Apple Ordered to Pay Blogger Legal Fees

inetsee writes "Apple has been ordered to pay legal fees for two web sites that reported on an in-development Apple project code named 'Asteroid'. According to the article on WebProNews, Apple was ordered by a Santa Clara County court to pay almost $700,000 in legal reimbursement to AppleInsider and PowerPage after the court agreed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation legal team that the web sites 'qualified as legitimate online news sites' engaging in trade journalism. Apple had claimed that it had a right to protect its trade secrets, but the EFF successfully argued that 'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'"

Comments

More of This, please

[Mateo_LeFou]

I lament the fact that acquiring justice, or clearing your name from a SLAPP, requires so much money. I think that there should be punitive damages in addition to legal fees when companies go after individuals in this way.

Re:More of This, please

[AlHunt]

I lament the fact that acquiring justice, or clearing your name from a SLAPP, requires so much money.

As usual, the lawyers win. Class Actions are what always scald my ass. The consumers get a free CD and the lawyers collect $2.5M in legal fees.

Re:More of This, please

[damsa]

The lawyers in this case are the EFF which I believe is a non profit.

Re:More of This, please

[thesandtiger]

I think that there should be punitive damages in addition to legal fees when companies go after individuals in this way.

How about the reverse? What if an individual goes after a corporation and loses? Should they then have to foot the bill for the corporation's expenses AND get punitive damages assessed?

I don't think I like the ramifications of that. "Hey, Joe Sixpack - you can sue us for crippling your wife, but you know what? We've got hundreds of lawyers on our side and deep pockets. Odds are you're fucked. And if you lose, guess what? You're gonna have to pay for each and every hour our guys put into this and probably a smidgeon more. Your attorney might be working on a contingent fee, but ours sure as hell aren't. So why don't you sit the fuck down like a good little prole?"

Re:More of This, please

[TheViewFromTheGround]

A writer I work with had a situation along these lines with a subpoena from the city of Chicago regarding alleged police brutality we reported on.

The good news is that we won, and that, combined with this decision and a few others, there is starting to be some good precedent for shielding online journalism from gratuitous subpoenas -- specifically, the decision in this case (which came down while our subpoena battle was still raging, but wasn't applicable because of jurisdiction), says that a person who publishes online is a journalist insofar as their activities can be construed as journalism. This is a really sane approach that avoids the ivory-tower/guild mentality that journalists like to trot around when they start talking about shield laws and helps revive the notion of the citizen-journalist. Our case was decided similarly.

The bad news is that unless you've got serious legal support in these "new" areas of jurisprudence and your adversary has deep pockets, they can grind away for months and years pushing hopeless motions and ridiculous claims. When the City of Chicago subpoenaed us, they asked for all of the notes of the writer, Jamie Kalven, regarding all allegations of police brutality or misconduct by any officer during a four year period. The case in question--and reporting we did on the case--was about one alleged victim of police brutality and a couple of police officers.

Our legal representation argued this was, uh, overbroad. The judge agreed. But, over the next few months, the city filed several more motions with significant space devoted to contesting a point that was farcical and obvious to everyone involved. We were lucky enough to know some good attorneys. The Apple bloggers got the EFF behind them. But this is troubling on two levels. First, it's a big waste of resources all around -- federal judges have a lot more pressing issues than reading another two, or ten, or twenty pages of the same unreasoned, unsubstantiated assertions of fact.

What's more scary is that there are countless subpoenas and other legal threats every year that unfairly crush people, who, even if they win in the end, will no doubt question a dubious equivalence in our society: that winning a case and justice amount to the same thing.

Re:More of This, please

[Lars T.]

If you read the original article (or just about any other article about this) instead of just the summary of an rehash, you'ld know that:

The EFF asked the court for a multiplier (a.k.a, "loadstar") of the actual legal fees to compensate for the double contingent risk presented, i.e., both the risk of not prevailing in the defense of the subpoenas and the risk of succeeding, but without the circumstances necessary to obtain legal fees. At the low-end of traditional multipliers, which can range from 2-4 under California law, the EFF also said that California laws provides for a multiplier based on the novelty and complexity of the legal issues involved.

"We litigated this case in the public interest and successfully obtained substantial public benefits by vindicating constitutional rights protecting all journalists, and the public that benefits from the work of journalists, and vindicating federal statutory rights that protect all the millions of users of email communications," Opsahl wrote.

Re:More of This, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an ass. Non-profit ONLY deal with how profits are distributed, not whether or not they are made. You bet your ass the EFF lawyers got paid.

as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

the lawyers win the real cold cash, the rest is lipservice

Re:as usual

[tomstdenis]

Well that's one way to look at it, the other is Apple loses 700k. Maybe they'll think twice before trampling the rights of others next time.

Tom

Re:as usual

[sqlrob]

That's less than 1/10 of 1% of last quarter's revenue. Why are they going to think twice?

Re:as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. 700k is a small enough fee to send a chill into the blogging community. For every person that wins against Apple there will be scores that feel that it's too much of a risk and scale back. That's the purpose of a suit of this sort - intimidation.

Re:as usual

[tomstdenis]

Shareholders don't like lawsuits. If you repeat 700k enough times it starts to sting. What's worse, there could be other troubles for Apple if the government decides they're an unlawful business (e.g. rampantly violating the civil rights of others).

That and now they get to continue reporting on every little detail of Apple ... oh wait ... how is that bad anyways?

Tom

Re:as usual

[LHX]

Because

• revenue != profit
• $700K here, $700K there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
• Now there is a legal precedent so Apple can't use the same tactics in the future. When a court decides to award legal expenses to the opposition, it's essentially saying that you are totally in the wrong.

Re:as usual

[dr.badass]

Shareholders don't like lawsuits.

Almost any large company will be engaged in multiple lawsuits at any given time. It comes with the territory.

If you repeat 700k enough times it starts to sting.

Apple just settled with Creative for $100 million and it wasn't big news.

Re:as usual

[tomstdenis]

Why do you hate america?

Geez.

Bahahahahahahahahaha

Re:as usual

[neuroklinik]

What's worse, there could be other troubles for Apple if the government decides they're an unlawful business (e.g. rampantly violating the civil rights of others).

Huh... wha? Oh.... for a second there, I thought you were talking about Microsoft.

Re:as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

revenue != profit

Apple's last quarter revenues were $7 billion.
Apple's last quarter profit was $1 billion.

The poster meant profit, clearly.

Re:as usual

[jc42]

Maybe they'll think twice before trampling the rights of others next time.

Or, to put it another way, this sets an important precedent.

One of the ongoing problems the legal system has is that, once a computer is involved, all precedent goes out the window, and all legal precedent is null and void and needs to be re-established. A lot of legal procedings can be explained once you understand this.

This case illustrates this rule by showing that a "blogger" isn't considered a "journalist", presumably because they use a computer and the Net to publish rather than a printing press. The judge's decision sets the important precedent that a journalist who publishes online is indeed a "journalist", and the involvement of computers and the Net doesn't negate that.

Of course, there's the qualification that this was done by a California court, so courts outside that jurisdiction will continue with the premise that the involvement of a computer invalidates all precedent. We can hope that Apple decides to appeal this to a Federal court, and that court decides similarly that a blogger can indeed be a journalist.

Re:as usual

[erroneus]

Furthermore, if they were to repeat the same thing, or even similarly enough, the next time may likely be $1400k... or $2100k if the judge doesn't believe they learned their lesson.

Re:as usual

[Lars T.]

Apple just settled with Creative for $100 million and it wasn't big news. It sure was to Creative - they had over ten times the income compared to last quarter.

Re:as usual

[Lars T.]

Maybe they'll think twice before trampling the rights of others next time.

Or, to put it another way, this sets an important precedent.

