanted to withhold a name for fear of death, or physical harm, that's one thing.
But journalists should not be giving easy outs to people who want to embarrass, harm, or rip-down a person or group.
Why is that an ignorant comment? Sure, under CA law, they have the right to sue, but it's not obligatory and their competitors didn't receive an unfair advantage. This has the be the best post so far because it's gets at the truth, people are disappointed with Apple. They're bullying people around like the other guys and many people think better of them (I don't really, but that's beside the point). The poster chooses Apple as his platform of choice AND he's retained enough independent thought to be critical of their actions. I'm not the first to say this, but if this were Microsoft we were talking about, you hypocrites would be on the other side of the argument.
When I first read the article, I was shocked. I was shocked that someone could get in trouble for writing about something he knows about Apple, whereas absolutely no contract ties him to Apple.
Then I realized how what happened could be seen as a criminal offense. Someone was a possession of stolen information and used it. Being in possession of stolen goods is punished by the law. In this particular case, information certainly carries a value, and the fact that it was disclosed impacted its value.
That said, I don't know what to think. Is it reasonable to qualify a company's marketing plans as intellectual property?
If I had written, "I heard that Microsoft is going to release a new version of Internet Explorer" before it became a well-known fact, would have I put myself at risk?
"When you facilitate people with an agenda you are not a journalist anymore, you are a participant in an agenda."
You mean like the way the Bush Administration repeatedly invited fanboy Robert Novak to its press conferences so that he could lob softball questions at the President?
And, given your statement above, you think all confidential sources should be outed, despite the fact that the law has said otherwise?
If CNN.com publishes an online op-ed detailing Apple/Intel/Microsoft/ATI/NVIDIA/Anyone's NDA locked future products, why shouldn't they be subpoenaed to find the leakers?
And if they can, why not Think Secret?
But I don't agree that bloggers aren't journalists, I just think the journalist's shield shouldn't protect someone who's connected to a crime, even if it's as minor as violation of contract law.
GPL Deconstructed
Obviously Apple is silly to be angry at ThinkSecret.
They can only be angry because TS reports are sufficiently accurate to be believable, and this can only happen if there is some kind of inside source close enough to Apple blowing the whistle.
What Apple really wants are the names of the whistleblowers, so they can be at least fired, if not slapped with a lawsuit themselves so that no further leak ever happens.
Unfortunately this will not work. At the very worst TS will be compelled to reveal their sources. They can only be found "guilty" of conveying a message. AFAIK TS have not signed any contract with Apple and are therefore breaking no law in publicizing what they know (or think they now).
If the TS sources were smart, they were anonymous, and therefore no data at all for Apple at the end of this rigmarole.
If the sources are not anonymous then Apple will indeed fire and sue a couple of guys, and promptly the next round of leaks (for leaks will not stop, indeed they will become hotter and more valuable each time Apple tries to squash them) will indeed be anonymous, encrypted, whatever. Apple will be back to square one only this time when they sue the next round of leak sites those people will be better armed to tell Apple to take a walk.
There is no way Apple will end up doing something productive about this business. In the meantime they are burying themselves into a nice PR hole.
Why don't everybody who think Apple is making a mistake tell that to Apple?
Good points!
Then why is it that Apple is consistently ranked #1, ahead of all other vendors, in customer service and support, and has been for years? I wouldn't call that an "adversarial relationship" with customers. (1,2)
If it were CNN that leaked and I were running Apple, I would still subpoena the journalist who wrote the piece.
The issue of "What is a journalist" is irrelevant. Working at a company with NDAs, where my bonuses and paycheck are tied to my performance, and where leaking of NDAs can give competitors advantages, I would be royally pissed if something got leaked.
So if this were my lawsuit, if this were my product, and my leak, I would subpoena regardless of whether it's a news source; why does it matter? Because a journalist can hide behind a shield where a blogger can't?
So what? It wouldn't stop me, or my army of clever lawyers. Contempt of court is still contempt of court, and jail is still jail. I realize I'm being selfish and protective of my needs in trying to weasel out the contract breaker, but isn't that my right? Someone, intentionally or not, leaked information that should not have been leaked, and now TS is feeling the repercussions of it.
If it had been CNN or Fox, Apple might have tried a more diplomatic tactic, but I can't fault them for being brutally direct here either.
GPL Deconstructed
Yes, Apple is after people trying to obtain information not intended for public consumtion and writing about the information they obtained. Sounds familiar, that's because it is, that's what journalists do.
I'm getting so sick of these Apple fanboys that always try to point out that this isn't about journalistic freedom, but about a broken NDA. It isn't. The Thinksecret guys didn't sign a fcking NDA with Apple, they broke no contract. The people who gave them the information probably have, but then Apple has to sue them, not Thinksecret.
What this is is simply a corporation suing Journalists in order to force them to give them the names of their sources. How anyone in his clear mind can defend this, or even be glad about the outcome, is beyond, least of all people who claim to "think different".
Think whatever way you want, but at least THINK!
If journalists are not protected, why isn't Robert Novak rotting in Guantanamo yet for revealing Valerie Plame's identity?
Senior sources at Apple told me you like no sugar in your coffee.
Come and get me
NDA's are important to the industry, but how many companies do you think was involved in bidding for production of the mini? Those specs was floating around the industry for months. I can't decide if this is real or a PR stunt for free press. With Jobs it could be either one.
What if you - being a "real" journalist or a blogger - just take a wild guess at what apple's (or any other company's) next products/steps/strategies might be, but put it in a form as if you had an informant and knew for sure?
Could you be sued for being right...? After all some product launches where easy to predict - even without any leaked information (the iMac mini being a perfect example here).
People should pay attention to what rabit Apple is trying to pull from the hat here. If you read the article,
"In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to 'legitimate members of the press.'"
So basically Apple is saying bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and the judge (tentatively, meaning it is a preliminary ruling) agreed. If this holds water, the consequences can be huge. Some questions will need new answers: Who is a legitimate member of the press? What is a "news organisation"? If an online presence is not enough to caractherize such an organisation, what is? A paper? A radio?
This a fine new front in the "us against them" battle for the Internet.
Why does it even matter that bloggers are or aren't journalists?
If they were, are they immune from subpoenas?
I don't think they are. Yes, they could refuse to talk. They could also be held in contempt of court AND thrown in jail, being material witnesses, or at least possessing material evidence, in knowing who leaked this information to them.
Yes, it is less critical than national security and treason; but it is still law, it is still a valid issue of trust and contracts.
GPL Deconstructed
Apple is a business like any other, and though they may have released some open source software, and though they may even somewhat embrace the neo-*nix culture, they are still a business out to do the same as any other company. Though I'm a little disappointed that Apple elected to throw some legal weight on this, I understand why they did it. For a company like Apple they need to get all of the buzz they can from product releases (unlike Microsoft, they can't simply demand you use their software/hardware). For now Apple is our ally, but remember that a significant jump in market share could change that at any time. Their computers and OS are sleek and sexy and I'd sure love a mini, but I will never part my slackware-running ominous grey box. Like a good dog, I know that will never turn on me ;)
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
In a suit brought in New-York Narco News was given heightened first amendment protection for being a media outlet.
Different state and different kind of lawsuit, but still.
> The only good was for Apple's competitors.
BS. The online Macintosh community obsesses over even the tiniest rumor out of Cupertino. It was certainly for their good.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, the incident you quote concerning a CIA Agent was just a rumor started by someone with an axe to grind with GWB's administration. A Congressional Investigation found no one to pin the "leak" on, and if there was a leak who told Novak no one held him in contempt for failing to turn over the source! Hmmm..sounds just like the Apple case. Rumor, an internal "leak", publication, all hell breaks lose, someone gets taken to court..
Better start your own "blog" or "podcast" before you = teh suck
If the law wants to apply to professional journalists it should say so - and it's ridiculous to give people more protection simply because they are professionals anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But hey, there is an easy solution for this.
:-), but it's the only way I got to protest this kind of behavior and I intend to use the little power I have.
Never buy Apple again.
At least for me this fullblown attack by Apple on the freedom of the press is enough to make sure that I will never buy an Apple product again. I'm sure Apple can survive this (who would have thought
Not just anybody can be a journalist, you need the right hat. http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/pubaffairs/Graphics/259 9hat.jpg
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
I wish I had mod points, because the parent post needs to be staple-gunned to everyone's forehead.
Look, guys, I get a big hard-on for the Constitution of the United States, but I' getting sick and tired of all the critics following this case claiming that any sort of victory for Apple is a threat to free speech, or that there's no difference between ThinkSecret.com and CNN.com, yadda yadda yadda. Being a journalist is not just starting a web site and pronouncing yourself as one -- that's as meaningless as buying a box of bandages and starting a medical practice as Dr. Nick Riviera.
If anything, bloggers and "news sites" might be comparable to freelance op-ed writers, free to write whatever they want on whatever topic they want. That does not automatically give them the rights and privileges of journalists, just like being the webmaster of whitehousenews.org gives you instant access to the White House Press Pool.
(An exception, of course, is if you're a conservative shill using an alias and working for a fake news organization while moonlighting as a gay escort... but the Bush Administration clearly uses a looser set of ethics than the rest of us...)
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
And the public obsesses over any criminal act involving celebrities. Does that mean it's for the public good if some nutjob stalks Anna Kournikova? After all, it makes for good tabloid stories.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
These sites that are being sued should turn into something like ICANN watch and just report on everything bad about Apple. Apple would still be getting publicity, but not the kind that they want. Personally that's what I would do.
