Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case 711
An anonymous reader writes: "In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. The San Jose news piece has the most detail on the ruling while Mac Daily News has some background on the case, and Gizmodo vociferously expresses an opinion on the lawsuit. We've covered the case in the past as well.
Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad news for Apple (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that, I want to clear something up. Did he simply report on the specs of soon to be released hardware? Was it that simple? If so, I am not sure the ought-to-have-known-these-are-trade-secrets argument holds water. If the machines were about to be released, their specs would shortly become public domain.
Can anyone clarify?
Is it possible they don't know their source? (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/art
Re:Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:2, Interesting)
this is nothing new.
judges get all pissy when someone tells them no.
It's not Apple -- it's California (Score:1, Interesting)
If you want to avoid being sued, act reasonably to avoid harming others. You don't have to know every state's laws as long as you wonder whether it's unreasonable to interfere with the employment contracts of others by requesting that they break their confidentiality agreements -- which it is. Nick knew he was risking a suit when he solicited info from Apple employees.
Great . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Social Scientists Too... (Score:3, Interesting)
But, the implications for all sorts of research are a little freaky.
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
But on the other hand, the leak was not of the whistleblower variety or anything like that, so I see no reason why Apple oughtn't know what employees are leaking to the press, in violation both of trade secret law and most likely of the employees' contracts, or if in fact a competitor has directly engaged in espionage.
Don't screw your employer (if an employee is indeed involved here) and expect to get away with it -- that is how business works.
Title (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
Freedom of speech has been totally twisted out of its original meaning and with the willing help of the likes of most people on slashdot. Thus we have people here screaming because a couple of bloggers might have to pay through the nose because they ratted out trade secrets, and cheering because campaign finance reform shuts down the ability of people to express political opinions through campaign contributions and media advertisement.
In other words, they cheer when the very speech the amendment was designed to protect is stifled, and scream in anger when a type of speech the amendment could care less about is questioned.
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Journalists, like all citizens, are subject to the law and are not above the law, refusal (to name a source) is a defiance to the authority of the court and an obstruction of justice."... Read what's below.
"This paper demonstrates ways in which intergovernmental bodies within Europe as well as a number of domestic jurisdictions inside and outside of Europe have sought to provide legal protection to annonymous journalists' sources. All of these jurisdictions (including United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) have recognised that the right of the public to receive information is to a large extent dependent upon journalists who in turn rely on individuals to supply them with information, often on a confidential basis. Notwithstanding the importance of protecting source confidentiality, all the jurisdictions surveyed here recognise, to a greater or lesser degree, that source confidentiality may be overridden in certain circumstances. Among the jurisdictions surveyed, four countervailing interests are of particular relevance: the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence, prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security. In most jurisdictions, the party seeking disclosure will have to demonstrate not only the presence of a countervailing interest but also that the information sought is of sufficient importance to warrant a disclosure order. In many jurisdictions this means that the courts will weigh the harm of disclosure to freedom of expression against the countervailing interest. Given the importance of the former, the latter is only occasionally deemed dominant. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, if the information may be obtained by other means, or if the goal served by disclosure has substantially been satisfied in another way, courts will not order disclosure. This careful balance, reflected in both international and national law standards, is necessary to protect a free press and hence the fundamental democratic right to right to freedom of expression." http://www.article19.org/docimages/638.htm
Could you be sued for this...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Could you be sued for being right...? After all some product launches where easy to predict - even without any leaked information (the iMac mini being a perfect example here).
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wozniak does.
Woz is even contributing to the poor boy's legal fund. He's not forgotten the garage (even if Jobs has).
Re:O'Grady's powerpage definitely NOT journalism (Score:1, Interesting)
Journalists and what defines journalism should be left untouched by government so that corruption and crime will continue to be exposed: the American model.
Journalists need to be protected. Where there are corrupt governments, with limits on press freedom, there are dead journalists.
Granted that some limits should be imposed in extreme cases, such as Fox "News" and other hoary conservative organs of fiction.
Re:ashamed (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has internal secrets about what they're going to do as a company. One of their own, violating a documented promise (signed contract), is leaking these secrets, permitting them to fall into the hands of the competition. They are leaking these secrets for personal gain and/or to damage Apple.
