April 20, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Apple pushes to unmask product leaker
- Related Stories
-
Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips
June 3, 2005 -
EFF appeals Apple fan site ruling
March 22, 2005 -
Apple lawsuit: Thinking different?
March 11, 2005 -
Judge: Apple can pursue fan site sources
March 11, 2005 -
Apple goes to the source
March 7, 2005 -
Apple suit tests First Amendment
January 10, 2005 -
Apple suit foreshadows coming products
January 5, 2005
Apple claims they should not. Its lawyers say in court documents that Web scribes are not "legitimate members of the press" when they reveal details about forthcoming products that the company would prefer to keep confidential.
That argument has drawn stiff opposition from bloggers and traditional journalists. But it did seem to be sufficient to convince Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg, who ruled in March 2005 that Apple's attempt to subpoena the electronic records of an Apple news site could proceed.
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the Macintosh news sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," Kleinberg wrote at the time.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing the Apple news site PowerPage.org, is hoping the appeals court will pull the plug on a subpoena that could yield details about who leaked information about a FireWire audio interface for GarageBand that has been codenamed "Asteroid." The subpoena is on hold during the appeal.
"The California Court of Appeals has a long history of protecting freedom of the press," Kurt Opsahl, an EFF staff attorney who is arguing the case, said on Wednesday. "We're hopeful they'll continue to do so."
Listen up
News.com's Ina Fried examines how the dispute's outcome might affect Apple and the rights of bloggers.Download MP3 (1.6MB)
In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed "John Doe" defendants. The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage's e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted.
Even though the AppleInsider site also published information about the Asteroid device, it operated its own e-mail service and would have been able to raise a stronger First Amendment claim if it had been sent a subpoena. (In a separate case, Apple directly sued another enthusiast site, Think Secret, alleging that it infringed on Apple's trade secret in soliciting inside information.)
The types of articles about Apple that Jason O'Grady, PowerPage.org's creator, posts every few days don't seem that different from those that many news organizations produce. They include reports on Apple's patent disputes, benchmarks of software performance, reviews of software and news about upcoming products that have not officially been announced.
Being the first to publish news about forthcoming products--as long as the information is accurate--is generally regarded by journalists as a coup. CNET News.com was the first to report, for instance, that Apple was switching from PowerPC processors to Intel chips last year. (Full disclosure: O'Grady has begun writing a blog for ZDNet, also owned by CNET.)
See more CNET content tagged:
Jason O'Grady,
subpoena,
Apple Computer,
journalist,
IBM PowerPC
Don't rip & replace. VoIP as you are
one plays by the rules we change them to suit us....
Whats next Steve? Your own Internet? I thought the internet was
about freedom, expression and above all else sharing....
Oh well, thank god for x86 and apple developer seeds
one plays by the rules we change them. I thought the internet
was about freedom, expression and above all else sharing?
Rant out of the way...
It was obvious Apple was going to release a Firewire interface at
some point. Almost as predictable as: 'We have maintained a
x86 build of OS X through out the whole development cycle' So
apple are going to release it for pc or they might use x86
hardware 'We are proud to announce the release of the Mac Book
Pro' - I bet no one could of predicted what happened next
though...
Oh well, thank god for x86 and apple developer seeds
Apple play this card well, being an ace and all
become the desktop OS of choice not Linux.... Hey we might
even get an OS X build that boots on the Xbox360...
"...(the Macintosh news sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," Kleinberg wrote at the time."
Then we are demanding and they are supplying. Pure capitalism.
Boo hoo for Apple if they can't figure out how to work the leaks to their advantage.
should be noted, as they only give to the Democratic Party, and
that's the party that forced Social Security on us, taxes on
everything towards the little guy, introduced the Federal
Reserve, angered the Muslims under Carter's support for the
Shah of Iran in 1979, falsely inflated the '9-s dot-com economy,
passed a bill to allow illegal aliens to enter, and sues the hell out
of anybody who disagrees with them.
Censorship from a company who gives millions a year to those
concepts? Not a surprise.
(Go ahead, get political in responses.)
I have no idea what he's tokin on but he needs a refresher in basical Constitutional law. The Constitution and it's amendments are the ultimate law of the land. NOTHING trumps the Constitution and that is very firmly laid down in Supreme Court rulings. Any law passed that conflicts is declared "unconstitutional" and thrown down.
So where does this moron get the idea that an IP right trumps the 1st amendment to the Constitution. He needs his bar license revoked and a remidial course in law school.