... then I'll have some faith in the justice system again.
But once again, here's a $$$$ case. And $$$$ always win. But when someone in the administration exposes an individual to the risk of execution, and it's OK.
I'll withold my opinion about online bloggers, errr, "journalists"...
The idea behind protecting a journalist's sources is so that people will talk to reporters in confidence, particularly about scandals that need to be exposed to public view, so that a journalist and his sources can be free to expose all the gory details without fear of legal retribution. That's all very laudable.
This is somewhat different. Here the leak itself is the scandal. Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - fame, revenge, to make himself feel good, whatever. For goodness sake, "Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets. This case has nothing at all to do with protecting sources who are putting themselves at risk to expose a dark secret that the public needs to know about.
This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so. If a person can be labelled a journalist (with legal source protection) just by creating a web site containing trade secret information, then the legal protection for trade secrets exposed in this way is weakened considerably.
Matt Drudge (The Drudge Report) was the guest speaker at the USA's National Press Club. Drudge told the attending journalists from all the major news organizations (likely with 20, 30 years experience) that he was just as good/valid a journalist as they were - because he broke the Lewinsky-Clinton story. And he went on to explain how the www enabled him to become an instant (and rich??) journalist. Of course the Republican Party salivated over his story and used it to try to take Clinton down - since they couldn't beat him at the ballot box. That kind of set the pattern for the www. With respect to "justice" - hopefully nobody here actually believes that there is just one justice system. There are at least three - one for the rich, one for the elites, and then one for the rest of the masses. Naturally billionaires can crush anyone they want to by drowning them with lawyer costs. I hope this issue goes to the USA Supreme courts - it will expose the underbelly of Apple - and I wonder what we will see? Maybe the "apple shuffle" won't look so cute then. Even to people who love Apple's repackaging of 4 year old technology into little boxes - will start to question Apple's integrity. Maybe.
The reporter isn't being held in contempt, which is what that law is talking about. The reporter isn't facing jail time.
This was a civil matter seeking to subpoena someone who broke a civil contract.
Now that Apple has this ruling, if they don't give up the source, they are violating the order of a judge.
Shady loophole? Possibly. Contempt? Nope.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
(I can spell, just not while answering questions and typing)
... that this has anything to do with freedom to blog - anybody can write in their stupid blog as if anyway out there cares - the issue seems to me, more along the lines that these people at apple had a confidentiality agreement and they broke it - breaking a contract is against the law, that's why we have contracts - you can blog all day long, just don't break the law while you're doing it .... or something
calling all destroyers
Liar! Or are you just stupid?
It is very much in the 'public good' to know about new products that are about to render old products over-priced or obsolete. How can you be an informed buyer without information? Companies pull all kinds of tricks to foist off discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise as 'new' on uninformed consumers. If Apple is able to chill the discourse about their products, they are already a good way along the road to preventing any criticism of their behavior at all. And that would not be good for any of us who aren't named Steve Jobs.
As I said, are you stupid? Or a shill for Apple?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
No, you are a Slashdot Editor.
Sorry, that was cheap. Still true though...
After all, it makes for good tabloid stories.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that tabloids are actually not legally protected like other news sources? If so, why haven't they been sued out of existance yet?
If Apple was hurt because another vendor beat them to to a release because an employee leaked information (to the competitor), yes, I would feel differently. This is not the case. You can't 'bait and switch' scenarios to make a point. In most cases, a company is not going to lose money because of a news or blog story. I would be pissed too if I were Apple but I think that this is misuse of the law.
Shouldn't that be "repeatedly invited gay pornstar and neo-conservative fanboy Jeff Gannon to press conferences so he could lob softball questions at the President?"
This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so.
Thank you. I 100% agree with you. This guy got what was coming to him.
This was not for the 'good of the consumer'. It was a way to steal Apple's thunder and feel good because they were the 'first website with the details'.
I see california will banish you too
Apple complains about lost sales of their other machines to people who heard about the mini and waited till it came out.
What about people who heard about the mini and waited for it instead of buying a sub-$300 X86 PC?
Joe Computerbuyer says "Those macintoshes are so expensive, and I need a computer, guess I'm stuck with a clunky pentium 1 machine from GoodWill. Wait what's this on Think Secret - a cool new mac that *I* can afford? cool I'm wait'n for that!"
Shouldn't Apple be saying "Thanks ThinkSecret more sales for our mini" ?
No. I'm saying that reading a story in a tabloid might make obsessed people happy, but that doesn't mean that the criminal the story's about was acting "for the public good."
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
There is no federal law to protect sources.
True. Good thing this is being tried in California, where there is the "Shield Law" written into the California constitution, IIRC.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The original intent of my post was to defend the original comment, which got modded down for simply saying he was ashamed of Apples actions. If we ignore the (complicated) debate about Apples rights and the bloggers rights and the scumbag who leaked the info, it's a sincere expression of dissapointment in a company who people think better of. Honestly, I don't have a solid opinion on this matter because I can see both sides.
Instead of crucifying a penniless web journalist, tie bonuses of the development staff to news leaks (or lack thereof). Give your employees a reason not to snitch on you.
Do you think that IBM would be reacting like this if news of a new Power5 server leaked?
Apple, you make interesting products, but I hesitate to buy from you as you so often act like a grade school playground bully.
Solve your problems with constructive action instead of trying to ruin peoples' lives.
Rumor?
So Novak didn't divulge the identity of a CIA operative? Oh wait, he did.
How did he get this information? Magical elves?
Strong Bush supporter turned journalist publishes identity of CIA operative, who just so happens to be the wife of a critic of the Bush administration. The group with the biggest axe to grind will always the most likely culprit.
It's not particularly surprising that nobody in the administration stepped forward to admit responsibility in this. I mean, what, do you expect any administration to admit culpability? Especially this one? They won't admit they made a mistake invading Iraq, they won't admit their intelligence was faulty, they won't admit a single mistake - they'll just find new reasons to justify their past actions. Someone must have dozed off during ethics class, as they don't understand the ends can't justify the means. Probably attended too many keggers that semester.
Then we have a congressional investigation controlled, surprise surprise, by the majority party, which just happens to be the same party as the adminstration. I mean, Bush didn't get a blowjob, there's no scandal to pin on the opposition, why not put up the semblance of an investigation and rubber stamp the administration's actions as OK?
So I guess in Apple's case the justice system should do the same thing? Only let Apple half-heartedly search for the source of the leak, never allow them to press the obvious candidates (anyone who received the leaked information, most likely sources of leak, etc.), then wrap the whole thing up in a couple months with a "Aw, shucks, can't find anybody. Sure hope they don't do it again. Hyuck."
Being a journalist is not just starting a web site and pronouncing yourself as one
Yes, it is exactly that.
Would you prefer a "journalism" license thats issued by the federal government? I'm sure the White House would. That's how it worked in Iraq under Saddam, and we all know the quality of the info spewed out by his Information Minister, and Uday-run newspapers.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Before this whole mess went to court, why not just claim that the "sources" were in fact anonymous or were only known by alias.
Letting Apple know that a source known as "Dave Smith" gave the info wouldn't exactly do much for them.
Gozmodo:
It's sort of a big deal that Apple sued Think Secret, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the question as to whether a blog or 'non-major website' has the same rights to protect sources that any other publishing outlet does....Our take is pretty simple: fuck 'em all--every last company....If anyone wants a place to post career-jeopardizing information, we've got no problem running it...
Sigh. Way to work against yourself. If the blog/web-publishing community wants to be respected and legally viewed as "journalists" then they need to act like journalists. IMHO, it's attitudes like these that will make that fight impossible.
... Which is the only way to fight this. Members of the press have had the courts try to get the sources before, but they sat in jailm for contempt.
So, how far are you willing to take journalistic integrity? Are these blogger going to go the extra mile? If not you can bet source will start to dry up for bloggers, and bloggers will be seen with even more contempt then they are today.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What makes someone a journalist? Is it circulation in the millions? Is it a press pass? Is it a crumpled fedora? These days any hack with a blog can wrap something in HTML, slap a google ad on it, and call it journalism. Does that make it so?
Yes, yes it does.
The very word itself defines what it is: Journalist = someone who writes a journal.
This isn't rocket science here. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says. I can start up a way to communicate to the people and communicate anything I damn well please. Nobody can stop me from doing it. This is the very backbone of freedom of speech.
I don't need to have a mass market. I don't need to have financial backing. Ben Franklin started with a single printing press, you know.
The only limitations you can place on such free speech are those of truth. Slander isn't allowed, for example. If you're going to talk shit about somebody, you better make sure that it's true. Truth is the ultimate defense for the journalist in this respect.
Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection
Everything written anywhere gets full First Amendment protection. Period. Not too difficult to grasp here.
However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
See, that's where we differ. First Amendment protection should be automatic *unless* you can show a valid reason why it does not apply. Showing harm to a person or group of people isn't good enough, you have to show why such protections in any given case are detrimental to society as a whole. I can show that shouting Fire in a theater is dangerous to those people in that theater and to society as a whole if it were to be allowed, so therefore it doesn't get 1A protection. That's the reasoning that should be used: 1A is automatic unless you can explain why it should not be.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"This was not for the 'good of the consumer'. It was a way to steal Apple's thunder and feel good because they were the 'first website with the details'."
