Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers

puke76 writes "Remember the bloggers being sued by Apple? Well now they've attracted the attention and support of some major newspapers. There's a story over at BBC. The newspapers are arguing that journalism sources should be protected. Can we blog without legal repercussions?" From the article: "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public..."

Comments

Public Interest?

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the article:

Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.

Now, IANAL, granted, but I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest', and thus merit this sort of protection.

Also from the article:

"Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public," said the brief.

This is cute...likening Apple to WorldCom, Enron (trying to cover up massive accounting scandals), and the tobacco industry (trying to pretend they believe tobacco is not a deadly drug), to Apple (trying to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property).

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but this sort of thing simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive. If it is granted that protection, then all legitimate journalism is weakened as a result, and we may ultimately see a decline in our right to free speech, rather than an increase.

Re:Public Interest?

[Sanity]

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but this sort of thing simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive.

And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.

Re:Public Interest?

[bonch]

Agreed, but some people think there shouldn't be any rules on anything and that you can say absolutely anything you want. Releasing trade secrets affects Apple's release schedule, gives a headstart to competitors, and generally screws them over. I can't possibly imagine how that could be compared to exposing corporate corruption like Enron. It's not like you have a right to know about Apple's upcoming products.

Re:Public Interest?

[daveschroeder]

And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.

What about speech that isn't protected now?

There has to be some arbiter.

And in your model, anyone could break their contractual agreements freely without fear of any discipline or reprisal simply by leaking to any web site.

Re:Public Interest?

[nocomment]

Agreed. The person who leaked Apple's secrets broke the law and deserves no protection from it, although I wish Apple would go easy on them, but make it clear that the next person will be made an example of. If I posted the windows source code in a JE would I be deserving of protection from microsoft? The dood signed a legal contract saying he wouldn't talk about it, and talked about it.

Re:Public Interest?

[hunterx11]

Apple didn't sue to censor the stories. They want the sources. Being allowed to be an accomplice to lawbreaking is allowed in some circumstances where there is a public interest. It is hardly a right.

Re:Public Interest?

[Richard_at_work]

Now, IANAL, granted, but I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest', and thus merit this sort of protection.

And anyway, in this case the Judge ruled that Thinksecrets leak was 'a matter that attracts the interest of the public' and not a 'within the public interest' which were two different things.

Re:Public Interest?

[gl4ss]

trade secrets? they're secrets because people have agreed on that. breach of contract between apple and whoever said the thing aloud for the first time. and most nda's (around here) even have a clause that permits you to talk about 'secrets' IF they are public knoweledge, ie. someone else spouted them out to the web already and it's all over slashdot(you would have the knoweledge even without the nda and information you had access to because of it). of course, if you know that you can't keep such things secret if you've told enough number of people... you should not use it as basis for your business.

the big problem here is WHERE EXACTLY THE THIN LINE GOES? what should be free speech? reporting on some company doing something nasty to environment? well, that would probably also be a 'trade secret'. and finally, reporting what someone else said already publicly should not be illegal(you wouldn't really be able to know beforehand anyways if it was a secret or not).

Re:Public Interest?

[(54)T-Dub]

Speech is free as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. (IE: liable)

Re:Public Interest?

[Richard_at_work]

Guess what, free speech isnt all that free. It costs, a lot, and those people who protect it are the ones who get to say what is and isnt protected. Random reporting of information in violation of laws is a case by case basis ), and not blanket protected.

Re:Public Interest?

[aengblom]

This is cute...likening Apple to WorldCom, Enron (trying to cover up massive accounting scandals), and the tobacco industry (trying to pretend they believe tobacco is not a deadly drug), to Apple (trying to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property).

If you don't think that the Tobacco industry's knowledge that it's product killed people was a "trade secret" than I don't know what is.

The one who committed the damage here was the one who talked to the blogger not the blogger.

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

The person who leaked Apple's secrets isn't TradeSecret. TradeSecret is just reporting rumors it gets from its sources .. the SOURCE--i.e. the Apple employee who leaked the secrets--is the one who should be fired/being sued/etc.

What's at issue is whether or not TradeSecret is answerable to Apple as to who their sources are. Like it or not, TradeSecret IS a publication and therefore is protected under the first amendment, and imho have no legal responsibility to divulge its sources to any entity, private or public. Now if lives were being lost or national security were at stake, I'd say otherwise, but this is just trade journalism.

Apple asked TradeSecret who the source was, TS replied, "Not telling." That should have been the end of it. Apple now needs to launch an internal investigation to find the perp on their end. By coming down on TradeSecret they're just admitting publicly that they can't control or trust their own staff.

Re:Public Interest?

[Aggrav8d]

"If it is granted that protection, then all legitimate journalism is weakened as a result, and we may ultimately see a decline in our right to free speech, rather than an increase."

...or our privacy.
a) Give cheap access to mass media to everybody
b) Allow anyone with a podium to step beyond the bounds of the-public's-best-interests and into anything-the-public-might-like.
c) As the number of voices increase, so does the prying of the would-be investigative journalists.

net effect, privacy decreases.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, IANAL, granted, but I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest', and thus merit this sort of protection."

Tabaco's health info was also a trade secret for more than one company. In my mind this should be tried in a court of law. If only so that it can be determined whether publishing a trade secret is ok.

Re:Public Interest?

[cowscows]

There are laws in place and a judiciary system that has been created to help determine what speech is and isn't worthy of protection.

Part of those laws allow for things like NDA's and the like. The violation of which is the core of this whole issue.

The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you. Any sort of title making anyone above any laws seems fairly undemocratic to me.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what, free speech isnt all that free. It costs, a lot

When people talk about "free speech" they mean free as in software, not free as in beer.

Re:Public Interest?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but pornography simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive. If it is granted that protection, then all legitimate speech is weakened as a result, and we may ultimately see a decline in our right to free speech, rather than an increase.

My point is that "legitimate" journalism is not weakened by protections of borderline journalism, if anything it is strengthened by having had the boundries moved that much further out. For example, nobody in the West complains when the news reports on developments with mammograms and breast cancer drugs, but you are quite unlikely to hear anything about them on the news in a place like Saudia Arabia. "Porn" (as a very general term) has pushed the boundaries of legitimate speech in the West to society's benefit.

The reason this kind of reporting needs to be protected is that while this case may appear clean cut, the next one may not be so obvious where to draw the lines. As a society we need to err on the side of openness and disclosure, not on the side of corporate secretism.

Otherwise, a case like this can easily create a chilling effect where a person with a legitimate issue to disclose decides that it is just not worth the personal risk and so decides to keep his mouth shut instead of informing society at large. One thing to keep in mind is that it is not always so easy for the "whistleblower" in the middle of things to objectively evaluate the importance of the information he posseses. Better that a few "unimportant" secrets be revealed so that the the important ones can be reported on too than no secrets, relevant or not, are ever revealed.

In this particular case, while little societal benefit was accrued, little actual harm was done to Apple. If Apple had not made a legal issue of it, 99.999% of the people who knew about it would have forgotten about it by now. Jobs may feel like some of his thunder was stolen, but in the big picture it didn't really matter. Just another product announcement out of thousands.

Re:Public Interest?

[derflammenhund]

What's more interesting than any of this... what do you all think would happen if Apple took steps to combat this in the future? What if they added to each developer seed a watermark file somewhere that could be found, evaluated, and traced to the employee or tester that leaked it?

Oh god, I can see the discussion now...

"NOW APPLE IS PROSECUTING THEIR USERS BY FORCING DEVELOPERS AND EMPLOYEES TO SUBMIT TO DIGITAL WATERMARKING TO PROTECT THEIR PRODUCT! OH HOLY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THIS $REFERENCETOPOSTAPOCALYPTICSCENARIO SOCIETY! HAVE THEY NO HEART? I REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN $CEO WAS IN CHARGE"

People need to shut the hell up about this. There's a clear difference to anyone willing to sit down and rationalize for a moment between violated NDAs on an upcoming product and, for argument's sake, someone who broke an NDA because they felt morally obligated to inform the public that whatever they were working on raped babies while pirating DVDs.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sort of title making anyone above any laws seems fairly undemocratic to me.

Any sort of law is democratic provided that the mob^H^Hajority agrees with it. Democracy doesn't mean "good" or "bad" it just means rule by the majority.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could you get the link right and yet still misspell the word?

Re:Public Interest?

[nocomment]

When you say TradeSecret, I think you are referring to ThinkSecret. Also, ThinkSecret is NOT being sued. They were supeoned(sp?) to court to provide the source of the info, so the real leak could be sued. I actually agree with you that ThinkSecret IS a publication and IS deserving of of protection under the first amendment. Except that the journalist benefit is not absolute as the judge put it, and does not apply when a crime has been committed. In this particular case the guy the leaked the info commited a crime. Therefore is makes no difference if ThinkSecret is a journalism outlet (that's why the court spent so little time talking about that) because they'd still have to give up the info anyway. The court never even bothered to decide if ThinkSecret is a publication, because as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't make a difference if they are or aren't the end result is the same, give up the info.

Re:Public Interest?

[TGK]

No, the title of Journalist does not make one above the law.

At the same time, because the United States (likes to think that it) respects the freedom of the press, there are protections laid out for journalists.

Noteably, there exists a kind of confidentiality between a journalist and his sources. A similar confidentiality exists between a doctor and patients, and between a religious officials and their parishoners.

There exist some professions that rely on the trusted exchange of information between two individuals. We protect journalists because, were we to force them to give up sources, we would effectively silence any critical ideas. This is fundamentaly not what is meant by freedom of speech.

Sure, Apple has a case against the people that leaked information. It doesn't have any buisness trying to extricate their names from the blogers in question. What is told to a journalist remains in strictist confidance. The Pentagon Papers are a perfect example of why.

Re:Public Interest?

[Spy der Mann]

What about speech that isn't protected now?

There has to be some arbiter.

Yes, but NOT the company in question!

And in your model, anyone could break their contractual agreements freely without fear of any discipline or reprisal simply by leaking to any web site.

They already do, doh! You could take some secrets of your company, go to a cybercafe, enter an anonimizing proxy and upload the data to your favorite website. All of this without getting caught.

NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.

And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code). He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.

Re:Public Interest?

[daveschroeder]

Yes, but NOT the company in question!

Uh, it's not the company. It's the court that already decided that the web sites have to reveal the information.

They already do, doh! You could take some secrets of your company, go to a cybercafe, enter an anonimizing proxy and upload the data to your favorite website. All of this without getting caught.

Apple is still entitled to any and all information that relates to how the web sites came into this information. And if that means finding out that it was sent from a cafe in San Jose at 7:14 pm on Tuesday night, then that's all it is. But they're still entitled to it.

NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.

Yeah. And they do that, dumbass, by having their employees agree contractually in good faith to not leak their fucking information, and punishing them if they do!

And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code). He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.

Um, no. He didn't. He published very specific information that was only known internally to LIMITED numbers of people within Apple. There were also artist renditions and specifications involved (re: Asteroid), and they also published clear and specific information about the Mac mini. Apple picked one thing, but they're concerned about all of it. And under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even journalists are not protected.

In other words, you're completely wrong, but nice try.

Re:Public Interest?

[maxpublic]

A "trade secret" can only be secret if it's, well, *kept secret*. The problem isn't the guy who wrote up the secrets in his blog, but the employee who breached his contract by passing the secrets along in the first place. If Apple is embarrassed by the actions of this employee they need to sue the employee, not the blogger.

If you somehow think corporate America should have greater protections when it comes to guarding its secrets than Joe Smith down the street does, then the problem isn't Apple, the employee, or the blogger - but *you*.

Max

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the blogger is refusing to release the identity of the person who broke contract - therefore, Apple is suing them to get the name. Personally,I'd say the person blogging needs to give up the source - but then, I suspect that either A: it's a relative/friend or B: it's a black hat hacker that managed to get the info out of Apple through social engineering or system penetration. Meaning that they are guilty of (IIRC) a felony.

Re:Public Interest?

[geoffspear]

Well, if you read the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, you'll see exactly where the line is, and then you can maybe stop talking out of your ass on the subject.

Illegal behavior is explicitly not covered by the act.

Re:Public Interest?

[sumdumass]

There is already a whistle blower policy setup that should protect anyone reporting ilegal or unethical activity. Divulgine trade secretes because it violates some law isn't what happened though.

I gree with you. Apple was trying to find thier mole in the works. This actualy borders industrial espionage. Apple has a right to keep this secrete as long as possible so that competitors don't have a way to develope a comepting stratigy.

If however, some other juicy tidbit was released like "to make them affordable apple was planning on using slave labor and was activly buying children that usualy get sold into prostitution to populat thier new factory", the source would be totaly protected. This is the only situation i can think of were enron or worldcom could even remotley be comparible. I'm pretty sure also that a law designed to protect wistle blowers would kick in. I havn't the time to search for it right now but i know it exists and is aplicable to anyone who reports ilegal activity. Sadly though i think you have to be certain a law was being broke for it to work thouhg.

Re:Public Interest?

[Rycross]

The point was that Apple was trying to force the blogger to disclose his source.

So thats exactly what they were trying to do. Punish the employee.

Re:Public Interest?

[banzai51]

But this is just it: No 'trade secrets' were leaked. The real reason Apple is being vindictive here because the almighty Jobs got scooped by one whole day! Apple already had developed and manufactured the devices and were just waiting to unviel. So commming after the rumor site over 'trade secrets' is pure BS.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

When people talk about "free speech" they mean free as in software, not free as in beer.

The different meanings of free confuse people all the time. Perhaps we should use the term "open words" instead?

Re:Public Interest?

[Shalda]

Ok, let me make this simple, 'cuz there's really only 2 issues here.

1) If someone discloses trade secrets to you, can you be subpoenaed? The answer here, is obviously yes, though I would argue that you also have a fifth amendment right to remain silent (as some over zealous prosecutor might make an arguement for conspiracy to commit fraud). In the context of this question, whether someone is a journalist or not is irrelevant.

2) Does a journalist have a right to protect their sources, and what is the definition of a journalist. For the context of this question, it is irrelevant wether the disclosed material relates to ship dates for a product or government fraud. The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that any rules pertaining to free speech must be content neutral. Secondly, what is the definition of a journalist. Most shield laws give examples of journalists (ie, magazine, newspaper, periodical, etc.) but are somewhat open ended. In this day and age, I think virtually anyone could claim this status such that shield laws have become deprecated.

There's also a third aspect in that some shield laws only prevent the government from calling journalists to testify (if the information in question can reasonable be obtained elsewhere). In any event, I favor option #1.

Re:Public Interest?

[Nikker]

Just a thought.

Most of these laws were made when no one could broadcast their opinions efficiently. Now with the web anyone with a computer and a connection can almost equivently distribute their opinions.

Now the question is should online "journalism" become free-speach or should free-speach become journalism?

This is what is happening. If it becomes journalism then all the old laws apply to today and bureaucracy follows, those who are in control over news papers and mags will have control(or seek) over online blogs. If all becomes free-speach then it gives us all more leeway but not as much intrest by organizations to pump money into.

This will be an important choice hope it works out for the best.

Re:Public Interest?

[siriuskase]

The question to me seems to be who all is legally obliged to assist Apple in enforcing its NDA. If you witness a crime, must you come forward and tell all you know?

Re:Public Interest?

[peragrin]

Ah okay so I steal Windows Source code for longhorn and find a guy to post it to his blog and we both get off the hook?

Thanks now I can go back to cracking Windows without fear. Can I use your idea in front of a judge just in case?

Apple went after ThinkSecret precisely because someone broke their NDA. That is illegal behavior. If the ThinkSecret guy told Apple part of what he knew(say this username that logs in from this IP) this never would of went to court. Apple isn't out to ruin this kid just to find out who is breaking their contract. If the 'Source' was smart he would be posting through anonymous proxy's anyway. This could of been over quickly but no somebody had the bright idea that a personal website is now a news Organization.

Re:Public Interest?

[Slack3r78]

Um, no. He didn't. He published very specific information that was only known internally to LIMITED numbers of people within Apple. There were also artist renditions and specifications involved (re: Asteroid), and they also published clear and specific information about the Mac mini.

In fact, if people could be bothered to read Judge Kleinberg's ruling, they'd find that at least one of the sites involved posted exact copies of presentation slides which were clearly watermarked "APPLE CONFIDENTIAL."

In other words, Apple had already made enough of a case regarding where this information had come from in order for the Judge to allow discovery to go forward.

Re:Public Interest?

[timeOday]

That's an interesting value judgement, because it moves Free Speech from near the top of freedoms to the bottom. In a contest between your free speech and my freedom to "whatever," the winner is "whatever."

Re:Public Interest?

[Slack3r78]

If you had a video camera at the scene of the crime and were filming, I'm fairly sure you could expect to be subpoenaed. I don't see a huge difference in that and the type of evidence Apple is seeking here.

Re:Public Interest?

[Slack3r78]

It was actually by several weeks on the Mac Mini, not a day. Asteroid, on the other hand, is a *STILL* unannounced product, four months after the leak. I'd hardly call that 'ready to go, just waiting to be unveiled.'

Furthermore, Apple has C&D'd ThinkSecret on trade secret grounds numerous times in the past year and a half. It was apparent that ThinkSecret has/had sources inside of Apple, who were consistently violating their NDAs.

I honestly think this is about Apple trying to plug their holes before they cause any more damage. This isn't an isolated case, and at this point, I can't blame them for persuing the matter.

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

ThinkSecret, yes, you're right. I don't disagree with anything you've said except possibly for the assertion that what the "leaker" did was a crime. They may have violated a contract, but as far as I know that's not a "crime" technically, but if someone can speak to this (who knows what they're talking about) I'd be interested in hearing it.

That doesn't mean what they did was right, or that they should get away with it by keeping their job. Apple should just fire the putz and get on with the business of making computers and iPods. If they want to sue the leaker for punitive damages as a result of his/her leaking, more power to 'em.

Re:Public Interest?

[lmlloyd]

Great, but under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act there is absolutely no evidence that this is a trade secret!

Look, you go to work at a company, and they have you sign an NDA saying you won't disclose anything you learn at the company to anyone. You start work, and one day after work you are telling a friend that you love the job, but the two things you hate are that your boss is an idiot and the coffee sucks. He thinks it is funny, so puts it in his blog, and the next thing you know the company wants to know who leaked that they hat there boss, and that the coffee sucks. Now, clearly this has in no way aided the public good, so is it your position that this should be a trade secret, and the blogger should be compelled to provide your name to your employer? I mean, it is a clear-cut case of violating you NDA, and letting internal information get out of the company, so shouldn't you be punished for talking with your friend?

The simple fact is that not everything that happens at a company is covered by trade secret protection. In fact, in most states it is quite difficult to prove that something is a trade secret, and it requires that you take exraordinary measures to protect it. You can't just say "oh, we didn't want that getting out yet, so it is a trade secret." In fact, even the judge in this case expressed doubts as to whether or not this would stand the test to be deemed a trade secret, yet went ahead and granted their request simply because it might be found to be a trade secret at a later date.

Re:Public Interest?

[Rycross]

They can't fire the putz because they don't know who he is. Thus, the case against ThinkSecret.

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

> This could of [sic] been over quickly but no somebody had the bright idea that a personal website is now a news Organization.

No, somebody just had the bright idea that what they put on their news Web site qualifies as news. ThinkSecret is not a blog. And last I checked, there was no federal or state government license required to be a journalist.

I never said the leaker should get a free pass. I'm saying that ThinkSecret has not done anything legally culpable here and should be left alone by the courts. What Apple should do to employees who break their contracts is enforce the contracts. Surely the contract itself stipulates what consequences will be wrought for non-compliance.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example is intentionally obtuse and irrelevent. You know damned well that there's a difference between some lousy coffee and a new product being released.

There is simply no way to conduct an intelligent conversation about this with those of you who seem convinced that anything short of Apple opening their doors, letting everyone in, and handing out free digital cameras (that you can keep!) is a violation of your precious rights.

Re:Public Interest?

[nocomment]

Trade secret act:
http://www.lalabor.com/main/id/278.html

Definiation of Trade secret:
tinyurl.com/4khpt

Another poster mentioned that what this guy did borders on industrial espionage. While I might not agree with him that this guy was taking part in espionage, when you think of it in a literal sense, it could very well be "on the border" as he put it.