One of the ongoing problems the legal system has is that, once a computer is involved, all precedent goes out the window, and all legal precedent is null and void and needs to be re-established. A lot of legal procedings can be explained once you understand this.

This case illustrates this rule by showing that a "blogger" isn't considered a "journalist", presumably because they use a computer and the Net to publish rather than a printing press. The judge's decision sets the important precedent that a journalist who publishes online is indeed a "journalist", and the involvement of computers and the Net doesn't negate that. Actually, that's what the original (overturned) judge said - that all journalists are subject to the law, and that it doesn't matter whether Apple mentioned "Bloggers" in their claim. See http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183776&c id=15184019

Or do you actually believe the real journalists would have given a damn if they hadn't come for them too?

Re:as usual

[jc42]

Or do you actually believe the real journalists would have given a damn if they hadn't come for them too?

I get the impression that most "real journalists" see the Net as just one more medium. Many are working on the Net now, and most see it as part of their future. And many are aware that in the early days of radio and then television, the same sort of thing happened. They had to fight in court to establish that using radio or TV didn't disable their journalistic credentials. It took court action to establish that all the previous laws about "freedom of the press" applied to journalists whose words were sent out via radio waves rather than ink on paper. The current battle to extend this to digital packets isn't materially any different.

Those who tout the greatness of their nation seldom contribute to it.

Heh. So true. That's right up there with "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Or, as Mark Twain observed, it's often the first.

Worried about Apple...

[popo]

Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

This isn't flamebait... (I love my Mac) its an observation that IMHO
over the past year Apple seems to have been far more agressive at implementing
"control" measures through legal means -- not as bad as MSFT, but a far cry f
rom the "We want everyone to love us" attitude of the past.

My question is: what changed? And is this the Apple of the future? Or
is this a result of some shift in management attitudes. (Or a case of
money and power corrupt, no matter who you are?)

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Thansal]

Actualy these types of things have been around for ages with Apple. They are VERY trigger happy when it comes to protecting their secrets. The only big difference is that as they gain more market/mind share (and as the internet grows), the chance of some one managing to reveal Apple's secrets, and so we see more instances of Apple doing 'evil' things.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a change. This is the Apple of past times. And probably of future times too. Apple is litigious.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[oohshiny]

Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy

Apple makes nice products, but the notion that they are "the good guy" is a fiction created by their marketing.

For example, in the 80's, they legally threatened many people over GUIs and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI. They have done more for establishing DRM than Microsoft. They keep ripping off ideas from other companies and open source, and they don't give a damn about stepping on other people's trademarks or open source project names.

Overall, Apple's record is decidedly mixed.

My question is: what changed?

Only your perception, really.

If anything, Apple has actually become significantly nicer over the last couple of decades, and their products have improved as well.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[squiggleslash]

They've never been "the good guy". They've gone through periods of being "the innovative guy" without doing too much evil for people to dislike them, but they're also the pioneers of the "look and feel" lawsuits that caused immense damage in the 1980s, and, especially concerning the Macintosh, have always had an absurdly controlling and proprietary attitude towards it. Even their attempts at open source have either been forced (Objective C was originally closed, and NeXT were forced to open it by the FSF, likewise WebKit et al are open because they're required to be by licensing), or with legal catches and a less than forthright approach (such as Darwin, and the evil APSL.)

They're the (mythical) Mussolini of the computer world, revered by many for making the trains run on time, but with a slap of dictatorial control most of us steer away from.

Apple's strength is its ability to package together interesting new products that inspire much of the industry. That's it. It's not a charity, indeed it makes IBM look warm and cuddly.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[elrous0]

The truth is that I don't think they ever were the "good guy." I think that's just an image they successfully cultivated. It's unfair that they've been held up this way all these years, while MS got kicked in the head as the "bad guy."

And before I get modded down or flamed, yes, MS has done a lot of bad stuff, no doubt. But, as a person, Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that.

-Eric

Re:Worried about Apple...

[osu-neko]

This isn't flamebait... (I love my Mac) its an observation that IMHO over the past year Apple seems to have been far more agressive at implementing "control" measures through legal means -- not as bad as MSFT, but a far cry from the "We want everyone to love us" attitude of the past.

*boggle* When I was a young'un, my friends and I, mostly Apple II fans, used to talk about Apple's "rabid attack lawyers". I have never known in my life any company more legally aggressive than Apple Computer, and this has been true for the entire 23 years I've been using Apple products. I'm not sure which past you're referring to. Back when Jobs and Woz were still in the garage? Those days were long gone by the time I got to know Apple in the early 80's.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[king-manic]

Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

This isn't flamebait... (I love my Mac) its an observation that IMHO
over the past year Apple seems to have been far more agressive at implementing
"control" measures through legal means -- not as bad as MSFT, but a far cry f
rom the "We want everyone to love us" attitude of the past.

My question is: what changed? And is this the Apple of the future? Or
is this a result of some shift in management attitudes. (Or a case of
money and power corrupt, no matter who you are?)

Sorry to burst your bubble but Apple has never been the good guy, just the other guy. They are more innovative and do better work then their major competitor Microsoft but their business practices and control measures aren't new. Had they achieved the hegemony that Microsft has, I'd suspect Jobs and his boys would be breaking knee caps and killing kittens similiar to how Gates and the boys have. They were just as aggresive back in the 80's and Jobs is not a nice man. I suspect he's throw chairs too when faced with bad news. He's known for being an agressive business person and a dick. Nothing has changed, the nostalgia and jobs realty distortion field makes you think he must be the second coming.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Ryan Amos]

What changed?

Apple became profitable and successful, and thus a target. Much of their marketing strategy relies on secrecy and misdirection; it makes sense if you're developing new products that are unique in design, you don't want your competitors ripping off your hard-worked design before your product has a chance to establish itself as a "brand-name." Nobody would have cared back in the pre-iMac days, but Apple is a trendsetter now, so competitors watch them closely.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[mattkime]

>>and they deliberately broke standards like SCSI

Can you back that one up? Its new to me.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[LKM]

Apple is doing lots of crappy things (like forcing DRM on every iTunes download even when the rights holders don't require it), but in this case, I don't really get all the brouhaha. An employee of Apple leaked their trade secrets. Apple tried to figure out who it was and sued some rumor sites (btw, they aren't blogs). They lost, but I think they had a fair chance of winning, and it was their right to try it. What exactly is "evil" here?

Re:Worried about Apple...

[oohshiny]

In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm.

I remember the time when GNU software had a clause that explicitely prevented it to run on Macintosh.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[idontgno]

And let us not forget that bastardized 25-pin "not nearly enough grounding" pseudo SCSI connector standard they championed. Meh.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Eivind Eklund]

This reveals a significant lack of knowledge of history. It seems to be more the rule than the exception for US tycoons to give away their money when they die, trying to purchase a good image for posterity. A simple example is The Rockefeller Foundation.

From my point of view, Gates has his fortune from various forms of market manipulation to force people and institutions to pay his company - in other words, a form of theft. He has been stealing from hospitals, from charity institutions, from schools, and has been destroying untold amounts of wealth by his (illegal) manipulations. Giving parts of his stolen money (and the bulk of it when he dies) to charity does not eradicate that.

For some reason, you're trying to put Warren Buffet in the same boat as Gates. However, as far as I know, Buffet has always been honest, he's just been a very, very good investor. He deserves good guy credit all through. I am not sure Gates deserve any at all; it is very hard for me to accept that until he at least apologize for previous behaviour.

Eivind.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Ansoni-San]

I would hold off on praising someone for doing something they haven't even done yet. So he promised to give away his fortune when he dies...until he actually dies and it goes to those legitimate charities there's no credit to give. Other than that I agree with you.

