Apple vs Bloggers

Moby Cock writes "Jason O'Grady has posted a story on his ZDNet blog detailing the state of the current legal trouble he is embroiled in with Apple. He views it as another salvo in Apple's efforts to stamp out rumour sites posting 'trade secrets' prior to the official announcements. The discussion becomes rather pointed and goes as far as to suggest that the case is really a case in support of freedom of the press." From the article: "At issue was a series of stories that I ran in October 2004 about an upcoming product that was in development. Was it the next great PowerBook? Maybe the a red hot iPod? Maybe a killer new version of the OS? Nah. The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.' Yawn."

Comments

Its still illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"...yawn.".

Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.

Re:Its still illegal

[amliebsch]

It's not illegal. If anything, he would be liable for getting someone under confidence or NDA to breach. But the reporting itself should be fine.

Re:Its still illegal

[burndive]

It's not illegal.

Yes. It is.

Re:Its still illegal

[Elwood P Dowd]

But it isn't a trade secret once your employee tells it to a reporter. Right?

Re:Its still illegal

[amliebsch]

The only possible offense could be that he received or attempted to receive a trade secret that he knew to be stolen - which probably could not be proven and which is not what Apple is suing him over. Anyways, there's still no prohibition on publication, which is what I was referring to.

Re:Its still illegal

[mctk]

The question is whether Steve Jobs authorized the leak. Cause then it's not a leak. Well, it is still a leak, but not one of those illegal kind. But then, of course, reporting it would be encouraged, cause, remember, it's not really a leak (the illegal kind, that is).

Re:Its still illegal

[Overly Critical Guy]

Wrong, it means the employee violated the law too.

Re:Its still illegal

[Achromatic1978]

And your medical information is no longer privileged when your doctor tells his wife. Right?

Or your lawyer his. Right?

Thought not.

Re:Its still illegal

[Firehed]

But surely rumors about a true video iPod or vanilla MacBook aren't trade secrets, just theoretical upcoming product releases, right? It's not as if Think Secret et al are posting how to reverse-engineer iTMSv6 FairPlay, which most definately would be a trade secret, not to mention DMCA violation. While I can't say I love Apple protecting release info like they do, they have every right to do so, but calling release data 'trade secrets' to make rumor sites illegal is crossing the line imo.

Re:Its still illegal

[ehrichweiss]

From your link:
"In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly--"[emphasis mine]

Re:Its still illegal

[ehrichweiss]

Actually depending on the circumstances, the employee may be the only one breaking any law. Since it's not known who told him or how, it could have been overheard in an elevator which would make him innocent of any wrongdoing. Theft of trade secrets involves KNOWINGLY spreading trade secrets and there are plenty of ways he might not have known.

Re:Its still illegal

[russotto]

18 USC 1832(a)(2) does make it illegal to publish a trade secret. It's obviously unconstitutional at least as applied to publication if not on its face, but you'll never get the Robed 9 to agree.

1832. Theft of trade secrets

(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will , injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--

(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;

Re:Its still illegal

[Elwood P Dowd]

I would sue the pants off my doctor.

Or my lawyer.

Not their wives.

Re:Its still illegal

[Nirvelli]

Wrong:
1831. Economic espionage
(a) In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly--
...
1832. Theft of trade secrets
(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly--

If anything, an article about it will generate publicity, and therefore help Apple, not hurt them.

Re:Its still illegal

[TheSkyIsPurple]

How is that _obviously_ unconstitutional?

To help me calibrate: Is yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre _obviously_ unconstitutional as well?

Re:Its still illegal

[Achromatic1978]

You wouldn't enjoin their wives if their wives made money from publishing what they knew to be privileged?

If said doctor told his wife something, who then told, for example, a prosecutor, to be used in a case against you, it'd still be inadmissable even though the wife has no relation to you, because the court recognises the 'privilege' of the information at any point, not just at the point of privilege. In this case, that wife knowingly funnelling privileged information could very easily find herself under investigating for perverting the course of justice, IIRC.

So why should that person be entirely blame free?

Note, just exploring the concept, not stating a position.

Re:Its still illegal

[1155]

I would sue the pants off my doctor. Or my lawyer. Not their wives.

I think I would have it the other way around.

Re:Its still illegal

[amliebsch]

Keep in mind, that only applies to conversion of trade secrets, which would probably require actual knowledge that the published information was actually a trade secret.

Re:Its still illegal

[russotto]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is obviously not unconstitutional. The opinion which claimed such as an example of unprotected speech was a disgusting piece of law; it was a ruling that distributing pamphlets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional was not protected by the constitution.

Anyway, the reason the law is unconsitutional as applied to publication is pretty simple; it's a law directly restricting freedom of the press. Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?

Re:Its still illegal

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?

Sure do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It treats the press and speech pretty equally there. So, I'm not convinced that the "fire" restriction is appreciably more constitutional based just on the 1st Ammendment.

What is it that actually makes one obviously unconstitutional where the other obviously is?

Re:Its still illegal

[bursch-X]

As far as I remember they posted actual photos of an actual product (I think it was the Mac Mini) before it was even announced by Apple.

Information of products in developement or future product of companies prior to their announcement pretty much fall into the category trade secrets.

I dare you to post some photos of the next Mercedes prototype for their Perpetuum Mobile model which will come out late 2007... oops, just caught myself being a little talkative, sorry.

Re:Its still illegal

[bursch-X]

Not knowing that you are breaking the law doesn't protect you from prosecution. Otherwise all Dutch people in the US could smoke weed without punishment, saying "I didn't know it was illegal, it's perfectly legal where I come from".

See?

Re:Its still illegal

[amliebsch]

It absolutely does if that knowledge is an element of the crime itself. Example: the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Notably, most possession laws do not require knowledge of possession as an element of the offense.

Re:Its still illegal

[Draveed]

Here, enjoy. Spy shots of a 2008 Mercedes C-Class. And for good measure, spy shots for the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe.

Neither Mercedes or GM seems to be suing The Car Connection or Brenda Priddy, the woman who took the photos. Is this different from posting pictures of a Mac Mini before its announcement?

Re:Its still illegal

[butlerm]

Maybe. But you need to demonstrate that is actually the case, legally speaking. It doesn't really matter, though, because different laws apply in each case.

Theoretically, however, we have a *legal* system, not a "whatever the judge thinks is right" system.

Re:Its still illegal

[Firehed]

Is this different from posting pictures of a Mac Mini before its announcement?

Well I can't speak for Chevy, I don't think Mercedes is trying to put one of their fancy-ass cars in every home. And while that would definately be setting your hopes high, it's a lot more realistic for a $600 computer that's smaller than many hardcover books than a many-thousand dollar vehicle which would be redundant for most of the population (when was the last breakthrough with vehicles? automatic transmissions?) Of course, it's all free publicity, but considering the amount of flak that Apple takes for "over-hyping" (read: they try to stop accurate rumors while the media gets in a frenzy over leaked info), I don't blame them.

Re:Its still illegal

[yurnotsoeviltwin]

Yes. It is.

No. It isn't.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html

Re:Its still illegal

[tgma]

They are trade secrets, because presumably that information would be useful to Apple's competitors. For instance, Dell, or Microsoft could plan competing product announcements for that day.

Also, if the news gets out that Apple is about to issue a new product, then sales of Apple's analogous products will fall. So Apple has to play a finely balanced game of only announcing new products when they can be sure of getting them to market on time.

All of these are major issues for Apple's business, and Apple has a right to decide what information release strategy is in its best interests. Obviously, there's a public right to know about corporate or individual malfeasance at Apple, but that is protected by whistle-blowing laws, and by the first amendment.

In a way, Apple is asserting its right to privacy here, in the same way that a celebrity would.

Re:Its still illegal

[Elwood P Dowd]

I don't think we're going to get any closer to an understanding here. It's clear what O'Grady did. I think it was A-OK, and Apple should take it out on someone they NDAed. I think O'Grady has plausible deniability w.r.t. knowing that he shouldn't know about Asteroid. I don't think it's cool for Apple employees to go around unsolicited saying "this is a secret, don't tell anyone" and have the government give that actual legal force.

So we disagree. Whatever.

Re:Its still illegal

[burnetd]

Does Brenda Priddy work for Mercedes or Checrolet?
Had she signed a NDA?

Oh look, some one is comparing apples and oranges.

Re:Its still illegal

[dwandy]

From TFA:

My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.

The Law (emphasis mine)

In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly-- (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization

So assuming he doesn't get journalist protection (which imho he should, and in which case this entire case is pretty much moot), then they have to prove that he knew it was obtained without authorization. Since he says it wasn't marked, and he wasn't told, unless they can prove otherwise, I'd say Apple is SOL... 'course IANAL. :)

I'm going to assume that Apple doesn't so much want him, as the for him to give up the source so they can lay some real hurt...

Re:Its still illegal

[dwandy]

Actually, to make a fine point, it's ignorance of the law that is not a defence.
In this case, it's ignorance that the material in question is a trade secret. You need to know and profit and/or cause damange and some other bits. There's already several links in this thread to the law if you want to read it for your self.

Re:Its still illegal

[russotto]

You misunderstand; yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional; there's nothing in the constitution barring it. A law barring yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not unconstitutional either, but that's not obvious at all. Incidentally, both Schenck v. US (the original "fire in a theatre" case) and your reasoning demonstrate why the so-called slippery slope fallacy has validity if not rigor. You go from accepting restrictions on (falsely) "yelling fire in a crowded theatre", where the cry creates a clear and present danger of imminent bodily harm to those who hear the utterance, to accepting them on speech which merely arguably harms someone else economically.

Re:Its still illegal

[sk8king]

What if your doctor or lawyer WAS a woman? Darn sexual stereotyping.

Re:Its still illegal

[CountBrass]

"plausible deniability"?!? You've been watching to much Independence Day mate.

Re:Its still illegal

[Eil]

Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.

Unless the story was about Microsoft. Then everyone here would be screaming up and down about their dirty, foul, strong-arm legal tactics.

But since it's Apple, it's okay, they're just trying to protect their business from the damaging effects of journalist scum.

Note to Apple: If you want to keep something a trade secret, work a little harder on keeping it a secret first.

Re:Its still illegal

[rjung2k]

Just because GM and Mercedes don't appear to be actively prosecuting the folks for the photos in question (or they might simply be unaware that they're out there) doesn't make it legal.

"It's not illegal if nobody sees me do it..."

Re:Its still illegal

[Elwood P Dowd]

I wasn't trying to use legal terminology. I'm just saying I somewhat believe him.

Re:Its still illegal

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I didn't actually go down the slope in my posts... My whole point was that the word "obvious" didn't apply.

But you are correct. The slippery slope is something to worry greatly about. You have to pick the point where you stop letting it "slip", and you make a hard call as to where you can't slide anymore. But since the slope is slippery, that point is almost never obvious

Re:Its still illegal

[Achromatic1978]

plausible deniability w.r.t. knowing that he shouldn't know about Asteroid

All other things aside, I'd definitely disagree with this. This is someone who has spent the last decade reporting these things and has had conversations with Apple's legal team on several occasions. I find it hard to swallow that he could argue he had no idea such a thing could be an issue.

Re:Its still illegal

[1155]

I'd still want the wives to lose their pants.

Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Doesn't make them not trade secrets.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Elwood P Dowd]

Putting quotes around "trade secrets" doesn't make them not trade secrets.

Telling them to a reporter does though.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[TubeSteak]

Putting quotes around "trade secrets" doesn't make them not trade secrets.

Telling them to a reporter does though.

The main difference between a reporter and a blogger is that a reporter has the company lawyers to back him/her up.

