Apple Ends Anti-Blogger Legal Effort

An anonymous reader writes "Apple has decided not to appeal the decision against it in it in its case against the product-information leaking bloggers. News.com discusses the ramifications of this decision, which may make future online journalists bolder in their actions." From the article: "Court documents show the company's investigators interviewed 29 employees who had access to a key confidential document — but Apple did not examine them under oath or examine their computers. That's one reason, the appeals court said, to grant the online journalists the protective order they requested. 'Apple has failed to establish that it adequately pursued other possible means to identify the source of the information in question,' the judges said."

Comments

It's about control of the message...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Apple didn't want to go after its internal people because it didn't want to piss them off. It wanted to go after the blogger because Apple likes to "leak" tidbits and then turn off the spigot when if feels its "leaked" test message has hit the test market. However, the blogger in this case wouldn't shut the hell up when Apple asked him too so more people got the message from a near-official source than Apple wanted. Rather than lead with a carrot ("STFU or you get no more information") Apple tried to lead with stick.

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[aristotle-dude]

Cool, what else does it run beside an operating system? The average user cares about applications and how easy they are to use, not what OS they run on or who built their computer.

No brainer...

[alshithead]

Apple had internal investigations they could perform to at least try to find the information they wanted before filing a suit. The court correctly (in my opinion) ruled that Apple needs to pursue those avenues before granting their request.

Re:No brainer...

[hyperizer]

Apple had internal investigations they could perform to at least try to find the information they wanted before filing a suit. The court correctly (in my opinion) ruled that Apple needs to pursue those avenues before granting their request.

Indeed, per this detailed analysis, "EFF, in its appeal on O'Grady's behalf, went so far as to argue that Apple should search the home computers of employees with access to the 'Asteroid' presentation, an invasion of privacy that you would normally expect to see EFF strongly oppose."

Re:No brainer...

[Achromatic1978]

Not how I read it - I think there's quite a bit of MacWorld spin on it - I'm not sure I'd view as unbiased an article whose byline includes the phrase "judicial cowardice", and basically seems to mock everything other than Apple not getting its own way without hesitation.

To my reading it was not endorsing, but suggesting if Apple was serious / sincere in its efforts to exhaust all other avenues to find the leak, it would have done so, or tried to. Since it didn't even bother investigating its employees /work/ PCs before bringing in the legal sticks ... this was just another angle to emphasise how selective Apple was being.

Precedent?

[bcat24]

From TFA:

The three-judge panel rejected Apple's arguments that the independent reporters were not true journalists. "We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalism,'" the court said, ruling that California's journalist shield law would protect the Web reporters.

Any lawyers out here? Will this decision set a precedent for future cases like this, or is it only applicable to this specific case?

Re:Precedent?

[TopShelf]

That wording may prevent it from becoming a precedent. It sounds like the panel didn't want to get into that issue, rather than make a firm declaration that bloggers should be treated as professional journalists. IANAL, but I would guess that it would take an appeal by Apple on that specific point to get them to probe that question further, and it sounds like Apple's not going down that road.

Re:Precedent?

[Durandal64]

IANAL, but here's what I read from it. Basically, they said that Apple didn't have grounds for forcing Think Secret to turn over information about their source because Apple themselves didn't do everything they could internally to ascertain the source of the leak. In other words, the court ruled very conservatively in favor of freedom of the press in saying that Apple had to exhaust all other avenues of inquiry before they could even think about asking for a court order which might be construed as infringing on press freedoms. They didn't actually say that bloggers are entitled to the same protections as newspapers, TV shows, etc ... but they didn't say they weren't either. A creative lawyer could easily interpret the decision as precedent establishing bloggers as members of the press. Basically, the court ruled in the same way they would have ruled if Apple was suing the New York Times which grants weight to the idea that bloggers are in fact journalists.

As for hard precedent, this ruling says that you can't just go after bloggers for their sources as a first resort just because they're not traditional media outlets. You have to show that you've turned up dry on every other reasonable avenue of investigation. It establishes that bloggers have at least one of the same protections that other media do.

Re:Precedent?

[Todd Knarr]

If I remember the text of the ruling correctly, the judge didn't completely refuse to visit the question. He said that he wasn't going to visit the question of whether they were journalists or not because he didn't have to. In this case they were acting as journalists, which was sufficient for the purposes of determining whether the shield law applied in this case regardless of whether or not they were journalists in a broader sense. This is actually a better ruling than merely saying bloggers are journalists. If taken as precedent it basically says that anyone is protected as a journalist when they're acting as a journalist, whether they're a full-time journalist or not.