Although I wish he would have gotten rid of Steve Ballmer before throwing in the towel, then I could almost give the guy a chance.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[gentlemen_loser]

First off, in business, there are very rarely "good guys" and "bad guys". In that sense, I agree with you that Apple has never been the "good guy". There are companies that go about achieving their end goal (making profit) ethically, and those that do not. I would very strongly put Microsoft in the latter category and Apple somewhere in the middle.

I do not think that the APSL, or Darwin for that matter, is evil. It is simply structured to protect Apple's revenue generating interests. As a case in point, I would firmly place Redhat as one of the "good guys" - to use that terminology. They regularly contribute to the community and in some respects, were instrumental in getting Linux accepted into the Enterprise. However, the GPL is a two edged sword. Now you have a company like Oracle (whom I can not stand), offering Linux support for 1/2 the price. Their contributions to the community are completely non-existent, but because of the GPL wording, it is entirely possible that they put Redhat out of business. In the end, this ultimately hurts everyone, with the exception of Oracle's shareholders. I firmly believe that should they ever start offering support for mySQL we'll see another great company go under.

All parties being discussed: 1) Oracle, 2) Redhat, 3) mySQL, and 4) Apple are (for the most part - I will not start a debate on iTunes and DRM here) operating within their legal bounds. However, the APSL protect's Apple's hard work while the GPL allows an asshole company like Oracle to sweep in and destroy other companies by taking complete advantage of their work. My ultimate point is that one can not attack a company for operating within the bounds of law. Either the law, or the license agreements, need to change.

The immediate solution to the Oracle problem is to append: "If you are Oracle Corporation, or any wholly or partially owned subsidiary, or affiliated with Oracle Corporation in any manner, you are hereby restricted from distributing or providing support for the product released under this GPL."

And then we can adjust it from there to dissuade anyone else from engaging in similar practices :)

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Lars T.]

In the early days, Apple used to put special identifiers in their own SCSI disk drives that they'd query, and their disk formatting software would only work with their own drives. I think people pretty quickly found ways to work around it, but it's the thought that counts in this context. IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.

Unlike others, they did not ship SCSI cards where only one channel worked together with scanners.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Lars T.]

But, as a person, Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that. In German we have a saying: "Do good and talk about it". Al Capone also knew about it, he financed a soup kitchen. I'm not going into all the odd dealings of the BMGF, but there seem to be far more than for other charitable organisations. Like giving away MS products, or investing in companies that are the cause of the problems of the people they are charitable to.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.

So, you're saying Apple deliberately refused to have their computers work with standards SCSI drives so that they could sell their own drives instead. Thanks for confirming that.

Re:Worried about Apple...

[Lars T.]

IOW, they didn't "deliberately brake standards like SCSI", but instead used the SCSI standard vendor ID in a way you didn't like.

So, you're saying Apple deliberately refused to have their computers work with standards SCSI drives so that they could sell their own drives instead. Thanks for confirming that. No, what I'm saying is that standard SCSI drives worked great with Macs once you formatted them - thanks for confirming your stupidity.

Hallelujah!

[drinkypoo]

I realize that this comment isn't going to win me any friends in Apple-land, but it's good for everyone (Except maybe Apple shareholders) if Apple's wrongdoings and attempts to intimidate news outlets into not carrying the news are exposed to a wider audience. A lot of people out there (including many slashbots) see Apple as the Brave Crusader out to kill the Microsoft dragon, but this view could not be farther from the truth. In reality, Apple is just another corporation, really not significantly better or worse than any other. They really are the lesser of two evils in the Mac vs. PC war.

A lot of people have cited Microsoft wrongdoing as part of their motivation to purchase a Macintosh. As this is basically an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction given Apple's own history, I theorize that these are the same people who don't believe a corporation has done anything wrong until it is proven in court. I hope that I am right, because this sort of thing has a chance to dent Apple's wallet, which is the only stimulus to which corporations really respond.

Re:Hallelujah!

[ivan256]

Basically, this is a ruling that says you can brag about your crimes to a blogger, and they can publish your account, and they are free to cover up your crime.

Allowing "news" from anonymous sources to be published without independent on-the-record confirmation is bad enough. Being able to protect your source that broke the law isn't good for *anybody*. I know this strikes close to home because many people who read Slashdot could be considered bloggers, and nobody wants to be sued, but there is so much potential for abuse that comes out of this ruling that it isn't even funny. I can't imagine that this will result is anywhere near as much good as it will bad. Essentially this means that nobody is guilty of libel anymore as long as they write it as "an anonymous source said:".

If you want to protect whistleblowers, fine, but we don't need to protect people that illegally divulge trade secrets at the same time.

Re:Hallelujah!

[retrosteve]

Nice argument, but hundreds of years late. This has always been true for journalists, now it's being extended to online journalists, whether employed or freelance.

Not such a big deal.

Re:Hallelujah!

[oohshiny]

A lot of people have cited Microsoft wrongdoing as part of their motivation to purchase a Macintosh. As this is basically an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction given Apple's own history,

The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple doesn't even come close to having a monopoly. If Apple gets, say, a 25% marketshare, that's good for all of us, no matter how evil Apple may be. And no matter what Apple does or doesn't do for open source, the fact that they use many UNIX APIs means that when Apple sells a Mac, that helps Linux more than when Microsoft sells a Vista machine.

Re:Hallelujah!

[Todd Knarr]

Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Of course the Web sites in question hadn't signed any NDA with Apple, so they couldn't have breached the (non-existent) agreement. Under the law the burden of keeping a trade secret secret rests on the company that owns it, not the general public.

And there's a couple of things. First is the fact that Apple couldn't show that the Web sites in question knew their source was breaching an NDA. Second is the rule that says you can only subpoena a journalist in the way Apple wanted to if all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted. As the judge observed, Apple could have questioned it's own employees about whether they'd disclosed the information and to whom, and done so under penalty of perjury to add weight to the questioning. This could've revealed the names Apple was looking for without requiring anything from the Web sites. Apple choose not to pursue internal questioning, and the judge ruled that their mere desire not to demoralize their employees wasn't enough to justify putting the burden on someone else.

Re:Hallelujah!

[ivan256]

First is the fact that Apple couldn't show that the Web sites in question knew their source was breaching an NDA.

I don't see a problem there, since they weren't trying to hold the blogger accountable for the breach, but merely to have the blogger reveal the name of the person who was responsible.

Second is the rule that says you can only subpoena a journalist in the way Apple wanted to if all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted. As the judge observed, Apple could have questioned it's own employees about whether they'd disclosed the information and to whom, and done so under penalty of perjury to add weight to the questioning.

This is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Re:Hallelujah!

[elrous0]

Being able to protect your source that broke the law isn't good for *anybody*

Horseshit! Just about every major scandal that ever broke in political or business history has been the result of some leaker willing to break the law and/or risk his life. Think it was legal for Mark Felt to leak information from classified meetings and secret FBI files to Bob Woodward? And how many business scandals have been exposed by an honest insider willing to break his NDA or steal documents (like Brown & Williamson)? How many WOULD have been if someone had been willing to break the law sooner (Enron)?

-Eric

Re:Hallelujah!

[ivan256]

With laws that protect whistleblowers, none of the case you describe would involve a source breaking the law.

Re:Hallelujah!

[KDR_11k]

Citing anonymous sources and keeping them confidental has been a pillar of the free press for a long time. I think it wasn't until recently that the govt started forcing journalists to disclose their sources in the interest of "national security".

Re:Hallelujah!

[ivan256]

Incidentally, Woodward *did* get independent corroboration, and didn't publish based on a single anonymous source. If Mark Felt was trying to libel for political gain back then, he wouldn't have gotten away with it. I'm not sure the same is true today.

Re:Hallelujah!

[elrous0]

Well, it seems the Justice Department would disagree with you.

-Eric

Re:Hallelujah!

[ivan256]

Not really. It's just that we don't actually have good federal whistleblower laws.

We should.

Re:Hallelujah!