And how is this bad? This is the reason why "scoops" are so revered in the media trade, and why good journalists are always trying to get them, regardless of whether it's for the good of the consumer.
Good link in parent post.
The first amendment (rtfa) protects anonymous journalism.
Talley v California
McIntyre v Ohio
Watchtower v Stratton
Tornillo v Miami Herald
However I don't know if this has been applied, or disapplied, to journalists' protection of sources, by a supreme court case.
The california constitution, article 1 section 1, contains a right to privacy, a constitutional shield law, a statutory shield law, and a judicial doctrine protecting sources not covered by the shield law.
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html
The consequence for a court giving an order violating a state law is contempt....
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
just like the newspaper.
If someone releases information to the press, they should be protected.
It's a trade secret. That mean the company has decided to not patent or copyright an item in exchange for trying to keep it hidden. Fine, but the risk of that is that it will leak. Live with it.
please don't reply with some half-assed overly extremem example, espcially if it involves saving peoples lives. You will only look like a 13 year old hack.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The nytimes's Public Editor had an interesting piece about anonymous sources a while back:
. html?res=9907EFD61230F930A25755C0A9629C8B63
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-printpage
"Electricians from Lutsk may be innocent bystanders, but most anonymous sources are not. They have many different motivations, but I doubt we'll ever see the paper cite what must be the most common one: deniability. If your name isn't attached to something that turns out to be wrong or embarrassing, you never have to take the heat for it."
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
If Apple is able to chill the discourse about their products, they are already a good way along the road to preventing any criticism of their behavior at all.
WTF? Discourse about products != leaking confidential information. Criticism of their behavior != leaking confidential information.The stories were submitted by applefan@hotmail.com. There now we can move on to other things.
Getting scoops is good. Revealing trade secrets is bad. Yes, one can be different from the other. Finding out Jennifer Anniston slept with Jennifer Lopez is a scoop. Publishing the full schematics to Intel's latest unreleased chip is revealing a trade secret. Very different.
If journalist give up sources, then sources won't come to journalist to report news. That is why journalist will go to prison before releasing such information.
"Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - fame, revenge, to make himself feel good, whatever. "
if it's unknown, then why do you list those examples? Perhaps there are other reasons? but that doesn't matter, because whistle blowers often do it to make them selves feel good, or some sort of personal gain.
""Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets."
reports solicit people for secrets of one sort or another all the time, it's there job.
"This case has nothing at all to do with protecting sources who are putting themselves at risk to expose a dark secret that the public needs to know about."
Again, you assume only people revealing a "dark secret" deserve protection.
"This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources."
Even if I agreed with your previouse statement, it is STILL about protecting his sources.
"It's just greed."
the fact the journalists as a whole would have a much harder time doing there job if sources weren't protected could also be boiled down to "It's just greed."
" This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. "
thats what journalists do.
"Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so"
no, but writing about stuff does.
" If a person can be labelled a journalist (with legal source protection) just by creating a web site containing trade secret information, then the legal protection for trade secrets exposed in this way is weakened considerably."
what legal protections? the only legal thing a corporation can do is instate company measure to protect there trade secret.
The legal protection of citicens and reports needs to come before comepanies and there secrets.
Comepnies "Dark Secret" are almost always trade secrets. Now reporters need to determine which ones are bad enough to reveal? what about little things that don't seem like a 'dark secret' but latter turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bullshit. What is a journalist? ANYBODY can be journalist.
/., for that matter), true, but is still a rumor mill, not a reputable source of news.
...." where .... is any given profession (mechanic, web designer, traffic engineer). Slapping up a weblog does not, in fact, make one a journalist. (see Drudge)
No. You, sir, are incorrect. In theory, for one to be a true journalist, one must do actual research. Fact checking. One must have some type of editorial review process.
thinksecret is better than Drudge (or
The prolbem is that mass media has become beholden to corporate Amerika and doesn't do things like extensive fact checking (paging Dan Rather) or exercise good editorial review (NYTimes scandal(s), anyone?). The skimp on these things because of economics--they *have* to get the "scoop" to get the ratings or they can't make their corporate masters look bad. Never mind the fact that such "scoops" are often just rehashes of baseless speculation posted by bloggers.
Dan Rather got the story right, his team even asked the White House for comment. What they failed to do was verify that the smoking gun was, in fact, a gun not the steaming pile it turned out to be.
If you follow the ANYONE can be a journalist, then should also follow the "ANYONE can be a
I think I read that at the time, actually. Not 100%...
I think the sentiment and quote is right. If someone wants to spread a rumor, float a trial baloon, etc all s/he has to do is make it sexy a bit and make a phone calls. If you are in Washington power circles you know who to call to get it in print.
And you know how the game works.. get it in the social gossip section. Then that gets referenced by something in the odd-ball news. Then it's "widely reported", etc.
If you have something to say - speak. But own your words. Especially about something which reflects negatively on someone else. Own what you say. Own what your agenda.
According to thefirstammendment.org...
The Shield Law protects a "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed unpon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" and a "radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station." The Shield Law also likely applies to stringers, freelancers, and perhaps authors.
Since it "likely" applies to freelancers, it likely applies to bloggers since that's what they are. A judge would have to decide.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
dictionary.com
2 entries found for journalist.
journalist Audio pronunciation of "journalist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jûrn-lst)
n.
1.
2. One who keeps a journal.
--
I am puzzled by the use of the 'insightful' tag to give 5's to posts that are factually wrong. It's happened repeatedly in this thread.
But then, I'm new here.
It's THEIR not THERE!!!!!!! Your argument would have been much stronger if you would have bothered to use proper grammar.
adzoox: Here are some relevant laws.
geoffspear: You don't know what you're talking about.
adzoox: Actually, it's my job.
geoffspear: So, you're still stupid.
adzoox: Riiiight, have a nice day.
he was furthering the interests of the current Administration. You think Bob Woodward is psychic? Politicians use journalists as much as the other way round.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
From the article summary:
In a case with implications for the freedom to blog...
The implication to reveal trade secrets?
Believe it or not, you don't have the freedom to say absolutely anything you want. There are slander laws, libel laws, harrassment laws, trade secret protection laws, and so on. If I worked as a higher-up in Coca-Cola, I wouldn't be able to post the top secret Coke formula on my blog without expecting a lawsuit.
Apple is well within their rights in this case. Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
And no, people, Woz is not contributing to the legal fund of this case. That is a a different case involving the Tiger torrent. I mention it because I've seen at least three posts pointlessly referencing Woz (as if that would matter anyway...because Woz disagrees, we all must as well?).
Hi --
I just wanted to point out that the San Jose Merc news article that's linked is not about Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret. It's referring to a separate suit against "John Does," as part of which three sites, including Think Secret, received subpoenas. They're completely different suits.
Nick dePlume
Publisher and Editor in Chief
Think Secret
Personally, I think not. I see this affair as rather minor, and doesn't in any way deviate from previous Apple-lawyer mentality. In fact, their legal division has always been a pack of wolves, set out to be extremely aggressive. But that's different from Microsoft, which has the same mentality running through not only its legal department, but also its business, and development strategy cultures as well.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Apple: Bad, bad, bad... Who gives a flying fuck about your "secrets" when you're going to tell them to the world anyways? It's not like the guy was posting payroll records.
Remember that geeks can make of break you.
I say, it's going to be pretty hard to redeem yourselves after this. Not only am I not buying a mac, or an I-pod, I am not recommending it to anyone, and when people ask me why I'll say: They are not user-friendly.
You may think I am overreacting, but like my wife says: The company has to seduce me _before_ I buy their products. Apple needs to learn how to flirt better.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Can we finally force those journalists in the know to reveal the identity of Deepthroat. Surely issues of governmental transparency are more important than corporate profiteering.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The only thing this case is about is some dishonest jerk giving away company info.
Everyone seems to assume that the ONLY place these morons were leaking info was to TS. What if the leak was passing on information to Sony or HP? What if Sony was paying this guy $10k a month for information on all products Apple is getting ready to market, so they can get a head start on catching up, or even try to preempt Apple in me marketplace?
If Mr. Stupid is willing to give trade secrets away, do you really think he is honest to not try to make a buck with those same trade secrets? Clearly his word is worthless and he apparently has all the moral fibre of stolen box of soggy corn flakes.
If I am Microsoft, I back Apple. If I am AMD, I back Apple. If I am CNN, I back Apple. If I am ANYONE of the face of the PLANET who has any SECRET information LEGALLY PROTECTED, I back Apple.
No one should be allowed to break a contract unpunished... not a baseball player, not a movie star, not random schmuck who is trying to pay off gambling debts. Not even a journalist or a Congressman or Might Mr. Rove himself. No one. Ever. Period.
If that useless punk who runs TS had any integretty at all, he'd hand over the name of the morons that are attempting to kill the validity and usefullness of NDA industry wide.
Why slashdot is defending that pathetic jerk is beyond me. If there is any place in the univese I would expect to see that pathetic excuse for an employee to be lynched, it would be here. I suppose innane babble over non related issues like journalism and free speech can cover the issue, even here.
Were they:
* involved in producing original content? Yes.
* that was non-fictional? Yes.
* from an impartial viewpoint? Yes.
* which were then distributed? Yes.
They're more the journalists than the AAP writers who re-hash press releases written by HPs PR company, or the staff at Channel 7 in Australia that aired an (unlabelled but) obviously Telstra sponsored piece on wireless internet during the nightly news.