If it was really as simple as "tell a reporter the trade secrets", then wouldn't it make sense for every big corporation to put out a newspaper/magazine and have a few reporters on the payroll to collect trade secrets? Corporate espionage happens & it'd be a lot simpler if disgruntled-employee-x could just tell a 'reporter' for the competitor some juicy information.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

Putting quotes around "trade secrets" doesn't make them not trade secrets. Telling them to a reporter does though.

Actually, according to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it doesn't:

(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.

Given that rumor sites operate on the principle of soliciting inside information, it's hard to make the case that they didn't know they had gotten some unless they admit that most of what they print isn't inside information (i.e., that they make it up).

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[bagsc]

The company can sue the employee who leaks a "secret" but once it has been leaked to the public, it's no longer "secret" - and its permissible to be published. The company has to prove that it does take efforts to keep it a secret (NDAs, etc), and if a reporter discovers it without it being leaked, then it's corporate espionage. If its leaked, then its a breach of contract with the company.

The question is how the secret became public in the first place. Obviously, if the John Doe who runs the blog is an Apple employee, a civil case will be straight-forward. If the blogger misappropriated the "secret" (ie conducted industrial espionage), then it's a criminal case - though the standard of proving guilt is significantly higher. A criminal investigation could establish if the blogger is breaking security measures or subpoena the defendant for his sources, and possibly land the blogger in Contempt.

Also worth noting, if Apple doesn't sue, then that could be taken as evidence they aren't trying to keep their "secrets" secret, and when something important gets leaked, they're screwed.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[NutscrapeSucks]

One thing to consider is that companies intentionally "leak" information all the time, especially in the computer industry where FUD is a common marketing tactic. Even Apple "leaked" their Intel plans to the WSJ and ZDNet, so they are not exempt to this rule.

So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign? At the very least it's plausible denability.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[pla]

no, the guard should respond by putting a bullet in your fucking head.

Uh-huh.

If you can't do better than that, I can see why you posted as an AC.

Sad. But then, Bush won, eh?

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[RedQueen.exe]

Quotes or not, "trade secrets" count as just that - secrets. As soon as the whole world knows about them, they lose that status. Yeah, except when it comes to the legal system, they don't use the layman's definition of words. The definition you find in the dictionary of "Secret" has nothing to do with what a "trade secret" is, or how the law treats it. If that was the case, I could use secret-level government information I obtain through my job and reveal it and magically it wouldn't be protected anymore! Check the earlier posts that people were posting for the links. I mean honestly, if it was so obviously not illegal the corporate lawyers, who probably know a good bit more about law than the people on this site, would have realized the case would have been thrown before ever making it to court. Companies have things like NDAs precisely to keep "trade secrets" a "secret". If they counted as legally-protected IP, a company would hold a patent on them instead. "Trade secrets" are not just a catch phrase. They are legally protected apart from simply the NDAs, and they are different than patents.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

The company can sue the employee who leaks a "secret" but once it has been leaked to the public, it's no longer "secret" - and its permissible to be published.

Sure, sure, once it becomes public knowledge it's not really an issue, but you don't have the right to make it public just because you know it.

The portion of the law I quoted says this is not so in cases such as this one. If someone that works for Company A reveals trade secrets to you, Website B, and you have reason to believe it is a trade secret, then by publishing it you are liable for misappropriation.

Dealing in "stolen" information is illegal in the same way that fencing stolen goods is.

If the blogger misappropriated the "secret" (ie conducted industrial espionage), then it's a criminal case - though the standard of proving guilt is significantly higher. A criminal investigation could establish if the blogger is breaking security measures or subpoena the defendant for his sources, and possibly land the blogger in Contempt.

This is what is happening, more or less, though the criteria for "misappropriation" are far less than "industrial espionage"; simply asking for secrets seems to count. Apple is trying to figure out who leaked the information in the first place, but unfortunately the only people who know are more interested in protecting their preposterous parasitic business model than telling the truth. Hence it is now somehow a First Amendment issue.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

I believe the constitution supercedes this act. Or at least it should. In America that is.

It does. There is no part of this law that says otherwise. You still have the usual First Amendment rights. They just aren't absolute, and never were.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[pla]

If that was the case, I could use secret-level government information I obtain through my job and reveal it and magically it wouldn't be protected anymore!

Yes and no - Although I would agree it no longer counts as "secret" (since your "crime" would involve the change in distribution of the information), you know that information as secret, and therein lies the basis on which to charge you with revealing them.

If you thrown a dart at a shopping list say "Apple will release the iBanana this year", even if true and completely unexpected, you haven't broken the law, because you didn't know that what you said held true, nor did you know it should have remained secret.

If you overheard the same thing in a crowded convention center, you might have known (or at least suspected) its truth, but you still wouldn't know it as a secret.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[DarkVader]

Investigative journalism is not now, has not ever been, and will never be a "preposterous parasitic business model".

It's flat out good citizenship, and it IS a first amendment issue.

The trade secret laws are unconstitutional.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Moofie]

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." was unclear?

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Reality Master 101]

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." was unclear?

The meaning of "make no law" is not the part that's unclear, it's the definition of "speech" that is unclear. The whole point of the clause is political speech, not any noise you might want to make, written or otherwise (don't make me pull out the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" standard).

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Moofie]

Oh Jesus...you again.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Lars T.]

Talking about future products of a company is not first amendment issue.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

On its face, given the text of the First Amendment, it would appear that any law passed by Congress abridging the freedom of speech or of the press would be unconstitutional. However, this does not consider the role of the doctrine of stare decisis, in which judges consider previous decisions they (and other courts) have rendered to be binding precedent, decisions to be followed as if they were themselves laws. This is extremely significant. -- The First Amendment @ Wikipedia

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[Moofie]

I've read the Constitution, and the principle of "Stare Decisis" does not appear. I know what you're talking about, and I acknowledge that it is a substantial component of the modern legal system, but I do not agree that it is Constitutional.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

Investigative journalism is not now, has not ever been, and will never be a "preposterous parasitic business model".

That should be a clue that investigative journalism is not what Apple rumor sites do.

And before you say "whistleblower", please familiarize yourself with some of the relevant laws, as so few people choose to do. If these sites had published evidence that, say, Apple was dumping toxic waste or committing fraud, they would probably be protected. They didn't, though. The information they published had only commercial value, and it's disclosure was not in the public interest, no matter how interested the public may have been.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[DarkVader]

Let me clarify my comments for you, since you obviously didn't understand my implication.

Apple rumor sites ARE engaging in investigative journalism.

Just because the information they gather is about a commercial product, does not make it irrelevant, does not make it not news, and does not make it not in the public interest.

In this case, Apple's management thinks Apple's interest is contrary to the public interest, and wants to keep information secret. When they fail, they want to use the government to supress those who released the information. This is not acceptable in a free society.

I'm sorry, I'm a Mac user, and Mac consultant - I think Apple has the best computer out there. But sometimes, I find their citizenship deplorable.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[DarkVader]

How so? The first amendment is content-neutral.

RE: Apple vs Bloggers

[Eugenia Loli]

Thom at OSNews also posted his opinion on an editorial published yesterday:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14282

Red Hot Ipods!??

[AWhiteFlame]

> red hot ipod.

And people thought black didn't really match the iMacs.

Symphathy for Apple

[ajakk]

I feel symphathy for Apple on this one. Apple makes it money by getting behind innovative products that sell well. They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets, because Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products. While a Firewire breakout box isn't a big deal, think of the amount of money that people make putting out unlicensed accessories for the iPod. Apple wants to have some time while its product is out on the market that it gets the revenue stream from accessories before cloners get their products on the market.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[venicebeach]

Yes, but the lawsuit involves a more subtle issue: who is responsible, the insider violated an NDA and leaked the info, or the person who reports on the leaked info? O'grady claims that the information was not specifically requested, and he merely reported on it when it was passed along to him. That's why they are framing it as a journalistic freedom issue. Definitely a gray area...

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[penguin-collective]

They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets, because Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products. While a Firewire breakout box isn't a big deal, think of the amount of money that people make putting out unlicensed accessories for the iPod.

My, of course, you should have to get a license to sell products! Those evil add-on companies are even daring to ship their accessories in white, without a license!!!

As for "cloning", Apple constantly clones other companies. It's the way business works. It's a good thing. If it weren't for the stuff Apple can copy freely, Apple products wouldn't be as good, since, although Apple engineers are pretty good, they can't invent everything by themselves.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[pete-classic]

One of us doesn't understand contract law.

(Actually, I imagine neither of us really understand it, but only you have proven it.)

-Peter

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[ajakk]

I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to clone Apple products. I just think that Apple deserves to have some lead time before the clones come out. If Apple wanted to, they could patent everything and its brother and start a stringent enforcement campaign of its patents. So, I don't have a problem with Apple getting a few weeks of exclusivity between it and its licensees for its products. They get this couple of weeks by keeping their trade secrets actually secret as close to release as they can.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[multiOSfreak]

Apple loses significant amounts of money to people cloning their products.

Yes, but to be fair, it does take MicroSoft abour 24 to 36 months to re-innovate Apple's design features into their products. That's plenty of time for Apple to make money and then release new innovations. :)

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[aussie_a]

So wait, I can sign a contract that says I'll keep stuff secret, and other people who haven't signed the contract are bound to it? Wow! I think contract law might need a slight change in America.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[arose]

My understanding is that a contract is binding between the signing parties...

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[incabulos]

They need to be able to project an image that they will not tolerate people releasing their trade secrets

They can project images all they want, but the legal reality is they have no authority to demand takedowns or threaten anyone. Patents are how they protect interfaces and devices from people that may clone them ( and then they have to be sufficiently unique and ingenious before the device in question is eligable for patent ), not Trade Secrets.

The bottom line is, Apple are the ones behaving in a criminal fashion by going through with these threats, not the people reporting news. Apple have no right to make money. They also have no right to be the sole creator of headphones or any other accessories, with the exception of when patents must be licensed from them to do this.

What exception to the First Amendment exists that gives any company the right to silence reporters of news? None involving Trade Secrets. If the reporters have not signed NDAs and the like, Apple should be told to go piss up a rope. If they dont cease their illegal harassment of the reporters in question, its entirely appropriate to begin criminal proceedings against them.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[penguin-collective]

I just think that Apple deserves to have some lead time before the clones come out

Well, then Apple should make sure their employees aren't talking; they shouldn't go after random people once the cat is out of the bag.

If Apple wanted to, they could patent everything and its brother and start a stringent enforcement campaign of its patents.

That's exactly what Apple has been doing. It's just that most of the things from Apple people like you oooh and aaah about aren't patentable--either they are obvious, or they have been done before. The only thing that's unusual about them is that Apple picked them.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yes, but the lawsuit involves a more subtle issue: who is responsible, the insider violated an NDA and leaked the info, or the person who reports on the leaked info?

In most places, the law says they are both guilty.

That's why they are framing it as a journalistic freedom issue. Definitely a gray area...

This is only a "gray area" to those who haven't done any research. Different types of speech have different levels of protection. Political expression has the highest level of protection. Commercial has the lowest. These people are making money doing this and hurting another company. But that is not why this is illegal. It is illegal because of the following hypothetical:

Bob works for big company A. Tom is an investor. Tom pays Bob (the poor working grunt) $1000 to give him insider information. Tom publishes said information causing company A's stock to plummet. Bob is convicted and goes to jail. Fifty people are laid off. Investors in company A lose their shirts. Tom makes a bajillion dollars by having invested in Company B and shorting company A's stock. Tom is guilty of no crime and starts looking for another desperate person, we'll call her Jane.

Do you understand why they decided to make it against the law to knowingly publish trade secrets, especially when you are profiting from it?