[Der Reiseweltmeister]

I agree with the parent insofar as it is clear that many people seem to have a typical fanboy attitude with Apple. They confuse "making a better product" with "being a better company". I would gladly argue that for many people's needs Apple makes a better product. That is why I own a mac. But saying that you own a mac because Apple is a better company is walking on thin ice.

If making a point about the quality of one's character is paramount to you, why would you not use GNU products? I've yet to see a GNU developer sue someone for infringing on trade secrets! (I'm not saying they're not fine pieces of software for some purposes as well.)

Re:Hallelujah!

[Budenny]

Wrong. Basically this is a ruling that says the US has a constitution, protects the press broadly defined, and if you are Apple, yes, even if you are Apple, tough. The US still has a constitution. If you like it, or if you don't.

Re:Hallelujah!

[dr.badass]

Basically, this is a ruling that says you can brag about your crimes to a blogger, and they can publish your account, and they are free to cover up your crime.

Um, no. That's not what was decided. In fact, that aspect of the case was pretty much thrown out a long while ago. What was decided was actually in the article summary: 'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'

Re:Hallelujah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Of course the Web sites in question hadn't signed any NDA with Apple, so they couldn't have breached the (non-existent) agreement. Under the law the burden of keeping a trade secret secret rests on the company that owns it, not the general public.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, adopted by almost every state, including all of those relevant to this case, says otherwise.

Re:Hallelujah!

[Jtheletter]

>>First is the fact that Apple couldn't show that the Web sites in question knew their source was breaching an NDA.
I don't see a problem there, since they weren't trying to hold the blogger accountable for the breach, but merely to have the blogger reveal the name of the person who was responsible.

The problem is that the blogger(s) in question are acting as journalists, in fact this case upholds that as part of its findings according to the /. summary. Now, it may not mean much to you or Joe Blogger if Apple asked who was telling you secrets, but to a journalist that leaker is known as a SOURCE, and squealing on them is not only counter to the agreement the journalist had in place for their source to remain anonymous, but it also ruins their chances for getting info at a future point from that or any other source.

If the NY Times started printing the names of every "administration official" that dropped them inside facts for their stories even they would have a hard time getting new sources.

Re:Hallelujah!

[drinkypoo]

Being able to protect your source that broke the law isn't good for *anybody*.

I realize that you are probably trying to apply this to breaches of this particular law which is apparently a fairly rational piece of legislation. However, there are plenty of other laws you could break that aren't harming anyone. For example, you publish an article by someone who uses a variety of so-called "recreational"-yet-traditional (like marijuana, peyote, salvia, etc) drugs and reports on their health effects by way of an expose on the suppression of this information in the USA. That person has broken the law, but this is clearly a case of journalism and it would be irresponsible of you to reveal their identity.

Revealing classified information that proves something like a government cover-up would be another breach of law that the citizenry has a right to receive the benefits of. Revealing the source's identity would have a chilling effect on whistle blowing.

Essentially this means that nobody is guilty of libel anymore as long as they write it as "an anonymous source said:".

What about providing evidence that you are in posession of information which you did not fabricate? It is probably possible (given sufficient intelligence and planning) to provide such evidence without providing the identity of the source.

If you want to protect whistleblowers, fine, but we don't need to protect people that illegally divulge trade secrets at the same time.

I agree, and I would support any legislation which prevented one and not the other. However, I feel that my freedom is more important than Apple's (or anyone else's, including my own) ability to protect their trade secrets. If you can figure out a way to stop one without stopping the other, I'm interested in hearing about it.

Re:Hallelujah!

[gnasher719]

'' Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. ''

You are very confused here.

A trade secret is anything that a company keeps secret, and that is of commercial value to the company.
If a company told you a trade secret without an NDA, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore, and therefore no trade secret.
If a company tells you something under NDA that is not a trade secret, and you publish it, that is breach of a non-disclosure agreement.
If a company tells you a trade secret under NDA, then the fact that there is an NDA makes sure that it is still a trade secret, and if you publish it, that is _both_ breach of a non-disclosure agreement _and_ violation of a trade secret.
If you publish a company's trade secret that you found out illegally without being under an NDA, that is violation of a trade secret but _not_ breach of a non-disclosure agreement.
If you publish a company's trade secret that you found out legally (because they didn't keep it secret), then it wasn't a trade secret anymore and you are fine.

The only bit that you are right about is that a subpoena to a journalist must be the last resort for a company. Let me just say that we know that now, and that Apple knows that now, and that Apple's employees know that now, and Apple will handle the next leak differently. The next leak, Apple will find out, and his colleagues will hang the guilty one by the balls. The sequence will be: There is a leak. Apple asks anyone to testify under oath whether they are the leak. If there is no result, Apple will phone the judge what other steps they should take, just in case. If there is still no result, there will be a subpoena and it will be granted by the court.

Re:Hallelujah!

[rsborg]

Horseshit! Just about every major scandal that ever broke in political or business history has been the result of some leaker willing to break the law and/or risk his life.

Look I understand the point you're trying to make (and I do support whistleblowers), but what part of "major scandal" encompasses what Apple's new product line?

And because I support whistleblowers... comparing AppleInsider and PowerPage to Bob Woodward (not to mention folks like Sibel Edmonds) does these true whistleblowers disrespect.

Re:Hallelujah!

[Lars T.]

Well, first off disclosure of trade secrets isn't a crime. It's a civil tort, specifically breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Of course the Web sites in question hadn't signed any NDA with Apple, so they couldn't have breached the (non-existent) agreement. Under the law the burden of keeping a trade secret secret rests on the company that owns it, not the general public.

Under the terms of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act:

"Misappropriation" means:
(1) 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
(2) 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 or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(i) Derived from or through a person who had 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 or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Re:Hallelujah!

[elrous0]

The problem is that Apple's lawsuits could establish precedent that would directly effect legitimate whistleblowers in the future. Of course, some yahoo revealing early details about the iPhone doesn't compare to Enron. But if Apple successfully argues that reporters can be held liable for revealing information provided to them by an employee in violation of his NDA, that could have a real chilling effect on reporters in the future trying to report on REAL scandals and public interest stories.

-Eric

Re:Hallelujah!

[rsborg]

The problem is that Apple's lawsuits could establish precedent that would directly effect legitimate whistleblowers in the future.

Is this truly the case? Prove it.

But if Apple successfully argues that reporters can be held liable for revealing information provided to them by an employee in violation of his NDA, that could have a real chilling effect on reporters in the future trying to report on REAL scandals and public interest stories.

I honestly think NDAs should be grounds for not allowing reporters access UNLESS it's a whistleblower situation (ie, uncovering of wrongdoing). Seriously, the original finding in this case was very clear, and I don't understand why this judgment awarded court fees to the defendants. The original stated that unless there was some actual whistleblowing being done (ie, again, uncovering wrongdoing), then NDA's trump freedom of speech. In fact, that's expressly what NDA's are meant to do.

whoo eff

[tomstdenis]

this is why I support them. /me proudly wears my eff hat....

Re:whoo eff

[bill_mcgonigle]

this is why I support them. /me proudly wears my eff hat....

Did you get yours? I'm still waiting for mine from last time I donated. I even set them an e-mail asking where it was, which they curteously ignored...

How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[mi]

I was once attacked by a big company... We settled quickly, and my legal expenses were about $6K. I suppose, it could've become 10 times that, if it lasted longer, but $700K?..

Re:How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[BoRegardless]

If there were actual facts Apple could have cited which gave them reason to make a valid legal claim, like public libelous statements, or statements made to affect Apple's share price or something similar, the litigation costs would be many millions minimum.

The way it is set up these days, even a small court case can wind up generating $25k-50k per month in billings to your firm, before you ever get anywhere near court, and then the fees go dramatically up during trial.

Re:How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you exactly what those fees can "go" dramatically "up."

