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?

[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:Where does it stop?

[XxtraLarGe]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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 ...