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[Alioth]

Yes, but he who lives by the silly lawsuit dies by the silly lawsuit - e.g. the Apple records -vs- Apple Computer lawsuit.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[pavon]

In that case wouldn't Tom be guilty of illicit insider trading, as he used confidential information when trading securities? In order to profit he had to initiate the trade either before the trade secret was public, or shortly afterwords - both of which are illegal. He might even be in violation of some market manipulation laws.

Note, this does not disprove your core point that if someone publishes trade secrets they are just as responsible for the damage caused by doing so as the leaker.

Re:Symphathy for Apple

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In that case wouldn't Tom be guilty of illicit insider trading, as he used confidential information when trading securities?

I don't believe so, as he was the cause of the stock price change, not just taking advantage of it. For example, he isn't using inside knowledge to decide whether to buy or sell, he's using it to change the price of the stock. The information he used would be theoretically useless to traders since only the exposure of the info would affect the stock price (realistically of course this is a different story). It is perfectly legal for the inventor of a new transportation device to short a bunch of auto stocks, even though they know they are about to cause the price to fall, so long as their action that makes it fall is legal.

He might even be in violation of some market manipulation laws.

I must confess ignorance as to market manipulation laws. I doubt many lawyers could even give you a definitive answer without a lot of research.

How to fix trade secrets

[dada21]

1. Don't tell anyone who can't keep a secret.
2. If you tell someone in the media and they leak it, cut them off from future trade secrets.
3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.

The idea of trying to protect a secret once you give it away is ludicrous. Even under a contract it is hard to enforce as Party A can tell it to their cousin who can post about it. If you want to control secrets, don't let them out, or don't have them in the first place.

Also, the Firewire interface for GarageBand would be awesome if it supported multiple channels (8, or more with multiple units), if it worked with the typical firewire delay, and if it was cheap. Apple could do it. I don't think it's "yawn" news since I personally know thousands of profitable small bands that use GarageBand over ProTools to record their basic EPs and do a fine job of it. I'm producing a band right now that made their demo on GarageBand and it sounds fantastic -- better than many of the ProTools recordings of the past 5 years that I've heard. Giving small bands more hardware is wise.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[stubear]

The problem with your number 1 is that Apple doesn't know who's leaking the info, hence the lawsuits to determine the sources. The problem with number 2 is that Apple isn't telling the media anything prior to the planned announcements of their products. The problem with your number 3 is that it's up to sanctioned people at Apple to determine this, not the public, not these websites, not employees at Apple.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[Space cowboy]

The problem with (1) is that Apple is a *big* company. They have lots of people working for them, most of whom will know *something* about some secret project/gizmo/whatever.

Apple has a strong tradition of corporate secrecy, but what *exactly* can they do if some employee lets something slip after a few too many drinks, or for money, or for the "thrill" of revealing an exclusive ? I mean, it's not as though they're going to send 'steve@apple.com' an email the next morning confessing all, is it ?

From what I read earlier on digg, although he makes a big deal about the money Apple make/have in the bank, he's not being sued for cash or penalities, he's being sued to reveal his source, because it's the only way Apple can find and fire the guilty employee.

As for 'first amendment rights' being abused, I thought they were only rights that the government couldn't abuse, not that any limits on civil suits by corporations were imposed, but hell, I'm a bloody foreigner, so I'm probably wrong.

Simon

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[Swift2001]

Yes, but your pointers don't apply to the rumor sites, which don't come to press conferences, and so on. Their entire modus operandi is to seek illicit, or unapproved sources of information. In political reporting, you have a big exception: is it in the public interest to know, and does the government have a legitimate interest in keeping it secret (troop positions and the like)?

But this is private information, that the corporation does not want to have known until a certain date. They don't tell the NY Times, or ZDTech, or C/Net. Some rumor sites dig up the dirt by finding insiders who are not authorized to divulge the information. No public interest is served; it's just fun. You can't cut off the rumor sites, they don't get authorized info.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[lesv]

When I was at Apple, I had no problem keeping secrets from leaking from Engineering. Every time I disclosed information to a new person on the project http://www.apple.com/airport/, I started the meeting by saying that if you spoke to anyone about this project you would be fired. Remarkably, no problems.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[vought]

The problem with (1) is that Apple is a *big* company. They have lots of people working for them, most of whom will know *something* about some secret project/gizmo/whatever.

Apple is pretty compartmentalized - while I'm sure everyone knows *something* is coming, I'd be willing to bet that very few people have all the details.

One example: I'd be surprised if anyone besides ID, testing and the ad agency knew what a new product was actually going to look like until several days before release. Which explains why we've never seen even a picture of new Apple product more than a couple of days before an announcement over the past few years.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[hunterx11]

"Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[rolfwind]

As for 'first amendment rights' being abused, I thought they were only rights that the government couldn't abuse, not that any limits on civil suits by corporations were imposed, but hell, I'm a bloody foreigner, so I'm probably wrong.

You are probably correct, but allowing courts to rule, even in civil cases, on speech issues is effectively a government endorsement of the restriction of freedom of speech, as it is a government entity (the courts) enforcing a decision upon the individual, etcetera.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

The problem with your number 1 is that Apple doesn't know who's leaking the info

Sounds to me as if Apple has a serious internal security problem. Based on their attempt to cover their own ass, I'd be dumping their stock, if I owned any.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

A civil suit requires using the government to make a ruling and then to enforce that ruling. Thus, the First Amendment is invoked and the government is bound to uphold it (which means not strongarming a publisher to give up its source or ohterwise penalizing that publisher). The only exception (the only real gray area) is in matters of national security. Trade secrets, even Apple's, are not matters of national security, no matter how fascist the state has become.

Re:How to fix trade secrets

[redletterrocko]

3. Realize that telling the media in advance of a product's release can be positive even if secrets are leaked -- giving an inside scoop can get you more media coverage upon release.

Seriously, that leak probably didn't get them huge publicity. I hadn't heard about the new breakout box UNTIL I read this post. It seems to me that (as unethical as it may be) a good idea to boost publicity is to sue the person with the leak. I've now read upwards of 500 comments from both the source site and Slashdot. Personally, I think they should let the guy off and not keep pushing the issue. However, it's now become a SOUND BUSINESS/MARKETING MODEL to sue someone and boost the coverage of the leak. Now the leak is all over. Those 500 comments were only people who commented. So let's say there were a 5 people for every 1 person that commented that didn't comment. That's 3,000 people total now. Those 3,000 then go tell 5 people about it or blog about it, etc. Now you've just spread the word on your new toy (to God knows how many people) at the cost of a small lawsuit that you intend to drop anyway. Plus, now all those Mac geeks think they're 1337 because they know about the new toy coming out, so they look cool to their friends as they spread the word. The concept is entirely better than those Tommy Hilfiger shirts that just say "Tommy Hilfiger" essentially turning customers into walking billboards...

Yawn yourself...

[monktus]

Just because the product in question isn't about the new 8 GHz opticore PowerBook, a yawn certainly isn't necessary. In fact, a FireWire interface from Apple would be pretty damn exciting news. Remember that one of Apple's strongest niches is in music production; not only have Macs been the industry standard platform for pro audio for years, Apple of course now own Logic. A FireWire audio interface would be a smart move, especially since Digidesign's recent purchase of M-Audio.

Re:Yawn yourself...

[DaveCBio]

Right, but a pro isn't going to use a low end FW interface. There are already tons of excellent quality cross platform FW interfaces on the market. Also, even though Macs are still common in studios they don't have anywhere near the dominance they once had. Even Pro Tools, the defacto multitrack standard these days concentrates as much on it's Windows versions as much as it OSX counterpart. For me, I use PCs to do audio production because of costs. Most of the time you pay a premium for the same sort of software on a Mac. Even identical plug-ins are often more expensive for the Mac version. I assume this is because they figure they have less potential market to recover the dev costs.

Re:Yawn yourself...

[paulbd]

Oh, you mean like their already announced and available collaboration with Apogee to produce an ieee1394 interface to work with logic?

Re:Yawn yourself...

[Weedlekin]

A lot of the pro-oriented audio stuff (hardware, software, and combinations thereof, including software "plug-ins) ship with both Windows and Mac versions in the same box, as do professional music synthesizers that come with computer control software (e.g. Yamaha's Motif series of music workstations) -- downloadable firmware upgrades for pro systhesizers and sound processors are also as a rule available for both platforms. This more than anything serves to indicate that the ratio of Windows PCs to Macs in professional audio setups is very different from the market as a whole, because there would not be almost universal Mac support in products for that particular segment if they had 20 Windows PCs per Macintosh.

Note that audio isn't the only niche area where Windows hasn't got anything like the same level of dominance as in the market as a whole. High-end animation and special effects software for movie and TV work for example often has a Linux version because it is extremely amenable to customisation, and has a number of available (and again, customisable) options for building supercomputing clusters to process large batch rendering jobs quickly. Freedom from having to audit licenses is also attractive in environments where half a dozen animation workstations can be feeding render farms with dozens or even hundreds of machines in them.

Re:Yawn yourself...

[monktus]

Well yes, a studio is going to use HD, however depending on the specs it could be a good portable solution. Also, the reason I mentioned Digidesign was because their purchase of M-Audio has shown that they're getting more serious about the semi-pro/hobby market, which Apple is also in. As for Pro Tools, I wouldn't really agree. Of course some studios use PCs but in my experience it tends to be at the lower end of the market (also, a lot of my firends who produce electronic music use Windows and Cubase). Pretty much any big studio (I mean the likes of Abbey Road, Air, Strongroom) still use Macs with Pro Tools.

Re:No surprise.

[CRC'99]

At least he gets a reply from Apple!

I just get told to get bent when I'm reporting a fault with my equipment. I'd be happy to get Apple to fix my SuperDrives.

Telling people with faulty equipment to get bent? Evil? Check on both accounts.

Oh whatever...

[CODiNE]

Let's just quit the games and cries of "FWEEDOOOM!!!" and face the facts. This isn't about bloggers getting protection and freedom of the press, this is about NDA's and posting, yes, "trade secrets". This is already legally established for members of the press, journalists don't get protection when they break the law, neither should they. He'd be in the same legal trouble if he worked at the Washington Post, in fact he'd probably have lost his entire career over this.

Re:Oh whatever...

[Thnikkaman]

That's exactly the GP's point. The 1st Amendment does NOT let you assist others in breaking their NDAs. It's against the law to publish trade secrets and this blogger is trying to get sympathy from people who think Apple is picking on him. He's not being sued for money or anything like that. Apple just wants to know who gave him the information so they can plug the leak. He's hardly a martyr for civil rights as he'd like us to believe.

Re:Oh whatever...

[voice_of_all_reason]

The 1st Amendment does NOT let you assist others in breaking their NDAs. It's against the law to publish trade secrets

There's been no amendment to the Constitution that alters any part of the first amendment. As it is the source of all law, any federal law (trade secrets) that contradicts it is void. It's just that nobody notices.

Re:Oh whatever...

[mantar]

I don't disagree with your statements, but this is not about NDA's. This guy never entered into an NDA with Apple. NDA means Non-Disclosure AGREEMENT and requires the consent of both parties. If anything, he might be guilty of corporate espionage.

Re:Oh whatever...

[Thnikkaman]

The courts disagree. Ever heard of slander or libel?

Re:Oh whatever...

[amliebsch]

I think his point is that the courts are wrong.

Re:Oh whatever...

[Lehk228]

rights explicitly laid down in the constitution must always supercede implicit rights, expecially implicit rights of corporations

Re:Oh whatever...

[Lehk228]

implicit rights are not guaranteed by the bill of rights, explicit ones are, therefore explicit rights superceed implicit rights.

Re:Oh whatever...

[voice_of_all_reason]

So the constitution contradicts itself? Great... that means it was all a crapshoot from the beginning anyway.

