Slashdot Log In
Apple Loses This Round In Blogger Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri May 26, 2006 05:08 PM
from the mask-stays-on dept.
from the mask-stays-on dept.
smart2000 writes "A decision has been handed down in O'Grady, et al. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, the case commonly referred to as 'Apple vs Bloggers', in previous Slashdot posts. While like any court case it is complex, the short of it is that O'Grady won this round." From the article: "Apple has failed to demonstrate that it cannot identify the sources of the challenged information by means other than compelling petitioners to disclose unpublished information. This fact weighs heavily against disclosure, and on this record is dispositive."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Apple Pushes to Unmask Product Leaker 255 comments
Zack Wells writes "Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?
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.
This is related to a case of an Apple news site, PowerPage.org, who leaked information about a FireWire audio interface for GarageBand that has been codenamed 'Asteroid.' The subpoena is on hold during the appeal.
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."
Offsite: Groklaw Coverage
[+]
Your Rights Online: Apple Ends Anti-Blogger Legal Effort 74 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has decided not to appeal the decision against it in it in its case against the product-information leaking bloggers. News.com discusses the ramifications of this decision, which may make future online journalists bolder in their actions." From the article: "Court documents show the company's investigators interviewed 29 employees who had access to a key confidential document — but Apple did not examine them under oath or examine their computers. That's one reason, the appeals court said, to grant the online journalists the protective order they requested. 'Apple has failed to establish that it adequately pursued other possible means to identify the source of the information in question,' the judges said."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ralph Wiggum (Score:3, Funny)
--
This is a joke. I am joking. You have been joked with.
IANAL - so I wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lay speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
My educated lay guess: First, the ruling is based in part on the California Constitution Journalist Shield, so in CA they are protected as journalists. Other jurisdictions with shield laws/amendments would consider the ruling advisory, not binding, but would probably be influenced by its arguements. In areas without specific shield laws it would again be advisory, and with more limited use due to the more limited protection of the First Amendment alone; I suppose it might give a basis for arguing against prior restraint in publication for a blog. Of course, that would imply someone would come to try and get a court to order prior restraint on a blog, an idea which would probably make most judge judges call for the Advil.
Parent
Re:IANAL - so I wonder.... (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of people have tried to make this case about whether bloggers are journalists or not, but the judges have always sidestepped that. The first ruling, when the defendants tried to block the case under California's shield laws, was rejected on the grounds that revealing the existance of the Mac Mini and an audio break-out box wasn't whistleblowing, since they weren't reporting on a health risk coverup or bribery or the like, and that these items were trade secrets. The rulings since then have all been th
Can someone translate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can someone translate? (Score:4, Informative)
shield law n. A law that protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources of information. - Answers.com
Parent
Re:Can someone translate? (Score:3, Informative)
Essentially, the sum total results of this decision were that someone acting in a journalistic capacity qualifies as a journalist, without further refining the definition t
Re:Can someone translate? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the court said that they didn't want to rule on what qualifies a person as a "journalist" but would rather focus on the activity. That's a quite sane and reasonable approach.
I'm currently in the midst of a case where the city of Chicago is aggressively pursuing a subpoena of a writer I work with for our online reporting on police misconduct in conjuction with a federal civil rights lawsuit (see The View From The Ground [viewfromtheground.com]). One of the questions in these cases always centers on whether or not the writer is "really" a journalist. This court sets a useful precedent in arguing that the spirit of shield laws is intended to protect the activity of making and distributing "news" and not "journalists" per se. Of course, there's no federal shield law, so our situation is different.
Following the court's logic in this case, you have to wonder how much "journalism" (as in material that appears in newspapers, magazines, etc) is protected by shield laws.
Parent
Apple Computers? (Score:5, Funny)
A weak victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I missing something?
Re:A weak victory (Score:3, Informative)
Am I missing something?
I don't think you're missing anything, but I also don't think that makes the victory weak. First, they didn't say that Apple would necessarily have won if this was their only way of determining the source, only that they couldn't
In Cupertino, war was beginning.... (Score:5, Funny)
SteveJobs: What happen ?
AppleDrone1: Somebody set up us the bomb.
AppleDrone2: We get signal.
SteveJobs: What !
AppleDrone2: Main screen turn on.
SteveJobs: It's you !!
O'Grady: How are you gentlemen !!
