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.
There is. However, there is a caveat that precludes them from publishing things that are trade secrets are should reasonably know are trade secrets. Such disclosure can require them to reveal sources. This is not a Deep Throat type scenario. The guy should have known not to publish what he did.
Having said that, I want to clear something up. Did he simply report on the specs of soon to be released hardware? Was it that simple? If so, I am not sure the ought-to-have-known-these-are-trade-secrets argument holds water. If the machines were about to be released, their specs would shortly become public domain.
Can anyone clarify?
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."
The NDA is a "confidentially " contract with whomever the company is disclosing the info to. It is not with the blog or website that that person leaks the info too. The leaker has violated the NDA, if there was one (or possibly his terms of employment) and is liable for doing so. This is completely seperate from the freedom of the press issues raised here, and more importantly the issue of online publications being somehow different that traditional media and thus not deserving of the same rights and protections. Apple is completely within its rights to go after the leakers, but should not be allowed to treat the blogs any different that say the New York Times.
I'm not an Apple fan by any measure, but I wouldn't feel ashamed at all. Here's my take on it:
Apple has internal secrets about what they're going to do as a company. One of their own, violating a documented promise (signed contract), is leaking these secrets, permitting them to fall into the hands of the competition. They are leaking these secrets for personal gain and/or to damage Apple.
Apple wants to identify and stop this person. However, those who know who this person is, and those who willingly distributed these secrets, are not talking under the guise of "journalistic freedom".
The person publishing the information is simply protecting their personal business model. These "rumor" sites make a lot of money though advertising - and stopping the free flow of trade secrets - their business - will hurt their substantial income.
This isn't about journalistic freedom, and this isn't about keeping America free. It's about the buying and selling of trade secrets in order to make money.
These sites are all about making money, and their most profitable products are Apple's trade secrets.
Nowhere in the constitution does it establish any such association that officiates over who is allowed to become a member of the press. If I publish a newspaper, or an informational flyer of the same nature, I should be granted the same freedoms as any other. To do otherwise would be to claim that any citizens right to free speech can be denied because he or she was not a member of the Citizens for Free Speech Association, the likes of which may even be able to selectively deny membership. I would love to see this go to the Supreme Court. They usually have more sense over these sorts of issues.
unfortunately Apple is unable to deal with this internally. I doubt that the person who leaked this information is going to stand up and proclaim that they did it.
And it would be very hard for Apple to control access to data pertaining to products that are being developed if the person leaking the information is part of the development team.
I do whole-heartedly agree that if thinksecret were publishing nothing but rumors that it should be protected from revealing sources, but the information on the sight was far too complete to have come from speculation alone. If a large magazine where to publish this information, which could have a negative effect on Apple's survival, they would be held liable too. We shouldn't try to make this a David vs Goliath issue.
And as far as what defines a journalist I would hope that it would be anyone who publishes information for public consumption, but that's just what I'd hope.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
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