Re:Precedent?

[ehrichweiss]

Someone mod the parent +Insightful...it's not just "interesting", sheesh, it's much more than that.

Re:Precedent?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Well, actually it was never about "bloggers" at all, because ThinkSecret is not a blog. It's probably more accurate to call it an online trade journal that publishes original content and news briefs. IIRC, the guy also writes ocassionally for ZDNet. I don't believe the courts expended much if any effort considering his legitimacy.

It's only the monomania of certain members of the 'blogosphere' that have somehow redefined everyone who does online publishing as "bloggers" twisting this case into a question about something that it wasn't.

Re:Precedent?

[SpeedyBandito]

Just a quick note - this ruling has nothing to do with ThinkSecret. The article is referring to a separate suit dealing with AppleInsider. The ThinkSecret case is still very much alive.

Re:Precedent?

[Vengie]

Slashdot needs a: +1 Has a clue mod.

[IAAL]

Re:Precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a better ruling than merely saying bloggers are journalists. If taken as precedent it basically says that anyone is protected as a journalist when they're acting as a journalist, whether they're a full-time journalist or not.

This is only "better" if you assume that it will not be abused for causes other than ones you support. It basically means that nobody has a right to privacy from "persons acting as journalists".

Re:Precedent?

[Todd Knarr]

Nowhere in the decision does it say that. In fact, the judge spends some time on the fact that the shield does not apply when the journalists are themselves the targets of the legal action, as they would be if they were invading your privacy directly. In this case Apple was not targetting the bloggers themselves since, legally, Apple wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if they had (the bloggers never signed any NDAs with Apple, hence generally weren't obligated to protect Apple's secrets (the exception would've been hard for Apple to prove)). You've the same protections now that you had before this decision.

Re:Precedent?

[Achromatic1978]

There's very definitely an element of this pervading the *cringe* "blogosphere". This self-aggrandisement whereby you are "promoted" to the title of journalist (usually by yourself or others on your reciprocal "blogroll") and the ego massage begins, and every episode of grandstanding brings in more clicks and more Google text ad revenue, and you start to get more and more convinced that you are a "professional". Being paid for something, especially indirectly, does not make you a professional, and a lot of these "bloggers are journalists" hissy fits are really just temper tantrums when they realise that people outside their blogroll/blogosphere don't hold them in the same high regard they and their circle hold them in.

Re:Precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys do know there's an "Informative" mod, right?

Re:Headline correction.

[Moqui]

The original headline is correct. Apple ceased it's appeal strategy in the case by their own volition. The previous Slashdot article that referenced the original court case decision would have had the headline Apple Loses Anti-Blogger Effort.

Apple already lost, and was down the same path when their lawyers realized there was no way to turn the appeal. All your post came off as is a whiny anti-Apple poster looking for ways to taunt the same fanboys you mention.

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[gg3po]

dont matter, It will still not be as good as my home built computer running *nix. :P *ducks*

OS X is *nix.

well thats confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple has decided not to appeal the decision against it in it in its case against the product-information leaking bloggers. News.com discusses the ramifications of this decision, which may make future online journalists bolder in their actions."

i'm lost...

Re:well thats confusing

[d34thm0nk3y]

"Apple has decided not to appeal the decision against it in it in its case against the product-information leaking bloggers. News.com discusses the ramifications of this decision, which may make future online journalists bolder in their actions."

I think it is just buffering. Somebody must have tried to send another internet through the tubes.

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[WilliamSChips]

Well, let's see, just about every application I need(admittedly some need WINE) except iTunes(fucking DRM).

Only if they are illiterate (comment correction)

[Anonymous Coward]

"No doubt the Whiney Apple Fanboys will pipe up with the "Apple are so wonderful to stop threatening these people""

Only if they are illiterate (they is illiterate?). Apple is one company, so the singular applies. This one business is not known as "Apples". Therefore, the correct sentence would begin "Apple is so wonderful....". Now, if you excuse me, I need to go finish eating lunch. The sandwich I put in my lunchbag are half-eaten already. It are one of the best lunches I've eaten all week.

I applaud this decision and would like to add...

[Anonymous Coward]

The new yMac quad core Intel pod connect system with Jaguar will be released next week with integrated XEN virtual machine that can run both OSX and Vista in parallel.

Apple consists of more than one person

[WilliamSChips]

Both "Apple is" and "Apple are" work here. Bands and groups can be either an it or a they. You have been defeated by your gramattical superiour.

Re:Apple consists of more than one person

[geobeck]

This seems to be a transatlantic discrepancy.