I think Apple should make a big huge deal about it and then slap him on the wrist (and of course fire him). This particular leaker was very liberal in what he divulged. Everything from Mac mini's to asteroid (we still don't know exactly what that is).

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

That's not ThinkSecret's problem. Thus, they should ask nicely, and take "sorry, no" for an answer.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA yeah riiiiiight. NOT

Re:Public Interest?

[Zico]

Just curious, but is there anybody who isn't a Mac user who actually supports what Apple's doing here?

To my libertarian eyes, it looks like Steve Jobs is commanding from on high that freedom of speech is a bad thing, and all his cult members are falling into line.

Ahh, Bill of Rights, who needs it anyway, can't wait 'til MacWorld!

Re:Public Interest?

[ifwm]

"confidentiality between a journalist and his sources. A similar confidentiality exists between a doctor and patients, and between a religious officials and their parishoners"

You're confusing two completely different types of confidentiality.

More importantly, there is no blanket protection for sources anywhere in the constitution. None. Also, precendent has followed that idea and extended protection on a case by case basis.

So this

"It doesn't have any buisness trying to extricate their names from the blogers in question. What is told to a journalist remains in strictist confidance"

is completely wrong. You may not agree, but that doesn't matter. The law is pretty clear on this one.

Re:Public Interest?

[dr.badass]

And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection?

Uh, a judge, perhaps?

You know, someone whose job it is to interpret the law?

Re:Public Interest?

[PureCreditor]

> NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.

No company (including Apple) has the ability to BIG-BROTHER-type monitoring over all the people who have access to internal information. That's why NDAs were created in the first place. If you leak against a NDA, you're violating a contract, period.

Legal documents that require participants to remain silent are not protected by free-speech. If you insist on leaking, don't sign it. If you agree to NDA, and you purposely leak it, the NDA issuer has every right to pursue litigation.

This is not about large or small company. It's not about Apple or Enron. An NDA is an NDA, and it's legally binding.

Free speech protection is not about EVERY speech.

Re:Public Interest?

[prockcore]

The person who leaked Apple's secrets broke the law and deserves no protection from it

Prove it. Prove they broke the law. What Apple did was go on a fishing expedition.

Re:Public Interest?

[dr.badass]

There has to be some arbiter.

Yes, but NOT the company in question!

That's why they had to go to court. You know, with a judge.

NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.

And they do that by requiring people to sign legaly binding agreements. Why can you not understand this?

And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code).

Oh, so now *you* get to be the arbiter? You're basing your ideas of "trade secrets" on movies and TV. According to law, you know, in reality, and the state of California, a trade secret doesn't have to be "blueprints or source code".

He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.

According to court documents (you know, the court, which actually decides the case), it was much more than rumors.

Also "he" is misleading, when you consider that most, if not all of the defendants in question are business entities.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh i see, slashdot only understands SUE as far as the legal system goes...

someone needs to write a SUBPOENA and maybe a CEASE_AND_DESIST function for the slashbots

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sort of title making anyone above any laws seems fairly undemocratic to me.

How about "President of the United States"?

Re:Public Interest?

[geekoid]

people who whistle blow almost always break the law, so breaking the law can't be a qualifier.

" If I posted the windows source code in a JE would I be deserving of protection from microsoft?"
No, but the people that reported it should.

Re:Public Interest?

[gl4ss]

iirc it doesn't/wouldn't cover things that are already leaked to the public(someone posts it on a board or whatever - then it's free game).

Re:Public Interest?

[MoneyT]

Great, but under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act there is absolutely no evidence that this is a trade secret!

I think slides that say Apple Confidential on them would be evidence enough. In fact the courts found them to be evidence enough. But this is slashdot, why would I expect someone to actually READ the ruling and the facts

Re:Public Interest?

[MoneyT]

he question to me seems to be who all is legally obliged to assist Apple in enforcing its NDA. If you witness a crime, must you come forward and tell all you know?


Yes, actually, you can be compelled to do so. Note, you do not legaly have to volunteer to do so, but you can be compelled to do so by court order. The 5th amendment only applies to self incrimination.

Re:Public Interest?

[MoneyT]

Which is why slashdot isnt' being looked at. However, the sites in question where the boards that the information was posted to by an INDIVIDUAL. Hence Apple compelling them to reveal their sources. BTW, if it's found that the sources found the information on another public forum (a lesser known Apple rumor site for example) then the sources are protected under the fact that it was then public information when they recieved it. But this can not be discovered until the first set of sources is revealed. Hence the application of the law.

Re:Public Interest?

[MoneyT]

They did ask nicely.

They got a "Fuck off"

So now they are using the legal avenues WHICH ARE PROVIDED IN CONTRACT LAW to allow them to persue and prosecute the person who violated the contract.

Re:Public Interest?

[MoneyT]

If you had actually bothered to READ THE COURT RULING you would find that Apple PROVED that trade secrets were leaked and therefore a law was broken.

Note to journalists. If it says "Apple Confidential" DON"T PUBLISH IT.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm not a mac user, and I agree with what Jobs is doing. To MY libertarian eyes, it looks like he is asking someone to testify in court. Claiming that the possesion of that many "trade secrets" makes it more likely than not that someone who works for him violated a contract.

Notice that he isn't actually doing anything bad to the journalist (at least directly, there is the issue of how many people will leak secrets to this guy again). He is simply demanding access to evidence that he believes they have, as to who violated a contract that they voluntarily entered. This is similar to obtaining a warrant, you don't have to prove anything beyond "a reasonable doubt" to do that, and never have, and never should. It would make it impossible to gather any kind of evidence.

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

I never said what Apple's doing is illegal. I'm just saying that in my opinion this should be handled outside of the courts, and that ThinkSecret should (again, imo) have no responsibility to Apple to disclose its sources.

Re:Public Interest?

[lp-habu]

Perhaps you have the idea that "free speech" should mean "free of responsibility". It doesn't. Every freedom that you have is simply a freedom to do something without government interference -- nothing more. There is nothing to protect you from the consequences of exercising your freedom; that doesn't make you less free, it simply makes you consider the consequences. There is no freedom from responsibility; if you're not willing to take the responsibility then you have a problem of your own creation. And as a side point, your freedom to perform an action is not a claim on someone else's resources in order to support your action. If you can't pay, you can't play.

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been mentioned over and over. There is no "free speech" as in there is no limit on what one can say. Like Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker: with great power comes responsibility. You've got to have responsibility to what you say. That's why you are not allowed to yell "Fire" at the theater without the actual danger, no matter how much free speech claim you have. You can argue to the judge that you don't believe in anyone sitting in judgment of what speech is and why your right to yell "Fire" should be protected and you'd still be guilty of illegal action.

If I publish your bank information that somebody gave me, should the source be protected? Do I have the right to publish your bank information?

Re:Public Interest?

[lmlloyd]

You know it is great to assume that anyone who disagrees with you just hasn't read the same source as you. Unfortunately, that factors out the possibility that you have skewed your perception of the source material to support a position that you want to hold. This is one of those cases. The judge says multiple times in his ruling, that he is provisionally accepting Apple's allegation that this is a trade secret, because it is uncontested in the scope of the hearing. He refers to it as an "alleged trade secret" and goes out of his way to note that the defense bet everything on the first amendment issue, without any attempt to address the trade secret issue.

I can put Apple Confidential on an ad I run in the LA Times, that doesn't make it a trade secret. However, if I go into court maintaining that it is a trade secret, and the defense doesn't question its status as a trade secret, then the judge has little choice but to ignore the pink elephant in the middle of the room, and grant my request.

That is how the law works. What the courts found was that for the purpose of this single hearing, Apple presented enough evidence to support the uncontested claim that this was a trade secret, in order to move forward with discovery. Of course, the court also made it very clear that this finding in no way supported the ultimate validity of any claim Apple made. I think that leaves more than a little question as to whether or not Apple's claims of this being a trade secret are true.

Re:Public Interest?

[diamondsw]

I'll take Constitutional Law for $200, Alex.

who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection

What is "the courts"? The same courts that have already decided this is not a matter of free speech, but of trade secrets, and that there is no public interest being served?

Re:Public Interest?

[LMariachi]

And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection?

We have people whose job it is to sit in judgement. They're called judges.

Re:Public Interest?

[LMariachi]

If you don't think that the Tobacco industry's knowledge that it's product killed people was a "trade secret" than I don't know what is.

Okay, so you don't know what a trade secret is.

Re:Public Interest?

[Reaperducer]

And last I checked, there was no federal or state government license required to be a journalist.

Check again, if you ever checked in the first place, which I seriously doubt. Many states, and most large cities, require journalists to carry press photo IDs issued by the State Police/Patrol and/or the local police department.

Re:Public Interest?

[SEWilco]

I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest'

Well, if anyone had known ahead of time about my new toy "Bag of Broken Glass"...

Re:Public Interest?

[implex]

If you are a Journalist - it is on your honor (alien concept these days I am sure) to determine what is in the public interest. Regurgitating trade secrets about a new hardware release is not high on the list of public interest.

A Journalist (capital J) should know better and be held responsible for failing to differentiate between public interest and "cool hardware shit."

Re:Public Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of what you say is correct, nobody disputes that. So why on earth don't they go after the person who leaked the information.?

Now when you know the information, do you think it would be correct for Apple to come bullying you?

Re:Public Interest?

[TGK]

This is a good point, but turn it on its head.... admittedly the "cool hardware shit" factor isn't really worthy of the same kind of protection as the Pentagon Papers. At the same time, whomever leaked the Pentagon Papers was divulging information not for public consumption and was violating the terms of their employment (with the US Government) as well as the law.

How do we ensure that journalists who publish important information (like the Pentagon Papers) are protected and that their sources are protected? More importantly, how can we do this while still preventing the release of information that is sensitive, but ultimately has no implications of public interest?

In the case of the print media you hold the editors responsible. That's the logical thing to do. Their job is to regulate what does and doesn't make it onto the final product. Their job is to remove this kind of information from their publications.

But with Blogers there is no editorial process. Ultimately the bloger himself is the editor. I suppose in this case the blogger must be held responsible for publishing the information. At the same time, it would seem logical to continue to protect the sources.

Re:Public Interest?

[PriceIke]

> Check again, if you ever checked in the first place, which I seriously doubt. Many states, and most large cities, require journalists to carry press photo IDs issued by the State Police/Patrol and/or the local police department.

Gee that's funny, because I am a journalist, having attended one of the country's foremost journalist schools, and no one has ever a. informed me of such or b. harrassed me for a photo ID while doing my job.

Re:Public Interest?

[rilian4]

And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection?

Apparently the Judicial system does...particularly the federal bench and US Supreme Court. You must remember though that the so called speech of these bloggers who are revealing Apple's secrets are giving someone else's speech. Not their own. That information belongs to apple. It is up to Apple to release that information or not. -Aaron

Re:Public Interest?

[Reaperducer]

Then you're not working on the street. Maybe you're one of those "journalists" who does his work from the safety of a desk high in a tower. Or maybe one of those people who spell journalist b-l-o-g.

As a professional journalist for one of the five largest media companies in the United States, I know that most of the reporters and photographers in my office have such IDs. They keep them hanging around their necks at all times in case they have to run out the door to cover a story.

Now go back to your blog, and let the real journalists do real work.

Where does it stop?

[singularity]

I am an ardent backer of free journalism, but I see this case pushing a very fine line. Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?

Suppose someone writes a trade secret in an anonymous Slashdot story submission? In an anonymous Slashdot comment? In a LiveJournal entry? In a Slashdot journal entry?

Should these all be protected under the guise of journalism?

The Internet blurs the line between professional journalism and amateur writing, which is one of the great things about the new levels of communication that is available to anyone able to get online.

This case can hold the precedence to start the "slippery slope" of protecting anything written online. While this might sound like a wonderful idea to the "Information wants to be free" crowd, I see it as being very dangerous.

This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

Re:Where does it stop?

[XxtraLarGe]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says freedom of the press only applies to professionals.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Otter]

Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?

The flip side of that question, though, is that the special status of "journalists" in the US is a consequence of state or local law, or pure custom. A special status for "journalism" in federal law isn't nearly as clear-cut as it's commonly assumed to be.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Egorn]

The big problem is that mainstream media is afraid of the blogs. The public is controlled through mainstream media. We must destroy all blogs.

Re:Where does it stop?

[brontus3927]

I agree that it is a bad test case, and the most damaging thing that could result is because of the blatant issues, the courts decide that blogging isn't journalism, and we're stuck with the decision.
However, until the issue is pushed and the courts recognize that blogging is is journalism, it isn't considered journalism and doesn't have any inherent rights.

Re:Where does it stop?

[ignipotentis]

ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

While I agree with you, I have to ask one simple question: Why now? Apple has had plenty of oppurtunity to stop ThinkSecret in the past. This isn't some new website we are talking about. Why has this leak become the focal point for a lawsuit? If Apple hasn't protected their rights in the past from this infrigement, what gives them the right to do so now? I thought in order to benifit from this law, one had to make an honest effort to stem all infrigements equally without prejiduce?

Re:Where does it stop?

[MatthewRothenberg]

>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue). What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do? Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either). The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog? m.

Re:Where does it stop?

[MatthewRothenberg]

(Awww, crap! I forgot to preview.)

>>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large corporate publishing houses do?

Think Secret doesn't publish in blog format; it rarely draws extensively from offlinks; and it's not a pro bono operation (not that all blogs are amateur, either).

The site's been around for years and primarily comprises story-length pieces based on original reporting. How is it a blog?

m.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Auckerman]

" Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?"

There is no difference. The amount of money or the amount of people reading a publication is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the publication is a journalistic source. People handing out "zines" on a street corner are only different in terms of quality than those of larger media outlets. Laws that grant corporations privileges should also also apply to the lone citizen voice, or there should be no such privileges at all.

In my mind, this case has nothing to do with whether or not Think Secret is a journalistic source, that's merely assumed. It's a question of whether protection of confidential sources applies in the case when one knowning receives trade secrets from that source and publishes them for all to see. We don't need artifical predugeces in this, where somehow, by magic, being a "recognized" corporate entity gives you special protection. Freedom applies to everyone, not just those who has the greater number of resources.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Nos.]

Suppose now that the blog in question had existed outside the United States. Then the identity of the individual may become difficult or even impossible to determine. For example, I'm running a blogging site in Canada. All the information I collect is protected by PIPEDA. Now, as a matter of fact, the only information I actually collect from a user of my site, is their email address (for forgotten passwords mostly).

In the event that someone posted something that a particular company wanted taken down, it would a violation of that act for me to release any information to said company without a judge ordering it. Now, if a judge did order it, all the information I have would need to released. I don't keep logs around except to gather some stats once a day, after that their flushed. So, the information released would most likely only amount to the persons email address. At that point, the company would have to talk to the ISP or mail host to determine who has that email. Supposing that its an address from gmail or hotmail, they would then have to gather records from there.

That's not to say that they couldn't force me, as the site admin to take the offending article down, however, that's not likely to solve the issue since its likely that something like google cache would have it available anyways

So, if someone really wants to publish something on the web in the form of a blog, its very possible for them to remain anonymous for a very long time, if not forever.

Re:Where does it stop?

[nocomment]

the "bloggers as journalists" thing was only breifly brought up. It was disregarded in this case as moot, because as the Judge said
"The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."
In this case the crime being a violation of the trade secrets act. The guy leaked internal information broke the law. Therefore, no protection would be granted even if it be decided that thinksecret is a journalism outlet (which in my opinion it is).

They never bothered to argue (except for a tidbit on the first day of court) about whether thinksecret is a journalism outlet because it doesn't matter.

Re:Where does it stop?

[slughead]

There is no difference between journalism and writing something down. Or, at least there shouldn't be. I'd wager than the +4 comments on slashdot come from people more intellegent than 99% of journalists. Yet they somehow have journalists credibility?

I'd sooner read the comments section of slashdot than another error-riddled BBC technology article.

The Cato Letters were just some guys writing crap down, do you really think the founding fathers wanted THAT illegal?

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought in order to benifit from this law, one had to make an honest effort to stem all infrigements equally without prejiduce?

You thought wrong. This is not trademark which is a very special case because of the nature of what a trademark represents with repsect to brand recoginition.

There are actually two very distinct issues at hand with ThinkSecret.
One is that one specific person violated a contract with Apple and spilled the beans. ThinkSecret had no contract with Apple, was not a party in the contract at all and is not obligated to abide or adhere to any terms within the contract between Joe and Apple.
Second is ThinkSecret decided to release information they were given by someone else. IMHO, Apple should have nothing to go after ThinkSecret with. There is no extra or assumed clause in an NDA that holds people not party to the NDA responsible. Do any of you here on /. know the specific terms of the NDA? Do you honestly think you could be held liable for a contract that you were not a party to? An NDA is not a copyright or a trademark issue that the government has set specific laws that must be followed when dealing with them, this is a private agreement between two parties and should be treated no differently then any contract beween two parties.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Pentavirate]

While this may be true in some cases, this article is emphasizing a case where the journalists are supporting the bloggers against a common enemy.

Any journalist, blogger or MSM, gets a little nervous when sources have to be divulged. They know that they depend on sources for much of their information. Anytime anyone has to divulge their source, they're afraid that it could lead to more sources being revealed. They support against the extreme case to protect the more common cases.

Re:Where does it stop?

[LordNimon]

I propose that trade secrets should not be something that is protected by law. Sure, people signing NDAs should be bound by their contracts, but if someone who hasn't signed an NDA obtains some kind of trade secret, then that's just too bad. The company can prosecute the NDA signer for breech of contract, but that's it.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your tinfoil hat is too tight.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Skuld-Chan]

You know the thing is - if this were MS going after these bloggers I don't people on slashdot would take this stance.

The fact if a real newspaper or a magazine had reported on this same issue apple wouldn't have got nearly as far.

The final question is at the end of the day - are bloggers journalists - and if they aren't, what are they?

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for sharing that you don't keep logs longer than a day. Me and all my blackhat friends appreciate your cooperation.

Re:Where does it stop?

[uberjon]

Then they should practise some discretion when printing stories. Free speech doesn't mean you pay a crook to break into your neighbours house to steal his underwear so you can post pictures online...

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're entirely missing the point. Did you even read the post to which you responded?

Re:Where does it stop?

[JohnsonWax]

It's not a freedom of the press issue. Apple isn't looking for damages from the bloggers.

A civil crime has allegedly been committed and the bloggers have the key to resolving that crime. This is akin to a material witness order.

And the examples of corporate malfeasance are just retarded. If Apple was committing a crime, this could never be happening. Revealing a crime is a protected act and supercedes the civil contract. The product Apple intends to announce isn't illegal, so there's no parallel at all.

Re:Where does it stop?

[daveschroeder]

The speech in the form of freedom of the press 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, also may be 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. This is not about freedom of the press. (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.)

This is about whether journalists - of any kind - can be compelled to reveal their sources when the information is NOT in the clear public interest, and could reasonably be believed to have been the result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg says, indeed, they can be.

Re:Where does it stop?

[ediron2]

It's not a freedom of the press issue...A civil crime has allegedly been committed and the bloggers (are) akin to ... material witness... examples of corporate malfeasance are just retarded. If Apple was committing a crime, this could never be happening. Revealing a crime is a protected act and supercedes the civil contract.

Thanks for the clarification/reminder. I'm trying to weed thru the mass of 'free press' misreadings/opinions to answer the more-valid concerns against Secrets law being used as a employee gag-order mechanism. You hit that one soundly, but left me with two questions:

1 - You used the term 'civil crime'... is 'civil crime' a legitimate concept? IANAL, but that seems to juxtapose two frameworks (i.e., civil vs. criminal).
2 - Can Trade-Secret subpoenaes be used as a tool to 'chill' whistleblower activity? Could some future Enron trump up a Trade Secret claim to get the name of an anonymous source? If so, we're back to this being less black-n-white.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Doctor_Jest]

No, it's not. Microsoft, Little Green Men, Apple, The Government of Zamunda.... IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It's whether the information gathered by ThinkSecret is "in the public's interest" and thereby protected Journalist->Source privilege. It has to be decided ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AS the judge has RULED on the matter. And guess what? Leaked NDA protected items from Apple about upcoming products is NOT in the public's interest. Surprised? I certainly hope not.