Re:How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[mi]

The way it is set up these days, even a small court case can wind up generating $25k-50k per month in billings to your firm

Ok... So, how long did this last?

before you ever get anywhere near court, and then the fees go dramatically up during trial.

How dramatically? Like 10K per day? Maybe... But by these numbers, this case should've been like 10-20 months in the making ($500K) plus 20 days of arguing in court (another $200K). I don't think, it was anywhere near this long — was it?

Re:How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[Anonymous Coward]

Settling immediately is completely different to arguing a case in court, especially when the case was appealed. That involves researching and writing big stacks of legal documents. See http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/ .

Also, it's very rare for a U.S. court to award fees like this. It's a sign that the court thought Apple's actions in bringing this lawsuit were pretty egregious. When you do win fees, there's a damage multiplier, x2 or so. So the real costs of fighting this case were a bit lower.

Re:How do you run up $700K in legal fees?

[Anonymous Coward]

CoyboyNeal?

Wow.

[Rob T Firefly]

And here I thought there wasn't any money to be made off blogging anymore, turns out you just need to be the blogger's lawyer instead of the blogger. I wish there was any amount of common sense I could display that'd earn me $700,000.

$700,000?!?!

[jbarr]

OK, I certainly don't live under a rock, but $700,000 in legal fees? Holy crap! Maybe IT wasn't the right field to get into!!!!!

Re:$700,000?!?!

[netsfr]

I doubt much of that $700K goes to anyone but the lawyers...

Re:$700,000?!?!

[Jeff Fohl]

I think that was his point.

Re:$700,000?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

A good friend is a lawyer and it isn't all easy street. She had to start out from law school for only $80K and slave away at that level for months before she got paid a decent wage. It's a wonder she could keep up the Lexus payments.

Re:$700,000?!?!

[jbarr]

She had to start out from law school for only $80K and slave away at that level for months before she got paid a decent wage.

I know it's all relative, and we have to compare apples to apples when comparing salaries, but I just find it amazing that $80K is not considered a decent wage.

Re:$700,000?!?!

[lachlan76]

Who else would legal fees go to?

Re:$700,000?!?!

[Weedlekin]

"I just find it amazing that $80K is not considered a decent wage"

Well, I for one was crying into my keyboard at the woeful tale of that poor woman having to slave away month after month for such a pittance. This just proves that, as far as young, struggling lawyers are concerned, the US is little more than a third-world country where, crushed together in pitiful shanty-condos, they are routinely subject to indignities such as (oh Lord, help my fingers type this horror!) having to share a swimming pool and hot-tub with others, and walk between their car and apartment instead of being carried in a sedan chair. And if this was not enough to move readers to pity, then surely the avarice of greedy landlords who take so much of their meagre income for these squalid hovels that it can take them literally days to save up the down-payment on a new Mercedes, a 2lb tin of caviar has to be rationed out over an entire week, and magnums of Don Perignon are only opened on extra-special occasions such as having bought a new pair of shoes.

Yet, horrified as I was by that post, it also left me with a feeling of hope, because although some are trapped in this dirty, seedy underside of US lawyering with its daily annoyances of neighbours who have their TV volume set just a tad high for eighteen months or even two years, others manage to escape it for the quiet dignity of a small mansion in less than a year. And while most of us might sneer at these modest dwellings with a mere eight bathrooms and a single swimming pool of barely Olympic proportions, the cheap gold-plated silver bathroom fittings and wine-cellar with room for less than 5000 bottles are not, as they would be for us, a thing to be ashamed of, but a symbol of pride in having something they can finally call their own.

Apple will pay and keep trying to find the leak...

[8127972]

.... as they believe that cutting sites like Appleinsider, Thinksecret, MacRumors and the like are a threat to the way they do business. $700K is NOTHING to them.

Implications?

[Smidge204]

'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'

This sounds like it has some pretty big implications on freedom of the press, making it easier for journalists to keep their sources confidential (important if you want to keep your sources!)
=Smidge=

Re:Implications?

[Skadet]

No, this is a very old issue. Many states have these so-called Shield Laws to protect the press' sources.

One of the main arguments for shield laws is that nobody inside a corrupt organization (read: corrupt government) would speak to a reporter for fear of retribution.

Obligatory South Park Quote

[porkrind]

Step 1: piss off Apple

Step 2:... ugh, even I'm tired of this joke *sigh*

-John Mark
Hyperic Community Outreach

Re:Obligatory South Park Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

More like
Step 1: Become a lawyer
Step 2: ...

Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[fistfullast33l]

Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's. Try finding a non-Apple printer for a Mac before 1990 - doesn't exist. Apple has always protected their financials (see: iPhone and Verizon deal) and their IP/Technology. It's not a bad thing, it's just how they've always done business. You could argue that the reason the PC gained such a market share over Apple is because IBM didn't engage in litigation as much and allowed the third party market to flourish. Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Laur]

Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.

Even more ironic, now Macs are PCs.

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Afecks]

It's not a bad thing

Frivolous lawsuits aren't a bad thing?

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, it's that loose control over the PC that's allowed it to gain the nasty reputation for the Wild West that is has now and that Apple capitalizes on with its newer commercials.

I think this is the first time I've seen "loose" be used correctly on slashdot! Congratulations!

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

To pick nits, the linotronic used by the graphics bureau I used in the late 80s was not an apple printer. Any serial printer that supported postscript worked. I have a dim recollection of PCL printers working as well.

A fair assessment was that unless you had a specific printing need, or a large printer investment, the labor costs of straying from a single vendor solution exceeded the capital costs.

And single vendor solutions win with customers in non-technical businesses.

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[sealawyer2003]

"You could argue that the reason the PC gained such a market share over Apple is because IBM didn't engage in litigation as much and allowed the third party market to flourish." True, but on the other hand, the result seems to be that IBM isn't able to make any money selling PCs.

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Cutting_Crew]

Maybe Apple can represent the next Good Guy Doll(TM).

"Hi my name is Chucky and i'm your friend to the end...Howdy HO! HA HA HA HA HA"

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[WalksOnDirt]

They never licensed their technology to outside companies,

They did briefly license Mac technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Offic ial_Macintosh_clone_program
Once the licensees started to become successful, Apple cut the rug out from under them.

Re:Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

[Lars T.]

Does it seem like every day, Apple is seeming less like the good guy?

Um, who ever said they ever were a good guy in this matter? They never licensed their technology to outside companies, it took people kicking and screaming for them to even allow third party hardware before the 1990's. Bullshit. They licensed their technologies at their conditions - it's non of your business if few were willing to meet those conditions (like Apple also make money on the deal). Care to back up your other claims?

Apple and Pro Audio

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple should really stay out of the pro audio market. There is enough garbage mic pre's avalable. They will just become another behinger.

Re:Apple and Pro Audio

[funkdancer]

Ignore this post; moderator box got focus and for some reason "underrated" rather than "off topic" got focus and was submitted as I tried to cancel out. Posting here to undo.
(Am happy to hear Apple's legal dudes got nerfed in the court. We need more stories like these..)

Re:The fees...

[sokoban]

700k...

Isn't that what an iPhone is going for these days? Seriously, $640k should be enough for anybody.

A different take

[Anonymous Coward]

When I think about this whole ordeal, the only thing that I think about is how sad I am that Asteroid isn't going to be comming to market. I really want a Apple designed Firewire audio interface, and now there won't be one. I think all the rumormongering is hurting Apple as a company, forcing it to protect its secrets.

So, what was this leaked information?

[Andy_R]

I want to know more about "asteroid"

Re:So, what was this leaked information?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a triangular spaceship in the future and your goal is to destroy the Astroids!

Re:So, what was this leaked information?

[nursegirl]

Asteroid is apparently firewire audio interface for Garageband. Basically, so you could plug in a keyboard, guitar or microphone and record. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a big deal, seeing as M-Audio sells the same thing in both USB and firewire.