In North America, a collective noun is treated as a singular noun. Apple is one company, therefore Apple is ending its court action.

In England, collective nouns* are treated as representing their plural contents. The company (singular) is made up of many people, therefore Apple are ending their court action.

The British version sounds wrong to me on pure logic (a noun is a noun, regardless of what it represents), but that's tradition, just like the extra 'u' in colour, honour, etc., and the whole extra syllable in 'aluminiumiumum'--actually, I think I may have too many 'ums' in there. I don't know what the formal rules say, but every well-educated Brit I've talked to has used the language in this way.

* Is this only the case when a collective noun represents a gourp of people, or do non-human collective nouns also behave this way?

Re:Apple consists of more than one person

[Anonymous Coward]

"superior"

Re:Apple consists of more than one person

[WilliamSChips]

I deliberately misspelled that. Also "grammatical". You fell for my trap.

Re:Apple consists of more than one person

[arkhan_jg]

It's a little more complex than that, but you're largely right. In British english, it depends whether we're referring to a collective noun as a group, or as individuals. If it's referring to the entire group in concert, then we use 'is', if we're referring to them as individuals who are grouped together, we use 'are'. This is rather subtle though, so we tend to use 'are' most often.

In this case, you could use either 'is' or 'are' to refer to Apple, but the correct usage technically is 'is', i.e. Apple is is ending its court action - because we're referring to the company as a whole; though I suppose if you were referring just to the part of Apple (i.e. the legal dept) that decided to drop the case, you'd say Apple are dropping the case.

Apple is a big company. Apple's lawyers are not very nice sometimes. Apple are about to fire their useless lawyers.
The team is on the pitch. The team are celebrating hugely after that goal.

We use the same method for non-human or even abstract collective nouns, though we almost invariably use 'are' in that situation.
Fish are often found swimming in the sea.
The herd are running away.
It's very odd, I can't imagine saying 'fish is often found...' - makes me sound like an east Londoner!

Oh, and aluminium just has that 1 extra i - it's not that tricky. Aloomeeneeum. You Americans are hopeless sometimes ;)

Re:Apple consists of more than one person

[geobeck]

Argh! too confusing!

Fish are often found swimming in the sea.
...I can't imagine saying 'fish is often found...' - makes me sound like an east Londoner!

In the first case, 'fish' is actually a straight plural, not a collective noun. In the second case, it sounds like you're talking about fish as in food... which can be found in east London?

You Americans are hopeless sometimes ;)

Especially when we're Canadian. :P So I do keep the extra 'u' in colour, but not the extra syllable in aluminum...ium. Umm... something like that.

Freedom!!!

[marcushe]

OK, so let's puts this news to use. I heard Apple's new Mac Pro will be a Octo-Woodcrest Mac at 3.5 Ghz a piece - Intel has stated they can only go up to 3.0 ghz but I think Apple has a secret deal with Intel under the table. They will start out at a base of $700 with 512 MB RAM, an unannounced ATI X3200, and dual 500 GB IBM Hitatchi laptop drives. The LCD's will be built into the side of the machine, and will be 30". I have confirmed this report with my best friend, Andy. {;o)

Re:Freedom!!!

[marcushe]

Also, Microsoft just bought Apple.

Re:Freedom!!!

[AndreR]

... with 512 MB RAM...

:'(

Re:Headline correction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I would be upset if ImageShack didn't give me their front page!

Re:I applaud this decision and would like to add..

[cmdr_beeftaco]

sweet, what color earbuds?

So? It is only one company

[Anonymous Coward]

"Both "Apple is" and "Apple are" work here."

No. Only "Apple is" works, because it is one company. "More than one person" does not matter, since we are referring to one company, not the plural group of the elements that make it up. Saying that "Apple are" is OK because Apple has more than one person in it is like saying "My computer are" because there is more than one molecule in the computer. Whether or not the plural applies to bands depends on the name: "The Beatles are...", "The Who is...", "Genesis is...", "The Stones are..." are correct, while "The Beatles is...", "The Who are...", "Genesis are...", "The Stones is..." are incorrect. And, no, the "s" at the end of "Genesis" does not indicate a plural. You have been defeated by superior knowledge of which words are plural. You "is" defending mistakes.

Re:So? It is only one company

[Anonymous Coward]

Ready?

Who are The Who?

The Who are..... (whoever was in the band)

Basically, you are wrong, sorry.

Perhaps you shoudl put less faith in you english education. I suggest spending at least a yeat as an english lit major prior to going into your technical field of choice, that way you won't make rookie mistakes like you just did and look like an ass in hindsight.

and no, i don't spell check!

