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...
Dear Apple,
...
I heard it on Slashdot.org
There was this guy, I think he was call Anthony Coward or something, and he was telling me all about the fab new stuff.
liqbase
head spinning ...must stop self destruct sequence..
This isn't about protecting sources, this is corporate espionage plain and simple. They're not protecting reporting sources, they're shielding criminals.
From Slashdot:
No word yet on an appeal.
From the article:
He said the trio would appeal the judge's ruling.
Oi, this is getting bad. I mean, do the submitter read the articles they submit?
-Valiss
This blogger, whom I have become completely addicted to, wrote the best article I've read on the subject. It deals with only one of the several lawsuits filed, but the points he makes are real thought-provokers.
Sorry for being such a shameless pimp, but I really think people who are interested in this Apple story would be interested in this article.
(I got the link from MacSlash last weekend.)
This ruling is solely concerned with whether the journalists are entitled to be protected from Apple's subpoena of their records. Quoting the ruling:
"The order of this court does not go beyond the questions necessary to determine this motion seeking a protective order against that single subpoena, and it cannot and should not be read or interpreted more broadly," the judge said. "The court makes no finding as to the ultimate merits of Apple's claims, or any defenses to those claims. Those issues remain for another day."
Because nobody will want to tell them anything anymore, since they have no guarantee of identity protection.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
People who publish trade secrets that might hurt a company are forced to reveal their sources, but people who publish Top Secret documents are protected. (Anybody remember that stupid ruling on The Pentagon Papers?) I guess that proves that businesses are more important than National Security.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
This helps to ensure that the legal system cannot simply apply the letter of the law and steamroll over everyone. It also helps to prevent people from using laws to shield illegal activity.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
My two "Mac the Knife" coffee mugs from the rumor column in MacWeek will probably rake in more on eBay after this ruling.
:-)
Gosh, I feel so sorry that the rumor mongers secrets will be revealed when they didn't want them to be, but it's all in my best interest of making money!
Hmm, where have I heard that argument before.
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.
I've been using Apple's products since the Apple II+ way back in 1980. 25 years of Apple hardware, software, programming, and sharing the goodness of the Apple way with friends and family. I've always had a warm fuzzy feeling for the company, their employees, and their products.
Over the last couple of weeks, though, the feeling started to fade. It's completely gone now.
Apple is just another company.
You'd think after the cancer scare Jobs would have mellowed out.
Actually, all that actually exists is the _allegation_ that the sources broke the law. There is no cold hard evidence to support that fact beyond Apple's inability to imagine that the sources didn't actually work for them and may have obtained the information themselves via another leak where the law _was_ broken.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
If you think it should only require that broad and self-referential notion of "public interest" to relieve journalists of having to reveal their sources when it's obvious they were privy to a crime, then it's hard to imagine any circumstances under which you'd think they should be forced to name their sources. Surely you don't believe there exist no such circumstances?
If someone tells you something that they shouldn't have told you (because they would be violating their NDA), but fails to tell you that they are violating their NDA, does that make you a criminal for reporting it?
Possibly.
"[...] the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," said [Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School]. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it." (source)
They broke a law? Which one? Any evidence?
The judge didn't rule on any of that today. But assuming they did get their information from someone under a confidentiality agreement at Apple or a contractor, which, while circumstantial, seems overwhelmingly clear, then yes, they may have broken a law. The judge today said that REGARDLESS of whether any law has been broken - which is yet to be decided - the information at issue in this case does NOT constitute information in a clear public interest, and therefore, the web sites/journalists in question are NOT protected by journalist shield laws.
If the top secret information has made it to some random journalist, it's probably too late to keep the secret. And trade secret law IS unconstitutional if it gags those who have not agreed to the confidentiality agreements.
As for free speech not covering the publication of "stolen (or secret)" documents, you might want to get acquainted with New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as the Pentagon Papers case.
Your interest in my mother has been noted, but you aren't her type.
From the Judge's opinion, posted on the EFF's site:
In short, Apple had strong enough evidence that this information wasn't just accidently leaked to convince the court that trade secret laws had been violated and for the subpeonas to go forward.
"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
Am I the only one who reads the reactions of the fanboy multitudes to this and thinks about running out to buy a gun and join the Libertarian party or something?
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Back in 1995 Steve Young of CNN told me "CNN protects its sources." I was on the phone with him discussing having CNN send a camera crew to interview me the next day.
I had just told him there was no way he could put me on the air. Intel was at that time reeling from the consequences from the fiasco that was the math flaw in the Pentium processor.
What I had in my possession made that math flaw look like a minor hang nail.
I had trade secret documents from Intel, legally released to me under non-disclosure agreement (since expired, so now the tale can be told).
The contents of those documents revealed flaws in Intel 486 processors that basically rendered them "Unsafe at any speed".
Countless users were suffering crashes, data loss, God alone only knew what forms and totals of lost productivity, revenue, opportunities were being wracked up daily due to the serious flaws. And even Microsoft was being unfairly painted with creating even less reliable software than they genuinely deserved to be excoriated for (the infamous BSOD's weren't always their fault...)
Steve was trying to convince me that "the public good" out weighed my honoring Intel's non-disclosure agreement.
He told me that I could mail the documents to him and that "CNN protects its sources."
Here it is 10 years later and I wonder, how many folks would agree with Steve and how many will support my decision to not hold Intel accountable for their abuses of the public trust.
The simple math flaw had reportly cost Intel $600 million for a few million chips shipped. The cost of a recall for the far more serious flaws in the 100's of millions of 486 processors shipped could very well have bankrupted Intel, many 486 chips were soldered to their boards.
Or at the very least have damaged their reputation so badly they would have had a very hard time regaining the public's trust.
I just wanted to say, the Judge today served up a nice fat juicy sound bite for the press to report. But he's wrong. The right of large corporations to protect their trade secrets is not absolute.
I also can't help but wonder what the Judge in today's case would have had to say to CNN if I had been at risk in breaking my non-disclosure agreement with Intel?
Apple has their problems, and if enough customers are persistent enough they generally own up to them and take responsibility for making things right. And today's ruling didn't cover the kinds of information being disclosed that I had from Intel.
But if Apple rides success with their iPod's upwards and loses the ability to take responsibility, I hope today's ruling doesn't come back to bite us in the ass.
Yeah I know, sounds great coming from the guy that covered Intel's ass when he had the chance.
But for a moment, just a moment there, I was tempted to mail those documents.
What motivated me to silence wasn't a fear of CNN being forced to turn me over. No, it was the advice I got from the local Intel distributor: if anything about the 486 showed up on CNN, Intel would act like I had released it to CNN, whether Intel could prove it or not.
Turns out, the company I worked for had already gone to Intel and covered their asses... (and Intel paid them off very nicely too)
After today's ruling, I wouldn't even be tempted.
Bravo Judge, on this day that will live on in infamy for the actions of a few in Spain this date 3/11/4, you have indeed struck a blow to protect truth, justice and the American way.
No. What you think you reserve and what is codified in law are two different things. In fact you have to testify even if it incriminates someone other than yourself or you could be held in contempt of court. There are a handful exceptions to this, such as you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. But for the most part your wrong, you don't have that right, you never did, so STFU cus your entire post is crap.
I don't understand how apple is harmed by, let's say, the reveiling of a sub 500.00 low powered apple?
I think there is more to it than that. I honestly don't think that in this instance any thunder was stolen and any harm was done.
What I think Apple is trying to do is weed out their "mole" before next time when it may really matter. if a secret is let loose far enough in advance it could give competitors a chance to piece together a competing product for release at the same time. This could have serious implications for a company.
Besides that, by taking care of the insider now, it puts all of the other company employees/contractors on notice that they need to decide where their loyalties are while working for Apple.
Apple certainly thinks that taking all this negative publicity now is an investment that will pay off in the future. Probably akin to lancing a boil.
It certainly could be risky for Apple though, as they do employ people arguably from a 'free thinking' part of the country, and the next mac rumor might show up in a plain brown envelope that is completely untraceable, just to 'prove' Apple wrong on this lawsuit.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
As others have already pointed out, there's plenty of evidence that the 3 webpublishers knew well in advance the information they were given by their sources was protected under an NDA. That's not what I'm going to talk about, or freedom of the press. I'm all for it, my wife is a newspaper reporter for chrissakes. No I'm going to talk about the concept of trade secrets and how it applies to our capitalist economy.
Trade secrets are inventions,(new products) and revisions to existing products, if there are more things that might fall under the definition, they don't really matter in this case so don't flame me for omitting a few. If a company invents something(ipod) or revises a currently shipping company product(new g5 powerbook, new powermacs, etc) they are allowed to issue NDAs to their employees to keep their traps shut about them with good reason. If company x finds out about the new products before Apple in this case is ready to release it, and company x copies product and releases at the same time before patents have been issued, then Apple is screwed and loses revenue because of it.
As you may or may not know, under capitalism companies generally invent and innovate new products so that they themselves can gain the revenue from their research. With no trade secrets or NDAs there is no longer an incentive to do research as a company and capitalism fails.
With that out of the way, the judge was right to back Apple, if he hadn't many other companies would be severely put in a pickle fiscally by employees leaking detailed specs to other companies. Our economy would be in shambles, and you would all be out of jobs. Granted there is a bit of a slippery slope implied there but thats the fundamental logic behind the case.