Apple wants to identify and stop this person. However, those who know who this person is, and those who willingly distributed these secrets, are not talking under the guise of "journalistic freedom".
The person publishing the information is simply protecting their personal business model. These "rumor" sites make a lot of money though advertising - and stopping the free flow of trade secrets - their business - will hurt their substantial income.
This isn't about journalistic freedom, and this isn't about keeping America free. It's about the buying and selling of trade secrets in order to make money.
These sites are all about making money, and their most profitable products are Apple's trade secrets.
Missing one thing here... (Score:3, Interesting)
This was a civil matter seeking to subpoena someone who broke a civil contract.
Now that Apple has this ruling, if they don't give up the source, they are violating the order of a judge.
Shady loophole? Possibly. Contempt? Nope.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Missing one thing here... (Score:4, Interesting)
When you violate a judge/court's order, you are held in contempt of court - you have disrespected the judge's order.
The law says, however, that a blogger/journalist CANNOT be held in contempt of court for saying "No, I will not comply with your order to reveal my confidential source."
It is not legally disrespectful for a journalist to refuse a judge's order to reveal his confidential sources.
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowhere in the constitution does it establish any such association that officiates over who is allowed to become a member of the press. If I publish a newspaper, or an informational flyer of the same nature, I should be granted the same freedoms as any other. To do otherwise would be to claim that any citizens right to free speech can be denied because he or she was not a member of the Citizens for Free Speech Association, the likes of which may even be able to selectively deny membership. I would love to see this go to the Supreme Court. They usually have more sense over these sorts of issues.
Apple's Leg (Score:2, Interesting)
What about people who heard about the mini and waited for it instead of buying a sub-$300 X86 PC?
Joe Computerbuyer says "Those macintoshes are so expensive, and I need a computer, guess I'm stuck with a clunky pentium 1 machine from GoodWill. Wait what's this on Think Secret - a cool new mac that *I* can afford? cool I'm wait'n for that!"
Shouldn't Apple be saying "Thanks ThinkSecret more sales for our mini" ?
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose I wouldn't even really care but for the fact that this "Freedom of Speech" is touted so highly, first in our schools, and then in our society. The truth is, we don't have it. If they didn't ACT like we had it, I wouldn't mind nearly as much. This applies to everything, I suppose, as we are, at least in name, the "land of the free". Funny how many restrictions we have, being the land of the free. Realistically, I know they're necessary, but, by definition, if we're restricted, we're not free. If people didn't act like we were, I wouldn't care, but the fact that people recite this blatantly false liturgy as if it were the truth really, really bothers me.
But I digress, and don't really add anything to this conversation other than my dismay. Feel free to mod me off topic.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
And it would be very hard for Apple to control access to data pertaining to products that are being developed if the person leaking the information is part of the development team.
I do whole-heartedly agree that if thinksecret were publishing nothing but rumors that it should be protected from revealing sources, but the information on the sight was far too complete to have come from speculation alone. If a large magazine where to publish this information, which could have a negative effect on Apple's survival, they would be held liable too. We shouldn't try to make this a David vs Goliath issue.
And as far as what defines a journalist I would hope that it would be anyone who publishes information for public consumption, but that's just what I'd hope.
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd like to add one more thing: Ethics.
Journalists may have freedom to report news, but that does not absolve them from having to have ethics. It's where the part of journalism that has more gray than black and white areas. It's not something you simply guess, but must be learned. And to be a member of professional journalist organization, one should be able to demonstrate some ethics. Even if you are not a member, you should demonstate ethics if you want to be considered a journalist. Spreading rumors is not journalism (and ThinkSecret is a rumor site despite its higher rate of accuracy than the average sites).
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't mean they have to tell you where they got their information. Sure, the guy who told you may have violated a contract, but that is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter.
Obstruction of justice is interference with the courts or a law enforcement officer:
obstruction of justice
n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime. link [law.com]
I understand where Apple is coming from (they have a right to try to find out), but this doesn't tie in with obstruction of justice at all, as far as I can see. There comes a point when private companies that are pursuing civil matters are trying to get the criminal justice system to do their work for them (like having an FBI task force dedicated to online music piracy). This is not nearly that bad, but it is moving in that direction. Apple has resources other than simply suing someone for information. This just seems wrong, to me at least.