Re:So, what was this leaked information?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that it basically became the M-Audio iControl:

      http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/iControl-mai n.html

Maybe they were working together, maybe not, but it came out soon after the whole "asteroid" thing got publicly "rumored." (And Apple didn't release it for spite!)

Looks like kind of a cool product if you use Garageband a lot.

Also, it *can* be a crime.

[ivan256]

There are five ways that stealing/revealing a trade secret can be considered a federal crime under US Code Title 18 Part 1, instead of merely a civil matter.

Trade Secret law is not based on NDAs. It is a distinct section of US intellectual property law.

Re:Also, it *can* be a crime.

[phoenixwade]

I'm not sure that this situation is covered as a theft of trade secrets. No one was trying to convert a trade secret. This was a news item that covered a trade secret Apple wanted to be kept secret. I would think the only violation would be the NDA, and a civil, not a criminal, matter. However, IANAL, etc,etc,ad nausium.

Re:Also, it *can* be a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of that said anything about revealing a trade secret being a crime. It said that if you possess, receive, or buy information known to be an unauthorized disclosure you can be implicated with the theft of a trade secret. Of course, this would mean that if some source tells me, "Microsoft is planning to put cows on Jupiter" and then I tell you, then you've just received what is known to be an unauthorized disclosure, the same as I did when the source told me.

So, better hope there's a spoiler tag next time or you too can become guilty of violating USC Title 18 Part 1a and be fined up to $5 million and/or spend up to ten years in prison. Woohoo, go lawmakers!

You're wrong.

[ivan256]

That just plain isn't true, and I don't know what made people start thinking that all of a sudden.

Re:You're wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess somebody doesn't know anything about the founding of this country and the role that anonymous publication and sourcing had it it.

Parent comment "Wrong", not "Insightful"

[ivan256]

Actually, journalists have been subpoenaed for sources and some have gone to jail for refusing for hundreds of years. See my other posts in this thread for a reference.

You're just plain wrong.

Re:Parent comment "Wrong", not "Insightful"

[RxScram]

...and some have gone to jail for ... hundreds of years. Wow! Those are some OLD journalists... gives a whole new meaning to life in prison.

Re:Parent comment "Wrong", not "Insightful"

[retrosteve]

...and how exactly will Apple's loss change this delicate balance again?

The general principle holds -- journalists don't need to reveal their sources, and can print what they can find out. There are occasional exceptions, but they have to be very important ones, related to national security. A particular company's proprietary info doesn't count.

Nothing has changed.

Re:Parent comment "Wrong", not "Insightful"

[LKM]

I think it should be the other way around. Printing a company's trade secrets should not be protected. There's no public interest (and by the way, the fact that you are interested in what Apple is doing does not imply public interest). However, if there is a public interest - such as in matters related to national security - the press must be absolutely free to print whatever they dig up, without fear of prosecution.

What are you talking about?

[ivan256]

There was no constitutional issue raised here. If forcing the blogger to talk was the only possible way to find out who leaked the trade secret, the judge probably would have sided with Apple. This wasn't a constitutional decision, it was a procedural decision.

Of course you're probably one of the people who holds the misconception that journalists have ever had the right to protect a source who broke the law. They never have.

Re:What are you talking about?

[Budenny]

No. The journalist wasn't protecting anyone who broke the law. They may have broken a civil contract. Its not illegal to do that.

Re:What are you talking about?

[ivan256]

Holy crap. How many morons are going to post a kneejerk response to my comment in this thread when it has already been discussed that trademarks are part of US criminal code and not merely constructs of a civil contract.

Next you'll be saying that copyrights and trademarks are the same thing.

Please, just go away.

It's a civil suit, no? (typo fixed)

[argent]

First, let's fix a typo:

Basically, this is a ruling that says you can brag about your crimes to a reporter, and they can publish your account, and they are free to cover up your crime.

Second: yes, for a civil suit, that's true.

They weren't like that...

[mangu]

Is this the same Apple that had cabinet covers closed with velcro strips? The biggest problem in getting into an Apple ][ was removing the TV set that sat on top.

The fact that there weren't any Apple ][ clones was due more to the big diversity in personal computer models at the time than any trade secret. If you wanted to build a computer in those days, it was easier to put together an S-100 machine than to try cloning an Apple. But every detail about the Apple, from the ROM listings to the video chroma waveforms, was widely known even published in magazines like the good old Byte, R.I.P.

Re:They weren't like that...

[Jerry Coffin]

The fact that there weren't any Apple ][ clones was due more to the big diversity in personal computer models at the time than any trade secret.

Please see the site exclusively devoted to Apple II clones. Virtually all of these (a couple hundred or so) were put out of business by Apple suing them.

Don't get me wrong: I think in most of these cases, Apple had a perfect right to sue. Many of these didn't even make an attempt at being legal or legitimate at all, just using outright copies of the Apple II ROMs and selling them. AFAIK, the only company that did legal Apple II clones was VTech, who did the (in retrospect) obvious thing: they went to Microsoft and took out a license to AppleSoft, just like Apple had in the first place. Other than that, most were just taking an Apple II, copying its ROM and putting it into a machine similar to a real Apple II. Apple successfully took nearly all of these (e.g. the Pineapple, most of the Franklins) off the market via lawsuits.

Apple also sued nearly everybody over supposedly copying their GUI -- in nearly every case, it was pretty obvious that the real source was Xerox, but Apple's motto seemed to be "it's our's; we stole it first." This forced changes (mostly minor) in GEM, and (IIRC) Tandy's GUI system (sorry, I don't remember its name).

Re:They weren't like that...

[idontgno]

and (IIRC) Tandy's GUI system (sorry, I don't remember its name).

Deskmate. I've only used version 3.something, so I don't recall any UI changes (driven by Apple or anyone). On the other hand, knowing what I know of Apple's history of zealously protecting whatever it percieves as its IP, it seems plausible. I'm just too lazy to look up your claim.

Re:They weren't like that...

[tiny-e]

Apple also sued nearly everybody over supposedly copying their GUI -- in nearly every case, it was pretty obvious that the real source was Xerox, but Apple's motto seemed to be "it's our's; we stole it first.",

No, Apple acquired the rights to develop a GUI based on Xerox's own GUI concept as seen at PARC legally (they paid for it with Apple stock.) You can read about it at MacKiDo (yes it's a Mac site) http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

Depends how you see it

[sacrilicious]

Bill Gates has done a LOT more "good guy" stuff than just about anyone else in his position ever has. How many billionaire CEO's have ever given as much to legitimate charities as Bill Gates? How many others have decided to give their entire $multi-billion fortune away when they die to a charitable foundation? Guys like Gates and Warren Buffet deserve at least a little "good guy" cred for that.

There are numerous ways to skin the related math. Comparing myself to Bill Gates, Gates wins hands down in terms of total amount donated, or percentage of holdings donated. On the other hand, I slaughter him with regard to scarcity of personal holdings remaining after all donations.

There's humor in my point above, but seriousness too. Bill Gates has not had to live without anything purchasable that he's wanted, whereas I've had to live without quite a lot of things that by varying degrees are "essential". Doesn't make me a better person than Gates, but conversely his pain-free, involved-as-he-wants-to-be actions don't make him a better person than me.

This line of thought applies when comparing Gates to other execs as well. How many of these execs have as much money as Gates to start with? How much did they have left when their donations were tallied up? How much in excess of some arbitrary standard of living/possessing did those amounts clock in at? All these questions are fundamentally aimed at discerning how much was really "given" in a way that cost the giver something, vs simply rearranged. If a corporate exec donates a billion dollars and keeps ten million for a lengthy retirement, how does that compare to a starving child who gives away a piece of bread and dies as a consequence? Who gets more "good guy" karma points?

Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't sign NDA's if you don't want to abide by them.

I doubt that the bloggers were unaware of the fact that the information they were publishing was under NDA. That said, they also didn't sign the NDA. So bravo for them for not laying down and giving up their source. I hate rats.

It's definitely in Apples interest to protect their secrets, and you can't blame them for trying to do that- they just went about it the wrong way.

Does anyone have a mirror of what details were even released? I mean, should the bloggers have shown a bit of candor in what they published? It's not like they're exposing Apples hidden baby killing factory, they're publishing information about unreleased products.

Re:Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

You hate rats, yet these "sources" are exactly that.

hooray for lawyer bashing

[caitsith01]

IAAL. If you don't like it, you have a few options other than bitching about lawyers:

1. educate yourself about the law and represent yourself if you think it's such a low-value service
2. act politically to get the laws simplified
3. act politically to develop mechanisms to resolve disputes in a non-litigious manner
4. act politically to get the state to provide substantially more assistance for litigants who aren't wealthy
5. go back to stabbing each other with pointed sticks to resolve disputes (this might be quite effective for class actions)
6. modify human behaviour so that people no longer fight with each other

Note that if you consider these options unfeasible, 1 is caused by your own lack of ability, time or skill, 2, 3 and 4 are political problems which are in your own hands as much as they're in anyone's, and 5 and 6 are wired into us by evolution (or God/magical pixies if you're from the bible belt).

Otherwise perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence. Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.

In my view there is a tendency to regard lawyers as a rip-off simply because of the nature of the service, fighting it out to establish one's rights in circumstances which are frequently viewed as unfair or unnecessary, rather than the much more palatable "help me doctor, I'm sick/dying" or "help me, engineer, I need to build X".

The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[mr_matticus]

Exactly. It's not as though the consumers did any work. At best, they found a form to fill out so that they could be contacted by a lawyer when a settlement is reached, and then they went right back to watching TV. And who's paying the bills before the settlement is reached? The lawyers carry the case out of pocket...because it's not like the affected consumers are willing to put down a deposit.

A substantial amount of legal fees goes to actual costs--do you know how much it costs to ship overnight 4 boxes of documents in binders? Weekly, for several months? Simple photocopying and document services alone can cost $10,000 in a case, not to mention shipping, postage, and office supplies. Lawyers also have a paralegal/clerk staff to pay for their time and have to cover all the pro bono cases most of us take, which are also expensive and time consuming.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[BootNinja]

I don't know about anybody else, but I tend to think that doctors are overpaid too.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[epee1221]

The problem isn't really that the lawyers get so much -- it's that the supposed victims get so little. If it's an individual suing, the lawyers get paid well, and the plaintiff (thoeretically, at least) gets a significant benefit from having sued. WIth a class action suit, the lawyers still get paid well, but the people who were supposedly wronged get so little that many of them don't even bother collecting it.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[AlHunt]

Interesting that you take such exception to my comment. I could run a tally of outrageous fees charged by your profession, but I'll simply refer you to overlawyered.com where they do a great job.

I might also suggest we return to the Roman system where advocates couldn't charge fees but could only receive gifts after the fact. Until Claudius came along and screwed things up. Or a "loser pays" system would certainly free up the courts.

I don't dislike lawyers. Had dinner with a lawyer last week, in fact. I dislike what your profession has become and so should you.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[AlHunt]

I don't know about anybody else, but I tend to think that doctors are overpaid too.

$175.00 for a "first time", 20 minute visit to the doctors office. $100, thereafter.
Essentially, $300/hr to see a PA.

The $75?
It's for "seting up a new patient". A handful of papers (most of which *I* filled out) and a file folder, for $75. Gimme a break ...

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[mr_matticus]

That depends on the cause of the class action. A free replacement CD and an additional free CD is considered fair compensation for having been bothered by a rootkit which may or may not have made your computer more vulnerable. A class action resulting in a recall for a vehicle allows all owners to have the defect remedied.

A class action is a means for the consumer to correct a wrong, not a profit mechanism for angry customers, nor is it intended, ultimately, as a deterrent. Class actions arise from design problems, manufacturing problems, and all sorts of mundane causes. Relatively few are leveled against corporations for doing "evil" deeds...and when they are, the class action is still principally designed to fix problems, not shame companies for stupid decisions. If your goal is to punish a company for doing something, you should avail yourself of other means of litigation.

Effectively, consumers get little because in most cases, the problem is little. Class actions rarely result in more than a product replacement at best.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[bataras]

>> perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence.

please. so is engineering. yet engineers don't charge their clients 300$/hr. Yeah, maybe an engineer at IBM is billed out to other large corps at near that much. But an individual engineer working face to face with an individual client damn sure doesn't ask 300$/hr. Yet I've sat personally with lawyers and been told effectively "you must personally pay me 300$/hr".

>> The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.

That's it. Screw the "I went to school, and gosh, lawyering is 'hard work'" theme. The fact is you have a client who's in trouble and has no choice but to pay up.

So add #7 to the list tongue in cheek...

7. act politically to get LOTS of lawyers to come to the US on H1B visas and make lawyering charges roughly similar to other professions with the equivalent of a masters degree: 50$/hr give or take.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[Luthair]

I believe the issue is that all too often the companies aren't actually required to rectify the problem (ie, replacing the CD) and the victim ends up with a $2 off coupon for purchasing yet another product from the company.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[syousef]

Large law firms do not make vastly more money than collectives of doctors, engineering consultancies, other groups of professionals, or large corporations.

With the exception of the medical profession which acts equally reprehensibly, you're talking about groups that make money by charging large sums of money to large entities (companies). Meanwhile you're advocating lawyers being allowed to profiteer from individuals who don't have those kinds of resources. Your problem is you couldn't care less whether you're taking the money from a large corp or if it's someone's life savings.

The lawyers didn't create your dispute. You and the other litigant did.

With your attitude I'd never hire you and if I did by accident hire you I'd sack you the first time you treated me with contempt. Your implication that anyone who requires your help is somehow at fault is just plain reprehensible. You work in a profession that encourages this sort of behaviour. There are good lawyers and doctors around, but it's despite their professions not as a result of them.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[caitsith01]

With your attitude I'd never hire you and if I did by accident hire you I'd sack you the first time you treated me with contempt. Your implication that anyone who requires your help is somehow at fault is just plain reprehensible. You work in a profession that encourages this sort of behaviour. There are good lawyers and doctors around, but it's despite their professions not as a result of them. Way to completely miss my point. My point was not that it's the client's 'fault' that they need a lawyer (although you will find that, for some mysterious reason, in about half the cases that go to trial this turns out to be the case...). My point was that there is an underlying suggestion that lawyers somehow generate work out of thin air in order to rob the unsuspecting townsfolk, and it is simply not true. Or, to put it another way, I was trying to suggest that if you really want to avoid lawyers, the best approach is to resolve your differences amicably and stay the hell out of court.

Despite your admirable ability to judge my character based on a single comment on a public discussion board I can tell you that I have never treated a client with 'contempt' or with anything other than the respect I would accord to any human being and would like to be accorded to me.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to completely miss my point. My point was not that it's the client's 'fault' that they need a lawyer (although you will find that, for some mysterious reason, in about half the cases that go to trial this turns out to be the case...). My point was that there is an underlying suggestion that lawyers somehow generate work out of thin air in order to rob the unsuspecting townsfolk, and it is simply not true. Or, to put it another way, I was trying to suggest that if you really want to avoid lawyers, the best approach is to resolve your differences amicably and stay the hell out of court. You did it, again. You blamed him for not understanding you. Communication is the responsibility of both parties and if he didn't understand you, it's probably just as much to do with you as him...

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[baaa]

• 7. Act politically so you don't have laws created by lawyers for lawyers.

