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.'"

More of This, please

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

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

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

hooray for lawyer bashing

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:

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 [overlawyered.com] where they do a great job.

I might also suggest we return to the Roman system where adv

Re:

>> 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 thei

Re:

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

Justice? What about trade secrets?

In California, there is a trade secrets law [findlaw.com], 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 /

Re:

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 pri

Worried about Apple...

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...

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:

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 [apple2clones.com]. Virtually all of these (a couple hundred or s

Re:Worried about Apple...

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:

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 th

Re:

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

Who said they were a Good Guy(TM)

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:

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:Worried about Apple...

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...

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...

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

Depends how you see it

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?

Re:

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

Hallelujah!

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 audi

Re:

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:

...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:Hallelujah!

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:

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 th

Also, it *can* be a crime.

There are five ways that stealing/revealing a trade secret can be considered a federal crime under US Code Title 18 Part 1 [cornell.edu], 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:

'' 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

Re:Hallelujah!

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:

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

Re:

Well, it seems the Justice Department would disagree with you [aclu.org].

-Eric

Re:

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

We should.

Re:

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:

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 ou

You're wrong.

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

whoo eff

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

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

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:

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 minimu

Re:

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 d

Wow.

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?!?!

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!!!!!

Implications?

'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:

No, this is a very old issue. Many states have these so-called Shield Laws [wikipedia.org] 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

So, what was this leaked information?

I want to know more about "asteroid"

Steve Jobs considered dangerous :)

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:

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:

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

Re:

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

Re:The fees...

700k...

Isn't that what an iPhone is going for these days?

Seriously, $640k should be enough for anybody.