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[kripkenstein]

No, no. OS X is Apple, and Apple is iPods, which only cool people have. *nix is for people who look like this. So OS X can't be *nix.

It just can't.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Headline correction.

[Mister Whirly]

As my mom always said "You don't get credit for doing the right thing - you are SUPPOSED to do the right thing."

Definition of journalist?

[growse]

Interesting. If we have laws in countries which protect specific groups of people (for example, "journalists"), we should probably define better what a "journalist" is. Wikipedia reckons it's

journalist simply meant someone who wrote for journals ... In the past century it has come to mean a writer for newspapers and magazines as well ... Regardless of medium, the term journalist carries a connotation or expectation of professionalism in reporting, with consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics.

That said, dictionary.com says that a journalist is:

1. One whose occupation is journalism.
2. One who keeps a journal.

Wonderfully insightful there. in any case, it seems that the definition is vague enough to say that a journalist is "anyone who frequently writes and publishes current affairs information", which neatly covers newspapers, magazines and bloggers (despite the fact that their "consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics" is sometimes highly questionable). This should be enough to put an end to the "lets sue people with no money and aren't corporations" madness that apple seem to have been infected with.

Re:Definition of journalist?

[jfelix1010]

...which neatly covers newspapers, magazines and bloggers (despite the fact that their "consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics" is sometimes highly questionable).

Yea, and the bloggers aren't much better.

Re:Definition of journalist?

[SuperBanana]

That said, dictionary.com says that a journalist is:
1. One whose occupation is journalism.
2. One who keeps a journal.
Wonderfully insightful there.

That's because you're using an "online" dictionary. Merriam Webster says:

1. a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience 2.One who keeps a journal.

The second term doesn't apply in the current context- it covers usage such as "Mary's journalistic habits brought her no end of trouble when her mother found her diary."

If you hit the link to "journalism", you get:

1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium 2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Much of the issue the "real" press have with "webloggers" is that "webloggers" gleefully throw out definition 2B, ie "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation".

"Webloggers" spend most of their time doing commentary, which is completely different from journalism. One is an expression of a viewpoint, the other is reporting a situation, circumstance, etc.

Re:Definition of journalist?

[Splab]

Why does a printed book take precedence over online text?

Re:Apple is a digital rights management company.

[four2five]

When Woz ran the company.....did someone mistake their dad's copy of Pirates of Silicon Valley for Coeds Gone Wild and pick up a name?
Tell me when Woz ran the company, as in made the business the decisions....ever...
Job's is a business man and while he has a penchant for design and tech he's always been a business man first.

No matter how many times you say it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many times you say it, you are making mistakes. It is worse than a rookie mistake to use "are" after a singular noun. By the way, "The Who" is made up of Townshend, Daltrey, and one or two other guys. Basically, you are wrong. I'm not too sorry about pointing this out, because you keep making the same mistake.

Re:No matter how many times you say it.

[Mister Whirly]

I believe you are in the wrong message board. The grammar discussion board is here - http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/grammardiscu ssion.html

Or according to your post, since "you" is not plural, I believe you is in the wrong message board. Oh I also wanted to ask, is it proper to use "is" or "are" when talking about fish?

PS - the "one or two other guys" are (or were seeing as they are dead) - John Entwistle and Keith "the Loon" Moon. (Kenny Jones also played drums after Moon's death.)

Re:I applaud this decision and would like to add..

[doublem]

Apple calls the color: Misty Ice Pop

I think that means it's red

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Anybody else miss the days when the most repulsive thing was some dude opening his ass for you to gaze inside? This is a step beyond.

Re:Headline correction.

[LearnToSpell]

Chris Rock is your mom?!

Think Establishment!

[MikeRT]

Dude... let's make a podcast out of this! That'd be mad stoooopid!

Re:Headline correction.

[Mister Whirly]

Yes, but shhhhhh - he's a little embarrassed about it...

Headline Dyslexia, and more...

[ursabear]

I sincerely thought the headline read, "Apple Ends Anti-Legal Blogger Effort."
thanks, I'm here all week

On topic, though... which is worse?:
1) The release of leaked information (before the time suits the business interests), or
2) The negative PR of having a large company go after a blogger, or
3) The negative (I guess some might argue, positive?) net effects of lawsuits - lawsuits that are used to attempt to control business?

It is important for businesses to protect themselves, yes... but I think battles must be chosen very carefully.

Does that mean...

[misxn]

no more juicy info from "As Seen on TV"? Oh wait...