READ, people. Just READ... It's not hard to do... just READ.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may have a point, but why are all Apple zealots like yourself such assholes?

Re:Where does it stop?

[blahplusplus]

I'm all for an open information society, but of course the time is not yet ripe. A species that needs to hide from facing the reality of its behavior and the responsibility of posessing and knowing about such knowledge is ultimately immature and irresponsible.

The problem is humanity is too fucking unevolved, ideally we should be living in a completely information open society without capitalists worrying about their "trade secrets", no idea or work is that unique anymore, especially with the think tanks and groups out there specifically dedicated to being patent mills.

But since the means and technology aren't available to replace capitalism and reform human nature yet, which is in desperate need of reform we just have to wait all this bullshit out. Privacy is for the weak, it's for a species that can't face the reality of its own behavior, and cannot deal with information be it personal, business, academic, potentially dangerous (i.e. nuclear power versus building nuclear bombs), etc, in a responsible manner.

I can't wait for genetic engineering and the removal of much evolutionary baggage that comes with fusion if not complete replacement of animal man with better brains and psychological design coupled with enhancement technology. So much of our world is based on the basest of animal instincts and prejudices, our societies reflect this and are barely above the level of barbarism. Our relationships are increasingly totally economic, even our educational systems bow to the money men or the so called "Free market", which ultimately is inherently destructive to families and having children, whose entire lives from birth almost exclusively revolve around serving the economy where freedom of action has a price or market value and those who don't have the money have less freedom then others in areas of education and all other areas of life.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says freedom of the press only applies to professionals.


There's also nothing in the Constitution that says freedom of the press applies to anyone that claims to be the press.

In fact, the Constitution is a pretty short document that doesn't say very much about most things. I wish people would stop invoking it every time a legal issue comes up.

Yes, it is the supreme law of the land, but we've had a few centuries worth of interpretion and lesser laws built upon it -- this doesn't just vaporize as soon as you mention the first amendment.

Re:Where does it stop?

[coopex]

The point is that a newspaper or magazine is quite aware of what they can and cannot publish. If some apple employee told PC Magazine that they had some secret info that the new Mac would come in fushia, PC Magazine would tell them to get lost.

Re:Where does it stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

takes one to know one.. oh, oh wait! i'm rubber you're glue? sound familiar? look, we can be as childish too!

Re:Where does it stop?

[PureCreditor]

> Privacy is for the weak, it's for a species that can't face the reality of its own behavior, and cannot deal with information be it personal, business, academic, potentially dangerous (i.e. nuclear power versus building nuclear bombs), etc, in a responsible manner.

Privacy (or trade secrets for that matter) is the reason why commercial software companies aren't collapsing at all. If all software is free and open source, then :

1. The programmer has no reason to innovate other than pride and respect among peers. There's no monetary compensation UNTIL a company recognizes his work, and hires him.

2. The programmer has no reason to work against deadlines because they set their own.

3. The programmer has no reason to produce 100% bug-free code because they're completely not held accountable if business-critical functions fail due to the bugs.

4. The programmer has no reason to guarantee user-support since they the programmer can abandon the project anytime and move on to a newer one.

The Linux model worked because they have a great leader - Torvalds. And you can commercial vendors like RedHat who can provide support to customers. But it doesn't work for a vast majority of open-source projects, and I'm referring to a significant number of projects listed on SourceForge that are abandoned because the programmer no longer has time to improve it.

Re:Where does it stop?

[MoneyT]

If you reasonably believe or know the information to have been obtained via the violation of an NDA, you are indeed bound to non disclosure.

Re:Where does it stop?

[blahplusplus]

You assume that in a truly evolved species the only motive for action is monetary or capitalistic in its motivations. Money is in fact just the "stick and carrot" for an unevolved and unenlightened society that needs the stick and carrot to get anything done. What did people do when they needed food and housing before the invention of money? They did it out of necessity, the same is true for a truly evolved species. There is no need for the stick and carrot when you can see the necessity of innovation.

Re:Where does it stop?

[mshiltonj]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says freedom of the press only applies to professionals.

Ding, ding, ding! You win the grand prize!

Thanks for reminding us of the obvious. The lawyers of the world they to distract us from it.

Re:Where does it stop?

[mstone]

1. Yeah, generally. 'Civil offense' or 'civil tort' would be more correct, but 'crime' is good enough for street usage.

2. No. Enron could put the words "As part of my job, I agree not to blow any whistles" on a piece of paper and require all its employees sign it, but the courts wouldn't recognize that as a legal contract.

Contracts only work because the courts agree to enforce them. There's no actual law that says, "employee X will obey the terms of document Y while employed at company Z." There can't be. There are too many deals taking place every day to have specific laws for each and every one. Instead, we have what you might call the general specs for agreements between two parties, and those specs are called 'contract law'.

If you and I make a contract, then I refuse to hold up my end of the deal, I haven't (necessarily) broken an actual law.. you can't take me to court saying, "he broke statute X.Y.Z" (s criminal offense). All you can do is take me to court and say, "here's the contract that explains what he agreed to do, and he hasn't done it" (a civil offense). If the judge decides that our contract lives up to the general specs, she will then order me to deliver what I promised. And there *are* laws that say I have to obey the orders of the court.

A contract that doesn't live up to the specs is called an 'illegal' contract, but again, you don't get thrown in jail for writing or signing one. It just means that the courts won't enforce it, and if the courts won't enforce it, it's just a piece of paper with a bunch of funny words on it.

And contract law says a legal contract CAN NOT require someone to do something illegal. One of the precedents involves a guy who 'sold' a car to a woman in exchage for a certain amount of sex.. 10 visits to his bed rated at $50 a pop, or something like that. She stopped somewhere around 5, so the guy sued her for the rest of the promised nookie. The judge said that sex for pay is prostitution, prostitution was illegal in that state, and therefore the 'contract' was not legal. The brief is actually quite an amusing read.

Any Enron that tried to sue a whistleblower for violating an NDA would get a brisk "fuck you" from the courts if the secret involved anything actually illegal. And there are laws that specficially protect whistleblowers who reveal secrets that don't involve illegal activity per se, but are still 'in the public interest'.

----

However, as the judge in this case clearly pointed out, 'an interested public' is not the same as 'public interest'. The dividing line has nothing to do with curiosity, and everything to do with injury. 'Public interest' stops at 'preventing the public from being injured' and does not extend to 'what the public might be willing to watch on TV.'

If you violate your NDA to tell the world that the safety tests for a new airplane were forged because the company found a major flaw in the design and couldn't fix it before the test results were due, you're working in the public interest. Keeping the secret exposes people to risks they don't know about, and the courts will rule that letting people know about the risks is more important than obeying your NDA.

But no matter how tortured the "companies shouldn't be allowed to keep secrets" arguments get here on /. (and let's just test that theory by cracking into the Slashdot servers, stealing the username/password database, and giving it to a blogger who will then publish it 'in good faith' shall we? Everyone has a 'right' to a low uid), no one has yet advanced a really good line of reasoning to suggest that the anyone was actually injured by Apple's decision to keep its product specs secret. Therefore, there is no legitimate claim of 'public interest'.

----

And while I'm ranting, I'd like to take a minute to say that trade secrets and NDAs aren't just evil tools of big Sauron-like corporations. They exist to protect the little guys like you and me.

Leaks hurt cor

Re:Where does it stop?

[ediron2]

You've covered the two logical ends of this, but between them I can still envision misuse of this:

An whistleblower leaks a boxful of only-slightly-damaging stuff about Enron. In the midst of it is a contract. Publication of the negotiated rate violates trade secrets and there isn't anything else about *that* document that deserves confidentiality protections. Enron sifts thru, finds it and a few other examples, and makes the demand for ID based on trade-secret violations.

Re:Where does it stop?

[mstone]

Well, my first reaction is that the leaker should have taken the time to go through the box before leaking the whole thing.

The court will weigh the interests on both sides, though. A judge would only release the leaker's name if Enron's actual injuries from the release of that contract outweighed the leaker's right to anonymity.. wiping out a billion-dollar deal to tell the world that Enron's CEO overstated his income tax deductions by $250, for instance. But unless it can demonstrate significant real injuries from the release of that one specific contract, Enron probably won't be able to force the court to release the leaker's name.

And even if Enron does get the name, it will have to be careful about what it does. The whistleblower protection laws specifically forbid companies from taking revenge.

If Enron does anything to the leaker, the leaker can sue on the grounds that it was revenge. And judges want to maintain a chilling effect that prevents companies from taking revenge, so Enron will have to turn itself inside out to prove its actions were absolutely squeaky clean and that it did everything but buy the leaker a pony and some ice cream to make the experience as pleasant as possible. If it can't, the judge will award the leaker a big 'ol pile of cash in order to remind all the other companies out there that beating up whistleblowers is A Really Bad Idea.

So basically, judges take care of the middle ground, and they work hard to make sure everyone gets fair treatment.

Great

[daveschroeder]

Great

So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a web site!

No secrets! Power to the people! Down with the the man!

And stuff.

* Cue slashdot chorus singing "That's the companies' problem and they should hire their own investigators to find the leaks" *

An interested public != public interest

Re:Great

[sleepingsquirrel]

Hmmm. Let's try some other examples...

• So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a newspaper!
• ... is simply by leaking it to a TV reporter!
• ...is simply by printing it on handbills and leaving them in a public place!
• ...is simply by posting to Usenet from the public library!
• ...is simply by calling people from a payphone!
• ...is simply by dropping an anonymous letter in the mail!
• ...is simply by placing graffiti on public bathroom walls!

Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:Great

[daveschroeder]

Nice try, but hardly the point.

The web sites in THIS CASE (i.e., a case that involves information most definitely NOT in the public interest, therefore meaning that the information and its sources are NOT protected, and also that the web site operator is likely in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by publishing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained by the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement) should be compelled to reveal their sources *if they know them*, which they likely do. If it was completely anonymous, via any medium, well, then that's obviously not able to be revealed. But Apple believes there are some clues about the identity in the email messages they received, and frankly, Apple is entitled to that under the law (UTSA). And while Think Secret may be a journalistic endeavor, information that is not in the clear public interest is NOT PROTECTED.

As the judge so eloquently stated:

"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."

Re:Great

[KSobby]

"An interested public != public interest"

That is the best piece of code I've seen posted on here yet. Had to convert to ASP on the fly but it should work on my next web shopping cart.

Seriously, a clearer, more succinct argument could not have been made. Kudos.

Re:Great

[daveschroeder]

I can't take credit for it.

It was the judge in this case himself who said it.

Some other worthy observations by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg:

"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."

Re:Great

[LordNimon]

That's the companies' problem and they should hire their own investigators to find the leaks

I agree 100%.

Re:Great

[sleepingsquirrel]

So how does the fact that this information was revealed on a "web site" (your words not mine) have any bearing at all on the case? Oh yeah, it doesn't. There is nothing different about this case if web hadn't been involved at all. So what was your point again?

Re:Great

[daveschroeder]

The point, dipshit, is that any random person can have a web site easily viewable by the entire world. And if the Apple rumor sites get their way, now you can disseminate confidential information globally, instantly by just leaking to a web site. With no fear of punishment or retribution of any sort.

Any random person cannot have a newspaper, nor can they distribute things like print flyers/pamplets, or spoken word, anywhere *near* as widely or as quickly as a the internet.

That was my point, and if you weren't an idiot, you would have gotten it.

Re:Great

[MoneyT]

and this is exaclty what apple did. And the investigators (as agents of Apple) are using the legal avenues availible to them to compell the sites to reveal the leakers of the information if they have that information.

However

[mattmentecky]

I think that the disclosure of information at Enron, Worldcom etc. didnt deal with trade secrets, but with whistle blowing corruption rather.

Re:However

[The I Shing]

I do agree. I'm not going to condone Apple's heavy-handed approach to this situation, but I think that what happened with Enron, WorldCom, and the tobacco industry is nowhere near the same ballpark. Those companies were all concerned with the public's reaction, or the government's reaction, whereas Apple was concerned with the reaction of their competitors. Apple doesn't see this as someone blowing the whistle about corporate misdeeds, or some internal memo surfacing about studies that prove the harmful effects of their products. Apple sees this as industrial espionage. Certainly no-one is more interested in what Apple is cooking up than those who are in direct competition with Apple. I'm sure Apple understands that the techno-cognoscenti will probably look upon the leaked information favorably, even approvingly. But that doesn't help when Sony or Dell is given three months of lead time to answer Apple's new products with similar products of their own.

Re:However

[Secrity]

I would imagine that much of what was made public concerning Enron, Worldcom etc. were just as much of a trade secret to Enron, Worldcom etc. as whatever Apple considers to be trade secrets. The only probable difference is that it was later shown that that there was corruption within Enron, Worldcom etc. "Whistle blowing" is not a license for an individual with privileged information to disclose those secrets to the public. That said, A free press is sacred in a free society; I do not believe that a journalist should ever be compelled to compromise his source, even if the "whistle blower" or a person disclosing privileged information may be commiting an illegal act or a contract violation.

Re:However

[SmokeHalo]

The whistleblowers at Enron etc. came forward and disclosed proprietary, confidential company information. I don't know about the legal definition, but that qualifies as "trade secrets" in my book. However, in Enron's case it was in the public's best interest to divulge this information to expose the crime(s) behind it. In Apple's case, there are no criminal dealings exposed by the leak -- merely proprietary information, not relevant to the "public interest". This is why the court is allowing Apple to find out the source(s).

Re:However

[dr.badass]

I do not believe that a journalist should ever be compelled to compromise his source, even if the "whistle blower" or a person disclosing privileged information may be commiting an illegal act or a contract violation.

While it's true one can't be compelled to reveal sources most of the time (ie, just because someone doesn't like what you wrote), in a trade secret case (under the UTSA), the journalist is liable himself if he doesn't.

The problem with this (and the reason it isn't the way it works in reality) is that you can't claim to be a whistleblower (legaly) without being "revealed" -- but if you're protected, it's ok because ccording to federal whistleblower laws (which apparently nobody writing about this issue knows about), the person in question can't be discriminated against for being a whistleblower:

"Discrimination" can include the following actions:
Firing or laying off
Assigning to undesirable shifts
Blacklisting
Demoting
Denying overtime or promotion
Disciplining
Denial of benefits
Failure to hire or rehire
Intimidation
Transferring
Reassigning work
Reducing pay or hours -- The Whistleblower Program, OIA, OSHA

The unwritten part is that said company can't effectively sue you over it. I suppose they could use anything illegal you did against you, but that wouldn't be a winning case.

Basically:
normal journalism : don't have to reveal sources
trade secret case : have to reveal sources, who will get hosed (rightfully)
whistleblower case: have to reveal sources, but source will not get hosed.

Answer came from the judge

[daveschroeder]

This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!

The judge in the case rightly realized that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.

The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.

Re:Answer came from the judge

[pilgrim23]

Tell ya what: You promise to not reveal trade secrets on your web site about my up coming products, and I will promise not to stream the vid of the interesting things you do with Zelda at the Do_Drop_Inn on Tuseday nights. Both bits of information are uniquely private, both can be recorded and archived without too much trouble these days, and neither is in the public interest or any one else's business. It really is that simple.

what is journalism?

[Virtual Karma]

what is journalism?

If I can bring news to the public I'm a journalist irrespective of the medium. You can judge me if I'm a good or bad journalist. Even if I'm bad, I'm still a bad JOURNALIST. And if I'm a journalist I should be protected by the same laws that protect the traditional journalists.

So my point is bloggers are journalists and we need not disclose our source of information according to the first ammendment

Re:what is journalism?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Sorry, but no. Leaking trade secrets is not journalism...it's corporate espionage, and deserves to be treated as such.

Re:what is journalism?

[LocoMan]

AFAIK this isn't about wether bloggers are journalists, and "real" journalist wouldn't be protected either if they did the same thing. In whistle blower cases, they're reporting about someone breaking the law, and when the one that had been reported admits it, admits it broke the law. In this case they were reporting a trade secret, that isn't anything illegal, but by reporting it they were breaking a law (breach of contract).

Re:what is journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but no. Sources are not protected for anyone under the First Amendment.

Re:what is journalism?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So my point is bloggers are journalists and we need not disclose our source of information according to the first ammendment

According to federal laws, it does not matter if you are a journalist or not. According to most state's laws revealing what you know, or can reasonably be expected to know is a trade secret is illegal (again it does not matter if you are a journalist.) There are also state laws that say if you are a journalist (a term somewhat narrowly defined) then you do not have to reveal your sources and are protected from the trade secret laws if you are revealing a crime, government corruption, or something of great benefit to the public interest (especially a health concern).

The bloggers were treated just like journalists in this case. Federal laws don't care if you are a journalist and the relevant state laws not only don't apply to bloggers, but don't apply to revealing the technical details of someone's new products.

If bloggers are journalists or not was and is a non-issue.

Re:what is journalism?

[Jherek Carnelian]

According to federal laws, it does not matter if you are a journalist or not. According to most state's laws revealing what you know, or can reasonably be expected to know is a trade secret is illegal (again it does not matter if you are a journalist.)

However, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act is primarily concerned with economic harm done to the company's who has had its secrets revealed. The recoverable damages are limited to a maximum of three times the actual damages and any unjust enrichment.

This particular case, it is highly doubtful that Apple lost any money at all. If there was any unjust enrichment, it was the ad revenue generated by the site and it is not clear, to me at least, if that even counts as unjust enrichment since it was not a use of the trade secrets in the regular way of using them to gain a competitive advantage over Apple by either the website owner or anyone who read about them.

Re:what is journalism?

[maxpublic]

Sorry, but no. Leaking trade secrets is not journalism...it's corporate espionage, and deserves to be treated as such.

I see. So once again corporations get special protections that individuals - including you and me - aren't afforded. Just great.

I love living in a country where a corporation has more rights than a living, breathing human being. And where asswipes will pop out of the woodwork by the dozens to support this view because apparently sucking corporate cock is what they aspire to most in life.

"Corporate espionage". What a fucking oxymoron.

Max

Re:what is journalism?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This particular case, it is highly doubtful that Apple lost any money at all.

I don't have a link to get by the subscription but the Wall St. Journal disagrees with you and reported Apple's stock down several points as a result. In any case, the bloggers violated the UTSA and being a journalist does not protect you from answering a subpoena issued by the courts with regard to the case. Reparations are not a question until the facts have been established.

Re:what is journalism?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Sources are not protected for anyone under the First Amendment.

True. Well, there is such a thing as doctor/patient privilege and lawyer/client privilege.

With journalism, in the past sources have had plenty of protection--at the expense of the journalist involved. If the journalist cared enough about his/her reputation with future sources of information then he/she would risk going to jail for contempt for not divulging the source of the story. There is no automatic protection of the journalist for not revealing a source of information by a request from a judge.

Re:what is journalism?

[uberjon]

So you don't think I'd get arrested if I started breaking into your house 'just to have a look around' because hey you might be inventing something im interested in.

and while I'm at it maybe I'll take your Visa Statements.

UNtraditional protection

[tOaOMiB]

From TFA: Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.

Well, that's all fine and good...but this wasn't about corruption or wrongdoing, while the quoted examples (Worldcom, Enron, tobacco industry) are. Why are the big boys stepping in on this unrelated issue?
Bah. Humbug.

Re:UNtraditional protection

[ShaunDon]

Because if this case were to, through some ridiculousness, be found in favor of the defendants, that would impune employees who the news media would love to exploit for zounds of leaks similar to the ones Apple has suffered. It's easy to find someone in a company dissatisfied with their job or their employer -- if they could be sure they would never be revealed as a source, what's to prevent them from leaking sensitive product development info for a quick buck at their company's expense?

If a legit journalist had broken this same story, his publication would have had quite a sales boost given the massive industry interest in everything that Apple does. It's a market of news they'd love to be able to tap.

First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[WillAffleckUW]

and that everyone interesting has already moved on, is when the popular media backs you doing it.

Just like when grunge died.

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[bonch]

Maybe we should invent fake terminology and get them to print it. I cyberscape on my ripping blog using cyberdyned entrails.

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[WillAffleckUW]

Maybe we should invent fake terminology and get them to print it. I cyberscape on my ripping blog using cyberdyned entrails.