I think this takes care of number 2. If laws were made by engineers, the "legal extortion" system would be much simpler.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[rohan972]

When you couple your misunderstanding with an unsubstantiated character attack, you get blamed. It's the old "Do unto others..." thing in action.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[ady1]

Otherwise perhaps you should consider that litigation is an extremely complex, difficult and time consuming activity requiring a very high level of expertise to conduct with any degree of competence

I agree but would like to add that laws are made to be complex to benefit the one with the bigger chuck of cash or awareness of loopholes or authority.

Re:hooray for lawyer bashing

[Matt Perry]

If laws were made by engineers, the "legal extortion" system would be much simpler.

Or at least automated.

Justice? What about trade secrets?

[unassimilatible]

In California, there is a trade secrets law, which some Apple employee under NDA obviously violated for these Web sites to find out. Apparently your idea of justice allows a reporter to willfully assist in breaking this law, with impunity. I realize that /. seems to think that there should be no patent or copyright, but not even trade secrets? This from the tinfoil hat types who don't want the government listening in on their conversations and tracking their phone calls and library books? I guess privacy and secrecy isn't so important if you are Apple Computer, DRM Enemy #1.

As an AAPL stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.

Funny how the same /. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.

Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...

Re:Justice? What about trade secrets?

[epee1221]

I realize that /. seems to think that there should be no patent or copyright, but not even trade secrets?

I would expect the same people who oppose patents on the grounds of promoting openness and sharing of innovation would also oppose trade secrets for the same reason.

Funny how the same /. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.

I see you didn't read the law either. In order to have to register, you would need to be a blogger whom someone hired and paid at least $25,000 to promote a specific message. In other words, it's a shill registry, not a blogger registry, and you know how much /. loves shills.

Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...

Almost took your advice here :-P

Re:Justice? What about trade secrets?

[gordgekko]

As an AAPL [google.com] stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.

It's good to know you value freedom of speech as cheaply as Apple's stock price.

Re:Justice? What about trade secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I discovered your internet banking username and password would you protect my "freedom of speech" to post them to the web?

Steve Jobs considered dangerous :)

[suv4x4]

I've always said Jobs is dangerous. We gotta be happy that things now are as they are (Mac has a mere 2-3% market share, and as for consumer products like iPod - let it thrive, no much harm done, it's just a fancy nice mp3 player).

Bill Gates' original vision was to spread computers into every home, and make hardware a commodity platform, make the real product the software that makes this hardware useful.

Job's vision is more sinister though: this guy believes in perception, in hype, in marketing, and in easy to use and swallow products fed to the masses. A control freak.

Isn't it crazy how much work they've put on the iPhone (and deliver a nice, albeit expensive product), only in the end to cripple it by not allowing to tap its power with custom software? This is pure Jobs right there.

And you can be sure Apple's strange behavior towards rumor sites is coming straight from Jobs.

And there's a site that said the product was a Apple hoax deliberately created to catch where the leaks are coming from. Possible, but we have a real world example of what possibly really happened:

Did you know that months before Microsft announced the Tablet PC platform Apple was getting ready to release their own Tablet Mac? Well, just because they couldn't be first to the market and grab that "mindshare", Jobs scrapped the project. I bet he's now waiting for the Tablet PC idea to die and be forgotten, before he tries again.

Re:Steve Jobs considered dangerous :)

[bky1701]

Mod parent up. With all his power, Bill Gates has done less evil than Steve Jobs has with as little power as he has. I don't want to see the world where Apple is in Microsoft's place.

Re:Steve Jobs considered dangerous :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that.

Bill Gates has sort of invested part of his fortune in helping developing countries. He has also evangelized digital inclusion over lots of media. His motto "one PC on every desktop" is sort of cool if you really think about it.

Steve Jobs just keeps on creating fancy products for rich people. I sort of thnk that he is not as "world aware" as Gates. His motto should be "one Apple on every good-looking expensive and stylish desktop on developed profitable countries".

IMHO, both are doing fucking wrong, but Gates just has some more "good" stuff done to defend himself.

Overpaid doctors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all doctors make a lot of money in the U.S. Many barely make ends meet because of medical insurance companies, Medicaid and Medicare, and malpractice insurance. My dad is a GP, has his own practice opened for four years, still gets new patients, but is barely getting by. And he doesn't charge high rates like those someone mentioned paying to see a PA.

Another perspective is that becoming a doctor took many years of very expensive education, years of very low-paying, very stressful hands-on training, and hours of continuing training to stay current. All of that is required because you're putting your life into the hands of the doctor, trusting him to know what to do. Isn't that worth something?

If you can reform medical insurance, government aid, and malpractice lawsuits in the U.S., you'll have a much better situation for the doctors (and their families) and the patients.

Re:Overpaid doctors?

[AlHunt]

If you can reform medical insurance, government aid, and malpractice lawsuits in the U.S., you'll have a much better situation for the doctors (and their families) and the patients.

Excellent point. Medicine is not an exact science. Things that should work, don't always. Yet patients and lawyers treat medicine like widget manufacturing, resulting in idiot juries awarding millions in malpractice awards, thus (along with other factors) driving the cost of healthcare beyond reason.

Oh yes!

[Builder]

I *used* to be an Apple fanboi... less and less lately :(

See http://anonymouslemming.blogspot.com/2007/01/alway s-eviltm.html for my latest discovery about Apple...

Reporters have a duty to report.

[jotaeleemeese]

Who has to answer for breaking a NDA is the person that did so, not the person reporting the disclosure, they did not sign anithing with Apple.

I know that your clearly unbiased point of view is making your blood boil, but frankly we can afford that in the interest of allowing free dissemination of important information by whistle blowers.

Reading the Briefs

[Edoko]

I read through the briefs. Intel and Genentech both supplied amicus filings. The principal reason Apple lost is because the court judged it had not exhausted other measures to identify the source of the leak. The details of the case show that the information was definitely a trade secret of Apple deserving protection. The journalists were bloggers, and it appears for the first time, the court has ruled that "bloggers" are "journalists" and therefore are entitled to 1st amendment protections.

It appears that bloggers are able to publish trade secrets of technology companies and hide behind the protection given to the press, even if it is obvious to any reasonable person that the information is stolen and confidential in nature.

Apple is no "worse" than any other company of any type intending to protect its trade secrets.

Strawman nonsense

[unassimilatible]

Who has to answer for breaking a NDA is the person that did so, not the person reporting the disclosure, they did not sign anithing with Apple.

Of course, the Web site contributes to the disclosure and therefore loss of the trade secret. That's like saying a getaway driver in a car doesn't rob the bank, so he should get off scott free!

I know that your clearly unbiased point of view is making your blood boil

As opposed to the fair-and-balanced /. crowd when it comes to IP? I am actually a helluva lot more objective than 90% of the anti-IP zealots here, for whom open source is a religion rather than an experiment. I hate what Microsoft is doing with Vista's EULA; the difference is, I believe in the law and freedom of contract. If you don't like MS, use Linux, don't tell MS how to write it's contracts, and don't make up the law how you want it to be. What makes my blood oil is being an AAPL stockholder and having financially disinterested nincompoops trying to force their jihadist viewpoint on a stock I hold in the name of ideology.

but frankly we can afford that in the interest of allowing free dissemination of important information by whistle blowers.

The legal system is sophisticated enough to discern between whistleblowers and gossips. There are already laws protecting the former. That's a strawman.

Nice little slapdown for an arrogant corporation

[Zhe Mappel]

Let this be a lesson to Apple--with others to follow, if needed--that it will cost it plenty to throw its weight around by issuing abusive subpoenas.

While there are going to be some here who value AAPL stock over the intersection of confidentiality and journalistic freedom, happily the courts, at least this time, do not.

At a time when blogging is rewriting the practice of journalism by handing individuals the power formerly reserved to wealthy media companies, American law needs more such victories.