Re:MOD PARENT UP! Now! (Score:5, Interesting)
Who says the White House would get a say in the matter? There are lots of ways of certifying journalists that don't involve the government at all.
And it's not as if our current system is any great shakes, either -- Just look at how much news coverage Michael Jackson is getting over Jeff Gannon, for Pete's sake. Or the recently-outed group of "independent" commentators who were actually paid shills of the Administration. Hell, the fact that Michael Moore produced more Iraq war revelations in Fahrenheit 9/11 than ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox combined tells you how totally eff'ed up American journalism is already.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless, of course, the "law" in question is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of California, which allows a corporation to recover damages for misappropriation of technichal information by its employees. Either an Apple employee was this blogger's source, and violated the USTA, or the blogger's source wasn't an apple employee, thus needing to violate innumerable other laws in order to acquire the information in question.
It applies to TORTS as well as crimes. Someone else [slashdot.org] has already elaborated on this.
NO "right to know" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Apple's marketting strategy absolutely is not.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And why not? Perhaps the latest R&D isn't as urgent as whether or not people are dying from contaminated water. But you are simply wrong here.
It is not necessary for the Public to be aware of Apple's R&D Efforts, until Apple is ready to release that information. Knowing Apple's R&D Plans are not necessary to protect the public from illegal activity.
Huh? First, illegal activity is subjective. There's a lot of activities that are illegal and probably shouldn't be (eg, drug use, sodomy, etc) and there's legal activities that probably should be but isn't (eg, rent-seeking on the public dollar, politician lying about a conflict of interest).
Second, the public was indeed being protected. By releasing early Apple's near term marketing plans, thousands of Apple customers during the month of January were assisting in making better buying decisions. That's useful information.
Poparratzi, Journalists, 1st Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
May I say right now "WTF?"
2600 Magazine claims often that they are protected by the constitution because they print on PAPER. If they were a website or an electronically distrubuted newsletter (like the famous PHRACK case), they would have been shut down long ago by the government or by corporations that don't want them publishing how to break through security.
So the question you need to start asking yourself is, are you willing to take that first step towards all censorship to protect Apple's trade secrets?
Because once you do, security flaws in windows could be deemed trade secrets.
Is it okay for the Paparattzi (sorry for the spelling) to go through the trash of celebrities to find some juicy tidbit of information to publish in some rag like the Inquirer? I mean, that's for money too, so let's not knock Think Secret for trying to make a buck -- they are just like every other publication or "news organization" in that they want to get the salacious info first, because that's how they make money.
What's the difference between revealing that Apple's going to make a Mac Mini or that Michael Jackson has relations with little boys?
What's the difference between revealing that Apple's going to come out with a iPod flavor that you can taste, and revealing that Dick Cheney has stolen 12 Billion Dollars of your money by funnelling it through Halliburton?
Isn't all of this "news"? And therefore, isn't any organzation, no matter how fly-by-night, that REPORTS THE NEWS, a "news organzation"?
And who's going to deceide what is and isn't news?
Because if you're going to read about it, if you have a hunger to know, if you're going to visit the sites that tell you about Apple's upcoming products, Windows flaws, Michael Jackson's sexual orientation, Martha Stewart's jailtime, Dick Cheney's thefts, or how to break into Home Depot's mainframe, then publications, websites, booklets, and other printed and digital material will be created to meet that need.
If you don't like it, then stop reading.
But don't legislate the rest of us into not reading because that, my friend, is censorship, and that's a road you don't want to travel.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a paying Apple Developer (associate class) and the non-disclosure agreement is pretty tight. I can't reveal even if I possess some of Apple's Technology, much less what it does, how good it is, etc.
So when asked I tell people I know nothing about upcoming Tiger and whether is runs real spiffy.
I know zip about how I wish the dashboard WASN'T something that made the display transparent.
I pretty much am disclosing nothing about anything.
I take contracts serious because I once was sued (it never got to court and my lawyer pretty much shut down the alleged "suers" before they managed to get anything out the door).
My point is that these are not to be entered into lightly. Read them. If you don't like the terms, attempt to modify them or don't sign it.