Someone let the monkey out of the cage.
Liar! Or are you just stupid?
Way to start off a well-reasoned argument.
It is very much in the 'public good' to know about new products that are about to render old products over-priced or obsolete.
No, it's not. You're not being forced to buy anything. Companies can charge whatever they want for their products. Think an iPod Mini is overpriced? Don't buy it.
You have a VERY skewed definition of what "public good" means. For the public good would be letting the public know their drinking water is bad, or they're buying a product they don't know is going to break on them in three weeks. There is nothing for the public good in forcing Apple to tell you every single product they're researching in the R&D labs.
In fact, any company forced to do that would be ruined, because once a product is released, research for the next product begins. That's how it always works. Consumers would never buy anything, because they'd figure, "I'll just wait another twelve months for that next thing they're working on." Of course, you can choose to do this now if you want to, but in the above situation, you'd know exactly what was going to be deprecated.
How can you be an informed buyer without information? Companies pull all kinds of tricks to foist off discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise as 'new' on uninformed consumers.
You don't need to know what Apple is researching to be an informed buyer about what they have out now. Buying something that will be obsolete later is the same thing for everything, including PCs. Revealing upcoming products would benefit Apple's competitors.
Tell me, what "discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise" is being pushed as "'new' on uninformed consumers" by Apple? Let us know, so Slashdot can post an article about it.
If Apple is able to chill the discourse about their products, they are already a good way along the road to preventing any criticism of their behavior at all.
Give me a break! Again, what "behavior?" They're not chilling the discourse of anything. Talk about Apple all you want. But you don't have some magic right to know all about what's going on in their R&D department.
As I said, are you stupid? Or a shill for Apple?
Not only did you not give a single valid point, but you're insulting as well.
If that's the case, then it would appear that any and all attempts to encourage unlawful behavior (such as offering to sell or buy drugs, offering to sell or buy sex) would be as illegal as the act itself -- which are tactics the Police often use.
:-)
Actually, these are illegal. Haven't you ever seen a cops episode where a policwoman poses as a hooker in order to bust 'johns' that solicit her? Police are allowed a grey area, which is defined by the legal idea of 'entrapment'. Basically, my understanding is that they can pose as a hooker/buyer/seller, and if you approach them, they can bust you. They are not allowed to approach you. So an undercover cop can't just walk up to you and say "Psst, want some weed?" then arrest you if you say "Yes". He can arrest you if you walk up to him and say "Hey, I want some weed. Got any?"
IANAL, but I used to sell drugs
Why is every site that posts news now known as blogs? I thought blogs were reserved for goth/emo kids expressing their feelings...
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
A judge ruled in the favor of apple???
*gasp*
Dare I attempt to read any comments on this since everyone likes to back EFF so much?
Lets face it, if we were in Apple's shoes (the smarter ones amongst us) we would have done the exact same thing.
Someone broke an NDA, and Apple wants to know who it is.
End of story.
A blog can be many things to many people. Mary Doe diary about her cooking experiences is a blog. Alan Cox diary, which predated blogs by more than a decade, can be called a blog. I have already seem (but not agreeded with) people calling Slashdot and K5 blogs. And then you have news blogs, political blogs like Kos and many, many tech news blogs, some small one-hobbyst operations, some big and fairly well-funded sites.
A blogger can be anything from a suburban housewive to a serious journalist to many other things. Throw away all protections journalists enjoy just because there is no CNN or Fox behind someone is not only unfair, it is a way to kill this new form of journalism before it is even completely born. And remember we wouldn't be having this conversation if the bloggers in questions had published this information is a college newspaper, for instance. Because then the judge would have thrown Apple out of the room in a minute.
Has anyone found out? I tried to look, but didn't see anything.
So they force to give over their registered user name? My registered user name almost everywhere is Dirk Daring, which isn't my real name. I seriously doubt any of these bloggers used their real names either.
So where does this leave Apple? With a fake name.
Do they get the IP addresses of these posters? Do these sites even collect that information on every post? If I ran these, I sure as hell wouldn't.
If I ran the sites Apple would get exactly what they asked for.
- What are their names:
Joe Camel, Ace Booger and IP Freely.
- What IP addresses did they post from:
Sorry, we do not collect this information.
- What MAC addresses did they post from:
Sorry, we do not collect this information.
- What email address did they use to register their account?
Sorry, we do not collect this informaiton.
- What email address is currently listed on their account?
billgates@microsoft.com, stevejobs@apple.com, god@universe.com
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. I probably don't even have a license in your state! If your need legal advice, find an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There are two separe things going on here, whether or not blogs and the light are "press" for purposes of the first Amendment, and whether or not sources are protected.
If you look at the "newspapers" that constituted the press in 1789, they have a *lot* more in comomon with today's blogs and small web sites than today's mass media. A page or two, often screeds by malcontents. *That* is what is protected, and it would be hard to exclude blogs.
The other issue is tougher. The First Amendment guarantees that the press will not be silenced. That's pretty much it. Protection of sources may (or may not, people differ) be good *policy*, but that doesn't raise it to a constitutional level.
hawk, esq.
Why does the rumour site just not disable logging and delete all personal details on everything they receive? You can't force someone to reveal their sources if they don't have the details.
I use this technique on my wireless access point which I have opened completely (i.e., no passwords, no firewall, no encryption and no logging). If someone abuses my connection I can prove that it is possible that it might have been someone else but me. However, I have no idea who it might have been because I don't log. The court then has reasonable doubt and must find me not guilty of whatever I would be accused for.
Of course, this is a violation of the contract with my ISP but I have a lot of ISP:s to pick among so that really isn't a problem.
(between my owm computers I use a VPN that is independent of the network layer)
Besides, if I wanna do something "sleazy", I can claim that it must have been someone on the street or in the next apartment;-) No logs, no proof!
I'm voting he's both stupid and a shill for Apple.
(t)he(y) would have only referred to himself/themselves as Deep Throat, or Deep Inside Steve Jobs, or something like that.
If the websites don't know your true identity, they won't be able to tell the judge much, no?
WoodStein, you're next! Huh, Deep Throat is dying? Oh, nevermind, we'll wait.
(So I guess it wasn't Kirsten Dunst after all?)
I think that the real issue here is that Apple needs to keep their trade secrets. The USPTO requires that entities ACTIVELY protect their trade secrets (Overview here http://www.lawguru.com/faq/19.18.html or here http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tradesecret.html. If products in development are not trade secrets, then what is?
on the context of the Blog.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
2 things; a journalist can protect his sources for whatever damn reason he/she wants. Once you start putting in little caveats about how it's really only acceptable for these selfless causes that I, (or the government), deem acceptable you are starting down a very slippery slope. How would you like if I told you that you had freedom of speech, could go out in the street and talk aloud about whatever you wanted!! as long as it was subjects that I decided were appropriate...you can't have it both ways sorry. Secondly, as far as this ThinkSecret case goes I don't see anything that would qualify as a trade secret anywhere. A trade secret is McDonalds recipe for their secret sauce, or some manufacturing trick that a company wants to keep from their competitors. All ThinkSecret published was specs for unreleased hardware. Look around and you'll see boatloads of websites doing exactly the same thing, as long as they haven't signed an NDA I don't see how they are doing anything illegal.
Now it is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool neice
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower...
Die on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will creak, you little snobs
When you mess with President Jobs
California uber alles
Uber alles California
The wrote anonoymous articles in NEWSPAPERS under the heading of an editorial. And remember too, their opponents (and sometimes themselves) also used character assasination based on rumour. I guess you want to legalize that too???
If you follow the ANYONE can be a journalist, then should also follow the "ANYONE can be a ...." where .... is any given profession (mechanic, web designer, traffic engineer).
That is correct. Thanks! The only people decided who is or is not what are their customers -- not the government!
Software Wars
Normally, /. readers are quite vocal about their rights. This ruling is a threat to freedom of the press, and all anybody seems to be talking about is "breaking NDA's".
Tell me, when does someone become legitimate? When they join an organization of peers? You have no rights to "freedom of the press" unless you fit into a government-defined definition of the press?
Under this definition, even if I were to:
1) Discover a newsworthy event on my own.
2) Fact-check it to verify the newsworthyness of it.
3) Write an article on it, which an editor declines to publish (maybe it angered a beloved advertiser)
4) Decide to publish it on a website instead
It wouldn't matter. Even if it violated no trade secret, was 100% accurate, according to this judge and to Apple, I would still have no rights to publish it. This is the argument that the judge ruled on.
For those of you that missed it in the article:
So, now, apparently, it's a matter of the courts to decide who's "legitimate press" or not.
I can't read the article (anyone want to 'leak' a WSJ.com userid and password?:P) but obviously this event did have a real-world (financial) impact.
Does that change my mind? I'm not sure. Food for thought definitely.
Isn't this more of a CONTRACT being broken, not a law ? Someone broke ther NDA CONTRACT. Not quite the same as breaking "the law".
What would the response have been if the article was about how Apple's new products were proven to cause carpal tunnel in less than 1 month of use ? Wouldn't that have been for the public good ( they STILL would have broken their NDA though if the told the public )...
What if they told the public that the current products would not be supported when these new ones come out, that might put someone off from buying the old model ( if the day after they buy it, the new one comes out and it isn't supported anymore ).
