Slashdot Log In
Apple Ordered to Pay Blogger Legal Fees
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Jan 31, 2007 03:07 PM
from the bruising-the-bottom-line dept.
from the bruising-the-bottom-line dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
More of This, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More of This, please (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:More of This, please (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
hooray for lawyer bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Worried about Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Worried about Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who said they were a Good Guy(TM) (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Worried about Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Worried about Apple... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:Worried about Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Depends how you see it (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
whoo eff (Score:4, Insightful)
Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That and now they get to continue reporting on every little detail of Apple
Tom
Re:The fees... (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that what an iPhone is going for these days?
Parent
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Also, it *can* be a crime. (Score:4, Informative)
Trade Secret law is not based on NDAs. It is a distinct section of US intellectual property law.
Parent
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no. That's not what was decided. In fact, that aspect of the case was pretty much thrown out a long while ago. What was decided was actually in the article summary: 'Subpoenaing journalist sources is not an acceptable means of discovery.'
You're wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Get More Comments