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

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...

[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...

[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.

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!

[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!

[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

whoo eff

[tomstdenis]

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

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

[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: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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.