UPS Sucks
Why not? The legal definition of who can exercise freedom of the press in the States and in California is quite broad. Further, their motives in this matter are irrelevant. Exposing other peoples' secrets is a legitimate press activity when the secrets are relevant to the public good (Apple's marketing strategy easily falls under this).
In summary, I believe these sites to be legitimate members of the press and therefore are due the protections which the press enjoys.
As for the journalists, encouraging people to violate their agreements crosses a line, of good taste at least.
I'd feel the same way if it was Microsoft (though a little bit dirty about it :-)
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I'll vote 'No.'
Merriam-Webster online appears to disagree; "journalist":
News about Apple is still News, and while a blog is not a traditional medium, it nonetheless is a medium. Perhaps a judge will also disagree with you. From the circuit court CDA decision (eventually upheld by SCOTUS):
It can also be correspondingly argued that the Internet is the most participatory form of the press yet developed. Of course, the quote is not from the SCOTUS, which would make it directly applicable. However, it is from a federal court bench ruling; judges in other jurisdictions don't always conform, but do generally wake up from their naps, especially if SCOTUS upheld the ruling cited.Of course, the California journalist's shield is not absolute, even for ink-and-paper journalists, and it may be on that basis that the judge plans to compell response... but that wasn't what you were saying. It would be sad if "All the News That's Print to Fit" outfits like the Weekly World News were more protected than pro-am's like these guys were.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
and it turns out to be true, it's not speculation? That's going to get a lot of stock investors into insider-trading trouble with the FCC :o)
I keep wondering what precident Apple can site for having authority over the writing of non-employees. If I write in my blog that there's a new Apple product called the iPod Macro, and it turns out to be true, can they sue me?
It seeems to me that the corporations are definitely growing too powerful. MS isn't the only one that's getting worse over time.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Would you prefer a "journalism" license thats issued by the federal government? I'm sure the White House would.
Who says the White House would get a say in the matter? There are lots of ways of certifying journalists that don't involve the government at all.
And it's not as if our current system is any great shakes, either -- Just look at how much news coverage Michael Jackson is getting over Jeff Gannon, for Pete's sake. Or the recently-outed group of "independent" commentators who were actually paid shills of the Administration. Hell, the fact that Michael Moore produced more Iraq war revelations in Fahrenheit 9/11 than ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox combined tells you how totally eff'ed up American journalism is already.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
I am against shield laws. One of the reasons why is what this case shows: that the government, by granting protection from government to a group of people in the form of shield laws, exerts additional power over that group of people, by controlling who gets those protections.
So hey, if you like the government having control over journalists, be in favor of shield laws.
It's important to note that tentative rulings (such as this one) are not actually legally binding in any way.
This is just the judge's "best guess" of how he will rule on the case. Giving a tentative ruling can help to focus the argument of the case more on the actually relevant issues. Or, it may encourage the losing party to reframe the case, basing it from another legal perspective. Of course, the judge may also have it completely wrong, in which case the lawyers will tell him so and how.
In any case, this shouldn't be taken as much of a victory at all for Apple. They haven't even gone to court yet.
000) Not journalism
001) Some a$$h0l3 broke an NDA
010) Apple is perfectly entitled to protect the confidentiality of its corporate information (excepting if the information relates to ILLEGAL ACTS)
011) The party who disclosed the information may have damaged Apple and certainly if anybody were free to disclose confidential company information to a *journalist* without fear of action this would not be a good state of affairs.
100) I hope all the parties involved get 5crewed.
101) The public does not have a right to know this information! At least not until Apple is ready to make it public.
Why is this news. They are all juvenile prats.
No. If you *know* something, you aren't *speculating.* To continue your wall street analogy, that's the difference between teh talking heads on CNBC and insider trading. If you have access to the information, it ain't speculation.
I keep wondering what precident Apple can site for having authority over the writing of non-employees. If I write in my blog that there's a new Apple product called the iPod Macro, and it turns out to be true, can they sue me?
Nope, but if you've claimed your source is an apple employee, they can *subpoena* you. Remember, this kid isn't being sued - he's being subpoenaed.
Thanks - I'd confused the subpoena and suit...
But will they be able to compell him to testify? If so, on what grounds?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I can only begin to imagine the kind of mess we will be on by extending the full protection of law to every single person with access to the Internet and a taste fro writing, but then again I will love to see it unfold.
This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill.
Bob Novak has been called many things in his long career, but "a Republican shill" is a first.
Isn't this more of a CONTRACT being broken, not a law ? Someone broke ther NDA CONTRACT. Not quite the same as breaking "the law".
Unless, of course, the "law" in question is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of California, which allows a corporation to recover damages for misappropriation of technichal information by its employees. Either an Apple employee was this blogger's source, and violated the USTA, or the blogger's source wasn't an apple employee, thus needing to violate innumerable other laws in order to acquire the information in question.
It applies to TORTS as well as crimes. Someone else has already elaborated on this.
Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
Then Apple should keep a tighter rein on their employees. But there is nothing wrong with telling the entire world about a trade secret you discovered without being party to an NDA.
a matter of the "Public Good".
Things like water table contamination, food chain contamination, illegal conduct, the illegal release of toxic chemicals into the environment, these are matters relevant to the "Public Good". Apple's latest R&D Efforts simply do not fall under that category.
It is not necessary for the Public to be aware of Apple's R&D Efforts, until Apple is ready to release that information. Knowing Apple's R&D Plans are not necessary to protect the public from illegal activity.
If this kid was inducing people to break their NDA's he may even be guilty of tortious interference, which would land him in a whole new pot of hot water.
" Journalists sources are most definitely NOT protected. Journalists do not have a legal right to obstruct justice.
It's been a long standing tradition, but there is no federal law concerning it. This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill."
This is not a federal court. It is a state court.
Vote for Pedro
From the State Constitution of California, Article 1, Section 2, paragraph B:
A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
I supply this information in the hope that everyone can make an educated decision when forming their opinions. (As such, I'll be keeping my opinion to myself, with regard to Apple and it's decisions.)
Believe it or not, you don't have the freedom to say absolutely anything you want.
Wow, you completely missed the point. This is not really about freedom to say things it is about the freedom to not reveal your sources. In this particular case it seems reasonable, but once the precedent has been set any asshole company who calls anything they do a trade secret could prevent people from reporting on it. If people are afraid of the repercussions for whistle blowing they will be a lot less likely to do it when something important is going on.
And that's the crux, the information wasn't just information, but a trade secret, which turns this whole thing into a crime and not merely a civil action.
So anybody with a webpage is now allowed to obstruct justice?
/. that thinks that blogging is this great new thing, but isn't calling every one of them a journalist a bit misleading?
I know there's a faction on
Bill
"Things like water table contamination, food chain contamination, illegal conduct, the illegal release of toxic chemicals into the environment, these are matters relevant to the "Public Good". Apple's latest R&D Efforts simply do not fall under that category."
How are we supposed to know that unless someone is publishing information about them? Sorry but that sets a bad precedent, should other companies be allowed to just make a blanket statement that nothing they do behind closed doors is anyones business but their own because it doesn't affect the public, then receive the protection of the legal system from anyone that may attempt to pry back their veil of secrecy?
From the article:
"The case raises issues about whether those who write for online publications are entitled to the same constitutional protections as their counterparts in more traditional print and broadcast news organizations."
You are a journalist when you make a living out of writing for a publication or multiple publications. People who write for the sake of writing and have no stake in the outcomes of their writings are NOT journalists! There are responsibilities that accompany rights and if you are irresponsible then the rights do not apply to you. PERIOD! Bloggers are NOT journalists!!!
Publicly divulging trade secrets is irresponsible even if it is not illegal in your state/country. Any journalist will tell you the same. It is absolutely NOT the same as divulging illegal activity by a company or agency, nor is it morally or ethically acceptable.
My two cents...I hope these guys get hung from a yard arm.
Well, its only natural, as they have been doing to customers for years, why not branch out, and try new, and interesting things? hehe...
I was under the impression that trade secrets weren't given any special protections under the law.
Has anyone even bothered to mention the Uniform Trade Secrets Act? First of all, if Think Secret is openly soliciting for trade secrets, then it is clear that they may be held liable themselves. If they are guilty of this, I have no qualms labeling them criminals instead of journalists, which defeats the Shield law defense in witholding their "sources."
If someone leaked information to the press about a top secret plane or something, people would be saying that this person should be found and prosecuted. This case is no different besides the possible consequences of the information leak. National security vs potentially lost profits.
Now we all know how some people here are against anything for a profit so no wonder they object to Apple's case, but the 2 cases would be similar.
Here's an example of why specs for unreleased products qualify as trade secrets.
Many years ago, back in the days of 8 bit systems, Adam Osborne created the "Osborne 1" computer. It sold very well, but it became known that Osborne was working the Osborne 2. Sales of the Osborne 1 died as people decided to wait to see that wonders would be in the the new system. The company's cash flow disappeared and they went bankrupt. The Osborne 2 never saw the light of day.
I know this an extreme example. I'm not suggesting that Apple will go belly up if the specs of their new hardware are plastered all over the internet. However, it is likely to hurt sales of the current product to some greater or lesser extent, and so it can be argued that Apple was hurt by this leak. The courts have long held that unreleased products can be trade secrets.
The journalist shield law was intended to protect whistleblowers, not to allow people to shield themselves from the legal consequences of their wrongful actions. A person who decides to break his NDA has broken a contract and there are penalties for that conduct. It might be argued that the "Think Secret" web site induced him to do so by soliciting for information and providing a method to send information them anonymously. That might suggest that they knew or should have known that the information was a trade secret.
