Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins Against Bloggers
linuxwrangler writes "Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law, judge James Kleinberg ruled that online reporters for Apple Insider and PowerPage must reveal their sources. No word yet on an appeal."
(Note: More coverage in this news.com story)
This judge has clearly shown that he has a grasp of the fundamental issues surrounding this case, and has realized that this is not a case about whether online sites are "journalists" or about the "right to blog". It's about when it's about when the dissemination of information in the public interest clearly overrides any other legal concerns or contracts and entitles journalists to not reveal their sources - and when it clearly doesn't.
And if you're not going to RTFA, here is some of the jugde's ruling:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
Note that the judge did not say that Think Secret and other online sites weren't journalists; indeed, he tacitly acknowledged that they, and many others, may in fact be "journalists". But that fact is, correctly, irrelevant. In other words, online sites or bloggers may in fact be journalists; this isn't about "the right to blog". However, being a "journalist" does not automatically mean the mechanisms of obtaining information, the information itself, and the sources of the information are automatically protected by journalist shield laws and exempt from discovery, especially when otherwise applicable laws (such as the UTSA) may have been violated. In other words, when a crime may have been committed (and the burden of whether or not this information constitutes a "trade secret" still rests on Apple, even after this ruling).
Further, the judge makes no distinction between online publications and mainstream newspapers, simply a distinction that any and all information gathering mechanisms are not necessarily protected if other laws are violated. The assertion on the part of some that "these subpoenas wouldn't exist if it was the New York Times or salon.com" is baseless at best.
No doubt someone will find issue with what is or isn't "public interest" and the fact that the courts (i.e. the "government") must make such a determination and is simply shifting the importance of whether someone can be considered a "journalist" to another consideration, essentially allowing the government to decide what is "acceptable" to be leaked and what isn't, and will make arguments that this will make it easier for corporations and/or the government to hide abuses, stop whistleblowers, etc. However, all of these arguments are red herrings. The court clearly acknowledged that sources information in the clear public interest must indeed be protected. Further note that the court DID NOT rule on the merits of Apple's claim itself, i.e., that the information was in fact a trade secret: "The order of this court does not go beyond the questions necessary t
Do we like this because it's Apple, or do we hate this because 'geeks' lost their case...
This isn't about protecting sources, this is corporate espionage plain and simple. They're not protecting reporting sources, they're shielding criminals.
Because nobody will want to tell them anything anymore, since they have no guarantee of identity protection.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What you seem to be confused about is that companies, like people have rights which have to be considered.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The employees stole and disclosed company trade secrets. The broke the law and are criminals, they should be treated as criminals.
The people that published this material are accessories to a crime and should also be treated as criminals.
This isn't about free speech, this is about a crime.
Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law
It's about time Robert Novak was thrown in jail for outing Valerie Plame!
Oh - we're just talking about Apple insiders? Who gives a fuck?
Education is the silver bullet.
Yeah, but this isn't about those that violated an NDA, it is about those who revealed information that they obtained from someone who violated an NDA.
Yeah. That, and the small issue that they might have broken a law doing so.
What property right justifies the application of restrictions imposed by an agreement on someone that never signed that agreement?
The fact that the UTSA says that revealing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained as the result of the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement is prohibited. Do you understand that NDAs or any confidentiality agreements would be meaningless if all you had to do was leak them to someone else, who in turn publicly leaks them, all with no repurcussions of any kind nor any recourse for the employer?
Espionage is when Huawei steals Cisco source and uses it in its own routers.
Leaking a press release early is just more press. It is a farce and I would boycott apple if I was actually in the habit of buying their products in the first place.
Your entire post is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I'll pick just this piece:
You're wrong in a million ways, but the most important one is this. This particular expression of speech does not in any way present a clear and present danger to life and limb and consequently, it not only "ought" to be protected, it is protected according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Threatening someone's profit margin is not the same thing as threatening their safety.
The speech IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.
Dumbest comment ever.
... it's not telling. The law is what it is. It's written down. It's not tainted because some people you don't like decided to use it. And you say absolutely nothing about somebody's case when you draw such an unbelievably flimsy association solely for the purposes of inducing an emotional response.