Apple's move here is stupid, not only because it attacks the very press that will report on the attack, and because it looks like a direct corporate attack on the first amendment, but also because it attacks the interests of those consumers most likely to purchase their products. It doesn't help their case to have Microsoft championing their cause.
Apple can try to aggressively squash my "insatiable desire for information" about their products, but then, I probably just won't be buying their products.
have really screwed things up.
It won't happen, but it would be fun if bloggers and the mainstream media responded by dropping coverage of Apple.
http://www.iwantmyess.com/?p=57
opinion, having worked in both media and law. The comment I
think sums the issues up most accurately is:
"As long as the courts agree that Apple is protecting a legitimate
trade secret, Ballon said, intellectual property should trump free
speech rights. "The law is certainly on Apple's side on this issue,"
he said."
I would add that Apple has engaged in good lawyering by focus
on the source. Bloggers are not journalists and don't deserve
the protections of real reporters. But, I don't believe that issue
even needs to be reached. The nature of the information
involved, trade secrets, is what is key.
opinion, having worked in both media and law. The comment I
think sums the issues up most accurately is:
"As long as the courts agree that Apple is protecting a legitimate
trade secret, Ballon said, intellectual property should trump free
speech rights. "The law is certainly on Apple's side on this issue,"
he said."
I would add that Apple has engaged in good lawyering by
focusibg on the information. Bloggers are not journalists and
don't deserve the protections of real reporters. But, I don't
believe that issue even needs to be reached. The nature of the
information involved, trade secrets, is what is key. The
protections afforded the journalists address information on a
continuum. The highest degree of protection is offered political
speech because it is important to maintaining democracy. The
least is offered to obscenity. Trade secrets are excluded from
these protections, rightly, in my opinion. This is really a matter
of economics, not freedom of speech.
- FOP v. NDC
-
by Llib Setag
April 23, 2006 10:11 PM PDT
- THREE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES ARE AT STAKE HERE:
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 33 Comments >>1. Freedom of the Press v. Legally binding non-disclosure
employee contracts.
2. Free Speech v. Trade Secret Intellectual Property.
3. Public Internet Bloggers / Rumormongers v. Legitimate
Professional Journalist of the Press. (equal? same protection
under Constitution?)
Previous response that bears repeating...
Mr. Editor: Is CNET now the Judge & Jury in this case?
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS v. NON DISCLOSURE CONTRACT
Posted by: Llib Setag
Posted on: March 7, 2005, 12:36 PM PST
Story: Apple goes to the source. C|NET
THAT is the real issue before the Courts.
Does the California Constitutional freedom of the press outway
the legal non disclosure contract signed by the Apple employees
who leaked proprietary secret information to the Internet BEFORE
that Apple information was released to the public by Apple?
If this was Microsoft/Intel/Sun/Adobe/IBM/Dell/HP,instead of
Apple,what would THEY be pursuiting legally?
What if an Microsoft employee (which also must sign a VERY long
non-disclosure contract) gave the source code for the upcoming
MS-OS to a technology rumor site and it was posted on the
Internet BEFORE Bill Gates issued the new Vista OS to the public?
What would Citizen Gates & his Father / Attorney / Law Firm do?
Would CNET think they were behaving like Nixon?
To say ANY tech company, Apple or otherwise, is being NIXON
when they are executing their legal rights is just being biased.
Nixon was a criminal prosuiting criminal acts during Watergate
AND the President of USA. He knowingly directed criminal acts to
cover up prior criminal acts.
Deep Throat knew this & thought that the country should know
this too about their elected President.
Totally NOT this case. Apple is not being criminal by exercising
their legal rights & by protecting their intellectual property.
Apple employees who broke their legal non-disclosure contracts
did so knowingly & so did Think Secret, etc.
So you comparison to Nixon WAS grossly unfair and inacurate.
Not the same case by a long shot...
AND to compare the likes of Think Secret rumormongers to the
caliber of Woodward & Bernstein / Washington Post is a serious
insult to W&B/Washington Post & ALL respected professional
journalist - ESPECIALLY coming from a "CNET journalist".
Deep Throat was absolutely right in THAT case, but knowingly
breaching a legal non-diclosure contract / committing a crime is
not covered under Freedom of the press.
All Apple is attempting to do is enforce their legal right to
prosecute their disloyal employees who break the Apple Non-
Disclosure Contract by giving away trade secrets.
Why should they continue to be employed by Apple if they broke
their legal non-disclosure contract?
Freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout FIRE in
a movie theatre and start a stampede...THAT'S against the law.
All Constitution freedoms have caveats. America is a check &
balance system.
Is CNET the same as Internet Rumor Sites or are they more like
CNN?