Your point about freedom of speech if not valid. If you sign a document saying that you will not talk about something then you have given up your right to talk about it. You have made a contract and if your break the terms of the contract you will be liable, unless there was a good legal reason for doing so. There's no freedom of speech issue. A search of law references will turn up many, many examples.
Ummm, here's how you are supposed to know.
If the information published points out some illegal conduct or some public issue, then it might be for the public good.
If the published information is merely the upcoming plans for new products, that does not qualify as a public good.
What a person (or a company) does behind closed doors is their own business, unless they are doing something illegal (or perhaps unethical).
Actually, Nick Riviera is a doctor, and somebody who starts a website is a journalist... they're both just getting started out and the quality of their output will be low for a while (well, maybe in Riviera's case it'll stay low). The point is, "being a journalist" is something that happens by degrees along a continuum of experience and reliability. It's easy to assert that a ten year old with a website isn't a journalist. Now here's where you ante up: if a ten year old's website isn't journalism, then where exactly is the dividing line between journalists and non-journalists? Fact is, there isn't any bright-line distinction, and if you were to claim there was one, I'd question the basis of your authority to make that claim. Journalism happens by gradual increments, and to claim you must be working for one of the huge media-conglomerate-owned fronts for hysteria and misinformation we call "network news" is a dis-service to the genuine legitimacy of new journalists that the internet enables.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I can't argue for or against "usually," but this looks like just plain business to me. The so-called journalist has a business interest in concealing his source -- he wants to get more sources in the future and revealing one would discourage others. If he's willing to sit in jail or pay fines for his business interest, he "wins" in some sense, but pays the price for enhancing his business.
And I won't argue about "a right," but I sure don't think the public has a need to know about Apple's next product.
"But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
So, revealing something that will actually impact people's lives is bad, but publishing mindless fluff is good? I'm sorry, but you've got a really warped sense of reality.
Not that I've got anything against publishing mindless fluff, but I just can't believe people think that it's less newsworthy to report things that actually have some sort of an impact.
In fact, thinking about it, I find that attitude offensive.
Especially considering that Novak isn't even a member of the Republican Party.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Journalists do not merely have "rights" granted to them by law. People get this wrong.
Your rights, journalists' rights, are not granted to you by lawmakers. The right to speak is not "given" to us by the constitution or Congress; it is assumed to be a natural human right, beyond the control of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the First Amendment merely states that the right may not be abridged. IT DOES NOT GRANT THE RIGHT, AND THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU. You have that right no matter how many secret Presidential orders exist. The extremists infesting the Congress and the Judiciary and yes, the White House up to Bush himself, don't understand their own Constitution. We do NOT merely have the rights "given" to us by the founders and the government. According to the Nineth Amendment, the Constitution is NOT to be construed as excluding rights not listed. Specifically it says we DO have rights that are not listed, and that they need NOT be listed or granted by Congress to exist and be protected by the government. This is the basis of the "right to privacy", BTW. If we think we have a right that does not infringe others' rights, custom and common sense grants it to us. It's up to us to keep our rights, not to beg lawmakers and stormtroopers with plasma guns and recording devices to give them back to us. They won't. They don't think you have any.
Do journalists have the right to speak, and does it superceded trade secret laws the journalist has no part in? Of course. Just because no laws have been passed "granting" them this right does not mean they do not have it. Laws exist for libel or slanderous or life-threatening speech, and they seem to work fine. But truthful reporting is none of those.
Trade laws do NOT usurp the bill of rights. Commercial interests do not have more rights than mere human beings.
Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom to speak. Anonymous speech has been upheld for two hundred years. Any lawyer or congresscritter who thinks he outranks natural rights, or thinks that they have the power to take them away with a whim, is dead fucking wrong.
And you don't outrank the First Amendment either, Steve Jobs. Slap yourself with a wet iBook. You've gone too far. Remember who the hell you were.
Apple is well within their rights in this case. Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
But Apple is a corporation, not a human being! Why do Apple's rights weight over the rights of these journalists/bloggers? I would understand this if these guys would have slandered some person, but in this case I have absolutely no sympathy for Apple. Apple is just a legal entity.
Angry Coward
He's a Republican, and he is a schill. And it isn't the first time he's been called that; you just never hear it on TV.
Actually, the correct appellation is "traitor".
Apple is not the government or a public entity, therefore no one has the right to know about their trade secrets. They have a the right to keep competitors from using and perhaps causing damage to Apple's product line. There is no legitimate reason a person has the right to know PRIVATE information whether is it Apple's or my medical records. It is not in the interest of the public. It is theft plain and simple. And Think Secret "fenced" the information.
In keeping with tradition, I didn't RTFA but I did notice on ThinkSecret's site several way to leave anonymous information.
In such case all ThinkSecret can do is show their logs. It would be up to the (allegedly) Apple employee to have covered his/her tracks appropriately.
I'll repeat it again because you're slow: He's not a member of the Republican Party, therefore he is not a Republican. He may be a conservative, but not a Republican.
As for schill? Well, when that tag is attached to journalists on the left I'll accept it.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
I meant to ask "What IF"
must be friday.
Some clarification:
This ruling wasn't on the Think Secret lawsuit, which is a separate but related case. In this case, Apple wants to subpoena two Mac news sites, and the ISP of one of the sites for information to help them track down who leaked the information.
In the Think Secret matter, Apple is suing the actual publisher because the believe that he contributed to the theft of trade secrets because he actively solicits such leaks on his website. Whether Power Page or Apple Insider have similar solicitations, I don't know, but they're not getting sued, they're getting subpoenaed.
[rant]It's becoming typical of slashdot editors to skip over important details and post articles that contain sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.[/rant]
Whether this is leak was harmful to Apple is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Remember, it's not just the consumer that now has access to this information, but Apple's competitors. I think Apple can fairly make the claim that this is very harmful to their business, though it would be up to a court to decide that matter.
As to Apple going after the publisher or reporter of the story, the freedom of the press issues, and the California shield law, keep in mind that such laws are based on balancing the public interest and the public right to know against private interests, privacy, and trade secrets. Shield laws were to designed to protect whistleblowers. If Apple had been committing accounting fraud, or some such scandalous behavior, and an employee leaked the information to one of these sites, then the California shield law could appropriately be applied.
One last detail. It is possible that the leaker(s) is not an Apple employee, but a consultant or contractor, or an employee of a contractor. I don't know if this matters much to the case at hand, since outsiders granted such information almost always have to sign an NDA as well.
BTW, I'm not picking on you, you just seemed a little unclear on the subject, like many other slashdotters posting here. I chose to reply to your post because you seem reasonable and coherent and I'm a long time (since 1975 at least) Led Zep fan.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
LOL
I see some worthy moderator thinks this was flamebait. I guess the quality of moderators needs looking at...
And why not? Perhaps the latest R&D isn't as urgent as whether or not people are dying from contaminated water. But you are simply wrong here.
It is not necessary for the Public to be aware of Apple's R&D Efforts, until Apple is ready to release that information. Knowing Apple's R&D Plans are not necessary to protect the public from illegal activity.
Huh? First, illegal activity is subjective. There's a lot of activities that are illegal and probably shouldn't be (eg, drug use, sodomy, etc) and there's legal activities that probably should be but isn't (eg, rent-seeking on the public dollar, politician lying about a conflict of interest).
Second, the public was indeed being protected. By releasing early Apple's near term marketing plans, thousands of Apple customers during the month of January were assisting in making better buying decisions. That's useful information.
Do you have similar problems with "Royal Butler"? Do you think that it only means that the butler is royality, rather than the Butler, while not being royalty himself, serves royalty.
He is a shill of the Republicans, as opposed to he is a Republican who is a shill.
"reports solicit people for secrets of one sort or another all the time, it's there job."
Yes, but inducing people to break the law is illegal for everyone, including reporters.
"Again, you assume only people revealing a "dark secret" deserve protection."
You have a monumental set of blinkers. Should I be allowed to publish your Social Security Number? Should I be allowed to publish the fact that you have AIDS? Everyone should be allowed to keep their personal details private - even companies. Unless they are doing something illegal. Yes, whistle blowing should only apply to illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.
"thats what journalists do."
This will come as a shock to you. Journalists report news. There is a lot of difference between the journalist who reported on Prison Health Care (and the lack thereof) in the NY Times this weekend, and someone who makes a web site called "Think Secret" specifically to print details of trade secrets of one company to get advert revenue.
"no, but writing about stuff does."
No. So you say that every school child, every college student, every teacher, everyone who writes a book, everyone who makes a flyer about an upcoming concert is a journalist? Hogwash!
"what legal protections? the only legal thing a corporation can do is instate company measure to protect there trade secret."
Wrong. If someone signs an NDA saying they will not speak about something, and then they do, they broke a contract and they may pay damages. A contract is only as good as the people who sign it - how do you protect a trade secret except by teling people not to talk about it, and kicking the asses of anyone who does.
"what about little things that don't seem like a 'dark secret' but latter turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg?"
What are you talking about? How can future product details be the tip of an illegal iceberg?
You are indeed living in a fantasy world.
So why didn't Apple simply get a judge to order the journalist/blogger to reveal their source, rather than sue them?
