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."

Comments

In a related story...

[moehoward]

The same judge ruled that bypassing Firefox's pop-up blocking was not only allowed, but encouraged by the judicial system.

Slashdot editor's were said to no longer care about linking to pop-up ad sites, but stated that they would make it a policy when linking to dupe stories.

Re:Don't judge

[madpuppy]

You better watch yourself, The Apple apologist are gonna' throw burning hot caramel apples at you!

they are sticky, gooey and crunchy at the same time.

the apples, not the apologists...

Re:A refreshing victory for common sense

[NutscrapeSucks]

Thank the boys in Apple's marketing department.

Zeig Heil apple!

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I don't understand how apple is harmed by, let's say, the reveiling of a sub 500.00 low powered apple?

These "secrets" that apple is suing online bloggers for are really nothing worth being "secret" about.

Cripes, Apple, Lighten up - Get in the mainstream by being more open and receptive to the online community instead of turning to litigation over the equivalent of a mountain from a molehill.

Here in Brazil...

[dark-br]

there are laws that provide journalists with their *right* to play their role in our society,that is, to bring on the truth.

How there could be a free press with they are obligated to reveal their sources? Who in his right mind would step up to speak against anything if you are going to be prosecuted (or silenced in any other way)?

Thats plain wrong!

1st Amendment Against the Law

[dotslashdot]

This totally sucks. Bye bye 1st amendment. I would write to you, but it's probably against the law. In fact, writing about the loss of the 1st Amendment is probably against the law too, since it invariably is related to National Security and Kevin Bacon.

Re:Yeah, its great

[Sanity]

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.

Tortious interference has to be one of the dumbest concepts I have ever heard someone try to justify on /. (and there is plenty of competition). Contracts should bind those that agree to the contracts, not third parties. If you break a contract then that is your responsibility, and yours alone.

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".

Yeah, thank God someone is finally protecting those poor multinational corporations from those evil non-professional journalists.

Ahh, the unnamed source

[Clod9]

This is great. Now when a newspaper publishes information from some official who declines to be named, the news people who publish the reports can be forced to name their sources and voila! We'll have just a little more truth.

What? You say the White House will block any such truth-telling? Whatever makes you say that?

I am so tired of reading news based on sources that "decline to be named", speak "on condition of anonymity", or any of those phrases. It really means that either the reporter or the source, or both, are cowards, liars, or lawbreakers. If you have something to say, SAY IT! Use your free speech! Otherwise, be quiet!

Re:Yeah, its great

[BasilBrush]

I will leave it up to the readers and moderators to determine whose is the dumber comment.

That's easy. It's yours.

Well done Apple...

[PhotoBoy]

... looks like I won't be buying any more of your products. I might be one person but if there are enough who feel like I do then Apple will have to start taking note.