Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
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!
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).
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
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?
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.
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.
To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire