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.
Yes there is, but if you had read the article you would have seen that the Judge did NOT consider these bloggers journalists. RTFA.
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.
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 The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not.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.
One does not have to have a printing press, or a press pass to be journalist.
True.
These three publishers have no agreement with apple computers, and are not bound by any promise by others who have made promises to apple.
True.
If a judge said to you, "change your vote, or go to jail." Would you?
What the hell are you talking about?
This case is simple. The law says it is illegal to publish information you have reason to suspect is a trade secret. These journalists did. Apple sued them for the name of the person who gave them the info. There is no federal law to protect sources. Applicable state laws only protect sources if the story exposes government corruption, organized crime, or public health issues. This is a very good thing. The journalists are guilty and Apple deserves to know the source so they can fire him or her.
Let me present a hypothetical situation. I have a great deal of stock in a company and I'm a journalist. I find a source at a company that competes with the company I own stock in. I pay them to give me all their computer passwords and bank account numbers, then publish them on the front page. Their stock tanks, the company I invested in goes up, I make a bundle. If there was a blanket protection for journalists and sources I'd not only be free from prosecution, but there would be no way to stop me from doing it again and again.
I'm all in favor of protecting whistle blowers who expose corruption, crime, and public health issues, but this is a case of none of the above. This was publishing trade secrets for profit. Apple is being nice and only asking for a name instead of damages.
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
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a member of the press cannot be required to divulge their sources, either. Once again, Slashdotters are lecturing others on the first amendment without, apparently, reading it themselves. The constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That is, Congress can't make a law denying the press the right to print information. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say anything about a reporter's ability to keep sources confidential in the face of a court subpoena. This is why 31 states feel the need to have shield laws that provide that very protection.
So ultimately, it will be California's shield law, not the U.S. Constitution, that determines whether or not the proprietors of the websites in question are part of the "press," and whether or not they can be forced to divulge sources. If you want to read up on the specifics, check out this site.
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.