"I think it's telling that Apple chose to file suit in California, the very same state that Richard Nixon is buried in."
"I think it's telling that Apple's complaint was printed on paper, the very same material that Hitler used to wipe his ass!"
Well, guess what, Sparky
Dumbest comment ever.
Oh, come off it. Revealing the unethical and borderline murderous behavior of tobacco companies serves a clear and immediate public interest. What "public interest" does it serve to protect the guy who leaks confidential information about the next Power Mac revision?
As the judge wrote, an interested public is NOT the same as a public interest.
Freedom of the press should not extend to:
1) actively soliciting people to break their non-disclosure contracts
2) publishing information which you actually know to be protected by a non-disclosure contract covering the person who gave you the information
There is no property right at stake here. The first place you start is tortious interference with a contractual duty. Then you get into trade secrets and it gets a bit more complicated.
This is a terrible day for anyone who thinks that being a "journalist" should give you a free ride to break any contract or trade secret laws you want in the name of "freedom".
I had to sign a confidentiality agreement with a former employer. Namely because we had some rich, famous and influential customers. It was company lore that the President of the company ordered a subordinate to violate a federal law because he was having a Senator over to his house for a visit. I'm being intentionally vague here because I'm still bound by the aforementioned agreement.
The point that I'm making here is that if I was going to give specifics or name names, I'd be smart enough to do it anonymously. If you're going to violate any secrecy agreements that you've signed, be smart enough to get a throw-away email address or use an anonymous remailer.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
By your argument it should be legal to yell the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater, or to lie to potential investors about a company's finances.
Heck, by your argument trade secret law is unconstitutional, and "top secret" information should be legally publishable willy-nilly.
You've confused two issues here. First, freedom of speech has never covered the publication of stolen (or secret) documents; it is the freedom to say what you think and to communicate freely. That does not mean you're free to consipire to kill people; it means that you can express unpopular opinions (or at least it used to; today that's not so clear).
Second, you're touching on public interest, ala Watergate. The judge also wrote a cogent bit about that and how there's a difference between public interest in corruption in govenment and, as he put it, an "interested public" that's just hungry for details about whether the next iCrap will be pink or purple.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
No, you're a moron. The judge specifically mentioned that while such situations do exist, this is clearly NOT one of them. Did you even take a peek at the article?
Do you understand that NDAs or any confidentiality agreements would be meaningless if all you had to do was leak them to someone else, who in turn publicly leaks them, all with no repurcussions of any kind nor any recourse for the employer?
Poor babies. No recourse for the employer. Since there's so much recourse for employees, and consumers, and sweatshop laborers, when corporations get out of control, that sounds pretty unfair.
People are trying to term these trade secrets like they are something that is just common water cooler talk and newspaper articles.
... NOT speech .... so no speech was abridged ... and besides Congress didn't make a law. A judge ruled and enforced the law.
These are business plans, schematics, insider corporate strategy NOT speech - these items are CAD drawings, supplier contracts
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I'm even more disappointed that they're pursuing it. I am in favor of the freedom of the press. I can't possibly know all the details, including what sort of agreement Nick DePlume has with whoever his source is.
Seems like somebody told him some stuff and he published it on the web. It must have pretty good stuff. But if Nick told the Apple mole, who I'll call Gerald, that he wouldn't reveal Gerald's name to anyone, then he shouldn't. Don't break your word. Should you break the law to keep your word? People have to answer that question themselves based on their values and character, but I'd say yes. Even if it means jail.
Now, in order to play both sides of the fence here, the Mole at Apple, or one of their associated companies - whether it's a manufacturer, or some dude at an Ad Agency - has signed an NDA, then he should be living by it. Again, don't break your word.
But I have a hard time with this fishing expedition. And that being said, I didn't visit thinksecret much before, but the publicity that is being generated keeps me checking the place out. I'm not sure if that was Apple's intention, but there you go.
You want me to get to the point? Here it is:
Stamp out leaks internally. Don't sue fans.
Having said that, I'm still going to recommend to everybody in sight that they wait until Tiger (which has been announced) comes out, then buy the 12" iBook with the airport card and max out the ram. Or a Mini. Depending. Unless you want to run Linux on it. In which case buy it whenever.