Re:Oh whatever...

[Mistah Blue]

The First Amendment applies to the Government for one thing. Two, Apple is not violating anybody's rights here. The law has been broken, they are trying to remedy that. Go back and read the Constiution before you start throwing it all over the place. Case in point... You have absolutely no rights to come over to my house and say whatever you please. If I take offense at what you say I can ask you to leave, and if you ignore me I can ratchet up the force until you do leave (i.e. call the Police, etc.). I'm not violating your rights, as you have none in this example. Likewise, this blogger has no rights with respect to Apple trade secrets.

Re:Oh whatever...

[voice_of_all_reason]

The First Amendment applies to the Government for one thing.

This story is about apple filing a lawsuit. Courts are most definitely a part of the government.

You have absolutely no rights to come over to my house and say whatever you please.

Incorrect.

If I take offense at what you say I can ask you to leave,

Correct.

Re:Oh whatever...

[Mistah Blue]

Courts are part of the government. However, they are not a party to the lawsuit, hence the First Amendment doesn't apply with respect to Apple vs. the Blogger. You have no rights at my house. Sure, you can say what you want but I reserve the right to ask you to leave. I'm making a subtle difference here. Your First Amendment rights end at my property line.

Re:No surprise.

[Solra Bizna]

Who do you think will take their spot in the market for rabid devotion?

You post on Slashdot and you haven't heard of Linux? :P

-:sigma.SB

No, he views it as more publicity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Powerpage has such a poor prediction record that I'm amazed that he actually did score a genuine leak. I guess this is supposed to boost credibility for the other 99 percent of Powerpage predictions that come from some combination of monkeys flying out of his butt and rereadings of Nostradamus.

No lawsuits for the big guys?

[mgabrys_sf]

Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.

There's also litigation bombs potential pertaining to libel and slander. You can choose to engage in libel and slander - but don't expect a free ride. Same thing here - you can spill the beans all you want. Just don't expect not to get a friendly reminder if the target decides to take action. And trust me - no one in this country needs to justify calling a lawyer - that's sorted out later.

I particularly love it when people cite newspapers as somehow being above the legal-fray that the little boy blogger gets.

I used to work for Pulitzer Publishing - and we used to get PILES of notifications from readers, companies, sponsers, sources - you name it. Just because there was a legal office - doesn't mean that they were playing foosball in there. We got whacked upside the head all the time. Next time you look at the local paper - check around the masthead for "corrections". Those usually are the result of an editor getting a friendly rejoinder from the legal department.

In otherwords bloggers - welcome to the club - there's plenty of legal bullshit to go around not to share. Enjoy!

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.

While I agree with the sentiment, this as it stands is nuts. If you'll be sent to Guantanamo for saying something reasonable, you're not "free to say it", and any society where that's the case is on its way to despotism.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[quanticle]

Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.

Yes it is. If you say or write something offensive to me, I do not have a right to take you to court, and neither does the government.

The issue here is that some types of speech are excepted from the ususal free speech rules. Trade secrets, libel/slander, and hate speech (in some cases) are examples. This guy's speech happened to fall into one of the above categories, and therefore he is open to legal action.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"I do not have a right to take you to court, and neither does the government"

What a lovely world you live in - here's the real one.

You can be sued for anything - at anytime - for any reason - and here's the kicker - unlike the UK? If you win - the other guy doesn't have to pay your legal expenses. Which means you could be a winner - but bankrupt. Way to go winner!

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.

If someone brings you to trial, and the court rules that you did something wrong, then you are subject to their will. That is the exact opposite of freedom. This is not a difficult concept.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[ehrichweiss]

So was this guy supposed to call up Apple and say "Hey, I heard a rumor about this thing you're coming out with but no one else knows about it. Is it a trade secret????"

IANAL but last I heard trade secrets are only illegal to spread if you are under a non-disclosure agreement, otherwise it's just information I heard on the street. So if this guy wasn't under an NDA, he's in the clear for the most part. It won't stop the retarded corps from hassling him but it wouldn't be a big deal to get them off his back either.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Well on the flip side... once the "defendant" nothing to lose, there's nothing keeping him from "sancitioning" the other party.

Relying on law at the expense of justice is a damned good way to get oneself (and one's immediate family) killed. Being a lawyer that empowers such injustice is a damned good way to get killed brutaly. A man with nothing to lose is the worst enemy you can have.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[slavemowgli]

Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise.

OUCH. Using that logic, even China, Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany had freedom of speech - after all, you could say anything you wanted; you just had to deal with the consequences.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[uglyduckling]

If someone brings you to trial, and the court rules that you did something wrong, then you are subject to their will. That is the exact opposite of freedom. This is not a difficult concept.

Actually, no - that's freedom being worked out right there. There's no such thing as freedom unless there's a framework in which freedom can safely be worked out. For instance, 'freedom of speech' requires that someone's 'freedom' to prevent you from speaking is curtailed. All freedom has to take place within certain boundaries otherwise the result is not freedom but anarchy. And this is a difficult concept that takes a lot of working out and a lot of checks and balances. I'm a Brit, and we're seeing in our country now some of the difficulties with this, just as you are. Recent laws have introduced the concept of "incitement to hatred" (religious, racial, etc.) as a form of speech that may be subject to legal action, on the basis that freedom to speak in that way is incompatible with the freedom to pursue one's religion or - in the case of racism - to live a 'normal' life in any way at all.

These sorts of balancing acts are not easy and will always require refinement and sometimes completely overturning. I appreciate the viewpoint that one should be able to say anything one wishes, but in practice this does not work - powerful people can, with a few words, cause the most awful actions and consequences (e.g. riots) that limit others' freedoms to go about their business. In the case of, e.g. clear-cut racism, this must not be allowed.

Now, I realise we are talking here about trade secrets and not incitement of racial hatred, but I'm responding to your assertion that a court intervening and asserting their will is the opposite of freedom, and arguing that in fact it is what underpins freedom in a working society.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[justins]

You can be sued for anything - at anytime - for any reason

That's silly. There needs to be a legal basis for a lawsuit or it will be immediately dismissed.

Re:No lawsuits for the big guys?

[mgabrys_sf]

On with the semantical bullshit show.

Here's a massive pile right here - let's get a close-up.

If you blog about your job - you can be fired. You weren't prevented by the govt from talking about your job - but you put yourself at-risk when you did. Your blog was protected. Your job wasn't.

In other countries govts put you in prison. Immediately. Take a look back at the Danish "free press". They published some cartoons. Some people were pissed. That's called cause and effect. A lawsuit is cause and effect. A state-firing squad is Chinese justice.

Did Digg.com spring a leak? You can actually hear the dumbshit spilling over into this place. Sounds like a freight train running over a jackass who likes to split hairs.

Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets"

[Black Copter Control]

Putting quotes around "trade secrets" Doesn't make them not trade secrets.

And putting a law around "Trade Secrets" doesn't make them constitutionally protected.

If the government gives a corporation the 'right' to take away my constitutional rights, that's a government action -- even if by proxy.

Re:Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets"

[honkycat]

Wow, moderators are on crack tonight! Offtopic? Poor guy... he's practically talking about the core debate brought up by the article!

Attacking the weak link

[angrychimp]

The reason I'm upset with Apple here is that according to this blog post, Apple went after the ISP first. That to me is a low blow. The ISP doesn't want to get in trouble with a corporate entity of Apple's size, so they'll do whatever they need to in order to get out of the crosshairs of a lawsuit.

The other problem is that the blogger mentions that the information he received was not identified as "confidential" or a "trade secret". When asked to remove the information, he compiled (again, according to his account). To me it appears that this guy did was he was asked and only did what any gossip columnist would have done in a print publication. This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights. Whether or not that entitles Apple to seek the identity of the informant is a job for the courts. I personally feel that the informer should be punished.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[dingen]

When asked to remove the information, he compiled

Ah yes, obviously a very smart move to cover your sources.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[smart2000]

The reason I'm upset with Apple here is that according to this blog post, Apple went after the ISP first. That to me is a low blow. The ISP doesn't want to get in trouble with a corporate entity of Apple's size, so they'll do whatever they need to in order to get out of the crosshairs of a lawsuit.

You are upset for the wrong reasons then.

I'm the ISP / person who was subpoenaed. I have no problem telling a company the size of Apple to pound sand, I've done it twice before and been successful. When I received the initial request I refused it because it wasn't a subpoena signed by a judge.

I don't feel threatened at all by Apple. At no point has Apple or their lawyers ever "intimated" me. On the other hand the EFF has attempted to coerce and intimidate me in this matter. Their legal filings imply that my conversations in response to the subpoena from Apple were violations of federal law. The EFF cherry picks what parts of the case they want to display on their web page. Meanwhile I have a foot tall stack of filings from the case.

Jason has left out that the reason that I got into the loop at all is because he used my phone and address instead of his for his domain registration. He has since changed it to a PO Box.

His article twists words ("...can sue any journalist..." to make it seem like he is being sued. He isn't. What has been requested is that he return the material that they have asserted is their trade secret, namely the documents that the leaker sent to him.

The assumption is that Apple would be able from the documents to tell who leaked the material. Jason asserts that they don't say "Confidential" or "Trade Secret" anywhere on them. Given the Apple attitude towards secrecy, I somehow find that unlikely.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights.

The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It specifically bars Congress from doing certain things, and that's all it does. First amendment rights are the right not to have Congress do those things. The First Amendment does not protect anyone from any other consequences of their acts. Anything else you may have heard is wrong. Now how does that apply here, pray tell?

Re:Attacking the weak link

[What me a Coward]

Well it says right their that Congress can't make laws abridging the feedom of speech not that freedom of speech only applies to the government or congress.

    Now i could see your argument if say buisness could make laws abridging free speech but buisnesses can't make laws so they can't abridge free speech either. But whats happening in this case is an attempt to redefine what is considered free speech in the case of jurnalizim IE digital jurnalizim.

    Now if you could show me where in the constitution it says that free speech only applies when the government or congress is involved then i could see your argument.

    However your right that free speech doesn't protect the speaker from persecution for violating a law while exorcizing his free speech. But as i understand it thats not the case here if it were then apple would have to prove the blogger had known the information given was a trade secret to begin with. Which is difficult if not nearly impossible. But what apple is trying to do here is force the blogger to release his source useing the courts to do so.

    The argument is that if the blogger were a traditional reporter or jurnalist writting for a paper or news service the first ammendment would protect his free speech which in that case could only be surrendered by the court judge in certain special cases (which apples claim wouldnt fall under). But since they are arguing that the blogger isn't a reporter nor jurnalist since he's not writting or reporting for a physical press or news service that he's not protected.

  Seems like splitting hairs to me. He's not accused of releaseing trade secerets but rather refusing to finger the guy by surrendering over info that may identify him who did release trade secrets.

    Now if apple were to go after the blogger for releasing trade secrets and could prove the blogger knew when he wrote his piece then that would be another matter but as i said that isn't the case here.

    My oppinion as i said they are splitting hairs on the free speech issue. A person blogging news or reports should have every bit the same writes as traditional reporters and jurnalists and if apple couldn't get the courts to force one of them to hand over their source in a similar case involving a physical press or news service then they shouldn't be able to do it with a blogger jurnalist.

    It's a very slippery slope that this case is on as were in a time when many things are being redefined like jurnalizim and a case like this affecting digital jurnalizim could have reprucutions for decades to come concerning free speech online and reporting the news and other things that would have been reported in a traditional service but doesn't in a digital one as the reporter could be forced to give out his source without protection of the first ammendment. This would have a chilling effect by either forcing reporting to stay in the mainstream analog world or by keeping news from being reported altogether. In many or all cases invloving secret sources refusing to give reporters information that they don't want to be fingered or exposed over even if they have nothing to do with trade secrets simply because a blog jurnalist isn't protect by the First Ammendment.

