Um, Journalists have NEVER been protected from having to reveal sources. In individual cases, such protection has been granted but there is no uniform blanket protection.
And since Apple demonstrated to the courts that the information published is reasonably believeable to be from an NDA, under the UTSA they were obligated by law to not publish the information and are obligated by law to reveal the source. Perhaps you should try READING THE COURT RULING
and this is exaclty what apple did. And the investigators (as agents of Apple) are using the legal avenues availible to them to compell the sites to reveal the leakers of the information if they have that information.
Wow, you didn't actualy READ THE COURT RULING at all did you? If you did, you would have noted the court is all about PROOF, and you would have noticed that something which serves the PUBLIC INTEREST (such as a DEADLY drug) would still be protected. But then again, this is slashdot, why would I expect anyone to READ THE COURT RULING
Which is why slashdot isnt' being looked at. However, the sites in question where the boards that the information was posted to by an INDIVIDUAL. Hence Apple compelling them to reveal their sources. BTW, if it's found that the sources found the information on another public forum (a lesser known Apple rumor site for example) then the sources are protected under the fact that it was then public information when they recieved it. But this can not be discovered until the first set of sources is revealed. Hence the application of the law.
So Apple should reward a crime/illegal act rather than persue the legal avenues open to them?
You do realize that if Apple did that, they would open DePlume and all the other "journalists" to being sued by their sources AND could potentialy open themselves up to lawsuits as well?
he question to me seems to be who all is legally obliged to assist Apple in enforcing its NDA. If you witness a crime, must you come forward and tell all you know?
Yes, actually, you can be compelled to do so. Note, you do not legaly have to volunteer to do so, but you can be compelled to do so by court order. The 5th amendment only applies to self incrimination.
Great, but under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act there is absolutely no evidence that this is a trade secret!
I think slides that say Apple Confidential on them would be evidence enough. In fact the courts found them to be evidence enough. But this is slashdot, why would I expect someone to actually READ the ruling and the facts
How was his due process violated? He was temporarily detained, on suspicion of commiting a crime. An expert as to the nature of the specifics of the crime was brought in to confirm the possibility that a crim had been comited. The expert said no, and he was released.
Developing nations don't give a fuck about "intellectual property". Just look at the US when it was a young country.
Indeed:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Yes, and the only way one goes about being able to pass laws and regulations in the interests of your constituency is to be able to compromise. This includes deciding who is on your side of the fence (or mostly) and who isn't.
You can not pass laws that benefit your constituents without compromise.
You can not compromise if you don't have a side to stand on.
Contrary to popular belief, for a long time, State law trumped federal law in all instances where there was a conflict, unless the issue was specificaly an interstate issue.
There is no other argument in the political spectrum except "us vs them".
You have to understand that as much as politics is about compromise, it's about winning too. All the people you side with, even if you don't agree 100% is "us" and everyone you just can't seem to get through to is "them". Politics is all about making "us" the winners and marginalizing "them". Then once that battle is over, it's a new battle between those that were "us" dividing once again into another "us vs them" argument whether over a different issues or the specifics of the terms of being an "us".
The gag order restricts the citizen from talking about the specifics of a given part of a specific investigation. When it becomes declassified (even if the investigation is never officialy resolved / never goes to trial) the gag order also would expire because what it's protecting is already public knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Journalists have NEVER been protected from having to reveal sources. In individual cases, such protection has been granted but there is no uniform blanket protection.
Apple has PLENTY of proof, and you would know that if you READ THE COURT RULING
And since Apple demonstrated to the courts that the information published is reasonably believeable to be from an NDA, under the UTSA they were obligated by law to not publish the information and are obligated by law to reveal the source. Perhaps you should try READING THE COURT RULING
and this is exaclty what apple did. And the investigators (as agents of Apple) are using the legal avenues availible to them to compell the sites to reveal the leakers of the information if they have that information.