If you'd RTFA, you'd find that that is what they are doing in THIS case.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Would "Republican Operative" be a better fit?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
But where is the whistle blowing in this case? It's completely absent. Apple wasn't illegally dumping toxic waste, cooking the books, or engaging in anything illegal.
The Shield laws were designed to protect the public interest. I'm afraid that many people are confused about what "public interest" means. It doesn't mean information that the public would find interesting. It means for the benefit and protection of the public. If a company is secretly dumping chemicals in a vacant lot behind a school, it's in the public interest that someone in that company leak the information, and that the news media reports it. It's in the public interest that the whistle blower and the journalist be able to do this without fear of reprisal. In such a case, the balance between the common good and an individual or company's rights are tipped towards the common good.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Your definition of "journalist" is fuzzy at best. What's "actual research"? What's "editorial review process" and why is it required for a journalist (as opposed to a publication)? And who can decide if a source is "reputable"?
I would simply define a journalist as someone who
Whether the information being collected and deliverd is rumor or not doesn't matter (it does distinguish a good journalist from a bad one, obviously), as long as the intention of informing the public (as opposed to having some secret agenda, for example) holds true.
As near as anyone can tell the "CIA Operative" was more a stateside paper pusher analyst. No one I ever read argued that she was a field agent--the kind of employee that the law purportedly broken was written to protect. And according to many news reports it was common knowledge about town that Plame worked for the CIA.
About the only one making a big deal about it was her husband. He was so concerned that he wound up trying to get book and movie deals over the "outing". Obviously it wasn't THAT important from an ethical (but not political) standpoint, to him!
It is not known who provided the information to Bob Novak, but even the NYT, after their initial indignation over the incident (their motives were transparantly political, also) and leading the way for an independent council, is now writing that due to Ms Plame's actual position within the agency the liklihood that any law was ever broken is slim.
If you don't believe that there is any validity to trade secrets and confidential information, just say so. Then put your money where your mouth is, and post your social security number, your credit card info, and your medical history.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Your personal financial success is not a "public good". Nor is the collective financial successes of all potential buyers of Apple products.
In fact, it's pretty easy to argue the reverse (as obnoxiously) since a decrease in Apple's profits due to leaks may adversely affect company performance and therefore the financial success of shareholders, employees, parts vendors, and retailers. A reduction in their financial success may indeed impact their local environment, most certainly not a "public good".
"Public good" used in this context typically refers to ethical, safety, or common (meaning everyone in the society) good. Not generally qualitatively good.
3 problems found with your comment.
should read: "The problem". should read: "to corporate America and." Spelling America with a "K" is crass and won't get you in to the superheroes club. should read: "because of economics--they *have* to get the "scoop" to get the ratings--or they can't..." Improper use of em-dash.I hate Grammar Nazi's
Why should the Gannon thing get a lot of coverage? You do realize he got his daily press pass using his real name, right? I'm also assuming you know by now that 99% of the crap the DailyKos kids "discovered" about him was false (ie. he didn't leak the plame stuff.)
And since when did Moore produce revelations about Iraq?
I also don't see how you can leave out the fact that CBS published documents they were told were probably false in an effort to skew a presidential election towards the democratic candidate (a party Rather happens to have done lots of work for in the past) unless you yourself are just a partisan shill refusing to take the blinders off.
Ignoring this particular case (Apple may have a legit case based on NDA violations, so this wouldn't be a First Amendment issue at all), I find your point of view frightening. Why can't I simply declare myself a journalist? If I can't just declare myself one, who exactly is going to credential me? Any system that marks people as Real Journalists will be a real threat to the First Amendment, an organization able to stifle a free press.
For much of the early history of the our country (including when the First Amendment was being drafted) if you could afford a printing press you were a publisher. Anyone who stories for you was a journalist. There was no test, no organization. Ownership of a press was all it amounted to. But now we need to be protected?
Ultimately Matt Drudge is a talentless hack and scandelmonger, but he's as valid a journalist as the next guy. I'm willing to accept that in exchange for our vibrant free press.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I'm surprised gizmodo is mentioned on the headline. Gizmodo is a gadget blog. It's a blog and not a news source. The editor is very opinionated and all readers should know that. I even find it quite disturbing that the editor seeks to leverage the popularity of his site to spread some skewed opinions of his own. It should not be cited with extra credibility or anything.
Sigh, "Royal Butler" is a job description whereas "Republican" assumes membership in a political party. I would argue that one cannot compare the two.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Trade secrets are contigent on the company or person who has them keeping them a secret. If that company cannot do that, well boo hoo for them.
I mean, if I break into their headquarters or their servers to get the info to publish, that's a crime. But it's a crime because of the breaking and entering. Not the publishing.
If someone tells me info, or hands me a schematic - I don't agree that I should:
a) know it's a trade secret
b) feel any obligation to protect someone else's secret
c) be liable in any way for the act of Publishing.
Also, has anyone thought that this could be a bad precednet when the blogger *doesn't know* the identity of the source? It's not hard to spoof e-mail indetities, and remailers aren't too difficult either. To the non-techinical identity online is not very concrete.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Releasing Apple's marketing information benefits the common good even though it harms Apple just as revealing criminal activity benefits society even though it harms those commiting the crime.
I'm not saying that Apple commited a crime, merely that the release of the information to the public in question aided collective society even if it harmed Apple and therefore served the public good. Hence, it is a legitimate press activity and should be according the protections that the press enjoys.
Corporations are people under the law.
Apple's rights weigh over the rights of the bloggers, because the bloggers have no rights to it in the first place. Your question is a loaded question.
The rights afforded to Apple represent the business entity rights entitled to all the employees of Apple. The release of trade secrets and other inside knowledge affects Apple as a business, and therefore, those who work for that business. Instead of citing the rights of every employee who works for Apple, the law simplifies it and treats Apple as a singular entity with rights that represent its employees.
Sort of. I disagree that anyone should need to undergo some government or coporate blessing rite to become a jouranlist.
However, he can and has been compelled to testify (I think). Now we get into some problematic issues though. Not saying this is what happened in this case, but this does set precedent, so:
What if the identity info he has is foobar@myanon.net? If he gives that, is that enough? Should we expect [rumor mills] to have verifiable Names and Addresses for sources of anything they print?
And, how would anyone know if he actually had more than the above? Or if that was truly all the info he had?
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
No. If we're talking about a public good rather than for the public good, then anything that is more or less owned by society, eg, parks, roads, bridges, mass transit (usually), post offices, central banks, etc is a public good. If we're talking about for the public good, then anything that benefits society as a whole is a public good. Apple's marketing information had value to society, it got released into the public domain, hence it serves the public good.
If Apple doesn't want such information to get released into the public domain, then they should take better care to protect it.
In the modern age of the web, the title 'journalist' is bestowed on an individual by a peer-process. In other words, once you've gotten enough people to listen to you, you're defacto a journalist. The old 'gateway' process by which big media conglomerates controlled the defintion of who is a 'journalist' is obsolete.
It scares the wits out of a bunch of people. And it pisses off a bunch of people who earned their creds 'the old way' (by asskissing their way up the hierarchy.)
But the only thing to say is 'too bad.'
What if Think Secret lies?
Are you adequate?
This case seems to be coming down to what's a journalist and who's not, and journalists have 1st amendment rights and others don't.
May I say right now "WTF?"
2600 Magazine claims often that they are protected by the constitution because they print on PAPER. If they were a website or an electronically distrubuted newsletter (like the famous PHRACK case), they would have been shut down long ago by the government or by corporations that don't want them publishing how to break through security.
So the question you need to start asking yourself is, are you willing to take that first step towards all censorship to protect Apple's trade secrets?
Because once you do, security flaws in windows could be deemed trade secrets.
Is it okay for the Paparattzi (sorry for the spelling) to go through the trash of celebrities to find some juicy tidbit of information to publish in some rag like the Inquirer? I mean, that's for money too, so let's not knock Think Secret for trying to make a buck -- they are just like every other publication or "news organization" in that they want to get the salacious info first, because that's how they make money.
What's the difference between revealing that Apple's going to make a Mac Mini or that Michael Jackson has relations with little boys?
What's the difference between revealing that Apple's going to come out with a iPod flavor that you can taste, and revealing that Dick Cheney has stolen 12 Billion Dollars of your money by funnelling it through Halliburton?
Isn't all of this "news"? And therefore, isn't any organzation, no matter how fly-by-night, that REPORTS THE NEWS, a "news organzation"?
And who's going to deceide what is and isn't news?
Because if you're going to read about it, if you have a hunger to know, if you're going to visit the sites that tell you about Apple's upcoming products, Windows flaws, Michael Jackson's sexual orientation, Martha Stewart's jailtime, Dick Cheney's thefts, or how to break into Home Depot's mainframe, then publications, websites, booklets, and other printed and digital material will be created to meet that need.
If you don't like it, then stop reading.
But don't legislate the rest of us into not reading because that, my friend, is censorship, and that's a road you don't want to travel.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
information wants to be free
sorry folks -- no stopping it
...including, according to Apple, all information about the source(s) of the published rumors. Publishing only part of the covered "source" doesn't count according to the GPL.