Well, everyone who is 1337 knows that true bloggers always autoscrabble their bloglinklunks, and only newbloggers (newblo's) forget to do that.

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[WillAffleckUW]

You just halfcrunched my wordbloggage.

Dang. Sorry, I was uplinking my blogopingpang and forgot to renfrew my dangsplatter.

Later, 1337!

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still trying to figure out the 90's rock phenomena, "alternative." By the time it had a name, shouldn't it have been called, "mainstream?"

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[drew]

isn't that kind of like asking how there can be such a thing as 'postmodern' art/architecture? it was just a name. at the time the name was coined, it was accurate.

anyway, eventually enough people noticed the irony of the situation, and started calling it "modern rock" instead...

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[drew]

and that everyone interesting has already moved on...

i realise this is just MHO, but was there ever anyone interesting there to start out with?

Re:First Sign that Blogging is Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like when grunge died.

In other words, time for another gigantic celebration? OK by me...

Judge's Words, Paraphrased

[White Roses]

I think I recall reading that the judge in this case said, essentially, that information of interest to the public is not the same as information in the public interest. It was in the public interest to report wrongdoing on the part of Enron, WorldCom and the tobacco industry. It is of interest to the public what the next Apple products might be. The informants in the former case should be protected. In the latter case, not. The judge in this case seems to be a very clear thinker in that respect.

Re:Judge's Words, Paraphrased

[dr.badass]

The judge in this case seems to be a very clear thinker in that respect.

I think this is the part of this whole saga that people can't get their heads around.

Not surprising, actually.

[bigtallmofo]

I think throwing their support behind bloggers accomplishes two goals for the mainstream press:

1. It shows they're not "old media" looking to kill "new media" with any chance they're given.
2. It keeps one source of their information coming

Many news stories in the last few years never would have happened were it not for bloggers. The mainstream media made a killing reporting on things that were originally posted on blogs (the Dan Rather document comes to mind as a big example).

Regardless of the legality or morality of the blogger's actions, I see this as a win-win situation for mainstream media.

Re:Not surprising, actually.

[3nuff]

Yes. This is a prime example of the media putting spin on a story, only in this case they're spinning for themselves.

Since when did the BBC...

[lxt]

...become a "newspaper"?

I actually heard a report on BBC Radio today about Apple's image, which touched upon the whole rumour site issue - they had an interview with the EFF lawyer who defended the sites. The basic point was Apple had slightly tarnished it's "little kid taking on the world" image.

Re:Since when did the BBC...

[Anonymous Coward]

The implication is not that the BBC is itself a newspaper, but rather that the BBC is reporting on the fact that some newspapers are supporting the Apple bloggers.

Not wanting to suggest that you failed to take a even cursory glance at the article, I quote the bold lead-in at the top of the page:

Eight US newspapers and the Associated Press agency have thrown their support behind three bloggers sued by Apple.

The Difference...

[ackthpt]

Enron, World Con^Hm, big tobacco were hiding dirty business. Apple was trying to keep a new product under wraps until scheduled announcement. These are, um, apples and oranges.

Re:The Difference...

[painandgreed]

Enron, World Con^Hm, big tobacco were hiding dirty business. Apple was trying to keep a new product under wraps until scheduled announcement. These are, um, apples and oranges.

What do expect from newpapers, clear, unbiased, and accurate information?

Re:The Difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that be oranges and Apples? :)

Re:The Difference...

[ackthpt]

Enron, World Con^Hm, big tobacco were hiding dirty business. Apple was trying to keep a new product under wraps until scheduled announcement. These are, um, apples and oranges.

What do expect from newpapers, clear, unbiased, and accurate information?

I wouldn't expect them to endorse industrial espionage.

Re:The Difference...

[geekoid]

So? people have been publishing leaks in newspapers for years, but since it's a blog it's up for grabs?

And is anything they had had been patented, or a registerd copyright, it wasn't really a trade secret.

Re:The Difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

The media is still operating with the idea that they completely control access to information. Wait until some blogger publishes a nice chunk of internal Washington Post memos, communications, payroll figures and the like. They will change their tune quickly.

You would think after Rather and Gannon, the media would realize they are now as much of the story as the story itself. I doubt many "journalists" have the intestinal fortitude to have the mirror turned on them. I for one look forward to the "media being eaten by itself. Don't tread on me.

Re:The Difference...

[painandgreed]

I wouldn't expect them to endorse industrial espionage.

Ya, right. They'd never do anything unethical, like start a war with Spain, to sell more papers.

Re:The Difference...

[dr.badass]

So? people have been publishing leaks in newspapers for years, but since it's a blog it's up for grabs?

1) The Uniform Trade Secrets Act is a state law -- not all states define trade secrets the same way, and not all find fault with second-hand divulgance. (Though the "Uniform" part means that many states use the same law.)

2) Newspaper journalists have been compelled to reveal their sources many times in the past. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

3) Publishing of trade secrets is a pretty rare thing in general -- we usually only hear about it when it involves criminal activity.

4) Federal whistleblower protection laws exist to protect leakers in cases of criminal activity. This article (any many others) completely ignores the fact that these laws exist. Just Google for "whistleblower protection".

5) Re-read 4 until you get it.

The difference: illegal activity vs information

[mveloso]

In the cases sited (whistleblower cases), the people involved were exposing violations of Federal law.

In the Think Secret case, the issue is whether a journalist (whatever definition you use) can refuse to provide the identity of an individual (or individuals) who provided trade secrets or confidential information about upcoming products.

Even the tobacco guys were more like whistleblowers, as they showed (or tried to show) that Congressional testimony by executives was demonstrably false.

The Think Secret case is nowhere near this, and Apple will most likely succeed. If Think Secret exposed a violation of law somewhere (death rays to be deployed in Cupertino, toxic waste, etc) then maybe they'd have a chance.

But as is, well, Think Secret is toast. They've gotta use better anonymizers, that's all.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh. You could argue that Woodward and Bernstein violated Federal law in publishing the Pentagon Papers. In fact, it's pretty much black letter law--these were classified documents.

Was this in fact one of the greatest triumphs of the free press as a watchdog on the government, or a crime that should have been punished?

You can certainly argue that exposing Apple trade secrets and the Pentagon Papers aren't the same, and I'd probably agree with you. But the question is WHY they aren't the same. Degree of public interest? Relevance of the rest of the story over and above the specific illegally-gotten materials? Who decides these things? Who draws the line?

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[alanQuatermain]

You can certainly argue that exposing Apple trade secrets and the Pentagon Papers aren't the same, and I'd probably agree with you. But the question is WHY they aren't the same.

The idea, as I understand it, is that Enron, the Pentagon Papers, and suchlike, were all revealing secret information about people acting in a way which was either illegal or immoral. That's illegal in the court-of-law sense, and immoral in either the 'not explicitly covered by --yet obviously going against the general thrust of-- actual laws/statutes', or the 'a lot of people will be very upset by this behaviour' dominant moral ideology sense.

In the case against ThinkSecret et al, I can't see that such protection is merited. No-one gains any obvious benefit from the information, except that some folks may wait longer to get a machine & save the cost of an additional OS purchase. But unless the news reported was that Apple was trying to cheat folks out of their money somehow (they're not), then there's no controversy being reported, so no 'witness protection' is merited.

In short, these rules are to protect those folks who, in spite of danger to either life & limb or to their continued employment, make the details of some controversy open to the public. They are not there to enable employees to cheerfully break their employment contracts without fear of repercussion.

I personally believe that Apple need to find the person(s) responsible, because otherwise they've no real way of enforcing their contracts, and without obvious means of enforcement, there's no real incentive to abide by their terms, is there? They might as well print the opening pages of 'Gulliver's Travels' & hand that out to new employees instead...

-Q

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Rycross]

The judge actually stated why they weren't the same. Publishing Apple's secrets is not in the public's interest. Publishing papers from the government in an effort to keep watch on the government is in the public's interest. Therefore the latter is protected while the former is not.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Ironsides]

The Pentagon Papers contained information that stated that the soldiers in Vietnam were fighting 'on the front lines' as it was, instead of just being in there for 'training of the local army' as was being publicized.

Basic difference is that the papers said the soldiers were in direct combat and not just there as teachers, as the US public had been told be several administrations going back to LB Johnson who got the US into the war originally. However, the main reason (as I understand it) was the the military did not want one specific section of the papers being released that contained information on troop positions (or something like that) and, had it been released, would have gotten many peopled killed. This specific section was not actually leaked, but was feared to have been. That said, I do agree with those falling under the illegal/immoral clause you state.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's great. So what's the objective standard for determining what is/is not in the public interest?

In other words, how can a well-meaning individual determine whether disclosure of information is in "the public's interest," so they can figure out to do WITHOUT having to get sued and have a judge decide after the fact.

Sensible rulings are good. Precedent is good. Guidance, however, is essential to keep the law from being capricious.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Anonymous Coward]

You could argue that Woodward and Bernstein violated Federal law in publishing the Pentagon Papers.

You couldn't because they didn't.

In fact, it's pretty much black letter law--these were classified documents.

There was and is no law that would make the publishing of the pentagon papers illegal.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[alanQuatermain]

Thanks for the clarification on that one-- I'd assumed that these 'Pentagon Papers' were something in the same vein as Watergate or somesuch, yet not as well-known (at least, not to a non-American like me).

I don't know what happened to those who leaked the information (okay, I'm just too lazy to search for it), but I'd assume that they were protected from exposure by the rules we're discussing here - it certainly would fit into the moral grounds I outlined above.

In fact, in addition to those I mentioned before, I'd possibly add another rule --or possibly just a further clarification of the moral rule-- that when information is leaked concerning falsehoods perpetuated by some person or organization that has power over the people from whom they are concealing that information, that should be covered by the 'witness protection' rule also. As such, it wouldn't necessarily need to be strictly considered 'morally reprehensible' for a government to have people fighting in a foreign war yet not advertise the fact, it would be enough that they are attempting to conceal information from those over whom they hold sway.

That, to my mind, would essentially constitute a use of granted power to extend the reach of that power, which is not desirable, and certainly ought to be something withheld by the voting public -- i.e. the US President is not allowed (even with a Senate vote) to grant himself the right to a third/fourth/etc. term or office, only a general vote could do that.

In a last-ditch attempt to bring such musings back on-topic, it would compare in the Apple case to a situation where Apple held off releasing Tiger (and therefore, releasing any definitive information) so as to conceal a fact, such as 'it'll only work on computers made after April 2005', thereby attempting to force a mass-upgrade for the benefit of their next 10-Q filing.

-Q

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what's the objective standard for determining what is/is not in the public interest?"

Is the information being disclosed something that would harm others? If Apple is planning a deathray from space, you can disclose that as the public interest is at stake. If Apple is planning a new iPod, there is no potential harm to the public, therefore, it is not in the public interest that it be disclosed.

Re:The difference: illegal activity vs information

[myov]

I wonder how the newspapers would feel if, say, a blogger approached an advertising company (who had an NDA with the publisher), discovered details about an upcoming product launch, blogged about it, and a competitor used that information to quickly push out their product?

Maybe someone should start a rumor site for various newspapers. They would need contacts within the company to feed the information to the site. Wonder how long any of it would last.

It also reminds me of a technique Apple used in the past. Different rumors (all false) were circulated, just to see where the leaks were.

They have to.

[Mad Ogre]

Asside from the copywrite violations, this is a 1st ammendment issue... Freedom of Speech pure and simple. If newspapers are against that, then they are against themselves. There is also the definitions of Journalism that has to be addressed as well. What consititutes a Journalist? Is the just being published, or is it readership? Because some of the bigger blogs out there have readerships far in excess of most newspapers. For the newspapers, it's an all or nothing deal.

Re:They have to.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me this is not now, nor has it ever been a case of protecting journalists, or treating bloggers as journalists, or anything of the sort. It comes down to one basic question: are their stories in the public interest? If not, then their sources are not protected. This is as true for joe mac blogger as it is for abc news.

Maybe i'm the only one who thinks the decision made was a fair one; I just don't see the first ammendment being trampled on here.

Re:They have to.

[4iedBandit]

Wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about the 1st amendment. The leaker exercised his right to free speach and leaked information about a product for which he had signed a contract with Apple not to. Apple merely exercised it's right to satisfy the breech in contract.

What makes people think that the leaker or the web site deserve protection? The judge has it right, there is a huge difference between information in the public's interest and information of interest to the public.

If journalists think it is truely about the 1st amendment they should be willing to go to jail to protect their sources. Did that happen here? No. Again, this is information of interest to the public and that's the difference.

The web site didn't refuse to give up the source. They didn't have to you know. Sure they would have gone to jail for contempt, but if they really thought divulging information was in the public's interest they should be willing to do hard time.

Freedom of speech is not and has never been, freedom from responsibility.

Re:They have to.

[maxpublic]

What consititutes a Journalist?

Defining what is or is not a journalist isn't within the purview of the government. The Constitution grants no such authority to any branch of the government, including the judiciary.

Max

Re:They have to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Defining what is or is not a journalist isn't within the purview of the government. The Constitution grants no such authority to any branch of the government, including the judiciary.

Are you familiar with the concept of "common law"? Do you know how different our legal system would be if we didn't have it? Common law exists so the courts can interpret the law based on a community's accepted standards and previous precendents. Also for your edification, the Constitution states fairly clearly that the judiciary's job is to interpert the law.

Re:They have to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, no? It's a case of someone stealing secrets from his employer, and then attempting to protect himself by "laundering" them through a third party.

What if, instead of stolen prototype designs, it was your credit card number that was stolen and posted on a website? Would the maintainer of the site be allowed to withhold the name of the thief? Of course not. It's the same thing--a crime was committed, and because this doesn't meet the "in the clear public interest" exemption, it doesn't fall under First Amendment protection.

I'm not quite sure why I'm attempting to argue with someone who signs his posts MadOgre.com, but, well, that's the answer.

This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[fussili]

as John Gruber noted it's pure and simple trade secrets law:

http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times

Now I don't happent to know the legal system in the US all to well, my knowledge of IP law only covers the English system but it's fairly clear that this case has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. Desperately trying to paint it as such is simply indicative of having no case to answer Apple's claim.

I was shocked to see the Instapundit being dragged in, Paul Reynolds is a law professor for Pete's sake. This isn't Bloggers trying to get the protection of Big Media because we have it at law, this is trying to do what many people have attempted in the past - using the 1st amendment as a shield to protect fraudulent activity. It hasn't worked in the past and it looks like it wont now.

All this case will prove is that bloggers are as much subject to Trade Secrets law as anyone else.

Re:This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I missed the part "except in the case of trade secrets" when I read the First Amendment.

Re:This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I guess I missed the part "except in the case of trade secrets" when I read the First Amendment.

So you think trade secret laws violate the first amendment and should be removed? I can understand that. Do you also think people should be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater? How about lie about what their products do? Slander and liable? Copyright infringement of songs? Most instances of fraud? Leaking the launch codes for our nuclear weapons to the Chinese?

All of the the above are restrictions on freedom of speech. Most people agree that the above laws are just and reasonable restrictions on free speech. In this particular case Apple did not even try to restrict free speech. They just sued for reparation after the fact without asking for any future restraints. If you break the law don't expect freedom of speech to absolve you of criminal responsibility for your actions.

Alternately I suppose you would not mind if someone published full page ads in your local newspaper saying that you are a pedophile. After all while it is illegal, it is also protected by the first amendment, right?

Re:This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed the part of the constitution that says if someone pisses me off with their words I can't beat the crap out of them.

Re:This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[nocomment]

Well put. Congrats on getting listed in the "10 hot comments" box on the front page.

Re:This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this case will prove is that bloggers are as much subject to Trade Secrets law as anyone else.

Just as music filesharers are subject to the laws they are sued under. And we all support RIAA taking those teenagers to court, right? (actually, the turn /. has taken these days I'm not sure about that either anymore)

Public Interest?-Judge spoke.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech."

The judge has already spoke on this issue. It's NOT a free speech issue*, but just an attempt to sell more newspapers, and drive up viewership. Besides, aren't you all suppose to hate the "establishment", or something?

*Free speech. Right up there with "My Rights" as the most abused phrase. Next up "Think of the children".

Re:Public Interest?-Judge spoke.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The judge has already spoke on this issue. It's NOT a free speech issue*,"

Its not free speech because one misguided, poor, old man decided it wasn't?

That's like the FCC censoring speech and then claim its not a free speech issue. How silly. You get to claim nothing is free speech as long as you say it isn't?

Re:Public Interest?-Judge spoke.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Its not free speech because one misguided, poor, old man decided it wasn't?

Well, seeing as how he's a judge, I doubt he's either misguided or poor.
Judges generally gain their position because they develop a reputation for wisdom and good-judgement...at any rate, I'm inclined to weigh his opinion more favorably than yours.
Also, I hear judges are paid fairly well, so it's not likely he's poor.

Whether or not he is 'old', or a 'man'...I don't have this information.

You get to claim nothing is free speech as long as you say it isn't?

No, I get to say a particular something is not free speech as long as a judge says it isn't. Try to keep up.

If you support the EFF

[rsborg]

and you don't like the position they are taking on this case, let them know: information@eff.org.

I have written and told them I DO NOT WANT my donation being used for this case, as I don't believe "freedom of the press" should be used as a "get out of jail free" card. There should be proof of "public interest" first.

Re:If you support the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is freedom of speech tied to public interest? Just what kind of EFF member are you? You are hardly a friend of freedom. You're an enemy of freedom!

I just sent $500 to the EFF and referenced this post, specifically staying I want my money being used to help this case!

Re:If you support the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're a reactionary idiot. Do you know anything about the case? Or the laws involved?

The leaking of trade secrets is illegal, in the same way that someone stealing and then sharing your credit card number would be illegal. If someone had posted your personal information for public perusal without your consent, would it be OK for the poster to withhold the name of the person who actually stole it? That's what this is about.

All this crap about the "public interest" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. There's an exemption in the law (which is called the Uniform Trade Secrets Act) for whistleblowing. If the leaked information is in the clear public interest, or exposes wrongdoing, then the source can be protected. But it seems pretty clear to me that none of this falls under that protection.

Feel free to throw as much money as you want at the EFF. It's not going to change the law, which is very clear and, IMHO, very fair in this regard.

IHBT?

Re:If you support the EFF

[dfghjk]

Then you must have nothing to worry about.

This isn't about leaked secrets, it's about compelling someone/some company to testify. You seem comfortable with the notion that it's suitable under circumstances that you agree with yet not for others. I'm not. Just who should determine "clear public interest or exposes wrongdoing"? Not you and not me. I don't want the government having any such authority. It is not a journalist's job to support law enforcement or a company's lawyers. I also see no reason to distiguish a journalist from any other citizen. If a company doesn't want its secrets published it shouldn't allow the leaks. Apparently Apple doesn't work hard enough at that.

Why there's so much interest in these Apple leaks I have no idea.

Re:If you support the EFF

[tuxedobob]

If a company doesn't want its secrets published it shouldn't allow the leaks. Apparently Apple doesn't work hard enough at that.

What exactly do you propose they do? Say you work at a company for 20 years. One day, you sign an NDA. Then you tell everyone about it. How was that company supposed to "not allow" that? By being psychic and knowing you were going to do so?

Re:If you support the EFF

[rsborg]

You seem comfortable with the notion that it's suitable under circumstances that you agree with yet not for others. I'm not. Just who should determine "clear public interest or exposes wrongdoing"?

Was there even a half-assed attempt in this case? While you're worrying about "who defines what", there isn't even an attempt to prove that exposing Apple's trade secrets is in the "public interest". I *do* trust the courts to see the line and make the decisions. Someone always has to... and guess what? There is plenty of legal precedent here to do so (since we live in a jurisprudence based legal world).

Cravenly hiding behind "journalistic rights" as a shield for *any* arbitraty activity is a flawed position.

Re:If you support the EFF

[myov]

If a company doesn't want its secrets published it shouldn't allow the leaks.

Other than an NDA (a legal contract), what's your big idea? Duct tape? If you don't understand it, too bad. Most contacts have something along the lines of "I understand what I'm signing. I've had the opportunity to consult an independant lawyer before signing."

Apple had a legal contract which said "don't talk". Someone broke it. Apple's trying to find out who broke the contract. If they get a name, they'll move on.