O'Grady: All your secret are belong to us.
O'Grady: You are on the way to destruction.
SteveJobs: What you say !!
O'Grady: You have no chance to survive make your time.
O'Grady: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
AppleDrone2: Steve !! *
SteveJobs: Take off every 'Mac' !!
SteveJobs: You know what you doing.
SteveJobs: Move 'Mac'.
SteveJobs: For great justice.
Very interesting (Score:5, Informative)
"The publication here bears little resemblance to that in Bunner, which disclosed a sort of meta-secret, the whole purpose of which was to protect the plaintiff's members' products from unauthorized distribution. Here, no proprietary technology was exposed or compromised. There is no suggestion that anything in petitioners' articles could help anyone to build a product competing with Asteroid. Indeed there is no indication that Asteroid embodied any new technology that could be compromised. Apple's own slide stack, as disclosed in sealed declarations which we have examined, included a table comparing Asteroid to existing, competing products; there is no suggestion that it embodies any particular technical innovation, except perhaps in the fact that it would integrate closely with Apple's own home recording software--a feature reflecting less a technical advance than a prerogative of one who markets both hardware and software.
The newsworthiness of petitioners' articles thus resided not in any technical disclosures about the product but in the fact that Apple was planning to release such a product, thereby moving into the market for home recording hardware.
[..]
Publishing a computer manufacturer's proprietary code may thus be compared to publishing a miller's secret recipe for a breakfast cereal. What occurred here was more like publicizing a secret plan to release a new cereal. Such a secret plan may possess the legal attributes of a trade secret; that is a question we are not here required to decide. But it is of a different order than a secret recipe for a product. And more to the point, the fact of its impending release carries a legitimate interest to the public that a recipe is unlikely to possess."
Very little to see, here. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is really just an example of the adversarial legal system in action. Both sides state their ideas in the strongest terms they possibly can, then the other side gets a chance to chip away as much it can.
In the previous round, the bloggers floated the idea that anyone who puts information on the internet is a journalist, and that anyone who posts protected information should receive the same legal protection as a whistleblower. The court didn't buy that, nor should anyone have expected it to. But that's where the defense started, because it would have been the simplest, strongest win they could get. All they really lost was the right to claim blanket immunity from prosectution for anyone, anywhere, under pretty much any circumstances.
Now it's Apple's turn. Apple floated the idea that it should get a free pass for discovery since the information in question was vastly important, and that the bloggers had no possible interest in publishing it. The court didn't buy that, either. Had the bloggers posted the product's schematics, or a discussion of some new, patentable idea that Apple had been working on, the decision probably would have gone the other way.
So as things stand now, the bloggers can't make the case go away on the grounds of blanket immunity, and Apple can't ask the court to fast-track its subpoenas because of the massive-and-ongoing damage it received. Neither of those was really a viable claim in the first place, but that's how the game is played.
The courts still have to rule on whether Apple has done sufficient work trying to find the leak by other means, and the bloggers still have to face questions about whether they knew the information they posted was confidential, and put it online anyway.
And NONE of this has anything to do with the question of "whether bloggers are journalists."
Re:dispositive? (Score:3)
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:dispositive? Being dispositive is not entirely (Score:3, Funny)
Re:dispositive? (Score:4, Informative)
"Dispositive" isn't from "dis-positive". It's from the same root as "disposition", "dispose", etc. What they're saying is that they don't need to send this case back to the lower court for a retrial or anything like that -- they have enough evidence to make a final decision about the case.
Parent
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly, many of the lawyers I know are engineers. I can see where almost anybody could end up a bit twisted from trying to snigger behind their own back... :-)
Experience with programming languages, design specification languages, etc., would tend to indicate that even
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Adversarial games are not worth playing. If you need to be adversarial, you're doing something seriously wrong with your life.
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Life is an adversarial game. It's a zero-sum competition, which means we are all adversaries. The fact that we form alliances in order to better compete with other alliances doesn't change the fact that we are still engaged in an adversarial game.
Re:dispositive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dead Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
BZZZT!
Quote from the ruling, via Wired [wired.com]:
Parent
Re:Dead Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but my lay guess: If you publish it as a journalist, you might be protected under the shield law from revealing that you are you are your own source... but you wouldn't be protected from having smuggled or stolen the document originally. Presumably, it wouldn't be hard to connect you as y