    Do you see how it applies now?

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

Now if you could show me where in the constitution it says that free speech only applies when the government or congress is involved then i could see your argument.

You have it backwards my friend. The only freedom of speech that you are granted by the Constitution is that in the First Amendment. That's it. There is no more. That constitutes the whole of your Constitutional freedom of speech. Your state Constitution may (or may not) grant you other freedom of speech, but that would apply only in that state. The "Freedoms" that people throw around so freely are not as free as most people believe. The only thing which the Constitution does is protect you from the Federal Government. That's it. After that, you're on your own.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[What me a Coward]

Sorry wrong!!

    If it was as you say then it would be defined in the first ammendment as such that these laws only apply in the case of government or congress but it doesn't it says nothing of the sort.

    Nowhere does it say these rights only apply in the case of government. What it does say is that congress shall make no laws abridging thoughs rights speech religion and press. But nowhere does it say that they apply only to the government hence your argument is false and baseless.

    If you belive otherwise show me where anywhere in the constitution it says speech religion or press only apply in the case of the government or in dealings with the government.

    In fact if such were the case buisnesses would be able to go after the press for hurting their buisness everytime some special report comes on the news about some company doing this or that or newspaper report about same things. Thats why theirs the part in their about freedom of the press. The press uses the first ammendment all the time to protect their sources in buisness cases as well as thoughs revealing government corruption it's the only thing that protects their sources and ability to report the news and the thing that protects them from lawsuits from buisnesses wanting to fight back or get revenge on them.

    So you're argument falls flat unless you can come up with something that no buisness or governement official who's ever been caught in the crosshairs of the rpess sniffing out that story about your mistress or back room secret deals or taking ilegal bribes etc.. If you could do that then my friend you would be the best friend of every government official and CEO all over this fair land.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

If it was as you say then it would be defined in the first ammendment as such that these laws only apply in the case of government or congress but it doesn't it says nothing of the sort.

It is indeed as I say. The First Amendment means exactly what it says and nothing more: "Congress shall make no law...". You are free to search the Constitution and its amendments to your heart's content to find anything more that would support your views. It isn't there. Go ahead. Look. It's not a long document, it won't take a great deal of your time. Anything else you maybe been led to believe is incorrect. If, as appears to be the case, you don't believe that, then you may research it a bit and satisfy your curiosity. But don't come back to me and tell me that something is in the Constitution unless you quote it to me, please.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[What me a Coward]

Oh brother you know i can't belive i have to point this out to you when it is so obviously stareing you in the face.

      The constitution does apply to buisness otherwise this case wouldn't even be in front of a judge you idiot!!!!

    Freedom of the press is a first amendment of the constitution which is what the blogger is traying to claim is supposed to protect him from being forced to reveal his sources to Apple. The argument (which not even apple nor the Judge is disagreeing with) is the blogger press and if so is protected by the first ammendment and the court can't compell him to reveal his source to apple at which point apple is out of luck (oh so sad). If not then the court can compell him to reveal his source to apple and Apple can bring down the rath of Jobs on him.

    That's the issue before the court that we have been disgusing. Is a blogger protected by the first ammendment of freedom of the press in the apple case.

      If as you claim it doesn't apply to buisness then this case wouldn't even be heard it would simply be

  Defendant claims first ammendment and plantif fires back with your honnor fisrt ammendment doesn't apply here apple is a buisness not government so the constitution doesn't cover this case, As such we move the court force the defendant to comply with court and reveal his source. Judge so moved court find that the first ammendment freedom of the press doesn't apply apple is a buisness and not government so the constitution doesn't protect defense, My judgement is defense will comply and reveal his source to the plantif.

    End of case.

    Nothing appears on slashdot and this article was never disgussed or debated and we never had this conversation because first ammendment wasn't an issue.

      But that's not whats happening, what is happening is a court case to decide weather or not the blogger is press and if so is protected by the first ammendment.

    Seriously do you think apples lawyers or the judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money deciding an issue that doesn't even apply to the case if the constitution didn't apply to buisness as well?

    I mean come on your smarter than that aren't you?

    Or did you start this argument just to start an argument??

    Or Or did you not even RTFA before jumping on here making this bass akward claim?

    In any event i have shown more than once why and how the constitution (specificly the first ammendment) does apply more over i have pointed out (what should have been obvious to you) the current case showing that yes it does indeed infact apply to buisness.

    But you haven't through this whole debate even come up with one thing to show that no it doesn't other than some claim based on your interpritations of the constitution so who is right and who is wrong?

    Me with examples of how and why as well as a (current) court case to prove it or you with nothing but claims that it doesn't because the constitution means what it says and nothing more?

    I really think were done here nice debating this with you.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

I really think were done here nice debating this with you.

Thank God! You haven't been debating. You've been ranting. I asked you to quote any line in the Constitution or amendments which supports anything you've said and you haven't. You can't because it isn't there. Your imagination doesn't constitute a source. As I suggested before, you can ask anyone you like who has any knowledge (not supposition) of the subject. A first-year law student should be able to put you straight.

I assume from your use of the language that you are a non-native speaker which may excuse part of your nonsense, but not all of it.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[What me a Coward]

Ok I thought we were done with this but I guess not.

    Yes I have been debating not ranting if I was ranting I would be posting claims without proof like you.

      It's not my imagination I have repeatedly shown examples as I said of how and why it applies as well as a court case to show it does. As well as an argument that if it didn't that neither apple nor a court judge would be wasting the courts time and taxpayer money hearing this case.

    But you haven't shown anything but your interpritations of how you think the constitution reads with nothing at all in any way shape or form to back up that claim.

    FTA

    On April 20, 2006 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will have that petition heard by the California Court of Appeal. The purpose of the hearing is so that a judge can decide whether the Santa Clara County court made a mistake when it refused to protect my rights under the First Amendment.

Also FTA

My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.

Apple feels that independent online journalists are not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that a journalists confidential communications and sources should be exposed to them or any large corporation that doesn't like what they publish - at will. I think that this is completely wrong on several levels.

Here's why you should be scared:

This case is not about me, it's not about Apple and it's not about the technology industry. It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with. The last time I checked, this was the United States of America - not communist China - and we are protected by a wonderful document called The Constitution.

    As you can clearly see even apple isn't arguing that the constitution or the first ammendment for that matter doesn't apply to buisness. Their argument is weather or not the blogger is protected by the same first ammendment as mainstream press is. They claim he's not and so isn't protected by it.

    Seriously I have pointed this out to you and it even states this in the article we have been discussing yet you keep making this fanciful claim with nothing to back you up but your claim of your interpritation of the constitution.

    And I needn't ask a first year law student about it when a standing circuit court judge with more knowledge as well as apples own lawyers right now are engaged in a court case deciding an issue not over does the constitution protect against buisness but does the first ammendment of that constitution protect a blogger. An issue that I have pointed out repeatedly wouldn't even be in front of the court if the constitution didn't apply.

    You assume wrong Im a born and raised ammerican of several generations of ammericans. If by pointing out the facts quite clearly is nonsense then yeah im spouting nonsense and you shouldn't excuse it however, The trail of posts quite clearly show that it isn't me spouting nonsense but you.

    You know I like how you pick through my whole post and select out one line from an argument to respond to and then ignore the rest because quite obviously you have no argument for it.

    As for my use of the language: Im not writing an article so I am not going to waste my time spellchecking. I had no idea you were a grammer Nazi as well.

    You really shouldn't bother responding back anymore unless you can come up with something better than the flimsy baseless argument you been useing, That dog not only wont hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

But you haven't shown anything but your interpritations of how you think the constitution reads with nothing at all in any way shape or form to back up that claim.

Actually I have quoted the Constitution verbatim, or rather the First Amendment thereto. It says what it says. If you believe that it says something else, then the onus is upon you to demonstrate that. Provide me with either:

a) a quotation from the Constitution or its amendements, or
b) a cited quotation from a reputable source (not your interpretation of what the newspapers say, a reputable legal authority)

which supports your position and you will have done something more than rant. If you can do neither of the above, then you have nothing to talk about. If you don't know what "quotation" means, there a number of online sources which can provide you with a meaning.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[What me a Coward]

I told you not to respond unless you had something to back you up this time but it seams you can only repeat the same dead rhetoric you have been using.
  And still you ignore the whole rest of my posts and pick out one line to respond back with your tired dead claim.

    I don't need to provide you with a Quote form the constitution I have provided you with several (repeatably I might add once again) examples as well as pointed to a current I repeat current court case (which this article is about as I have told you) that shows you are wrong. You don't like it go argue it with the Judge or apples lawyers or even the EFF's lawyers and stop listening to first year law students who haven't even taken the bar exam yet!

    God are you that brain dead that you can't get that through your thick skull none of them are argueming that this isn't a first amendment issue the article linked to on the main post points this out if you had taken the time to read it yourself.

    Here's the link to the article in question from the front page I suggest you take the time to read it and stop wasting my time with your stupid silly fantasies.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=170

    I have repeatedly provided proof that it does but you haven't provided anything other than a Quote of the first amendment and your radical interpretation flying in the face of the courts and lawyers not only in the current apple case but other prior cases saying that you're the one who's wrong not me!

    And I haven't provided my interpretations of what the article says thoughs were direct Quotes verbatim from the article which if you had read it you'd have known. And I don't know how much more reputable you can get than the court case and lawyers as well as the judge hearing as I have said this case (a case as I have stated repeatably wouldn't even be in the courts if it didn't).

    So the Onis is on you not me to provide proof and this time make it something more substantial than that which you have provided to date. Because that dog not only won't hunt but can't hunt because it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    And if you can't come up with a more intelligent argument than what you have I won't even bother to respond to you again with your idiotic ranting fantasies.

Re:Attacking the weak link

[lp-habu]

I told you not to respond

Indeed you did. That's at least one thing you have right. Of course no one has any obligation whatsoever to comply with anything you say.

I don't need to provide you with a Quote form the constitution I have provided you with several (repeatably I might add once again) examples as well as pointed to a current I repeat current court case (which this article is about as I have told you) that shows you are wrong.

This is obviously a waste of both our time. You are clearly too dense to understand what either of us is saying. "Examples" don't cut it. I want specifics. Legal specifics. If you don't have them, you have nothing. You obviously can continue to believe whatever you like, but I will tell you with no doubt whatsoever that the Constitution says what I have quoted to you. Unless you can quote, and I mean quote verbatim, something which contradicts that then you have nothing. Telling me about articles does nothing for you unless those articles happen to be by legal scholars, not journalists.

I won't even bother to respond to you again with your idiotic ranting fantasies.

That is an outcome greatly to be desired. If you are going to continue this despite everything, will you please at least learn to spell and to construct a proper sentence? That also would be greatly appreciated.

Re:No surprise.

[drgreg911]

I don't think it's going to put a dent in the Machead fan base. The Mac users who support Apple because of the image will stay because Jobs is still around with the RDF. The other group of rabid users, of which I consider myself one, will keep on being devoted because OS X is still the best environment around for our needs. If that ever changes, I'll look to something else. In the meantime, OS X just kicks ass so I couldn't care less what legal actions Apple might take.

Re:No surprise.

[Overly Critical Guy]

It amuses me how people on Slashdot make fun of fundamentalist values like "Jesus" and "evil," but when a company dares try to protect leaks of its future in-development technologies, it's EVIL! In fact, apparently there is "Microsoft evil" and "lawyer oriented evil."

And what is this "old Apple" crap you're talking about? Apple has always been litigious, and this claim that they will "further alienate" the fan base, as if they're alienating them now, has no basis in fact. Actually, they're doing quite well as the quarterly results call is expected to show in May.