Wow, you didn't actualy READ THE COURT RULING at all did you? If you did, you would have noted the court is all about PROOF, and you would have noticed that something which serves the PUBLIC INTEREST (such as a DEADLY drug) would still be protected. But then again, this is slashdot, why would I expect anyone to READ THE COURT RULING
If you reasonably believe or know the information to have been obtained via the violation of an NDA, you are indeed bound to non disclosure.
If you had actually bothered to READ THE COURT RULING you would find that Apple PROVED that trade secrets were leaked and therefore a law was broken.
Note to journalists. If it says "Apple Confidential" DON"T PUBLISH IT.
They did ask nicely.
They got a "Fuck off"
So now they are using the legal avenues WHICH ARE PROVIDED IN CONTRACT LAW to allow them to persue and prosecute the person who violated the contract.
Which is why slashdot isnt' being looked at. However, the sites in question where the boards that the information was posted to by an INDIVIDUAL. Hence Apple compelling them to reveal their sources. BTW, if it's found that the sources found the information on another public forum (a lesser known Apple rumor site for example) then the sources are protected under the fact that it was then public information when they recieved it. But this can not be discovered until the first set of sources is revealed. Hence the application of the law.
So Apple should reward a crime/illegal act rather than persue the legal avenues open to them?
You do realize that if Apple did that, they would open DePlume and all the other "journalists" to being sued by their sources AND could potentialy open themselves up to lawsuits as well?
he question to me seems to be who all is legally obliged to assist Apple in enforcing its NDA. If you witness a crime, must you come forward and tell all you know?
Yes, actually, you can be compelled to do so. Note, you do not legaly have to volunteer to do so, but you can be compelled to do so by court order. The 5th amendment only applies to self incrimination.
Great, but under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act there is absolutely no evidence that this is a trade secret!
I think slides that say Apple Confidential on them would be evidence enough. In fact the courts found them to be evidence enough. But this is slashdot, why would I expect someone to actually READ the ruling and the facts
How was his due process violated? He was temporarily detained, on suspicion of commiting a crime. An expert as to the nature of the specifics of the crime was brought in to confirm the possibility that a crim had been comited. The expert said no, and he was released.
What happens if I decide to buy thousands of songs in 8-Track format? Or CD? Or Audio cassette? And then switch players later?
Note the difference betweeen ignroing patents from OTHER nations and not caring about IP. Obviously the US cared about IP. Their own IP.
Developing nations don't give a fuck about "intellectual property". Just look at the US when it was a young country.
Indeed:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Yes, and the only way one goes about being able to pass laws and regulations in the interests of your constituency is to be able to compromise. This includes deciding who is on your side of the fence (or mostly) and who isn't.
You can not pass laws that benefit your constituents without compromise.
You can not compromise if you don't have a side to stand on.
You can't have sides if you don't have a "them"
Ask anyone who has a phone number that's 1 number off or similar to a pizza joint's number how often they get orders for pizza.
Contrary to popular belief, for a long time, State law trumped federal law in all instances where there was a conflict, unless the issue was specificaly an interstate issue.
There is no other argument in the political spectrum except "us vs them".
You have to understand that as much as politics is about compromise, it's about winning too. All the people you side with, even if you don't agree 100% is "us" and everyone you just can't seem to get through to is "them". Politics is all about making "us" the winners and marginalizing "them". Then once that battle is over, it's a new battle between those that were "us" dividing once again into another "us vs them" argument whether over a different issues or the specifics of the terms of being an "us".
Again, if the founding fathers can do it, so can a self proclaimed anarchist.
The gag order restricts the citizen from talking about the specifics of a given part of a specific investigation. When it becomes declassified (even if the investigation is never officialy resolved / never goes to trial) the gag order also would expire because what it's protecting is already public knowledge.
On the other side of the coin, because of his beliefs, he MUST hold those beliefs above his wife and daughter and sacrifice everything?
Well given his political beleifs, he's just supported the system he espouses the evils of, thereby sentencing his family to a fate worse than death.
Does the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" mean nothing to people anymore?
If the founding fathers can give up their lives, their riches and their families, then so can this anarchist shit.
If the founding fathers did it, he can do it.
Because no person who ever went to jail managed to have their case heard and make an impact