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 isn't there a law that says journalists can protect there sources?
...but it is Gizmodo not Gizmondo.
It's not about journalism or blogging.
Agile Artisans
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to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.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.
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
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!
Think Secret is NOT an Apple fan - in fact they often report negatively - partner with the resellers that are suing Apple - and do so at the expense of Apple buyers (stealing press thunder, building up expectations too high, and litigation/cease and decist concerns)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
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.
Don't think so. Apple has actually won a case.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
...but are these "three online publishers" journalists?
I'll vote 'No.'
Bullshit. What is a journalist? ANYBODY can be journalist.
Software Wars
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?
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.
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".
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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
No, you are a Slashdot Editor.
Sorry, that was cheap. Still true though...
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" ?
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.
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
Your simplification of the case is wrong because California has a specific law protecting journalists from revealing their source.
Your simplification of the judge's ruling is wrong because the CA shield law only protects a limited subset of journalists, which the judge tentatively ruled these journalists do not meet because they are electronic media and do not own or work on behalf of a TV station, channel, satellite company, etc.
"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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The majority of state have similar laws - generally called "Uniform Trade Secrets Acts" or UTSA.
In each case the law states that it is illegal to publish, make use of, or otherwise benefit from information which the user has reason to know is protected as a trade secret.
The defendant knew for a fact that this information was protected, and that the information was gathered from those who were contractually obligated not to divulge it (it was covered under NDA).
Thus, it was a civil crime for his source to give the information. It was also a civil crime to publish those statements.
The remedies (under the California UTSA statute) are divided into both monetary damages, and court ordered innunctions.
In this particular case, fines, and injunctions to stop making use of this particular information are pointless. Instead Apple asked the court to order the defendant to divulge his sources, since that is the only remedy which can enable them to stop further damage.
Thus, this is not really an issue of first amendment freedom or freedom of the press. It is a request from Apple to have a judge provide legal remedy under the UTSA, in the only way which is relevant for them. Basically the author who was subpoenaed solicited information in breach of contract, knowingly published that information in breach of the UTSA, and then sought protection under the guise of free speech This seems specious to me. I side with Apple on this one.
I do believe that if used unwisely this law could have a chilling effect. However, the injunctive remedy is decided on a case by case basis at the judges discretion. Also the law punishes those who misuse the law by awarding damages and legal fees to the defendants if the plaintiff is in the wrong. This seems to provide a reasonable measure against abuse.
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.
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.