Basically, I'm out of quotation marks here to throw around your goofy phrases.

Re:What if..?

[Overly Critical Guy]

What if Apple had not hit the iPod jackpot? Would they still be suing small-time bloggers?

Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple. A few people got into trouble, including one lady who inadvertently had the upcoming "Think Different" ad budget published in an industry newsletter.

The saddest part of this story is (from a consumer point of view) how a loyalist is kicked in the nuts by the company he/she has loved.

Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.

Not if...

[msauve]

he didn't intend, or didn't know that the offense would injure the owner of that trade secret. It's not clear that Apple has suffered any injury (although they'll no doubt claim they have), but that is for the court to decide.

What he did is not a crime at this time, as that has yet to be proven. You are not a court, and you are not able to pronounce judgement.

Re:Not if...

[vought]

he didn't intend, or didn't know that the offense would injure the owner of that trade secret. It's not clear that Apple has suffered any injury (although they'll no doubt claim they have), but that is for the court to decide.

Jason O'Grady has been publishing leaks about unreleased Apple products for over ten years. I'd say he knows exactly what he did, and that it was against the law.

Re:Not if...

[NutscrapeSucks]

Reading his article, I don't get the impression that he believes he violated any laws at all.

He seems to think that Apple got their hometown judge to rule their way, but it will be overturned on appeal.

What about the other side of this?

[babbling]

Ignoring whether or not it is legal, and whether or not it should be legal, it seems to me as though Apple are doing something stupid, here.

Whenever something is brewing from Google, many rumours fly around, and lots of buzz is generated. Very often, one of the rumours is the real product, but lots of buzz is generated because no one really knows for sure what is coming. It seems Apple are naturally attaining the same position as Google - lots of buzz is being generated about Apple products. That is, until Apple sue everyone who published the rumour that turned out to be correct.

Apple are morons for doing this. They should be slowly stirring the pot, like Google is. It generates speculation, excites potential customers, and probably even reveals some good future product ideas in the process! I've never seen rumours subtract from the effectiveness of a Google product launch, and I see no reason why it should be any different for Apple.

They're killing off an opportunity that any other company would pay millions of dollars for.

Re:What about the other side of this?

[Crizp]

But when Apple squashes rumour sites, and news of it gets published, wouldn't you say even more buzz is created? "If Apple stopped this, maybe there's something to it? OMG! I can't wait to see! Ponies!"

Re:What about the other side of this?

[nugneant]

Apple are morons for doing this. They should be slowly stirring the pot, like Google is. It generates speculation, excites potential customers, and probably even reveals some good future product ideas in the process! I've never seen rumours subtract from the effectiveness of a Google product launch, and I see no reason why it should be any different for Apple.

*flamesuit on*
The key difference between Google and Apple is that Apple is an exterior trend. Their products are generally physically inferior (as in, throw an iPod and a Diamond Rio down the stairs, and my money's on the Diamond Rio to survive) and less cost-effective than the competition (fact, not opinion).

Google, on the other hand, provides arguably the best service of its class, usually at the best price. I'm thinking primarily of Gmail here, though it certainly applies to lots of other services as well. Basically, I'm not saying Apple sux Gmail rulez (though that's definitely how I'm biased) - but rather, we're comparing a Paris fashion design company (Apple) to Osh Kosh B'Gosh / Levy's Jeans (Google)

So, basically, the theory goes that people are buying Apple because A) it's a surprise, and B) it'll be guarenteed trendy and eye-catching for months to come.

If the nefarious "competition" can figure out how an Apple device is going to look, and manages to rush something that looks substantially similar out the door - bang. Apple's lost a substantial number of customers. It doesn't matter if the "competition"'s device is half as good and self-destructs when the batteries go out - because by the time iWhatever comes out and is deemed "twice as good" as Nigerian Products Ltd's Gloriously Functioning Audio Versatile Unit, it's still not the first on the block to look the way it does.

Google, on the other hand, doesn't really lose as much from not being the first on the block. A startup site can copy Google's basic look and feel and have free webmail, free blogspace, free web hosting and even bonus free spyware (FOR FREE!!) - so what, who cares. People will migrate to Google's services, provided they're better/faster/cheaper/etc than the startup. While a Gmail address is a sexy, trendy thing in some circles, it's not something I'm chained to in the great wide out of doors. iWhatever, on the other hand, is - and if I, the shallow and none-too-savvy trendy consumer on the street, can save $20 to put towards Gapercombie and Fitch jeans AND buy something "totally new and seXXXy", then so be it.

Just my (probably incoherant and bouncing all over the place) two cents.

Re:What about the other side of this?

[toadlife]

You made sure to button up all the buttons on that famesuit, right?

Re:What about the other side of this?

[nugneant]

You made sure to button up all the buttons on that famesuit, right?

Nono, FLAMEsuit. The other suit's for when I'm defending Linux and exposing security holes in IE via links to my
blog.

Re:No surprise.

[vought]

Since Apple started making the big Ipod+Itunes money, they've started getting...well...EVIL!!!

No, it's more like "since Steve Jobs came back Apple's had some fucking pride, discipline and follow-up"

Apple employees have been wanting O'Grady's ass in a sling for over ten years now. Since Steve returned, the level of cynicism at the company has fallen to all time lows (though by no means extinguished) and employees understand they have a stake in every last competitive advantage possible - including secrecy about unannounced products.

Every time O'Grady publishes a leak from an Apple contractor, third party, or employee, he materially damages all the hard work and expense of keeping those products secret.

Apple spends a shit load (metric) of money to keep developing products under wraps - security patrols, disguises, etc. - very similar to how large car companies develop and test new designs.

And though you can find snapshots of heavily-disguised prototype cars in the auto magazines, those photographers hunt down the testers and photograph from great distances - they're not passing along privileged information from an employee who signed a contract to keep that information secret.

In other words, if some doofus Apple employee took the new ÜberBook iPro to the Donut Wheel and someone snapped a picture and published it, neither the photographer or publisher would be liable. If the same employee sent O'Grady an e-mail about the machine, both parties would be liable for dissemination of the information.

See the difference?

Re:What if..?

[vought]

Since when do "loyalists" have the right to kick a company in the nuts by blabbing about all its secret in-development products? I love the way people on Slashdot assume they have the "right" to absolutely anything at anyone's expense, especially if it's a company. Because companies are evil, right? Yawn.

Fuckin' A. Maybe Jason should have to pay Apple back for the development costs of the product - or maybe just the costs of keeping the product secret, including security patrols, badge readers and the maintenance of, printing of employee handbooks that explicitly detail the company's NDA policy, heck - even down to the software they're probably now using to monitor their network for e-mail going to...Jason O'Grady.

JD, you got in trouble because you did something wrong and you knew it. Buck up, and don't use ZDNet's blog to get sympathy - it only makes you look pathetic.

Oh agreed!

[Space cowboy]

I wasn't trying to suggest everyone knows everything, what I meant was that there is/was such a culture of corporate secrecy at Apple, that pretty much all new development is secret. So anyone working on anything new is probably in the position of knowing something valuable to the rumour sites...

Witness this boot-camp thing: apparently it's the 10.4.6 update that gives the ability to repartition the drive non-destructively. So the developers working on that were key to Boot Camp being possible.

And by valuable, I mean "worth cash". They generate hits on pages (with adverts) effectively funded by Apple's not-so-diligent employees, after all... I've no problem with people speculating (I'll even applaud if they get it right!), but I'd be pissed off if I was in Apple's shoes, and some company/individual was making it its/his business to ruin mine. And even then, they're not trying to stop him, they're trying to stop the employee from doing it again (presumably by firing him/her).

Simon

Re:No surprise.

[ktappe]

It amuses me how people on Slashdot make fun of fundamentalist values like "Jesus" and "evil," but when a company dares try to protect leaks of its future in-development technologies, it's EVIL!

Since when did fundamentalists own exclusive rights to the concept of evil (and/or good for that matter)? The term "evil" as it is commonly accepted throughout the society in which most of us live means unnecessary acts that are extraordinarly against the well-being of an individual and/or group with little or no regard for social morays. That is, the entity performing the act voluntarily chooses to do it, hurts the heck out of someone else, doesn't care how badly they're hurting them, and doesn't (seem to) care what others think of it. Yep, I do think Apple's actions here fit that. And I don't see why one has to be fundamentalist to agree.

-Kurt

Jason (and Nick) needs to memorize this phrase:

[jpellino]

"Is this under an NDA?"
and banish this one from his vocabulary:
"Gosh, it looks legit. I think I'll tell the world."
Really. I can't believe that people who make it their business to report inside news can't understand or be sensitive to the notion that much heck, most - of what's not on the Apple press page is probably under NDA.
If it never occurred to you that any Apple employee that has detailed knowledge of unreleased products JUST MIGHT be breaking the contract and possibly law - then you need to review what we all seem to be able to guess - and we're not journalists like you claim to be.
As for the First Amendment angle, you're not Woodward and Bernstein, Apple is not subverting the government. You are not saving the world or fixing anything by telling us about improved LRF support for the next Apple doohicky three days early. I salivate over new Apple product as much as anyone - but I'm not going to risk my business to report it before the other guy. Speaking of which - for all their breathless competition - how come NOBODY - and I mean NOBODY saw BootCamp even 10 minutes early? It's not about journalistic skill - it's about the one poor shlub who's not smart enough to honor the NDA they signed finding you and figuring you can't resist the tasty nugget.
Jason, you've been a decent supporter of Apple, but that doesn't mean they're going to look the other way when you're on the receiving end of an NDA violation that is covered by law as others here have pointed out directly.

Re:What if..?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple

(Repress urge to make George Bush Joke)

I mentioned this elsewhere, but Apple leaked the fact they were switching to Intel to the Wall Street Journal. It's almost certain that leak was authorized.

This is conduct, not speech.

[monoqlith]

To me, Apple's defense of its trade secrets is warranted and does not constitute violation of free speech.

Certain business language such as stock trading information, executive orders, are priveleged outside of the realm of free speech. That is, utterances such as someone giving insider trading information can have active results that cause harm to people; it thus qualifies as conduct, since it has a locutionary force that separates it from harmless, mundane speech. Similarly, an executive telling an accountant to shred documents regarding financial figures is a violation of business conduct laws, and a general telling his subordinates to murder innocent civilians violates war crimes laws.

This is no different. Disclosing trade secrets has done and does do appreciable damage to the company for whom they are secrets.

Whether or not it is sensible for Apple to go after blogs to protect its trade information is a matter I haven't really decided on. However, to me, it makes sense in the same way as Rudolph Guiliani's policy of going after small-time lawbreakers to deter the bigger offenses - go after jaywalking, so that it looks like you're tough on crime in general. Similarly, Apple is obviously protecting what appears like trivial information about an upcoming product to prevent bloggers from thinking they can get away with disclosing larger trade information.

Apple obviously made the wager that allowing people to disclose trade secrets at all damages them in such a way that all the free advertising in the world can't make up for. I'm not sure I would have made the same wager, but I can respect Apple's decision to make it.

Re:This is conduct, not speech.

[Todd Knarr]

The problem is, as someone outside Apple I'm not neccesarily obliged not to disclose their trade secrets no matter how much damage my disclosure might do to Apple. In fact, as an outsider the only times I am obliged to keep their secrets are if a) I've signed a binding NDA with them or b) I'm aware when the information's given to me that it's being given in violation of an NDA or other obligation not to disclose it. The burden of maintaining secrecy falls almost entirely on Apple, and if they fail to maintain secrecy then it's almost entirely their problem, not mine. Note that in general trade secrets have no protection in law, the only things enforceable by law are agreements not to disclose certain information.