I can understand if Apple was doing something illegal. Trade secrets aren't the last time I checked, and are an important part of operating a business. I have some unique business plans which depend on my competition not finding out about them. I can't impliment them myself. What do you think I should do? I make a deal with you not to tell anyone. If you tell someone and I lose money as a result, what do you think my next action will be?

The only reason this person is refusing is because he knows that he'll never get information again. If your business model depends on doing things which are legally questionable, what kind of business are you running?

Re:If you support the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you want the courts to do?

Quite frankly, the law works pretty well almost all of the time. You seem to suggest that you'd prefer a society in which the law and the courts have no power whatsoever. If you're actually serious about that, you're far too stupid to even hold a reasonable discussion with. Sorry.

Blogger's = Journalists.

[Masq666]

Well it's nice to that the blogger's are finaly getting some backing, bloggers should have some rights, they are journalists even though they are hobby journalists.

Easy answer to a stupid question

[Little Grey]

"Can we blog without legal repercussions?" If you can do it without divulging illegal information, go for it.

Re:Easy answer to a stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a subtle problem with this logic.
Q. Who will get to decide what is illegal.
A. Those who are in power and have money.

In the past the powerful have in the past made moral things "illegal". For example, assisting a slave escape to freedom was once considered illegal in the great USA.

The rich and powerful will use any means necessary to hold on to their position. While I believe that stealing trade secrets should be punished, we should support the EFF in not allowing the powerful to overrun the weak without a fight.

Re:Easy answer to a stupid question

[Rycross]

More like "If you can do it without divulging illegal information that isn't in the public's interest to be known, go for it."

The judge made it clear that the issue wasn't that it was a blog, or that the information was illegal (if it wasn't then there wouldn't be a trial), but that the information wasn't in the public's interest, and thus the source is not protected.

Re:Easy answer to a stupid question

[devnull17]

Wait. If you agree that Apple has a case, then what is left to discuss?

By your logic, we should be contributing to the defense funds of the likes of Scott Peterson against the Big, Bad Government--after all, they have far more resources than he does. While I believe that murder should be punished, we should support the EFF in not allowing the powerful to overrun the (clearly guilty) weak without a fight. See what I'm getting at?

I agree that the rich and powerful need to be kept in check. But we do that by having strong and fair laws, and to argue against them when they clearly apply is to undermine the entire cause.

Comparisons not valid.

[unclethursday]

Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public...

Except that the ThinkSecret et al cases have nothing to do with the whistle blowing that went on with Enron, WorldCom, and the tobacco industry. If the blogger sites had found out information that Apple was cooking the books and defrauding their stockholders and raiding their employees 401K plans and other retirement funds, or was knowingly coating their products in a toxic chemical that will eventually lead to a debilitating or fatal disease, then there would be similarities.

Releasing info on upcoming products that, while the public would be interested in for other reasons but do not affect the greater good of the public, is not whistle blowing. In the "public's interest" and for the Public Good are two entirely different things.

Basically, these news organizations and the AP are trying to ensure they cover their asses in the future, hoping that they can still protect whistle blowers, but it sounds to me like they have completely forgotten what the term whistle blower means. Either that, or a lot of the reporters had planned on doing similar things, and don't want to face the repercussions of doing so. Either way, they are in the wrong on this issue, not Apple.

Re:Comparisons not valid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it's NOT an ENTIRELY invalid comparison. Because all these issue hinge on one critical question--what restrictions, if any, are there on divluging "trade secrets" in the press.

The tobacco companies declared their knowledge of the dangers of smoking "trade secrets." Apple claimed their future designs were "trade secrets." Obviously, one of these things is not like the others. But the question is what the legal standard is here.

There will always be a blurry line between your concepts of "public interest" and "public good." Who decides? More importantly, what's the LEGAL standard.

You can take the position that "if a company declares something a trade secret, then it's not for consumption. If someone bound by an NDA leaks it, it's a crime, and both that person and the journalist who assists them have comitted a crime." You can take that position, and it's fair, but realize this keeps the tobacco documents out of court.

The other extreme is "a journalist has the right to protect their sources, and should not be in any way liable to prosecution for doing so. This applies even if the journalist knowingly allows someone to violate a NDA." That's ThinkSecret's position, and I hope we can agree there are problems here as well.

So, who sets the standard? What can a reasonable journalist who does not wish to be sued use as a standard? Don't give me abstract constructs or the judgement of history--what standard should be applied? Bear in mind this should be a standard that's objective, fair, and can be reasonably understood and applied in the same way by most reasonable people.

Failing that, it really is a slippery slope. Everybody gets sued. And now we have freedom of the press, except where you can intimidate with lawsuits.

Basically, if you don't like the "if a company says it's private, it's not OK for anyone to publish it ever" idea, then suggest an alternative.

Re:Comparisons not valid.

[unclethursday]

Sure a company can TRY and hide illegal or harmful practices behind the guise of "trade secrets." However, true whistle blower laws protect those whistle blowers who expose said practices, NDA or not.

That's where the standard should be set.

Is the "trade secret" defrauding stockholders or employees? (Y/N)

Is the "trade secret" being used to knowingly put a harmful product on the market that can cause illness/debilitation/death to consumers? (Y/N)

Is the "trade secret" something that hides illegal dumping? (Y/N)

Is the "trade secret" doing anything else that would be considered illegal under national and/or international laws, or otherwise harmful to the good of the public? (Y/N)

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then the whistle blowing clause would stand, and sources could be protected.

Is the "trade secret" information on an upcoming product that has yet to be announced to the public, and could be conceivably copied by a competitor before the official announcement, possibly allowing that competitor to release a similar product earlier? (Y/N)

This is the question posed for the blogger cases. This question is the only one in the case. This particular question, if answered yes, does not deserve the "anonymous sources" protection of the press, because all this is is a way for the "press" to break a story that while may be in the "public's interest for the newest gadgets," and in no way is in the interest of the public good or showing how a company is breaking any laws.

That's the difference between whistle blower laws and the trade secret laws being used to find the sources for the blogger cases. And, in this case, Apple, and not the bloggers who knowingly published info they should have reasonably known to be trade secrets that do not affect the well being of the public good or show violation of laws, are in the right.

Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[elrous0]

How did I know when I saw this thread that we'd immediately get 30 replies defending Apple? Funny, but I also suspect that if Microsoft did the exact same thing, there would immediately be 30 replies bashing Evil Bill's empire-mongering.

But if you guys want to keep pretending that Apple is some noble philanthropic organization while Microsoft is a greedy capitalist leviathan, you go right ahead. Delusion is sure preferable to harsh reality, isn't it?

-Eric

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing, isn't it?

What I find excepionally funny, horrible, interesting, amazing is the fact, that the majority of the posters simply deny that this is a question of free speach.

Now don't get me wrong, you can of course hold the opinion, that in this case other interests, namely the interest of a company that wants to find out who broke a NDA, outweighs any concerns regarding free speech. Not that I would agree with you, but that is at least a reasonable stance to take.

However most posters here, especially those modded up, simply deny that free speech is an issue at all here, but claim that this is only about someone breaking a NDA, as if those two issue were mutually exclusive.

Finally, not to let this thing get out of control, even though I'm deeply disgusted by a lot of the posters here and I agree with the point you were making, I still think that MS is agreedy capitalist leviathan.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[maxpublic]

But if you guys want to keep pretending that Apple is some noble philanthropic organization while Microsoft is a greedy capitalist leviathan, you go right ahead. Delusion is sure preferable to harsh reality, isn't it?

New here? Welcome to Slashdot!

Although the typical slashdotter deludes themselves into thinking they're more intelligent (and certainly more 'intellectual') than Joe Smith on the street, they're just as much into knee-jerkery as any prole. They just knee-jerk about different things, then spend inordinate amounts of time patting each other on the back for being intelligent/intellectual/rebellious/whatever, like a pack of teenage twats running down Britney because, like, that's so counterculture, duuude!

Same shit, different venue. Nothing to see here.

Max

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but I also suspect that if Microsoft did the exact same thing, there would immediately be 30 replies bashing Evil Bill's empire-mongering.

Actually, Microsoft is pretty tight with it's trade secrets - it's rare that such a secret gets a lot of press.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen Dickhead, how did I know when I came to this thread that there would immediately be 30 replies bashing the evil Slashdotters' hive mind?

Go fuck yourself, man. It's obviously a trade secrets issue. You're the same as the people that you're criticizing.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with perceptions of Apple. Frankly, I think they are stupid for pursuing this, because they are negatively impacting their image by pursuing what are, basically, enthusiast web sites; but if they think protecting their trade secrets is worth that high cost, it is their perrogative.

What people are disputing is the implication that if people are disclosing information bound by an NDA, they can avoid "breach of contract" by disclosing the information to a journalist of any stripe. That's foolish. The parties involved are irrelevant to that perception. It could be Apple, Microsoft, IBM, whoever.

Loads of people here are bound by NDAs. If this ruling is overturned, apparently, they can walk to their local newspaper office (where there is no ambiguity about whether a reporter is or is not a journalist, so the blogging issue is moot), and talk about whatever they like, without having done anything illegal. At the least, the journalist would never have to divulge who they were, even if they were doing something illegal. While protections exist for whistle-blowers, I do not see how that applies in this case.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[devnull17]

How is this an issue of freedom of speech? Do you argue that you have a right to Apple's trade secrets? Do you think that people who break NDA's should be protected, as long as they launder their information through some shumuck with a website?

What if it were your Social Security number, home address and credit card information that were stolen and posted? I'll bet you'd be singing an entirely different tune then.

This is merely about someone breaking an NDA. It's not about a big, bad, evil company attempting to silence the little guy. (The reason it's the little guy is that legitimate publications would know better than to leak trade secrets. It's clearly illegal, and possibly against journalistic ethics as well. If the New York Times corporation, with its billions of dollars in assets, had been responsible for propogating the leak, do you really think Apple would have been less likely to sue them? Just the opposite, I'd argue.)

I, personally, am more disgusted with people that spout off on a very important issue (i.e. freedom of speech, which may very well be under attack in this country) in an extremely misinformed way. It makes everyone on your side of the issue look bad.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this site is inhabited by Mac zealots has nothing to do with the validity of Apple's case. They're doing exactly what I would do in their position, and probably what you would do as well. There's a potentially devastating leak somewhere within the company, and it needs to be stopped. It's not an issue of freedom of speech; it's an issue of some guy refusing to reveal the identity of a person who has committed a crime.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, it is about free speech as Apple is trying to get the person who reported about inside information (that is, the blogger/journalist) to reveal his source.

And that a journalist is forced to reveal his source does of course make it a free speech issue and is exactly what got the newspapers worried here.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[devnull17]

But where do you draw the line? As I said in the grandparent post, what if it were your credit card information that were published? Does that qualify as journalism?

If these issues were being decided based on the outcome of this case, then it would definitely be a freedom of speech crisis. But they're already pretty clearly written out. The law states that, in the case of confidential company information being leaked, a journalist's sources are protected if and only if the information being divulged is in the clear public interest. Sounds perfectly fair to me.

It seems pretty clear to me that the specs on the upcoming line of iPod Minis does not qualify as being in the clear public interest.

The outcome of this case has nothing to do with "Mr. DePlume's" status as a journalist. Had the information appeared in the New York Times, the outcome would have been the same.

Even if this "restriction" on free speech were indeed a crisis, it occurred when the law was passed, and not when the judge handed down his decision.

Look, I vote Democratic. I contribute to the EFF and the ACLU. I imagine that my political leanings are similar to yours, at least if you fit the profile of the prototypical /. reader. But arguing that this is a crisis reflects a misunderstanding of the issues at hand, and, as I've said, makes it far easier for the other side to characterize us as Chicken Little-esque crackpots whenever a real problem emerges.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[HeetMyser]

Who on Earth would ever mod this "Insightful?" "Troll" is more apt. But I do know the answer to your first question. You knew we'd immediately get 30 replies defending Apple because -- in general -- the /. crowd is pretty bright and recognizes a crime when they see one. Why not put aside your old, tired Apple/Microsoft hatred and join the rest of us in discussing the real issue here, which is not about Apple so much as U.S. trade law?

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[GaryPatterson]

Microsoft has a right to protect its trade secrets, just as Apple does. Even companies like Enron have that right.

The difference is when it's not a trade secret being protected, but a case of corruption, fraud or some other criminal activity.

In that case, Microsoft, Apple, Enron and every other company (or person) has no right to protect that information.

These two cases are easily distinguished, and the Think Secret example is obviously not a case of criminal activity being rightfully exposed, but a case of a company's trade secrets being exposed.

Trying to confabulate the two is an error, and serves to confuse readers.

If this was a story about Microsoft and a website, then we'd see a large number of people damning Microsoft, a smaller number defending them and a bunch of misinformed people apparently making stuff up. Just like we do in this Apple case.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

??ly speak for myself, but perhaps the perception of Apple=good MS=bad is a result of the end product, not blind zealotry.

When I use Apple products, I am pleased. When I use MS products, I am frustrated. That's why I defend Apple and criticize MS...it has nothing to do with a company being noble or evil, it's a matter of companies providing their customers with satisfaction or not.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

And the particulars of the law are preferable to uninformed ranting.

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[krel]

There's an starkly anti-corporate atmosphere here at Slashdot, so I can see why you would assume that all businesses behave in a wicked, murderous, anti-christ-/nazi-worshiping way. Let me boil down my own Apple zealotry into a simple point: when I use Apple products, I get the distinct feeling that they're trying to make me happy.
Apple's marketing strategy has always been about making customers happy with the belief that happy customers always return to buy pleasing products. I suppose only 5% (or whatever the Mac's marketshare is) of happy people return for new products, and Apple has widely received criticism for their strategy, but Steve Jobs is stubborn like that.
Microsoft tosses out shit products that frustrate me more than any consumer product I've ever used in my life. It's reasons like this that so few people want to defend the numerous anti-Microsoft articles here.
This Slashdot article smacks of misinformation, and we both know most people are only going to gloss over the blurb and remember, "Corporate monolith Apple Computers wants to take away freedom of speech from the common man," and what happy Apple-enthusiast wants the public to believe that nonsense?

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[elrous0]

when I use Apple products, I get the distinct feeling that they're trying to make me happy.

Yeah, that's it. Most companies are interested in things like profit, monopoly, etc. They're just cutthroat businessmen. Apple, by contrast, just wants to make us all happy. Yay!

Hey, tell me, do they have Oompah-Loompahs working in their factories, or is it just desperate, underpaid Chinese?

-Eric

Re:Noble Apple vs. Big, Bad, Evil Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already been owned, bitch, so shut it.

One thing to blog...

[feloneous cat]

And quite another to be charging advertisers.

Let's face it, these are not Uncle Joe blogging about a rumor, these are folks making a buck off someone breaking a confidential agreement. Even bona fide journalists go to jail when they break the law or encourage someone to break the law to get a story.

I don't like NDA's, but the reality is they are legal and binding agreements. And breaking an NDA to get a 10-20 jump on an announcement is, in my view, rather stupid.

NDA mean nothing

[varmittang]

So NDAs mean nothing, as long as you tell it to someone else to post on the web. Ok, where is that SCO source code?

Re:NDA mean nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

ThinkSecret never violated an NDA, the leaker in Apple did. If Apple can find that person they can sue them for damages.

Re:NDA mean nothing

[MoneyT]

And since Apple demonstrated to the courts that the information published is reasonably believeable to be from an NDA, under the UTSA they were obligated by law to not publish the information and are obligated by law to reveal the source. Perhaps you should try READING THE COURT RULING

Re:NDA mean nothing

[varmittang]

I KNOW THAT. I'm saying that all these people that are calling free speech, and protect the blogs because they are journalist, have no leg to stand on because this publishing of the info was against the NDA. I was being sarcastic, but I guess my lets see the SCO code didn't get that across.

Some else's rights to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything infringes on each other's rights.

Your driving down the road next to me infringes on my rights to drive in that lane.

Woodward & Bernstein infringed on Nixon's right to privacy.

Jim Dunne infringes on GM/Ford/Chrysler's right to secrecy on new models.

Photographers infringe on Prince Charles' right to marry a horse.

Everything infringes on some right.

Re:Some else's rights to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Prince loves that horse, and the horse loves him, so what's the problem?

Get off the Prince's back and quit riding him like a horse.

Re:Some else's rights to what?

[sumdumass]

You are confusing rights with privilages and expectations people enjoy.

Nixon didn't have a right to privacy when he ventured into the open market of the presidency and violates some laws to get there. He had an expectation of privacy but no right.

You don't have a right to travel in any lane of trafic. What you have is a privilage to do so if it is availible. Someone else driving there doesn't inpead any rights. It hampers your expectation of being able to do so.

Jim Dunne, I'm not sure who he is but you might be corect here. Companies do have a right to (a limited) pricay and the ability to keep trade secretes private if they choose to do so.

Photographers. This is a touchy situations here. People holding public office as well as being "famous" tend to have a less right or expectation of privacy then others. This has been established in court so it is set in case law. I think what is confusing here is the fact that outside a law banning the marrying of a house, Charles would have an right to privacy were "prince" charles would just have an expectation of privacy.

Some time we assume that somethign we are acustom to is a right and that right is infered to others. You have the right to equal opertunity houseing but a registered sex offender has a limited right and has to be so far away from places minor might be. Convicted DUI offenders don't have the same rights we might have and famous people don't have as much protection form slander or liable as wee do. (they do however, general have more of a means to combat it)

Re:Some else's rights to what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it sounds like you are confused about where rights come from in the first place. In the U.S. we believe that rights aren't granted from the government, but instead are an inate part of human nature.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...

My issue with bloggers

[bogaboga]

I love bloggers for they raise issues that the main stream media chooses not to raise.

However, my issue with [some] bloggers is that some of them know nothing, and to make matters worse, they do not know that they know so little or nothing at all!

Some of these bloggers to the extreme, I am sorry to say, know so little to even know that they know nothing!

We live in interesting times don't we?

Zonk and Blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice Zonk posts a lot of blog-related stories?

BLOGs should be protected* speech

[ratso87]

Unless something illegal is taking place, trade secrets are being devulged or libel/slander is being committed...blogs and bloggers should enjoy complete 1st Amendment protections just like other forms of communication and expression.

wrong question....

[YellowElf]

We shouldn't ask "can we blog without legal repercussions?" since that is not the issue here. The issue is, is blog reporting equivalent to "true" journalism?

--dv

Re:wrong question....

[cowscows]

Actually, that's not the issue. That's part of the muddying of the issue that the EFF and these websites are trying to create, hoping to make this into a freedom of speech argument.

This is about the violation of an NDA, which is a legally binding agreement with lots of history in both business and the courts. Whether it was printed in a blog or a newspaper, by a journalist or some guy on the street, that's not relevant.

The question "can we blog without legal repercussions?" is not only not the issue, it's a meaningless question without context. It's sort of like asking "can I shoot a gun without legal repercussions?" That depends on where you are, what the gun is pointed at, possibly licensing laws and such.

Re:wrong question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is radio true journalism?
Is television true journalism?
Is the online-only content of the New York Times journalism?

New media always require a redefinition of the question of what is/is not journalism. This should suprise no one. In all the cases above, most experts agree that "yes, this is journalism."

Is the National Enquirer journalism?
Is Hustler magazine journalism?

While you may not like their content, most experts agree that questionable content is still journalism. Some would argue (probably correctly) that, say, the writers for the Enquirer don't adhere to what most would call a fair and unbiased reporting philosophy. But to the extent they have sources they consider credible, most experts again call the journalism. Basically, not liking the content doesn't disqualify something as journalism.

Is the student newspaper at the local university journalism?
Is a newspaper given away for free (supported only by advertisments) journalism (example, for fellow NYC'ers, is AM NewYork)?

In both cases, most would agree this is journalism. Journalism doesn't require authors to be professionals working for pay. It also doesn't require charging for your work.

Blogs are generally non-professional journalists, working on the internet, sometimes with questionable opinion and approaches to journalism, who give away their work (except for advertising sponsors). Granting all of this, what exactly would one argue makes this "not journalism"?