One or t wo other guys.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You" can be either singular or plural. The same is true of "fish". The name of one company is only singular. Entwistle and Moon are not members of "The Who" anymore. The "one or two other guys" referred to Jones and anyone else who might have replaced Entwistle. I had no idea if Jones was still involved.

Remember the situation in which this started

[stefanb]

I think what people are forgetting here is when Apple started this drastic course against the rumor sites: just weeks before the announcement they would be switching to Intel processors.

In hindsight, it's clear to me that they wanted to send a strong signal to all potential leaks that they would be found out--"just look at what happened to the people who were talking about some random Firewire audio interface"--and for the most part, they've succeeded. Remember that Apple must have been in serious negotiations and preparations with Intel for at least half a year, if not longer, and keeping this secret from both Motorola and IBM was most certainly really important to the entire process.

Re:Remember the situation in which this started

[pimpimpim]

Your comment actually makes the most sense out here. After all, the apple product cyle website may be a joke, but as every joke it's based on at least some truth, in this case that the enthusiasm of apple buyers starts with 'leaked' information. So normally, when a new ipod is on the release, apple can only be happy with these 'leaks'. But since this ibm/intel switch would likely refrain apple costumers from buying machines until it is sure that they can use them in the future, and apple probably didn't want to give ibm/motorola too much info on what they were planning (if it would have failed with intel, and ibm would have retracted before, what would they do?), it's clear that apple didn't want to get this big fish out. Now after this happened, they can let the little fish swim again...

Re:Remember the situation in which this started

[mike_the_kid]

If there was a +6 insightful, you'd get it. It makes a lot of sense.

However, the case was filed on December 13, 2004. The switch to Intel was announced in June 2005.

So, it was a couple of months, not a couple of weeks between their filing suit and the big switch announcement.

Also, its worth noting that it must have worked, because everyone was in the dark about Apple's intentions.

Apple Likely Knew/Knows Who Spilled The Beans

[cannuck]

"Spilled The Beans"

Origin:

"When votes were taken in Greece, white beans indicated positive votes and black beans negative. Votes had to be unanimous, so if the collector 'spilled the beans' before the vote was complete and a black bean was seen, the vote was halted".

It's very likely Apple knew/knows who spilled the beans - Jobs isn't stupid. So did Jobs/Apple then set out to find out the truth or was it all about to intimidating jounalists (you know - people who write stuff for public consumption).

Well .... you would have to believe that Jobs/Apple didn't know what a journalist is - doesn't understand where and how journalists work. Humbug! Apple not only sends out media releases to hundreds (thousands?) of journalists on a monthly (weekly?) basis - it likely leaks info to the chosen few "biggy" journalists. Is Payolla involved... well ... only to be a fly on the wall.

If it looks like a SLAP, if it smells like a SLAP, if it sounds like a SLAP, if it walks like a SLAP, well then.....

Re:Apple Likely Knew/Knows Who Spilled The Beans

[Paradise Pete]

"A popular folk etymology for spill the beans claims that in ancient Greece, applicants for membership in secret societies were voted upon by having the existing members drop beans into an opaque pottery jar.... It's an engaging tale, and beans were in fact once used as ballots, but since the phrase is American and was not seen until 1919, neither the story nor the jar holds water."

Re:Apple Likely Knew/Knows Who Spilled The Beans

[cannuck]

"since the phrase is American"

Who was this "American" who created this phrase: Was he/she Peruvian? Was he/she Canadian? Was he/she Bolivian?

They knew Apple couldn't win...

[Anonymous Coward]

As big a control freak as Steve Jobs is, he would have continued to pursue the matter despite it being a first amendment issue. But I bet Apple lawyers told him it was a lost cause. Just goes to show you that Apple can be just as evil as Microsoft.

New band

[SuperKendall]

That brought to mind a new band name, "itin"XS ...

Anti-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How was this "anti-blogger"? I thought the whole argument was that the rumor site operators were "journalists".

I never got the "under oath" thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring witnesses to swear on a bible is absurd. What about atheists and other non-christians? What about the whole separation of church and state thing?

technicaly speaking..

[koroviev (begemot)]

I could have been the one informing bloggers of what Apple might do. So- no case. :)

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/10/ 0345252&threshold=-1

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190729&c id=15694587

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167849 &cid=14013426

(first you tell Apple what to do, then everyone else what Apple might do :)

You forget the BIG scoop!

[geekoid]

It's comes with a moon rock needle.

Re:NEW APPLE SPECS...

[prockcore]

Oh really? When did OSX get Unix98 certification?

Oh, it didn't? OSX isn't even POSIX compliant? Color me suprised.