If a company came at me for disclosing trade secrets, the first thing I'd demand of them is that they identify exactly what agreement obliged me to maintain those secrets and to prove that I'd in fact signed that agreement. If they couldn't or wouldn't, I'd invite them to go pound sand (or, if they were suing me, I'd ask the judge for an immediate dismissal with prejudice and to be awarded costs). I wouldn't waste time on First Amendment or "I didn't disclose anything" arguments, I'd go straight for "I've no duty not to disclose".

Re:This is conduct, not speech.

[leomaster]

NOt entirely correct. As an outsider you don't have an NDA or any other agreement with the corporation. But as a blogger with a known history of releasing rumors you can be held responsible for publishing information held as a trade secret and covered under an NDA by the person supplying the information to you. The difficult link to establish is whether you as the blogger would have reasonably KNOWN the information was a trade secret. If the case was for millions of dollars, this connection would have to be firm. Since it's only for the identity of your source, and you have a well-established habit of publishing "information from inside sources" the connection can be weak and fuzzy.

Also, the First Amendment only applies to restricting Congress and government. It doesn't do anything to restrict your liability in regards to speech about corporations.

Easy

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

So how is a publisher supposed to know if a bit of info is an illicit trade secret, or simply a marketing whisper campaign?

Ask the source of the information for proof that they are authorized to disclose it. If the proof is good, you go ahead and publish the information. If you want the source to give you fake leaks in the future, you don't disclose the fact that the "leak" was in fact authorized.

The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit. They should therefore accommodate you; if the "leak" is really authorized, they should be able to prove it to you. And if they want you to keep mum on the fact that the "leak" was authorized, they should also offer you some incentive to do so.

Re:Easy

[NutscrapeSucks]

I think you misunderstand the reason that companies "leak" info -- they are looking for plausible denability as well. If it takes a signed statement from Steve Jobs to leak information about Intel chips to the WSJ, Apple might as well have issued a press-release.

The people doing the fake "leaks" are trying to get you to do something that sounds sketchy, for their benefit

The publisher's goal is to sell papers, not question motives.

Re:Easy

[NutscrapeSucks]

Just noticed you're an old school troll. Hopefully you're on a come-back.

Can't be?!!!?

[JohnnyCanuck]

This just can't be. Apple is all that is pure and good in the world. It's Microsoft that kicks puppies and clubs baby seals....

Re:Apple's benevolence

[Farmer Tim]

Articles like these make me wonder why Apple is praised as more ethical than Microsoft.

Apple isn't a convicted monopolist? They observe standards, or at worst get their formats accepted as parts of standards, rather than simply using broken or incompatible implementations of standards? Your guess is as good as mine.

Apple controls the hardware...

A non-issue. If you don't like Apple's hardware, you've got plenty of alternatives. Tough luck if you want OSX to run on something else, though, but that is a condition of sale imposed by Apple (just as any vendor of any product can impose conditions); again, you know your alternatives.
 
...actively squashed clones...

Only after licencing clones to begin with (and doing a large amount of the development work). So what? Since when is a company required to lose money to support its competition, especially when the competition is/was equally capable of creating its own computing platforms (potentially better than the old MacOS)? And frankly, the clones did nothing to either (a) reduce the price of Macs, or (b) increase the market share (quite the opposite, in fact), so the value of the clone experiment is debatable.
 
...has a history of suppressing MAC OS RUMORS

These situations only occur for information too detailed or accurate to be anything but an educated guess, not for rumours in general (the MacMini was predicted, but they weren't silly enough to include incriminating details like the development name). To summarise: fanboy gets inside info, makes it obvious to the world he's getting it from someone at Apple to prove how clever he is, Apple takes predictable steps to plug the leak (proving how clever he isn't). Two important points: the information in this case was subject to a non-disclosure agreement, and really has no tangible significance to anyone who isn't in the hardware business (so you can't argue its for the "greater public good" without trivialising that argument; its just another piece of hardware, not a cure for cancer!).

If you want to complain about this kind of thing, try starting with government...they're supposed to be publicly accountable. Apple isn't, and they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to maintain any commercial advantage, including not allowing their competitors access to detailed descriptions of future product plans. They're a corporation; better than many, maybe, but still a corporation.

Re:No surprise.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Well to be perfectly honest, every "fundamentalist" of whatever stripe that I've ever met or seen on TV exemplifies the very definition of EVIL.

It's not either/or.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Both the insider and the person who receives the leak are resposible when they disclose information they can reasonably expect to be a trade secret.

Your problem is that you don't even care what the letter of the law says. There is such a thing as largely uniform laws on the disclosure of trade secrets in the USA, and you could have found this just by looking at even as bad an information source as Wikipedia.

Re:It's not either/or.

[arose]

[..] information they can reasonably expect to be a trade secret.

It would be reasonable to expect anything not in a press release to be a trade secret.

two scenarios

[Khashishi]

1. If the blogger signed a NDA, Apple has every right to sue his ass off.

2. If the blogger didn't sign an NDA, how can he be any way responsible for any damage?

If somebody else signed an NDA and passed the information to a media outlet, the signer did the infringement, not the media.

Re:two scenarios

[lynxpardinus]

Your phrased that wrong, it should read: "If somebody else signed and NDA and passed the information to a media outlet THAT KNEW THE INFORMATION IS A TRADE SECRET, both the signer and the media did the infringment". People in the "traditional" media are fired and their careers ruined all the time because of issues like this. If bloggers want to be treated like all other media outlets they need to play by the same game rules and follow the established code of coduct for journalism, and don't forget the most important rule: to obey the law. I feel no pity for somebody that has been doing this stuff for years, knowing that it is illegal and now goes around crying "first amendment!" After all, Apple could have tried to make the case that the blogger released the information with the intention of benefiting economically, and seek economic relief. After all he may have expected to get more advertising revenue from the increased traffic that the release of such trade secret would cause.

Re:two scenarios

[adzoox]

Read the Uniform Trade Secret Act ... it states that if you know information is a trade secret (it even gives the example of "an upcoming product") then you may not report it unless A) It is common knowledge, B) The company has already shown the prototype publicly or C) The company has authorized you specifically to report the information.

This isn't a matter of speech at all ... he's right ... he had the right to publish it ... he didn't have the right to publish it without impunity. There's a difference. This is NOT reporting on scandal, corporate wrongdoing (tobacco, enron) ... this is expoliting STOLEN information solely for gain ... ie increasing hit totals to show potential advertisers.

Re:two scenarios

[gnasher719]

'' 1. If the blogger signed a NDA, Apple has every right to sue his ass off.

2. If the blogger didn't sign an NDA, how can he be any way responsible for any damage?

If somebody else signed an NDA and passed the information to a media outlet, the signer did the infringement, not the media. ''

It seems that you don't understand at all what the NDA actually means.

The NDA serves two purposes. First, it is a legally binding contract. The person signing the NDA is not allowed to disclose certain information. Even if that information is not secret at all, the person is still not allowed to disclose it. (However, NDA's usually contain some close that allow you to talk about something once it becomes public knowledge). As far as the contract goes, someone passing on information received under an NDA commits a contract violation, and someone who didn't sign the NDA is not bound by it.

But secondly, if for example Apple discloses a trade secret to a third party under NDA, the information remains a trade secret. Apple has to take reasonable steps to keep the information secret, and making a third party sign an NDA is such a reasonable step. Or putting terms into employment contracts. A trade secret stays a trade secret until it either loses its value (a secret can only be a trade secret if it gives the company some advantage compared to other companies), until it is disclosed on purposes (like the Mac Mini ceased to be a trade secret once it was announced), or until it becomes known to the public through carelessness (like the G5 one day before it was officially announced). Illegal disclosure, after espionage or theft, or disclosure by violating a contract, doesn't prevent it from being a trade secret.

The person who signed the NDA has two legal problems: He acted against a legally binding contract, and he illegally disclosed a trade secret. The blogger has one legal problem: He illegally disclosed a trade secret.

First Amendment

[Ash-Fox]

> It's about the First Amendment. If we don't have a free press and protection under the First Amendment large corporations can sue any journalist publishing something that they don't agree with.

First Amendment protects your right of speech against the government, not against corporations. You'd think Americans would know their constition a bit better.

Corporations have every right in the United States of America to attempt to sue people for things they say.

Re:First Amendment

[Mistah Blue]

Wrong. Apple has every right to use the court system. Get a clue and re-read the Constitution. The government is not who is suing here. This individual has no First Amendment rights re: Apple, nor are his rights being abrogated by Apple. The parent is correct, American citizens need to get a clue, read the Constitution, and know what is and what isn't a right.

Re:First Amendment

[anaesthetica]

Moreover, the first amendment is intended to protect political/intellectual/social speech. It's so you can't be persecuted for expressing your beliefs and opinions on the state of things.

Free speech doesn't protect what amounts to industrial espionage.

Re:First Amendment

[Atanamis]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The freedom of speech is not limited only to speak against the government. That said, this case is not about penalizing a blogger for his speech, and there is no lawsuit being filed (at present). Instead, this is about whether someone can be compelled to give back corporate documents which might reveal a source.

Re:First Amendment

[justins]

Corporations have every right in the United States of America to attempt to sue people for things they say.

Crikey. The statutes under which they might have any sort of basis for suing you are required to be consistent with, that's right you guessed it, the FIRST AMENDMENT. That's the way our government works.

Re:First Amendment

[What me a Coward]

Wait so are you saying that the first ammendment only applies to the government?

    The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Uhm hmm ok i see that congress can't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. But nowhere does it say that the first ammendment only applies to the government.

    So im afraid your wrong the individual does have first ammendment rights. The question though is does it apply in this case?

    Their not bringing a case against him for releaseing trade secrets as they would have to prove he knew when he blogged that what he blogged was a trade secret. Tough to prove unless his source whom he's protecting under what he claims is his first ammendment right to protect his sources under freedom of the press came forth and implicated him so going to the trade secret case was not brought.

    The argument by apple is that he's not press since he only reports on an online blog and doesn't report for a traditional news service or paper so his sources aren't protected and he must surrender them over.

    Sounds like an attempt to redefine what is considered freedom of the press to me. So is a blogger or any online news source considered press?
    If so then most deffinatly the first ammendment applies and apple can't force him to surrender his sources. If not then it will define for decades to come that online news isn't free speech and no annonomus sources will give out info to an online reporter or news site for fear of being handed over (even in a none trade secret case) by the reporter because he has no recourse or protections.
    So the only place you would have to go for such confidentual info like breaking news about secret illegal buisness dealings government coverups (deep throut comes to mind) and other cases where the individual wanting to protect his identity for various reasons would be in the traditional press not online blogs or news services.

    And you are right apple has a right to use the court system but are you right in that this individual has no first ammendment rights in this case? That i guess is what has to be decided based on is or isn't a online news service or blog considered press.

    I think it is but Jobs it seams thinks it isn't.

Re:First Amendment

[Mistah Blue]

Uhm hmm ok i see that congress can't make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. But nowhere does it say that the first ammendment only applies to the government.

This is a common mistake. You infer the First Amendment applies to Apple because it doesn't say otherwise in the Constitution. This is a mistake. If it isn't in the Constitution it devolves to the States. Apple is not a State the last I looked.

And you are right apple has a right to use the court system but are you right in that this individual has no first ammendment rights in this case? That i guess is what has to be decided based on is or isn't a online news service or blog considered press.

That is exactly what the Court will have to decide.

Re:First Amendment

[What me a Coward]

No it isn't a mistake if it was the first ammendment couldn't be used by the press in buisness cases involving exposing coruption or backroom deals etc.. As by your argument buisnesses aren't governement bodies.