Re:wrong question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. EFF and the websites are not muddying the issue, they are looking into a particular side issue raised by Apple lawyers that they disagree with. The main issue is what you said, the violation of the NDA, and EFF et al are not interfering with those arguments. That's a legitimate legal tactic for Apple to take, assuming they have gone about it correctly. But Apple's lawyers also introduced the idea that these web sites don't deserve protection because they are not journalists, and therefore do not get to have the protection journalists get.

Well that side issue is quite significant. Can a blogger be a journalist. The way Apple's lawyers argued it, the answer is No. These new organizations and bloggers, obviously, disagree, and are siding against Apple on this narrow point. The NDA stuff is entirely different, and that's between Apple and its employees.

If you have to ask: what is journalism?

[WillAffleckUW]

what is journalism?

If you have to ask what it is, you ain't one.

Re:If you have to ask: what is journalism?

[phongleland]

The real question is: what are a journalist's ethical obligations? If a journalist/blogger obtain trade secrets from someone he knows stole those information from Apple, should be be allowed to profit from it by publishing it? Stock brokers aren't allowed to profit from insider information, so why should a journalist profit from insider information that he knows is stolen?

Re:If you have to ask: what is journalism?

[WillAffleckUW]

The real question is: what are a journalist's ethical obligations? If a journalist/blogger obtain trade secrets from someone he knows stole those information from Apple, should be be allowed to profit from it by publishing it? Stock brokers aren't allowed to profit from insider information, so why should a journalist profit from insider information that he knows is stolen?

So, you admit you hate DC news reporters then?

Sigh ...

Re:If you have to ask: what is journalism?

[phongleland]

All I'm saying is that the journalism profession does not have it's ethics all thought out. My personal opinion is that a reporter should publish what a whisle blower says, if it serves the public good. But he should not publish company trade secrets obtain through illegal means. For all these newspapers to come out and defend their profession without differentiating between the two scenario above indicates to me that a lot of newspapers have not considered the ethical obligations of their profession.

the BBC has just lost so much credibility with me.

[mike518]

are they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies like worldcom. this is completely backwards. The bloggers are losing because they are incouraging people to break the law, for no public good or safety reason.

If it was okay to break these agreements for no good reason i wonder if it would be okay if say a rep. from lockeed martin could leak info about a weapons program, its against his contract, but what the hell, those contracts dont matter... this is journalism! Sorry journalism does have a limit. Im all for whistle blowers, but thats why they have laws to protect them, these guys are NOT whistle blowers (check the definition if you dont believe me).

Consider the company that Apple keeps.

[emil]

Apple chose the RIAA as a bedfellow, and has adopted their tactics.

If news of new technology leaked about an IBM or Intel technology, I doubt that we'd see lawsuits. Apple is very quick on this trigger, and the news media might just be able to convince the judiciary to see it this way.

I don't really understand Apple's rabid lust for secrecy. It is my earnest hope that their product lines suffer until they get out of the business of suing their customers.

They can keep their Tiger, thanks.

Re:Consider the company that Apple keeps.

[aristotle-dude]

Emil. Place yourself in Apple's shoes for a money. I know that your post was a troll given that you mentioned the RIAA but make the effort to participate in this intellectual expercise.

Now say that you are the CEO of a company and one of your employees was leaking trade secrets to a blogger. Now what if that leaked information could give your competitors an unfair advantage and allow them to get out a cheap knock off to the market before you could. What would you do? Would you not want to find out who was leaking the information?

Say that your company had sunk in millions of dollars in R&D money into the leaked product. Be honest for once in your life and think with your head. It's time to take off your dyed shirt and rose coloured glasses. The 60's are over.

Re:Consider the company that Apple keeps.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Place yourself in Apple's shoes for a money.

Freudian slip?

What would you have done if you were Apple?

[ABaumann]

Every so often, people mention Apple being mean and heavy handed in this instance, but think about what you would have done in their shoes.

Apple has had multiple leaks over the past few months.

- 60 GB iPod
- OS X 10.4
- iPod Shuffle
- iPod Mini

So, basically everything they plan to come out with gets leaked. They need to prove that their NDA's mean something. They asked for the source, couldn't get it, so they subpoenad. Then, the guy supboenad said he wouldn't reveal his sources because of freedom of the press or something, so Apple sued.

It's crucial that companies be able to protect their information. Can I divulge business sensitive information to reporters because I know they can't reveal me as their source?

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[compro01]

well, for my $0.02, i don't see how the leaks of that harmed apple in anyway. as far as i see it, it's acted as free advertising and has generated public interest in their products. get people interested=people buy stuff.

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[ABaumann]

From M$ perspective....

They could have thought, "Apple's coming out with this? Well, we have a month to figure out how to counter this."

However, they prolly just thought "Apple? They're still around? Oh well, we own like 25% of the company anyway."

With the first thought, you could argue, "Well, then leaking info like that would just help companies to compete quicker, speeding up innovation," and yes, I'll give you that, but I just grow wary of NDA's being bypassed that easily. What would prevent a developer from going to the press and saying, "I want you to tell EXACTLY how my company made this..."

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why this is even a case when Apple is at fault.

Apple lied to the general public about the inaccuracy of the blogger and downplay his/her speculations. Much like blogger speculating what would happen with the upcoming Star Wars movie "Revenge of the Sith". I believe people should have the right to speculate. It is up to the public to believe or not to believe, and it is up to Apple to release or not to release.

Any joeschoo would already predicted what Apple had in mind. Some people on Slashdot are pretty dumb I'll say. You should of predict what Apple is going to release based on their historic releases.

This is like predicting what Microsoft is going to release with its upcoming service ... duh SEARCH.

And predicting what Google is going to do next ... duh WEB BROWSER.

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[prockcore]

Every so often, people mention Apple being mean and heavy handed in this instance, but think about what you would have done in their shoes.

There are other ways of finding out if someone is violating NDAs than issuing random subpoenas.

This is really no different than the RIAA issuing John Doe subpoenas to determine if people are stealing music.

Apple has absolutely no proof that a crime has been committed. In fact they're using subpoenas to *find* proof.

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[ABaumann]

Hello! This guy said that he had sources at Apple who gave him all of this info on new and upcoming products. You infer that Apple is going on a witch hunt. It's not a random subpoena.

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the leakers got teh price tag wrong on the mac mini, Apple stocks plummeted, and the sales of the iPod mini were lackluster at best.

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[MoneyT]

Apple has PLENTY of proof, and you would know that if you READ THE COURT RULING

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[MoneyT]

speculation is one thing, these people were publishing documents and slides. READ THE COURT RULING

Re:What would you have done if you were Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't speed up innovation when you have no company. Keeping things in secret and releasing products when they are ready that captures consumers' interests. Apple cannot compete with an 800lb gorilla from Redmond that has been shown over and over that they steal other companies technologies to kill their competitors. See why Apple was in such a bad shape in mid 90's.

BTW, Microsoft owns nothing of Apple. The $150M non-voting shares to settle lawsuits have been sold a long time ago for a nice profit.

Oh please...

[ShatteredDream]

Since when has the public had a right to know about product specs that haven't been released and are being held under a NDA? This is not some Pentagon Paper revelation or finding out that an employee under a NDA saw dumping of toxic chemicals or a warning sticker on the product saying that exposure lead to cancer. This was an attempt to get people to violate their NDA so that these apple rumor sites could get the inside scoop before the mainstream media.

A lot of these chicken littles are focusing on this to exclusion of the FEC's remarks about federal regulation of online speech. How quickly the tune would change for bloggers like Michelle Malkin, if someone did this to them. Imagine if someone paid your spouse to take your journal information and then published your secrets online. You'd be livid too.

The problem with these rumor mills is that they make money by reporting on this that they have no intention of scrutinizing for accuracy whilst coyly suggesting that, "this is the unofficial truth from inside the company." It's one thing to make conjectures, to spout off and things like that. It is quite another to make a business out of what amounts to low-key libel. Apple's sales of the iPod shuffle according to one source I read may have been damaged because sites like ThinkSecret reported a price that Apple never claimed was possible and had no intention of selling at, thus creating an expectation that they themselves had never tried to create. That's not free speech, that's bordering on libel.

Re:Public Interest? -- Get off your horse now

[Awful Truth]

Of course someone has to decide what speech is protected and what isn't. A short list to refresh your memory: - Libel/Slander laws - False advertising claims - "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" Maybe it's not entirely free, but it's close enough.

Wait?

[NEOtaku17]

"Many news stories in the last few years never would have happened were it not for bloggers. The mainstream media made a killing reporting on things that were originally posted on blogs (the Dan Rather document comes to mind as a big example)."

Wait... your using the story Dan Rather ran about Bush as an example of a positive contribution of blogs to the mainstream media?

You do realize the documents were completely fake right?

apple

[Anonymous Coward]

IS FOR FAGS !!!
Oh.. AND IT'S DEAD! AND NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT !!

Important Stuff
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Re:Apple

[adzoox]

It's because Apple is right in this case ... contrary to what the reporters at these papers are saying ... there is no corporate scandal here, there is no health risk... plain and simple ... items were STOLEN from the Apple Campus and thenreported in opposition to the Uniform Trade Secret Act.

I suppose i wille flamebait and say ... besides ... the first ammendment was specifically written sothe public could have redress against the government and have the freedom to do so.

That said, if Apple were involved in corporate scandal or posing a health risk, those reporting WOULD have immunity because it would be an issue the government would have to address and impune.

For more on this issue, read:

Save Nick vs Save Apple ...

Re:Apple

[prockcore]

Items were STOLEN from the Apple Campus and thenreported in opposition to the Uniform Trade Secret Act.

Prove it. What proof do you have that anything was stolen? None. You cannot use "a hunch" to subpoena evidence.

Re:Apple

[MoneyT]

I can personaly say, it wouldn't matter if it was Microsoft, Pepsi, Nike or Baby Eaters Anonymous. Were the situation the same, I would believe the company to be enirely in the right.

Re:Apple

[unclethursday]

From the judgment: "For these reasons the Court has carefully reviewed the showing made by Apple to date. The posting by Mr. O'Grady contained an exact copy of a detailed drawing of "Asteroid" created by Apple. The drawing was taken from a confidential set of slides clearly labeled "Apple Need-to-Know Confidential." In addition, technical specifications were copied verbatim from the confidential slide set and posted on the online site. These postings by Mr. O'Grady were spread over three days, November 19, 22 and 23, 2004. The Court is convinced by Apple's presentation, including the materials produced in camera that this action has passed the thresholds necessary for discovery to proceed." Guess what, nimrod? You can't have access to copies of confidential paperwork unless you are able to see them with your own eyes. Therefore, someone made copies of something marked confidential, and disseminated it to the site in question. Since the documents and specifications and such are Apple property, and they ended up in someone else's hands, they were stolen. Maybe not physically stolen, but taking pictures of confidential material is still considered stealing when the material is in written format.

If you don't believe me, find a way to take pictures of some government paperwork clearly labeled confidential eyes only and disseminate them on the web... and find out how long it takes before the FBI breaks down your door and arrests you for theft of government property and possibly treason.

Re:Apple

[adzoox]

Ummm ... there were actual schematics, actual specifications, where the products were being produced and the entire supply chain for the product was revealed. ALL of this information was generated by Apple, for Apple, on Apple property. Any other use, beyond public announcement - is misuse of those business plans and therefore THEFT.

Please get it right. This isn't speech. Just because something is written down or on paper or online doesn't make it public property. These were business plans and schematics. It is NO DIFFERENT than Al Capone breaking in to a facility and stealing building schematics to break in to safes.

A simple example

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this. You, Mr. Joe Blow, get your taxes done professionally by some place like H&R block. You expect, and in fact agree, to submit your personal financial information under the terms that it remains confidential. Great. Super. You get your taxes done, a nice return, and go home.

A couple weeks later, you are browsing the web and stumble across a blog called "JoeBlowsTaxInfo" where many of the details you shared in confidence with H&R are now fully exposed on the web. Your annual income, your charitable donations, your retirement savings, etc. All there, fully exposed for anyone to read.

Ask yourself if the blogger, when asked by the courts, should have to name the person at H&R block that revealed this information to them.

Its the same friggin deal, and has nothing to do with journalism.

Re:A simple example

[dfghjk]

No, he should not. You can sue H&R if you like. It's their fault and their problem.

Journalists as professionals

[sellin'papes]

In fact, Journalist don't have to be professionals by defintion. By definition a Journalist is someone who "writes in periodicals". And a Periodical is simply a "publication issued at regular intervals". Finally, a Publication is "a writing of public concern, to be generally known".

By this definition the blogger would fall into the definition of journalist if the intentions of the blog were to display information of public concern, to be generally known, and written on a regular basis.

Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[projectVORTEX]

"For us, this case is about whether the First Amendment protects journalists from being turned into informants for the government, the courts or anybody else who wants to use them that way," Mr Tomlin said.

The issue here is that of sources. Apple is forcing, through court action, the identies of the sources in question. As the newspapers and the AP see it, this sets a dangerous precedent and one that is quite blurry. Up until now, the media has been protected from having to reveal its sources -- a guarantee that allows for better journalism (in their eyes at least) through the First Amendment. If the courts rule in favor of Apple, then everyone else and their brother can use this case as an example when they go after "unnamed sources" and journalists who have insider information on wrongdoings.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[White Roses]

Ah, and these bloggers had informants who had insider information on Apple wrongdoings, did they?

No. They didn't. Ergo, they are not protected.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[geekoid]

who said only wrng doings can be reported on? as long as it's not liable, it fair. It is not up to the person reporting a story to know all the contracts and agreements there source has agreed to.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm close to tears, finally someone who gets it.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

The law says it does, by only protecting information that is in the public interest. Even if you interpret this very very loosely to include something like wasting some tax money (instead of the obvious cases of outright fraud, or dumping chemicals, etc), there is still zero public interest in knowing what products Apple is coming out with in 2 months. There may be public curiousity, but that does not create legal protection for the information.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't "who have insider information on wrongdoings". It's insider information on product releases. Protections do and should exist for the former, I do not see how or why they should for the latter.

Re:Herein lies the crux of the matter...

[MoneyT]

Um, Journalists have NEVER been protected from having to reveal sources. In individual cases, such protection has been granted but there is no uniform blanket protection.

Blogger == Journalist? Y/N

[RobotRunAmok]

The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you.

And, if so, does the title of "blogger" also make one a journalist?

For my nickel, that's the issue with legs in this little fracas. If bloggers have all the rights and freedoms traditionally afforded journalists, do they have the attendant responsibilities as well? And if so, who is in charge of telling them exactly what those are? Moreover, if a blogger has all the freedoms and none of the responsibilities of a journalist, why in hell would any journalist worth his fedora ever elect to work for Big Established Media ever again?

RTFA

[pavon]

Eight US newspapers and the Associated Press agency have thrown their support behind three bloggers sued by Apple.

BBC is just reporting on the story.

what if They are evil?

[Moe Taxes]

The arguments defending these trade secret leaking journalists all seem to start with "What if an evil corporation ...", and then say nothing about Apple or the specifics of this case. Be careful, this kind of argument cuts both ways.

What if an evil journalist was getting paid by the competition? What if an evil journalist had a vendetta and wanted to inflict damage? What if an evil journalist solicited someone under an NDA to reveal trade secrets.

Corporations and journalists are equally likely to be crooks, and neither is entitled to a free pass. There is a reason that the balance scale is an icon for justice.

Re:what if They are evil?

[geekoid]

"What if an evil journalist was getting paid by the competition? "
they would get sued, and possible get tried.

"What if an evil journalist had a vendetta and wanted to inflict damage?"
thats called liable. there are laws against that.

"What if an evil journalist solicited someone under an NDA to reveal trade secrets."
it's not the jouralist responsibilty to know the details of everyones NDA. or if someone is even under one. it's up to the people who signed it to stick to there agreement.

When grey areas collide

[toounknown]

This whole thing is happening at the boundary of two huge grey areas: Journalistic Freedom and Trade Secrets.

In the past, companies would be happy to have free publicity, especially the positive kind. Viral marketing is just an upgrade to classic 'word of mouth' and is both free and effective. So, in this case, more benefit was probably done than harm.

If this escalates, soon anyone who writes non-official information about a product that discloses some features or product details may be sued for unofficially offering trade secrets to the public.

But I guess the patriarchy of corporations knows what is best for us after all.

Exactly what journalists are doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting information, writing about the information and making money with it.

So what exactly is your point here?

Stop Blogsphere discrimination now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which company has been convicted of being a monopoly and abusing their powers? I don't think its Apple... But you are right, Apple is evil for trying to enforce their trade secrets. Bloggers have rights too, and the blogsphere will not tolerate this discrimination!

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of techno-lusers who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity not being able to express in intricate detail what they had for dinner. But since the beginning of time, we must face the tragic fact that the blogger is still not free.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former corporations and the sons of former, well, living in their mother's basement, will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice, where bloggers are able to post whatever information they want. They should not be confined to such injustices as non-disclosure-agreements. They are pursuers of Freedom, bringing down The Man. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their character but by the content of their blog. I have a dream today.

Long live blogsphere!

News Flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

News! Flash!

Journalists circle the wagons when one of their own is in trouble. More on the story as it develops.

In other news, encyclopedia sellers insist that web sources like Wikipedia are unreliable.

Re:the BBC has just lost so much credibility with

[rking]

are they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies like worldcom.

No they are not. Nor are they saying that "Apple's DNA is innovation, and protection of trade secrets is crucial to [their] success."

They are quoting both sides in a case that they're reporting on.

FFS, the BBC is just reporting on a story

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't saying anything. RTFA, use your brain, remove head from ass.

"are they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies like worldcom"

No, neither the BBC who, did I already mention it, isn't saying anything, just reporting a story, nor those newspapers that are indeed saying something make that claim. Again, RTFA, use your brain, remove head from ass.

what sets legitimate journalists apart

[The Unabageler]

is that they are not supposed to feed rumour mills, they are supposed to report facts that are in the public interest. Trade secrets about a software release are not in the public interest unless the software is malicious. Send those bloggers to their blogging graves if you ask me. It appears that not even these so-called newspapers read the judge's opinion, that this is separate from scandalous fraud cases like worldcom and enron.

They're backing THESE Apple bloggers too...

[johnthorensen]

http://www.freefiona.com

As Steve Jobs, I would...

[emil]

...politely invite the journalists to my office (paying their expenses).

I would then politely ask to communicate with the leaker. I would promise no penalties in exchange for this.

Is it more important for Apple to punish or to understand and improve the process that failed to keep their secrets? The leak was not Apple's fault, but the process was.

In all things in life, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Corporate titans that trample individuals who cross them at every opportunity all end up paying in the end. All companies die, but some can do so very quickly.

I think that a few quarters of heavy losses would be an excellent way to get Apple's attention for their legal but reprehensible behavior.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[Anonymous Coward]

would then politely ask to communicate with the leaker. I would promise no penalties in exchange for this.

Apple did exactly what you wanted and the answer was no way.

Now what do you do? Sue? Walk away? What?

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[emil]

Apple did exactly what you wanted and the answer was no way. Now what do you do? Sue? Walk away? What?

Oh, I think that Steve Jobs has sufficient resources at his disposal to cajole names out of these people.

For heaven's sake, these are fan sites. If Jobs was willing to share the stage with DePlume for the introduction of imac v27, the name would probably be quickly forthcoming (especially with a promise of no retaliation).

This was Apple's mistake, and Apple will pay for it one way or another. Writing a big check and energizing your fans is the smart way to do it. Getting the EFF upset with you is not so smart.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[MoneyT]

So Apple should reward a crime/illegal act rather than persue the legal avenues open to them?

You do realize that if Apple did that, they would open DePlume and all the other "journalists" to being sued by their sources AND could potentialy open themselves up to lawsuits as well?

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing a big check and energizing your fans is the smart way to do it. Getting the EFF upset with you is not so smart.

ThinkSecret's lawyer would never let them accept payment from Apple as that would certainly make a pretty good case for blackmail. Besides, Apple wants to put a stop to this, not create another cottage industry.

The way you see this situation unfolding is exactly how the old tabloids did business. A "newspaper" would dig up or make up an unflattering photo or story about a politician or celebrity and then offer the opportunity to prevent the article from running for just a small fee. This was and still is blackmail.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[emil]

Well, everyone has to pick a side. As I type this into my beige g3[4], I'm comfortable that I haven't picked yours.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[Doctor_Jest]

Keep thinking that... your moral high ground, as it were. I can see by the thread that there is no convincing you of the situation.

