Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers

Posted by Zonk on from the friends-in-high-places dept.

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..."

5 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Public Interest? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Public Interest? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. First Sign that Blogging is Dead by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Just like when grunge died.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  3. The Difference... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights... by fussili · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.