    You're making the mistake trying to only apply the constitution to governement esspecially in the face of past court cases involving these ammendments and the press in cases involving buisnesses. That right their argues against your assertion that the constitution and the first ammendment only applies to government. Which if it did then all prior court cases involving buisness and the press where the first ammendment was involved are wrong!

    Are you going to sit their and state that every court judge who has ruled in favor of the press on first ammendment against buisnesses is wrong? If so I would want to see your credentials to show you know better then all thoughs judges.

    And no im not infering the first ammendment applies to apple. Apple is a buisness and hence not a person or press so isn't protected under the constitution and that includes the first ammendment. But people are and so is the press and are theirfore protected under said ammendment.

    The question though is weather or not a blogger is considered press and theirfore protected under the freedom of the press and allowed to protect his source in this case which is what this is about. If the first ammendment didn't apply to press in buisness cases but only to government or state which you clearly pointed out apple is not then this wouldn't be an issue since the first ammendment wouldn't even come up or stop apple or any other business from going after the press (any press) in any case where they want sources revealed.

    And as you're restatement of my statement that is what has to be decided is a blogger press and therifore protected from apples attempts to force him to reveal his source or not.

    If not as i stated before this will have major implication on the future of the press and cause a chilling effect on getting sources to expose shady buisness and governement dealings and coruption and other things where an online news service is involved for decades to come.

Re: Apple vs Bloggers

[Graff]

Thom at OSNews also posted his opinion on an editorial published yesterday: here

In that editorial he compares people killed for expressing their opinions to Apple suing "non-professional" journalists over exposing trade secrets. This is an absurd comparison. Apple has sued both professional and "non-professional" journalists for exposing trade secrets, they don't discriminate.

What these journalists are doing is illegal, individuals and corporations have the right to protect their own internal products and research and when these journalists get inside information and publish it without checking the source then they take the risk of getting sued. Don't want to get sued? Shoot off a message to Apple and verify that the information was obtained legally.

Comparing getting sued to getting killed is just absurd. This sort of grandstanding should be a big sign to all that this gentleman is NOT a serious journalist. Serious journalists adhere to The Journalism Code of Ethics

Re:What if..?

[arose]

Hell, yeah, Steve Jobs instituted a strict "no leaks" policy when he returned to Apple.

And it's so effective that they have to sue third parties...

Re:No surprise.

[NoodleSlayer]

if some doofus Apple employee took the new ÜberBook iPro to the Donut Wheel

This is how you know they're from Cupertino!

Besides, why would you want to sit down in Donut Wheel anyways, its mostly De Anza and Monta Vista students using it as a late night refuge for studying, and not terribly clean.

I'd think Panera or that Bagel place accross from Apple would be a better place to try and snag pictures of Apple Employees using pre-release gear. Although most employees are very good about not showing such things in public.

And yes, its annoying to hear people bitch about how this product or that product is not out yet that the only reason they heard about it is because some bozo leaked it.

Warning - Geeky Grammar Objection

[bcnstony]

This killed me: The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.'

The story is = The story's != The stories

'stories' means plural story, not 'story is'.

OK,OK, maybe grammar geek needs to get laid, but still!

Re:Warning - Geeky Grammar Objection

[damned_mediocrity]

Actually, if you read TFA, that sentence makes a lot more sense. I read it as a fragment, as in: "Which articles? The articles about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand."

Granted, even in context, it's confusing. Were I his editor, I would have made him change it.

Damned Fool

[benbranch]

This guy is a damned fool. The entire article is written in a condescending and very 14 year old style. If this idiot wanted to rile up support he should have done it intelligently.

Go Apple.

That's why Apple is trying to find the source!

[SuperKendall]

Yes, but the lawsuit involves a more subtle issue: who is responsible, the insider violated an NDA and leaked the info, or the person who reports on the leaked info?

Obviously the person who leaked the information in the first place, because they were in the position of trust.

Which is exactly why ALL Apple is suing over is to get the documents originally sent to the blogger, so they can find out who the leaker is and sue HIM (sorry, could be HER I guess) for damages.

If journalists do not get special protection for trade secrets (hint: they do not) then he is pretty much destined to loose. If he destroys the documents he gets to go to jail; hopefully he is not that stupid.

Re:No surprise.

[Wolface]

ÜberBook iPro

damn... even that sounds better than MacBook Pro.

Exactly!

[tgma]

Thank you for a very interesting post.

Everyone knows that Apple protects information about forthcoming products - that's why the rumour sites exist. So it's disingenuous for Jason to say that he didn't know that the information was a trade secret or confidential. If anyone should know that Apple doesn't want to publish this information, it should be someone who attracts readers to his site with the promise of access to that information.

Re: Apple vs Bloggers

[l3v1]

Thom again... This issue here is not about freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, or freedom to anything, or being killed because of your opinions, etc. This is about packs of "bloggers" who think a). they are professional writers just because they have a web page which they can edit, b). they publish information about which they _know_ are company secrets and think they can get away with it. It doesn't matter that they have not signed any NDAs, because they know these infos are company secrets and they knowingly make these public. I wouldn't defend a company, any company on this planet, never ever, still, some of these "professional" "bloggers" would really need some wakeup snap on their asses every once in a while.

Free publicity

[marcovje]

I really ask why those sites bother giving Apple free publicity at all. Run a few iRiver and Zen reviews ?

poor little ISP

[dredre123]

Much kudos to nfox2000 for handling the matter as he did and for sharing (criticism of the EFF doesn't always go down well).

I enjoy finding out about apple innovation as much as the next mac fanboy and I've enthusiastically read Jason's stuff in the past, but why didn't he register the domain under his own name to begin with? Then apple wouldn't have to subpoena the ISP.

Perhaps it was convenience, but surely any reputable journalist/publication should be readily contactable. Was he anticipating this kind of trouble? Or did he simply not bother getting a PO box until he found out he really did need one?

The parent is perhaps the most relevant post so far. Not only is apple merely requesting the documents leaked (which may or may not lead to identifying the insider), but they have sought no damages from Jason O'Grady himself. Nor did they "set their legal sights on the low hanging fruit", they aimed at obtaining information from any source possible.

Official Secrets Acts

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Whether or not the product in question was exciting doesn't make it any more legal to report trade secrets.

Yet because no real equivalent of an Offical Secrets Act exists in the United States, it is legal to disclose any secret dealings of the US Government. It is legal to publish leaks from the White House for example, or the Pentagon Papers.

How strange that the trite dealings of private companies are afforded more clandestine protections that the secret wranglings of the government, or indeed the private affairs of individuals. Celebrities for example, cannot argue prior restraint, or restraint of any kind when glossy magazines publish intimate details of their private lives. Neither can you.

However, a corperation can claim prior restraint on just about anything it likes, as long as it claims copyright, or "trade secret" laws apply. I wonder why I can't register myself as a private company and avail of this seemingly extralegal protection?

That's not the definition...

[jpellino]

Your use of the word 'secret' here stems from the playground meaning, not the legal one. A trade secret is something deemed so by the owner, and doesn't cease to be defined as such just because Timmy told Bobby. Someone at Apple violated their NDA and the criminal code. By your claim, once someone else knows it' it's not a trade secret, so the violater is off the hook and so is anyone else. Jason's far too familiar with the way things work in the computer world to not have at least an inkling that there could be a problem with info from a company known to embargo product info until their own official release date.

Re:Missing the point

[dredre123]

"Didn't you read the EULA where you gave all your rights away?"

Actually... the EULA I read at my work place is even more sinister: It's a License Agreement that stipulates I should "End" myself if I break it (they call it an "End User License Agreement"). It's oh so awfull!

I should blow a whistle or something... but I doubt that'll help, not after the Apple ruling.

It was a trade secret, but...

[qazwart]

However you slice it, it was a trade secret, and Apple has full right to use legal recource to find out who leaked it. They also have a right to go after non-employees who purposely are involved in the leaking of these secrets.

Now, is it the thing Apple should have done? It certainly didn't help create the normal Apple love-fest that usually follows these tradeshows, and it didn't improve Apple's relationship with Geekdom. In the end, the leak didn't hurt Apple financially, and if I was part of Apple's legal team, I would recommend to drop the whole thing very quietly. They got our point across,

Heck, I've been reading these blogs for years. Right before every Macworld, These blogs list a plethora of the products that never come to be (Apple will announce a personal jetpack called the iPack! We've got photoshopped pictures to prove it!). No one ever takes these speculations seriously. I originally thought Apple's legal wrangles was a publicity gimmick. They got the world's attention, and suddenly everyone wanted a gander at the next hot Apple product. Once the Macworld was over, Apple would simply drop everything.

I mean you'd have to be some sort of control-freak egomaniac to keep on pushing something like this, and that certainly doesn't describe anyone I know of at Apple.

Absolutely not.

[Stu Charlton]

The (HUGE) difference is that in those countries , the government was police, judge, and jury. Here it is governed by civil action, presided by a judge, determined by a jury of 12 individuals.

Freedom is not "license" -- it is responsibliity.

Re:Absolutely not.

[i]

1. Your diatribe isn't relevant to, and certainly not denies, that "Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from consequences - reasonable or otherwise" is applicable also to China, Soviet and Germany 1939.

2. Freedom is freedom is freedom. It is not the same as "responsibility". Otherwise it wouldn't be two different words.

3. Your undelying assumtpion seems to be that if You can openly say commonly accepted thoughts and facts, you have "freedom of speech".
If so, "Freedom of speech" the have no meaning. Commonly accepted thoughts and facts do not need any legal protection, it's the NOT commonly accepted thoughts and facts that needs it.
But maybe You simply don't want and/or don't see it good that NOT commonly accepted thoughts and facts are expressed ?

frivolity

[Stu Charlton]

There are laws in most jurisdictions to punish filers of frivolous lawsuits as an abuse of the system. Though I admit most "large" cases , even if groundless, don't often fall under that due to expensive lawyers fooling people into believing there actually is a case there.

Have you even been reading the posts here?

[spun]

It amuses me how some people like to claim the exact opposite of reality in order to make themselves seem oppressed or in the minority. Many of the posts here have been in support of Apple protecting it's secrets. So don't try to make this seem like some kind of corporate hating group think knee jerk response. You are about the 200th person here to stand up and defend apple.

Which by the way, is bullshit. If someone in a company tells me something, I must assume it isn't a trade secret or they wouldn't be telling me. Companies have too much power and control over our society as it is. When I started reading slashdot the phrase "Information wants to be free" was widely accepted here as an absolute truth. Of course it's not, and it's corny as hell, but man! the pendulum has sure swung the other way.

I sure hope no Libertarians are defending Apple, because this guy signed no contract saying he wouldn't disclose things about apple, and now Apple is initiating force against him for what he did.

If it were really okay to sue for things like this, you could easily entrap any reporter who pissed you off. Just have someone casually mention something juicy to him, and when he reports it, sue the pants off him. According to people like you anything can be a trade secret, and I can sue enyone for disclosing it, even if they had no idea that it was supposed to be secret. Am I alone in seeing that this is a very slippery slope that we really don't want to set foot on?

Off topic picking of nit

[nasch]

It's "mores" not "morays", though the pronunciation is the same.

Re:No surprise.

[justins]

Apple employees have been wanting O'Grady's ass in a sling for over ten years now.

That would have to exclude the ones who read him and the ones who talk to him.

Re:FWEEDOOOM

[CODiNE]

WTF??? You hate freedom? If you're in America, please get the fuck OUT. Now. Asshole.

Yes, I was offended by your stupid, asinine, childish, antiAmerican post.

Sorry bud... Free country and all, if you don't like it you're free to leave yourself. Freedom is nice, but in this case it's just a way of trolling for support. Sort of like "Think about the CHILDREN!", it can easily be abused.