To you, it's "EEEEVIL CORPORATION #120321309123" vs. "Super duper Little Guy!"

It's obvious you have blinders on, and if you're this inflexible when the facts do not bear you out, I can imagine you're just plain inflexible.

Apple/Microsoft/whoever. This is not anywhere NEAR the situation you paint it to be.... but hey, I'm just a person in a long line of people trying to convince you of that.

Type away... If it helps you sleep better at night, have at it. Just don't pretend you're right... because you're not.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[emil]

Type away... If it helps you sleep better at night, have at it. Just don't pretend you're right... because you're not.

It is neither you nor I who will determine who is right or wrong. Two forces will do this: the judiciary and the market.

The judiciary will try to find some enforcable logic that is fair to all.

The market is much less concered with "fair" - people are fickle, and, like me, take high offense at the slightest of provocations.

Apple has tied itself to the RIAA, which is going to die sooner or later. They'd best not step too close.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[Doctor_Jest]

Precisely what I was driving at, and yes, we are all fickle.. which is why I'm glad we don't get to make the decisions sometimes. (Though sometimes we do.)

I just strongly disagree that Apple is anywhere NEAR the RIAA.

They're not suing their customers. They're suing to get information. The RIAA is extorting money from its customers. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[emil]

I just strongly disagree that Apple is anywhere NEAR the RIAA. They're not suing their customers. They're suing to get information. The RIAA is extorting money from its customers. BIG DIFFERENCE.

• iTunes (loss to Apple) drives iPod sales (profit to Apple)
• iPod sales are now supposed to drive Mini Mac sales
• When this entire plan is enacted, it seems that a substantial percentage of Apple hardware sales will flow from the RIAA association with iTunes
• Both Apple and the RIAA are lawsuit-happy - Apple hits jobless college students, so does the RIAA

If it walks like a duck...

Re:As Steve Jobs, I would...

[Doctor_Jest]

You're not getting it.

Apple sued to get the names of the leakers.

the RIAA sues for extortion money. NOT the same. Poor college students PAY $$ to the RIAA to avoid being taken to court. Thinksecret would've never been sued if they'd given up the name of the Apple employee who leaked the info. Not even in small-claims court.

BIG DIFFERENCE. And if Thinksecret gave up their source of the leak, NO lawsuit. Can you say that about the RIAA? Nope. Not hardly.

Not even the same species. If you can't see that, well....

Completely fake

[MorePower]

You do realize the documents were completely fake right?

Um, that's the point. The fact that the documents were completely fake was revealed by a blog that put online comparisons of the CBS docs with the same document typed into MS Word.

Blogs were resonsible for exposing CBS

Re:Completely fake

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to say the same thing. I'm glad not everyone lacks basic reading comprehension.

Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

It is great and all to talk about how this is a case that deals with trade secrets, not freedom of speech, but I can't help but notice that time and time again all the Apple supporters consistently ignore that the judge they are so fond of quoting specifically said that he doesn't know if this material is actually a trade secret!

A trade secret is not any little piece of information a business decides it doesn't want to get out. Many businesses these days like to put up forums in lieu of giving a customer a phone number to contact, that doesn't make their phone number a trade secret. Many businesses like to keep pay of their employees confidential, that doesn't make your paycheck a trade secret.

A trade secret is an invention, process, or method that is vital to your business, and that you actively protect and to which you actively limit internal access. For example, a formula for some sort of beverage, might be a trade secret, however, if you post the formula in the break room of every bottling plant, then you can no longer expect protection of trade secret status for that formula, because you have failed to maintain secrecy. By the same token, it is HIGHLY unlikely that ANY marketing material (even internal marketing material) could be considered a trade secret. By its very nature, marketing material is practically in and of itself a violation of the very concept of a trade secret. Trade secret law is a subset of IP law that exists to protect highly sensitive information that is critical to the core business of a company. It is not a method by which the owner of a company is suppose to be able to sue someone for letting the public know his favorite color.

What is really at issue has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not a company is entitled to protect its trade secrets. If this were a clear trade secret, then there would be no debate. What is at issue here is whether or not a paranoid company can get away with trying to claim that every trivial piece of information generated in the day to day operations of their business, can be claimed as a trade secret any time they choose.

The ramifications of this are huge! It means that any celebrity could successfully sue for any rumor about them acting badly on the set, because how they act on the set is a trade secret. Any movie studio could sue anyone for passing rumors about an in-production movie, because that is a trade secret. Any software company could sue anyone publishing rumors about their development, because that is a trade secret. You are talking about completely standing our current model on its head, and shifting the balance of power to the company with a presumption that it is the reporter who must show some public good, rather than the company which must show some demonstrable harm.

Anyone who thinks that is a trivial change, is someone far too enamored of a single company to think rationally about this issue. There are a plethora of sites and publications (this one included) that would pretty much have to shut their doors if it is decided that a company can arbitrarily use trade secret protections for any information they choose, unless some grater public good can be demonstrated.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[prockcore]

The legal definition for a trade secret is below:

A formula, process, device, or item of information used by a business that has economic value because it is not generally known or easily discovered by observation or examination and for which reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy have been made

I don't think that disclosing the existence of soon-to-be-announced products qualifies.

But trade secret law doesn't even come into this.. Apple isn't claiming that anyone broke the law, trade secret or otherwise. They're claiming that someone violated an NDA. Only problem is that Apple has no proof that anyone violated an NDA.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[MoneyT]

Actually, if you had READ THE COURT RULING you would see Apple clearly demonstrated that they were trade secrets.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[MoneyT]

by the way, I think you need to read up on your definition of a trade secret:

(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[Enrique1218]

Well, your right in that this is not a case of trade secret being revealed. But, it is a case of the violation of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (a legally binding contract). This can have whatever Apple wants in it and is binding so long as the other party agrees. Since, the other party violated that NDA and these bloggers might be able identify that person. Apple can subpeona them to reveal the violator. Apple will in the end sue that person not the bloggers.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[ka-klick]

From TFJ:

For these reasons the Court has carefully reviewed the showing made by Apple to date. The posting by Mr. O'Grady contained an exact copy of a detailed drawing of "Asteroid" created by Apple. The drawing was taken from a confidential set of slides clearly labeled "Apple Need-to-Know Confidential." In addition, technical specifications were copied verbatim from the confidential slide set and posted on the online site. These postings by Mr. O'Grady were spread over three days, November 19, 22 and 23, 2004. The Court is convinced by Apple's presentation, including the materials produced in camera that this action has passed the thresholds necessary for discovery to proceed.

So, tell me again how this is NOT a trade secret? Not clear enough for you? How about from the conclusion section:

Let there be no doubt: nothing in this order is meant to preclude the exchange of opinions and ideas, speculation about the future, or analyses of known facts. The rumor and opinion mills may continue to run at full speed. What underlies this decision is the publishing of information that at this early stage of the litigation fits squarely within the definition of trade secret. The right to keep and maintain proprietary information as such is a right which the California legislature and courts have long affirmed and which is essential to the future of technology and innovation generally.

So, your point again, was???? Unlike you I have actually read the entire judgment, and have cited two sections here for those of you who are obviously too informed by the media (who seem to have a stake here) to feel the need to actually read the source material for themselves.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

Oh, I can, and have read the finding. What I seem utterly incapable of, is hacking it into unrecognizable chunks that fit my point while totally removing it from context, just to try to win an argument. For example, while you quote the end of the conclusion, you leave out the opening which puts this in context:

In this case, accepting for present purposes that Apple's allegations about trade secrets are true, the information divulged falls squarely under the UTSA and Penal Code 499c definitions. As such it 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.

Now maybe you don't know this, but if something is proven to be true, you don't start off with a disclaimer like "accepting for present purposes that Apple's allegations about trade secrets are true." A disclaimer like that specifically calls into question the veracity of the claim, but agrees to accept it for the present curcumstance. More to the point, you leave out the rather straightforward disclaimer at the beginning of the entire document which says:

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.

Never mind that though! Why don't you just go right ahead and pretend the judge said that Apple was right about it being a trade secret. The judge goes on to note in his finding, that the defense tacitly accepter that the information was a trade secret by not addressing the issue, therefore he was had little choice but to accept that it was for the purposes of this hearing. Now, maybe you are too busy searching for quotes that support your position to think about how this adds up, so let me do it for you. Typically, when the judge feels the need to quote the litigants arguments in his finding, it is tantamount to him saying "hey, dummy, this is where you messed up!" In fact, the judge does everything in this finding he can to make it clear that he thinks Apple's argument that this is a trade secret is weak. Unfortunately, since it was never contested in this hearing, he had to accept it, without granting any weight to it, thus the opening disclaimer.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

If that is the case, then why is there not a single mention of any NDA in any of the findings? No, Apple could not have obtained a sopbnea to get the information they wanted by just claiming an NDA had been broken. Had they claimed that this was just an issue of an NDA being broken, then the burden of proof would have been on them, and they would have had to have found out who broke it themselves.

Apple specifically invoked the trade secrets law, because it gave them a heavier hand to play with. They are trying to claim that this is information that falls into a rarified clas of intellectual property, which gives them special protections beyond that offered by simply having someone sign an NDA.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[diamondsw]

Ahem, technical schematics and presentations for products in development don't count as trade secrets? Then what the hell does?

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

To put it in perspective, the formula for Coke is a trade secret, whether or not they are thinking about making an 18-pack, or what next years Christmas 12-pack packaging is going to look like isn't. Just because a company wishes to keep something under wraps, that doesn't automatically make it a trade secret. A technical schematic could be a trade secret, but the fact that it is a technical schematic doesn't automatically make it a trade secret. For it to be a trade secret, you must be able to demonstrate both that it is of vital importance that your competitors not have access to the information, and that you have taken extraordinary efforts to keep it secret. In this case, it would be very hard to demonstrate that there was any information contained in the leaked documents that gave any demonstrable edge to Apple's competitors. In fact, there really isn't any demonstrable evidence that there was any damage done at all, except for some bruised egos. The big difference here is that there is plenty of civil IP law that protects a company's right to enforce their confidential information in civil court. Apple chose to jump right over all of that, and go straight to trade secret law, which deals with criminal theft. You can be fired or sued for violating your NDA, however, you can go to jail for stealing a trade secret.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[diamondsw]

I stand corrected - thank you for the illuminating post. :)

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[confidential]

A trade secret is an invention, process, or method that is vital to your business, and that you actively protect and to which you actively limit internal access.

An invention vital to apple's business that they are actively protecting because it is being solicited from those who are in the limited internal access... Wonder where that fits in with the court case...

IIRC (and I may not, so please do correct me if I'm wrong) the sites in question were sued for disclosing information on the abilities and specifications of unreleased Apple products and goods. It would be one thing, as you say, to leak out "Apple is going to market product in this way" but quite another to say "Apple's unreleased product foo will have feature set bar, baz, xyzzy" that may give other companies time to respond and harm Apple's bottom line.

I haven't really been paying all that much attention to the case because I've always assumed the above. Again, if this is incorrect, please let me know.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

Well, if all of IP law and trade secret law could be summed up in one sentence, we wouldn't need all these overpriced lawyers, would we?

Look, a trade secret is traditionally something for which you would normally seek a patent but which you do not wish the disclosure of a patent, because it is too sensitive to let out of your company. Product information, specs, packaging design, and internal marketing material typically do not fit this definition. That sort of information getting out might mess up your brilliantly thought out marketing plan, but it doesn't put you business in jeopardy. Furthermore, it really has no value in and of itself, which is another requirement of a trade secret. I assure you that Apple would find it impossible to prove in court that there was anything in those documents that represented any kind of new advance in manufacturing, or design that took away their exclusive position in the market. No one at Dell read the offending articles said "Oh my god, that's it! Now I see how they are actually getting a bigger hard drive in their mp3 player! we have been stuck on that for months, but now we see how it works!"

That sort of information is certainly confidential (if Apple chooses to call it such), and Apple has plenty of civil options to protect the confidentiality of said information. Unfortunately, in a civil proceeding they must first prove who leaked the information, and then prove that it did harm. If they can prove both of those things, then they can seek damages from the person who breached their confidentiality agreement. However, Apple choose to pursue the trade secret route, which deals with this as a criminal theft, and is meant to be applied to HIGHLY sensitive information, that could ruin your business if it got out. Things like chip designs, source code, formulas, and other materials that are VITAL to your (or your competitors) ability to do business. I stress vital, because there is a big difference between vital and convenient. It might make your product easier to market if you control absolutely all information about it, and strategically release it as you see fit, but it is not vital to your business that you do so.

Taking it out of the tech sector for a second, to try and better illustrate what I mean, if a magazine were to get a leak that Ford were working on a zero-emissions car that used a completely new type of powertrain based on a hydrogen fuel cell, and proceeded to show drawings of the car, and a list of features, likely no trade secret law would have been violated, even though obviously someone had broken their NDA. However, if the same magazine ran a detailed article on the inner working of the hydrogen fuel cell, and diagrams that showed how to build one, most likely there would have been a violation of trade secrets law.

One more quick example. If a magazine runs an article on some revolutionary new animation system being used at a company like ILM, complete with screenshots and a complete feature list, once again someone obviously broke an NDA, but their is probably not a breach of trade secrets law. However, if that same magazine then put the source code for that animation system up on their website, or ran snippets of it in the magazine, there would almost certainly have been a breach of trade secrets law.

The problem with this case, is that Apple is intentionally abusing trade secret law to get what it wants, but the other side is so wrapped up in trying to legitimize blogs as journalism, and pursuing first amendment issues, that they aren't even addressing the abuse of trade secret law. This could set a dangerous precedent allowing companies to dramatically widen the definition of what a trade secret is, thus setting up an environment where companies could start pressing criminal charges against their employees for breaking their NDAs on trivial matters.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[ka-klick]

OK, so you're spending all your time reading between the lines. Fine. It's all interpretation at this stage of this discussion, so let me clue you in to mine: What you just highlighted is simply referring to the fact that this is a ruling on a discovery issue. As such he's simply saying "I'm not making a final ruling here" because he's not. You seem to purposely ignore the last sentence of the quote I put in earlier:

The Court is convinced by Apple's presentation, including the materials produced in camera that this action has passed the thresholds necessary for discovery to proceed.

And really that's what counts, not little nuances that you interpret to mean that this isn't a trade secret. The judge is clearly convinced enough to let Apple have what it wants at this stage, no matter what you want to believe. Also, if TS had a real case on the trade secrets front - they should have brought it not pranced around with this "journalist" red-herring. Journalist or no, they clearly got slammed to the mat here (which is why they're appealing).

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[ka-klick]

OK, adding another reply, since you got me to re-read it again. Having done so, it's glaringly clear that the judge is simply referring to the fact that this is a narrow ruling on a single discovery motion (that TS tried to stop uncontested compliance by it's email provider to a subpoena). Remember this is ultimately NOT a case "against" TS or any other blogger, it is against 25 "John Does". First, let's expand the context of the little jewel you brought in from the beginning of the ruling:

I. LIMITS OF THIS RULING
This motion is about discovery; namely, a single subpoena served by Apple on Nfox. 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 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.

Sort of makes it a bit clearer doesn't it?

Also, if the judge "wasn't buying" Apple's trade secret claims, why did he say they DID make a "prima facie" case several times?

Discovery is given a broad reach in California courts; at the same time the courts have frequently balanced competing interests in this regard, for example, individual privacy rights. See Witkin, Summary of California Law, (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law 456-473, pages 642-660. But, as discussed infra, the Court does find that Apple has made out a prima facie case that the information at issue constituted proprietary trade secrets and that it has taken adequate steps by way of internal investigations to justify further, external discovery as it seeks here.

and:

This is not a defamation case, and movants do not believe this factor is pertinent. In any event, the Court finds that Apple has made a prima facie case of misappropriation and this is yet another reason to allow discovery.

prima facie

Part of Speech:
adverb/adjective

Definition:
on the face of it

Synonyms:
appearing, at first sight, at the first blush, evidential

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[lmlloyd]

Um... Here is a bit more legalistic definition of prima facie:

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning "at first sight," used in Common law regions to denote a case that is strong enough to justify further discovery and possibly a full trial. For example, being found standing near a dead gunshot victim with a smoking gun in your hand would establish a prima facie case for murder. Prima facie is often confused (even by legal scholars) with res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the legal doctrine which establishes that the evidence on its own is sufficient to establish the fact in question unless it is explicitly rebutted by other evidence or mitigating circumstances.

You are clearly confusing prima facie with res ipsa loquitur. Prima facie implies no real validity to the claim, but rather just says that upon first glance is reasonable enough to allow the case to go further. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that just as valid a translation of prima facie, would be "shallow." Of course "the Court finds that Apple has made a shallow case of misappropriation..." doesn't really forward you agenda very well, does it?

I am not reading anything between the lines. This is English, not some obscure foreign language that needs to be carefully translated! Every statement of the validity of the claim is bracketed by disclaimers saying that none of this is to be used to evaluate the validity of the claim, but rather just for the sake of argument in this specific instance. That isn't some clever divination of the judges mental process through deconstruction of his childhood or anything, it is what is written on the page in black and white.

By the same token, the judge specifically admonishes the defense council for having nothing to say in either their prepared brief, or in their oral statement. Once again, no subjective slight of hand here, but rather a black and white observation of what is written on the page. The only point where I used any actual supposition whatsoever was in saying that judges usually don't admonish attorneys unless they think they did something wrong. I don't think that is really much of a stretch, since that is true about just about everyone.

No, I have no real problem saying that I'm not really "reading between the lines" here, but rather evaluating the document as a whole, rather than picking and choosing the parts of it that say what I want. You yourself quote "...it cannot and should not be read or interpreted more broadly" and then turn right around and say that it proves that this is actually a trade secret. I would say that goes beyond reading between the lines, and straight into creative reinterpretation to support an already decided point of view.

Re:Not everything is a trade secret!

[ka-klick]

OK, I'll grant that this is not a deep (or final) judgment. What I AM saying is (pending appeal) that the judge bought it well enough for Apple's purposes. They won. The whole case has not been decided, but as far as TS goes, they're done, since their only involvement here was as a movant seeking to stop one part of Apple's discovery process. The judge said NO. What I'm trying to say is that he bought it enough for Apple to win this round - I really don't get any admonishment from any of this toward Apple, just a judge being careful to say this is not the end of the day. I think we're practically at a middle ground here.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the case, why are you here maxpublic? Unless you are like the Cynic, Diogenes; who knows he is damned, but because he knows it is slightly less damned than the unenlightened.

Hahaha.

[Aldric]

The likes of the BBC weighing in on the side of the bloggers will hurt Apple much more in the long run than whatever benefit they gained from the lawsuit.

This has to have ruined Steve's day!

All rights have limitations

[Enrique1218]

I have always accepted that my rights are not limitless and are subordinate to greater good of the public . This fact has been upheld time and time again in the courts. For instance, one can't insight sedition against the governement or start a riot even though they would claim free speech. Moreover, federal and state governments limit the use of assault weapons and explosives even though some would argue the second admendment. Just as there is limits those rights, the same can be apply to freedom of the press. In fact that is the case because news organizations can be held accountable for libel. Moreover courts should limit journalism ability to publish trade secrets so long as they are not in the public interests. In Apple's case, the releash date or specifications of the Mac Mini has no ill effect on the public at large unlike the fraudulant price fixing commited by Enron executives that robbed the public of billions. Logically, without this limitiation, the public's interest would be undermine in that the door would be open for industrial espionage. That scenario would undermine US companies and puts them at a disadvantage to foreign competition.

Now we need to put the newspaper's stance in perspective. Just as the NRA goes to great length to expand the freedom of bearing arms even at probable detriment of public safety, the news organizations go to great effort to expand their right without regard to public good. It analgous to basic negotiation strategy where you ask for way more than need without regard to anything else so as not to leave you in bad position when all is decided

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act

[dafz1]

Apple is enforcing their rights under the the Uniform Trade Secrets Act(UTSA). Here's the pertinent parts of that law.

(1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.
(2) "Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

1. TradeSecret induced breach of the NDA(or a duty to maintain secrecy), by asking readers for Apple Secrets. Go to their webpage, and click on the "Got Dirt?" link.