The fact that people are upset about Apple getting a big boost in this stage of the case is absolutely astonishing to me. Freedom woohoo and all but there are limits to every freedom, press, speech, right to arms, every single one of them. The websites in question and the sources should be punished, for different reasons, the sources for breech of contract and the websites for publishing information they knew to be acquired in an illegal manner.
cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
By that reasoning, reporters should have blanket immunity against speeding tickets. Because you never know. They could be speeding in pursuit of a story!
You're not doing very well tonight with your commenting. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to take a little time off, maybe go have some pie.
You'll get your groove back, I'm sure of it.
"...who has broken no laws, I might add"
mmmm.... Well, Think Secret is somewhat of an accessory-after-the-fact. If an NDA was violated - and Apple did show that the leaked information was both very detailed and clearly marked confidential - then a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed then the (alleged) victim has a right to pursue the criminal through the courts. Even a New York Times or Washington Post reporter would have been required to turn over their source if this fact pattern had applied.
Some people are offended at any restriction on the individual's right to say absolutely anything they want to [1]. That's fine. I just want to hear them make the case for a mandate of a totally transparent society, it's usually pretty funny. An absolute freedom of speach means a total lack of privacy. My usual argument is the classic 'give me your Social Security number', and follow any good defence of a refusal with 'if someone stole your info, should he be allowed to tell me ?'
Yes, that was a strawman - and they always need a brain - but it's locally scoped. And I wanted an excuse to make a point. And a reuctio ad absurdum, not that ther's anything wrong with that one.
Another argumaent in favor of this ruling is the fact that an NDA is a contract. 'If you promise not to tell anyone,w e'll tell you something' plus a signature make a contract. Courts exist to enforce contracts. If the court didn't demand the production of the offender then the public should have be outraged.
Most people complaining are ignoring a LOT of details, the others can't support the implications of their whole position.
[1] Any free society desperately needs this vocal minority, however annoyon gthey sometimes are.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Just so we are clear on what you are talking about. . . .
Do you have any idea how serious perjury is? The punishment of perjury is SEVERE, much worse than just refusing to testify and being held in contempt of court.
So what are the chances of not getting caught? Well, you're basically putting your life into the hands of someone you know does not respect agreements or signed contracts.
Oh, and there's no statute of limitations on Perjury. If the truth comes out in ten or twenty years, you can still be prosecuted in court as a criminal. And you're doing this to protect someone in a civil trial? So they won't lose their job?
The main reason not to engage in perjury is because it's wrong to bear false witness. But there are a lot of very serious reasons why it's not smart.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any lawyer about Perjury, the risks involved, the penalties, etc.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Can you cite case law where this actually happened and was ruled illegal?
No, and I suspect it never has actually happened as such. The phrase itself comes from a Supreme Court ruling (Schenck v. US, 1919) concerning the publication of Socialist propaganda during World War I.
If I remember correctly, many parts of the ruling have been overturned or supersceded, but the particular principle, that free speech is not absolute, still stands.
In fact, I'd say that speech is more protected now than it was at that ruling, when sedition laws were in full effect. Printing anti-government propaganda is a national pasttime these days, but back then, it'd get you thrown in jail.
You have the right to speak your mind, your beliefs, your opinions, your lies, your truths, your propaganda, you even have the right to tell people to rape and kill and steal and overthrow the government. You do not have the right to willfully endanger the lives of others by causing false panic or inciting immediate criminal behavior.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Go figure. When's the last time you saw a reporter prosecuted, jailed, or, heck, just plain ol' censured (much less, censored) for revealing classified information?
Oh, please. Just because you were not interested in such cases prior to the Apple vs bloggers trial, it doesn't mean such cases did not exist! Check this link. If you don't bother to click on it, here's a brief quote: "Three times this summer, judges have held journalists in contempt of court for refusing to name their anonymous sources (...) Since 1984, a total of 14 journalists have been jailed ? some for only a few hours ? for refusing to comply with court orders demanding that they reveal sources or other information, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press."
I'm looking on this case from across the pond. In Europe, we tend to have specialized law codes for, ummm, basically anything. We have the Press Code, Labor Code, Family Code etc., while you in the USA rather put anything into just civil law of the "someone versus someone" scheme. Anyway, European press codes both guarantee certain privileges to journalists and guarantee that journalists have to obey certain rules of professional ethics. In Europe it's simple: if you break your professional ethics - you're out of protection, buddy. In general, journalist ethics means that you can't break the law just for sake of getting a scoop - you can be protected by the code if you did it in genuine public interest. From European point of view, this ruling was not a surprise, actually the judge said just what we have wrtitten in our law regarding the freedom of press.
If you had read the judge's words (or a judge then saying the same) you would have been encouraged to believe that CNN would not release your name. "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," Judge Kleinberg wrote. Given that Intel's dodgy chips affected the user's welfare, your name would have been protected. Of course, that would not stop Intel from finding you through other investigations - as you suggest they would have.