Do we really need to set very low treshold to be anything? Look, individual empowerment is good, but setting low standard hurt everyone in the end. You know what, I have posted information on websites in the past. I guess I am a journalist. Then again, I've told stupid jokes (and stories) so probably I am a bad comedian (writer), but still, a comedian (writer). I guess I am just a Renaissance man. I can boil some eggs, so I am a bad chef, but still a chef. I can paint some figure sticks too, so I am a bad artist, but still an artist. I can add some figures, so I am a bad mathematician, but stil a mathematician. While at it, I was really good at junior high physiscs years ago, so I must be a bad physicist now, but still a physicist. Oh, BTW, I cut myself yesterday, then bandaged myself, so I am a mediocre nurse, but still a nurse, though if I thought about it, I am a bad doctor too, but still a doctor since I decided to buy a cough medicine myself. Damn, I can't decide what I am. At work, I do some basic programming in C and Matlab, so I am a bad programmer, but still a programmer.
So, why attach professional labels if anybody can just be so easily without much skill and training and ethic? Ever wonder why it seems our culture is regressing?
What is the difference between ThinkSecret.com and CNN.com. Assume we aren't all as smart as you. Tell me given website X what tests in needs to pass before it has the privledges of CNN.com.
Think about this:
What's worse: 1 guy stealing information and giving it to a competitor, or 1 guy stealing information and giving it to the world?
Im sure people here would say 'yea sue the guy in the first situation' but they wouldnt with the second cause the guy has a website. WTF?
Lets be real, and think about it. Whether you like Apple or Microsoft, or *nix. If someone stole your ideas/money/info and just gave it to the world, you'd be a little upset at who did it, and would look to find out who that person is so that they could no longer do this.
Apple doesnt want the person who leaked this info in their company anymore. They want to know who it is, so they can 'internally' take care of it.
90% of the posters need to get their head out of their collective a$$es before they post some of the dumb sh!t that trolls around here.
Journalists sources are most definitely NOT protected.
If that is true. Oh my god. That's really horrible. Here in Sweden journalists sources ARE protected by law, since we still consider free press as something worth protecting.
Republican policy
Republican Senate
Republican meeting
even Republican Party.
None of these assume membership of a political party. Adjectives are funny like that. Or would you argue that all Republican voters are members of the Republican party?
In the US, obstruction of justice is a whole different situation. Similarly, a phychiatrist has doctor/patient priviledge, but has an obligation to report any situation where they know a crime is going to be committed.
Honestly, if a journalist nabs an interview with someone who has plans to bomb a building, or assasinate someone, I don't want him to be able to scream "free press" and protect the source's identity.
You're desperatly grasping at thin air. He's a leftist journalist. Its just that nobody wants to claim him, for good reason.
In the US, obstruction of justice is a whole different situation. Similarly, a phychiatrist has doctor/patient priviledge, but has an obligation to report any situation where they know a crime is going to be committed.
I don't think you can compare a journalist and a doctor. The journalists job is to critize the people in power. They need a whole other type of protection than a doctor does.
Honestly, if a journalist nabs an interview with someone who has plans to bomb a building, or assasinate someone, I don't want him to be able to scream "free press" and protect the source's identity.
Why one earth would the bomber talk to the journalist if he/she knew that the journalist was free to give the information to the police?
I think your missing the whole point of having a free press instead of a state controlled one. What the press should do is monitor and critize the people in power, which at some times mean letting people that breaks current laws speak. Most obvious rights now was at some point illegal.
I don't think giving up basic parts of your democracy will help the fight against terrorists (short term maybe, long term no way). Americans should take a look at why the UN, Reporters without borders, etc. critize the press situation in the US. Killing and putting people in jail until there are no one less to threaten you will not work, it will just spawn new terrorists.
The confidentiality of sources stands scrutiny only when the public interest is served. What is the public interest in the Apple case? None, there is however shareholder interest. Allowing people to freely violate NDAs or other contracts under the guise of freedom of the press or freedom of speech is a gross abrogation of responsible journalism, and it brings possible direct harm to those who have invested in Apple, Inc. which harm Apple must prove to the court in order to receive legal relief such as compelling the defendants to reveal the source of their information.
If the defendants truly feel that this case is one of free press and protecting sources, they can always go to prison by refusing to comply with any potential order to divulge. Otherwise, they need to get off this pony and cough up.
How did that get modded insightful? It's offtopic, and you know it.
And I never said that there is no validity to confidential information, only that free speech rights trump confidential information that has been discovered, whether it be Jennifer Anniston's bed partners or Apple's next computer.
It can be looked at as a good thing, or a necessary evil for a free society - but if we lose free speech and free press rights on this one, what's next?
Do you want your "journalism" to just be a regurgitated press release?
Fear of a million dolars suit, that will probably ruin the rest of your life isn't a good reason?
Fear of loosing your job isn't enougth?
I think that this hoole thing is blown out of proportion. This protect the trade secret for the sake of the secret is bullshit. Apple is the main beneficiary of those leaks. The comunity that loves apple products want to be able to know before hand, and the feeling of knowing by "someone inside" is precious. This aura creates both an expectation arrounf the product, and if it does not, this could mean that the product will be a bomb (maybe they should redisign it before it hits the street?).
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I don't think you can compare a journalist and a doctor. The journalists job is to critize the people in power. They need a whole other type of protection than a doctor does.
They're comparable because they're both obstruction of justice. Yes, they're seperate jobs, and in both cases we could be talking about protecting lives over protecting someones career.
Why one earth would the bomber talk to the journalist if he/she knew that the journalist was free to give the information to the police?
It wouldn't be the first time someone indicated intent to murder before they did it.
We're not talking about giving up basic parts of democracy, we're in fact talking about protecting the public. Additionally, you probably don't want to cite the UN as a proper model for ANYTHING right now. They are a failed beurocracy. They're corrupt and have been largely impotent in dealing with international crises for years. Besides, those "Americans" are the ones who provide all the aide and muscle the US does provide.
IMHO (I am not a lawyer; I am not a conventional reporter; I am not a cabbage...), blogging would tend to become journalism if regularly addressing a factual topic or topics of public interest. Of course, this begs the terms "regularly", "topic or topics" and "of public interest", which I will now proceed to ignore. As for the speech versus publishing protections, I understand those already are made for conventional journalists; discussing information once published is fine, but if you mention facts you haven't published/broadcast, you can be subpoenaed over those. An interesting challenge in a grey area here might be to set up as a town crier, yelling out the news at the top of your lungs at noon each day, and try to get protection under the Shield Law. As for what degree of protection is offered when first starting to put things on line.... that seems to be a very gray area.
Then there's the OTHER issue; is TS immune from being sued for publishing trade secrets?
They're not immune, but I suspect you mean to ask if such a suit has any merit. (I could file a lawsuit against you when court opens tomorrow for damages resulting from you being paisley, but it would make for a very short trial, a profoundly irritated judge, and grounds for a nice countersuit on your part.)
It seems clear that there was disclosure, by someone who had reason to know that the information came from a source who had a duty to maintain secrecy. It also seems clear that the info did qualify as a trade secret. So, yeah, it seems to have some merit. But an obvious question is, does the 1st amendment freedom of the press interest outweigh the arguably limited value of the trade secrets thus exposed? And this is why a judge earns a paycheck, and probably the jury gets called in, too.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I'm sure you'll consider it nitpicking, but no where in your quoted paragraph did I see mention of protection extending to the internet, websites, telephone conversations, etc. In the context you describe, the Shield Law doesn't apply.
It's the dumbing-down of America (sorry, but I'm sure the equivalent probably applies in other countries too) where everyone has to be this or that without any credentials. You can be a healthcare professional without being a nurse or doctor, you can be an engineer if you only sweep the floors, you can be a mechanic if you change your own oil, you can be lawyer if you've ever stepped foot in city hall. To make everyone feel better, we poo-poo credentials and say everyone is equal.
I agree. Don't forget you can be a computer scientist or programmer without ever attending formal classes if all you've ever done is written one "hello world" program and read slashdot.
I'm a PC gamer, but years ago, I had an Apple //e, Laser 128, and a Apple //gs. Even had an Imagewriter II.
I like Apple, and I think they make some excellent products.
But on this one, I have to say fuck 'em. Regardless of "precedent", they need to address this issue in an entirely different fashion. They should be questioning their employees and figuring out how to stop this happening in the future from the inside-out. Not the outside-in.
It's Apple's bad on this one, and by direct relation, Steve Jobs.
Fuck Steve.
Judging by the abundance of media personalities masquerading as journalists today, Nick DePlume easily rises above the journalistic standards of most established news corporations. I still don't see why a journalist should have immunity from testifying as a witness to a crime. If I murder someone, and then I call up CNN and carefully explain every detail of crime, does this mean that CNN can refuse to testify against me? Would such an immunity be in the interests of society? How would the surivors of the man I killed feel about CNN "journalists" helping me to cover up the crime? Another point that seems to have been lost here is that many journalists are corporate whores of the worst sort, profiting from the misery and pain suffered by others with concern only for ratings and the advertising dollars they generate. Just flip to a cable news channel to see those so-called journalistic standards in action - fear and ignorance are pushed on the American public between the commercials. Endless footage is wasted on a casual inside trader like Martha Stewart whille ruthless energy barons like Ken Lay get virtually no coverage. What I'm saying is that journalists want special treatment, they need to earn it. Regardless of what I think of corporations, I recognize that an NDA is a legally binding agreement. I don't know corporate law well, but if DePlume witnessed a crime taking place while he was getting the scoop on Apple widgets, then I don't see why he would legally be able to aid in the crime's cover-up.
"Talking nonsense is man's only privilege that distinguishes him from all other organisms." - Fyodor Dostoevsky -Chines