2. Misappropriation - ThinkSecret had reason know the information was "acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use."

3. ThinkSecret would qualify as "a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity."

4. Finally, as defined by the UTSA, Project: Asteroid "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

Is Apple wrong for using the law? Apple is entitled to the protections of law, just as much as I am. Is the UTSA unconstitutional? That's for the courts to decide.

Re:The Uniform Trade Secrets Act

[darilon]

4. Finally, as defined by the UTSA, Project: Asteroid "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

I believe you are quite possibly incorrect in interpereting part 4. Disclosing trade secrets regarding how a project works internally is much different than revealing that a project exists. I believe it would be very difficult to prove damages to Apple in this case. JMHO and IANAL.

bad move for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, yes I understand that technically the law doesn't protect these bloggers.

However, I think this is a huge mistake for Apple to persue, and I'm sad to see so many Apple fanboys (I count myself as one, without hesitation) defending Apple on this one.

This is not the time to be suing bloggers. Much of Apple's buzz comes from the internet and bloggers. This is just bad PR. I hope Apple quietly backs away from this. There's not much to gain from this except maybe the name of the guy they need to fire, and there's plenty to lose. Between this and iTunes DRM, you can see the "shades of evil" starting to form on Apple's image. If they do a few more things like this, they will lose a lot of respect from people like me. Sure, I'll buy their products, but I'll only love the products, not the company.

So please Apple, just drop this nonsense. Tell your lawyers not to say things like "bloggers aren't legitimate journalists". If you believe bloggers aren't legit journalists, why do you believe open source is legit software?

On another note, I find it amusing that the "real" journalists are suddenly backing the bloggers when just a few months ago they were writing about how bloggers have no integrity and aren't reliable and aren't "legitimate journalists". Heh.

Apple

[had3l]

I am not trying to be flaimebait here, but as I see it, most people here are actually taking Apple's side.

Now, is that because you are biased towards Apple? Would this case get this much support from slashdot readers if the company requiring people to open their e-mail records was, say Microsoft?

I do believe trade secrets should be protected, but that is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is the freedom of the press to publish information.

The judge's decision has nothing to do with blogs

[JoeBuck]

If this judge's decision stands, it applies to all journalists. What he's saying is that if a company claims (not proves, just claims) that a trade secret has been revealed, courts will then compel journalists to reveal the corporate snitches. A drug company sits on a study that says their drug kills people, and some internal scientist leaks it to the press? Under this decision, the journalist who publishes it either must rat out the scientist or go to jail. Nothing in the judgment said anything about separate rules for bloggers; the decision would apply to any reporter.

"interest of the public" vs. "public interest"?

[MorePower]

Why does the judge feel the the "public interest" is somehow limited to heath and safety concerns or criminal activity?

Apple wants to keep new products a secret because it is part of their business strategy. If people knew about upcoming new products, they might, for exaple, delay buying a new iPod six months to wait for the new model to come out. Fine, that defines Apple's interest in keeping the secret. Apple benifits financially from the secret.

But what about me? I want to minimize my spending and get the most value for my purchases. Apple keeps the secret from me so that I will make inferior buying decisions out of ignorance. Apple's finacial benifit comes from my financial loss.

My personal finances are definately central to my wellbeing in this society so I would say anything that could save me money is of vital interest to me. And I'm a member of the general public, so I'd say this is a "public interest". Why does Apple's right to try to maximize its profits outway my right to try to minimize my expeditures?

Re:"interest of the public" vs. "public interest"?

[Karhgath]

Haha. Yeah, sure, the 'I want it free' generation. With your argument, the following would be in the public's interest:

Some guy steals(inside or outside job) the source code of Windows, give it to a journalist and the journalist publish the code. Since, for the consumer, it would prevent them from having to buy windows, they save money, so it's in the public's interest.

Now, the argument above is loaded, because the name is microsoft, but think about any corp. that you like and respect that sells a product. Also, the example is different because it deals with Copyrights (the code). Then again, your argument doesn't care that whether or not it's a Trade Secret so mine doesn't either.

Hell, paying no income taxes is in the public's interest since you lose less money! Down with the Man!

It's not black and white like: you win, it's ok, you lose, it's not. You probably feel entitled to download mp3, right?

A trade secret is a trade secret, not a whistle blowing case. Trade secrets need to be enforced, or else it wouldn't mean anything. Since apple doesn't have any wrong doing in this case, the protection of the source doesn't apply if it's a Trade Secret. The judge, however, still isn't sure if it's a Trade Secret or not, and this point isn't clear cut. If it's not a Trade Secret, there is no reason to reveal the source.

This is the real case.

Re:"interest of the public" vs. "public interest"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the silliest reasoning I've ever heard. Think about Coke; wouldn't it be a lot better for your financial well-being if Coke's secret recipe weren't so secret? It's not protected by any copyright or patent; it's a trade secret protected by NDAs. Coke definitely charges more for the drink that would, say, a generic soft-drink maker. Coke benefits financially from the secret, whereas you suffer. Does that mean that it's in the "public interest" for a journalist to convince an employee to break an NDA and publish Coke's recipe?

HELL NO! There is no such thing as a "right to know" unless somehow something interferes with your rights. Minimizing your expenditures is not a right. Keeping contracts you make enforced, on the other hand, IS a right. The employee broke a signed, legal contract, and it is within Apple's right to know who did it so that that employee can be published.

Interesting question: classified?

[mveloso]

That's an interesting comment: is it illegal to publish classified documents?

I mean, if the government classifies a document, isn't that binding on government folks only?

Re:Interesting question: classified?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time the pentagon papers were published there was no law covering the release or publication of classified information.

There have been many attempts to create in the US an equivalent to the British Official Secrets Act, which would criminalize both the release and publication of classified information. Clinton vetoed a a similar law during his presidency. I believe any law like this would be blatantly unconstitutional.

In the seventies, Covert Action Journal published articles "outing" CIA agents written by an ex CIA agent Philip Agee. In response, congress passed a law making the it a crime to reveal the name of a current agent by a government official. This is the same law being applied in the Valerie Plame case. I also believe this law is blatantly unconstitutional.

So the short answer to your question is no with a but or yes with an if.

Re:Interesting question: classified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, treason is still a crime punishable by death (the only crime, BTW, explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution)

it's up for grabs in newspapers too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" was recently held in contempt of court.

The difference isn't the press gets off scott free, the difference is they know they might have to take the bite for it. The blogger is being treated the same as the press.

In addition, I find it distressing that the court put out an informed, elaborate opinion that explains the difference between Enron and this case, and people just ignore it.

As was said, "an interested public isn't the same as the public interest". Whistleblowing is in the public interest, just spilling corporate secrets isn't the same. And this ruling doesn't cover whistleblowers, only those who traffic in trade secrets simply for the money/juice/glory, not in the public interest.

And a trade secret isn't the same as a patent or copyright. For starters, patented things aren't secret and copyrighted items typically are not either. Patents and copyrights are to protect non-secret info. It's a totally different thing.

New Media more like colonial media, actually

[alexhohio]

Colonial papers, like Ben Franklin's, almost never had a run over 500 copies, usually much fewer. Modern Journalism is corporate- look who owns all the big papers and TV/Radio outlets. So what we are saying, is bloggers, the modern Ben Franklins and Tom Paines, have no protection, but GE, who owns NBC, can say what they want? That is all mixed up. If you are a journalist, you work for a corporation, is that what we are saying?

Wait til the RIAA uses this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that once this is standard practice. The issuance of subpoena for trade secrets can be misused. And how many will think twice when the RIAA come knocking on your door.

WhatMeWorry!

Grunge didn't die

[geekoid]

it just got a new pair of pants,and a nice shirt.

Maybe you'd like a do-over?

[sleepingsquirrel]

Any random person cannot have a newspaper, nor can they distribute things like print flyers/pamplets, or spoken word, anywhere *near* as widely or as quickly as a the internet.

You are aware that you can speak to a reporter at a newspaper without owning the newpaper, right? But I digress. We wouldn't be having this conversation if your original post wasn't completely without content. A "first post!" would have been more entertaining.

Re:Maybe you'd like a do-over?

[daveschroeder]

You are aware that you can speak to a reporter at a newspaper without owning the newpaper, right?

And *again* you demonstrate your ability to completely not understand the situation.

A "newspaper" is typically going to have a much higher standard for what's published, in terms of general interest. E.g., the Chicago Tribune isn't going to publish internal Apple slides about Asteroid, even if tipped off, because it doesn't meet a particular muster. A website can be created easily and quickly exclusively for that purpose, and distribute the information globally instantaneously. So suddenly it becomes easy to leak any and all secret information to an interested audience, whereas before it required work, and a channel for the publication. Putting a flyer up on a telephone pole has a limited audience, and a newspaper, even a local rag, or trade press isn't guaranteed to publish, either. But any number of web sites, because of the ease with which they are established and their instant global reach, will publish anything you give them. The point is that if all web sites are protected as "journalists", no matter the content and no matter whether it is in the public interest, then anyone can leak confidential company information at will with no fear of punishment by simply approaching a web site. The distinction is not that it's any more or less easy to leak it to a web site than it is to a newspaper; this distinction is that by leaking it to a web site, like Think Secret, it will actually *get published to the masses*, whereas by leaking Asteroid information to the New York Times, it will not. The medium itself isn't the distinction; it's the fact that, since anyone can instantly set up a web page and call it a "blog", with great ease, any confidential information can be easily published.

Just admit you completely missed this point and were therefore sadly wrong.

Re:Maybe you'd like a do-over?

[sleepingsquirrel]

And *again* you demonstrate your ability to completely not understand the situation.

Oh, I understand the situation, but you seem to be reading a great deal more into my words than I put there. I was merely commenting on the fact that your original post was pretty frivolous (not to mention that it is a misrepresentation of the newpapers position). The media in which the stolen information apprears doesn't matter. The fact that it may or may not be seen by millions of people doesn't matter. The question about whether or not the people involved are *really* journalists doesn't matter. In fact, I really don't give a rats ass about what happens to the perps. You might want to try not being so defensive. Hell, the comment I'm replying to is about 20x more interesting than the original comment that got a +5 Insightful and started this whole thread in the first place.

hat fine line as been pinpointed

[geekoid]

"I am an ardent backer of free journalism, but I see this case pushing a very fine line. Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?"

In the library, there are Fiction and non-fiction section.
"Journalism"(which is a fancy word for writing truths down and selling it) would be non-Fiction.

Re:the BBC has just lost so much credibility with

[prockcore]

re they seriously saying that the leaking of product information (against a contract) is the same thing as being a whistle blower against illegal actions by companies

Goddammit, Think! We don't know that there is a contract violation, we don't know that anyone involved was under an NDA. Neither does Apple!

The BBC is against issuing subpoenas forcing journalists to reveal their sources so that Apple can determine *if* someone broke the law.

This is the very definition of a fishing expedition.

assuming

[geekoid]

they don't talk about it, post that they did it in any company email. There are other avenues.

People who do this almost always leave a trail.

Hardware has been leaked through newspapers for years.
Mattel had a model of a stealth fighter years before it's existence was no longer classified. pretty damn accurate model to.

My point is, this is not a new debate, there are mechinism in place to handle it, but since it deals with a computer everyone thinks it's new.

Re:Company's Responsibility?

[cait56]

So it is your responsibility to make certain that your computer isn't stolen?

And any fence who bought it with a freshly wiped drive from someone who wasn't the registered owner of the device, and bought it in an alley for cash, is totally blameless?

It's against the law to knowingly receive stolen property. Period. That clearly applies here.

There is a legitimate to protect journalists who receive stolen information that is legitimately in the public interest to have revealed. The Pentagon Papers would be the obvious example.

But the press, whether print or electronics, should be expected to have at least a good faith believe that they are exposing something that is in the public's interest to be disclosed.

Are any of these media companies arguing that they don't have a right to have trade secrets?

The material delivered in this case was clearly confidential, and clearly Apple was doing nothing wrong in concealing it.

If the press is given blanket immunity to distribute any and all confidential information the result will be to keep information more secret with corporations. That will make it easier for unscrupulous executives to cheat the employees, stockholders and/or the public in general.

Re:The judge's decision has nothing to do with blo

[PureCreditor]

> A drug company sits on a study that says their drug kills people, and some internal scientist leaks it to the press? Under this decision, the journalist who publishes it either must rat out the scientist or go to jail.

Emm....not really. A scientist who leaks such information is in the "public's interest" and therefore IS protected by free speech, similar to whistler-blower protections. You're drawing an incorrect analogy here.

Motives

[halcyon1234]

BIG MEDIA: "Yes, let us give our full support to the bloggers. We fully believe that they should be allowed to do anything they want... especially those things that get them sued and taken offline. Die, bloggers, die! Mwhahahahahahah!"

psst...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you BitTorrent that vid?

Re:So....

[maxpublic]

Because I enjoy exposing the hypocritical shits for what they are, that's why. Hey, if that bothers you then don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Max

Publish trade secrets here

[salemlb]

Let me put it this way....

If you support Apple, you agree that NDA are binding and that breaking a NDA is breaking the law. You further agree that journalists should be allowed to protect criminals.

If you support the bloggers, you agree that NDAs are not binding and that breaking an NDA is not breaking the law. The Journalist/crime thing does not come into play, as you do not see a crime.

If you support the Journalists, you agree that regardless of the presence or lack of a crime or trade secret, Journalists should be allowed to publish anything, anytime, anywhere, and not have to ever reveal any sources, ever, for any reason, to anyone.

So... all those who support the bloggers and are under an NDA, please post all the information covered by that NDA here... since clearly you feel that all that information is part the right of the public and it is the job of the company to cut off your fingers and rip out your tongue so you couldn't tell anyone what is covered by the NDA. Otherwise, the company didn't really care... right? So... all you 'Apple is wrong' people, start posting! I know none of you are hypocrits... I can't wait to see what juicy info you have that is covered by NDAs to disclose!

Slashdot the MegaCorp supporter????

[Anonymous Coward]

This is strange. Suddenly a lot of Slashdoters is strongly supporting a huge Corp releasing their lawyers at some little guys' rumor website (who btw has a case supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if anybody left here remembers them :)

What's next, turning on our old hero DVD-Jon for doing to itunes exactly what he did to DVD (making content you have bought playable on Linux, eg. platform of choice), oh.. wait, we already did that.

self.interest

[TheSHAD0W]

The traditional news industry dislikes blogging. They'd really like it to go away. But in the end they recognize that traditional media is becoming the way of the future. While a precedent limiting the freedoms of the bloggers may slow this process down a bit, it wouldn't prevent it, and these businesses know such precedents could be used against them once they're forced online to compete head-on with the independents. Therefore it's in their best interests to oppose setting such a precedent.

Re:The judge's decision has nothing to do with blo

[MoneyT]

Wow, you didn't actualy READ THE COURT RULING at all did you? If you did, you would have noted the court is all about PROOF, and you would have noticed that something which serves the PUBLIC INTEREST (such as a DEADLY drug) would still be protected. But then again, this is slashdot, why would I expect anyone to READ THE COURT RULING

Google for "whistleblower protection"

[dr.badass]

Quoth the FA: Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.

The sources rights are protected, not the sources secrecy.

"Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public," said the brief.

OSHA has this nice little PDF entitled Whistleblowers and Corporate Fraud that basically explains in one page what virtually all of the reporting on this case (not to mention comments on Slashdot) ignores : that the legal protections afforded in those other cases do not apply to this case.

A dead monkey with no brains at all could see that Appe v. Rumor Sites has nothing to do whistleblowing, the first amendment, or bloggers-v.-journalists.

Re:the BBC has just lost so much credibility with

[mike518]

ive been inside apple and i can tell you EVERYONE signs a non-disclosure contract. everyone from the assosciates in the stores, the guys at R&D and contractors, EVERYONE with inside info.

Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's legions of 13-year-old fangirls are out in force today. Its nice to have a little rationality.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[dmarcoot]

so, rather than a making a reasoned counter argument you offer belittlement of "fan girl and original content such as "mod parent up"?

wow, your right, your post is so much more mature, interesting and unbiased.

Simple.

[ColMustard]

You can't compare it to Enron et al. That's just silly. Companies have rights to privacy and Enron couldn't have been prevented unless they are arguing that companies should have no privacy? Barring the fact that corporations simply shouldn't be scandalous, of course. Otherwise it's an entirely different issue.

Bloggers are not journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless a blogger is a journalist by profession they should not be protected.

Imagine a world where where every Tom, Dick and Harry are protected from testifying for anything.

This would be a free ticket for everyone to be totally and completely indemnified as long as their communication were by method of blogging.

Ridiculous.

Anybody considering even consdering this should consider donating their brain to science.

Re:Bloggers are not journalists

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person is telling the truth, and not otherwise breaking the law (Giving out valid CC details etc) then that is EXACTLY how it should be!

A person should only be bothered by the law if they are disclosing personal information or other already illegal forms of info or are slandering. But if someone gives out truthful information then OF COURSE they should be protected from legal harassment!

It's rediculous that you could possibly think otherwise. Maybe you need that brain doners hot line yourself...

Zonk is a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot editor requirements must be pretty low. First "The day of receiving unsolicited coupons for your next latte as you walk by a Starbucks is one step closer" (not supported by the article in the slightest), and now "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public..." (nevermind there is no "public interest" to be served here).

Did he write the submissions? No. Did he choose to publish flamebait for front-page comment? Hell yes.

Re:Blogger == Journalist? Y/N

[shmlco]

...why in hell would any journalist worth his fedora ever elect to work for Big Established Media ever again?

Paycheck.

This reminds me....

[Khyber]

Of when I worked for a small company that Apple outsourced it's laptop repair work to. I loved reading on Apple's letter to their customers that "All work performed on Apple laptops is done by Apple certified technicians," then I look around and start counting people that actually had Apple certifications. Out of the 20 people on the floor, maybe 5 of those people were actually Apple certified, (and no, I am not Apple certified.) Maybe someone should sue Apple for misleading their customers with false claims?

Re:This reminds me....

[taboo959]

Orrrr....perhaps Apple should sue the company that you used to work for for not fulfilling their contract obligations.

In all likelihood, the repair company's contract stated that only the people with certs should have been touching Apple machines.

Yes, I agree that it's possible the contract said no such thing, but this is just as likely (well, more likely IMO) as your assertion that Apple was lying.

Re:This reminds me....

[Khyber]

Reading copies of the procedure manual for this company I worked for (I always keep hard copies of my files, for reference in resumes, etc) [Paraphrase} Only Apple certified technicians may work on Apple laptops.

And here I am, no certification, holding cmd+n on bootup to install OS images on RMA requests and taking out Airport cards and RAM if necessary to force the system to boot to network.

You wouldn't happen to know of a number I could call to inform Apple of this mistrustful company, would you?

Re:This reminds me....

[taboo959]

Hehe. I suspected it might be something like that.

Off-hand I don't know of a contact, but if you're really serious about it, I would expect Apple's website to have the info readily available, probably here http://www.apple.com/contact/ or linked from that page. Even a general message to service would likely get to the right person.

I do know that they will take any contact about it quite seriously, as they've had problems with both resellers and service centers doing things improperly in the past....s'why that rule is there. :)

No absolute right

[Swift2001]

Free speech is absolute: "Congress shall make no law.." But no right is absolute. You can't commit libel or slander. You can't scream obscenities in a schoolyard. Commercial speech is not on as high a level as political speech. Otherwise, you could never have a "do not call" list for junk calls. And this is straight trade secret territory. More than that, whoever leaked this stuff from the inside must have signed an agreement not to leak such specific info that turned out to be almost exactly true. Apple has a right to fire that guy's ass, if not go after him for damages. In the Pentagon Papers, the public's right to know what was contained in the report outweighed no matter how many "Top Secret" stamps there were on it, because it exposed the government's thinking about Vietnam, and that contradicted what they had told us for at least a decade. So the Times had a right to print it. But in this case, there's no public interest served by knowing the details of the Mac mini a week or so ahead of time. But Apple legitimately doesn't want this employee free to leak something truly damaging to a competitor; and he (or she) has already shown himself to be less than honest.

Re:the BBC has just lost so much credibility with

[mike518]

hey moderator, thanks for giving me "troll" for responding to what the guy said... dont worry about rating this, i wont post anymore. this is getting so dumb.