The other thing I was wondering about - TFA calls it a criminal act, releasing that sort of info. Is it a criminal matter or a civil one?
-Holmes.
Look, the judge may have a point but celebrating the victory of a corporation over an individual just seems fucked up to me.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that an individual is incapable of breaking the law, or is at least "less able" to break the law than a corporation.
Also, Think Secret (I'm not sure about the others) is operated by The dePlume Organization, a limited-liabilty corporation.
The 'free speech' issue isn't' about wether or not you can go blabbing your companies trade secrets, it's about wether or not someone else, someone who has not signed an NDA or anything else should be able to re-spout them.
The law says that you cannot do this. The judge is doing his job by enforcing the law. Your gripe is with the law, not with the case.
These people, who are not under contract should be able (I think) to say whatever they want without repercussion even if someone would be harmed by the common knowledge.
To do that would mean throwing out libel and slander laws, as well. Freedom of speech (or freedom of the press, which is more accurate in these cases) is not an absolute right.
But it seems to me that simply telling the truth ought to be protected under the constitution, if you don't sign an NDA.
I would not describe the printing of illegally obtained information for a profit to be "simply telling the truth".
Yet, here these people are being forced to A) name their source, or B) Go to jail (or something). They're being punished for telling the truth about something, despite the fact that they signed no NDA and were not under any contract.
Apple was not, and is not, seeking damages against these sites. They were seeking information, and now the court has ordered them to give up that information. If they do not, they can appeal, or be held in contempt of court. I sincerely doubt that they will choose not to appeal this, but I doubt even more that they will choose to ignore the court's order should it not be overturned.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
It just shows what slashdot was like before most of the "smart" people left for sites like "Fark". Their replacements leave something to be desired.
Are you saying a traffic violation is as important as murder, or just that you have trouble distinguishing the two?
Define "important". Should we neglect those who violate traffic laws and only focus on those who murder? No. Both are important. A traffic violation might result in manslaughter. If your question is a hypothetical where if we were only able to enforce one and not the other, then obviously murder would be the one chosen. However, we don't live in that world. All laws are enforced, as they should be. The small crimes (and traffic regulations aren't part of the criminal code, btw) are given court time no differently than murder trials.
The First Amendment is the First Amendment regardless of the content of the speech.
Child pornographers in prison everywhere would beg to differ.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
"no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law"
Naturally these days everything and anything breaks the law, and it comes down to who haves the most money.
TruePunk | Games
Face it.
Just for your information, here is a "fun" comparison of Apple vs Microsoft.
Apple's employees are not allowed to blog about their activities in the company (except for 1 person - Safari developer). Almost all Microsoft employees blog about their activities at work/what they're working on,... and are encouraged to do so.
Microsoft has never sued anyone for posting screenshots/videos of their leaked software or suing someone because he leaked information about their new product. There are websites (winsupersite) with leaked screenshots/information/leaked information about Lonhorn. Thurrott is spreading info he got from MS's employees which wasn't supposed to be public.
Apple: ThinkDifferent.com, AppleInsider, PowerPage.
Apple forced the author of Y'z Dock (win32 application that acts as OS X's Dock) to cease development and put it off his site. I don't know if legal actions were used.
Microsoft hasn't sued or sad anything negative about Mono, Wine, Cedega, ReactOS etc,... which as we all know, are all aplications (some OS's) that walk on thin ice with MS. The only thing I remember MS saying about Mono was "we don't support it."
FreeBSD's founder was asked to wim down his FreeBSD public appearances, speeches, interviews, coding, blogs, you name it, after he joined Apple. Apple wanted him "contained" just like any other employee.
Apple is opening their stores in Britain with prices third party shops can't match.
Think about it what you want, but Apple _IS_ the new Microsoft. No other company is as closed as Apple. Everything they do works only on their hardware or is very tied with it. Bill Gates said this best when asked about the iTunes store - I think it went something like this: "Apple did, what they always do, they open a way for new possibilities but they always tie it with their products".
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that MS comes after you with an AK. Apple comes with a polished magnum.
The fact that people look at the sites is proof there is a public interest in this information.
As to apple's sizzle, who cares? Who said Apple has the constituional right to "sizzle"?
You're the perfect reason to hate apple fanbois.