Apple Wins Against Bloggers 672
linuxwrangler writes "Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law, judge James Kleinberg ruled that online reporters for Apple Insider and PowerPage must reveal their sources. No word yet on an appeal."
not a judgment on Apple's claims! (Score:5, Interesting)
"The order of this court does not go beyond the questions necessary to determine this motion seeking a protective order against that single subpoena, and it cannot and should not be read or interpreted more broadly," the judge said. "The court makes no finding as to the ultimate merits of Apple's claims, or any defenses to those claims. Those issues remain for another day."
Re:A refreshing victory for common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Although my feelings on the matter are irrellevant... the judge made his decision, I only hope that the consequences for the precedent aren't unmanageable.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This spells the end of the magazine (Score:5, Interesting)
Those sites just take all the sizzle out of Apple's announcements, leaving people unnecessarily disappointed and let down. Good riddance to them.
Re:A refreshing victory for common sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this mean that Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert was just as much of a "journalist" as anyone else in the White House Press room?
The difference between Gannon and a "real" journalist is that Gannon tells you his bias up front.
Let's not pretend that journalists are magic beings. They had their chance and these past few years demonstrated that they aren't as ethically pure as they claim.
Since there is a BLOGGER in the White House now, and apparently anyone with a web site is a journalist, doesn't this apply there as well?
Democracy sure sucks, eh? What next, anybody who's good at selling things can be a businessman? Anybody with a computer is a an open-source programmer? Anybody who plays the piano is a musician?
There's only one thing that matters for any journalist, online or otherwise: do you have the reputation? And as Dan Rather proves, your reputation is only as good as your last story.
Constitution vs. Judge (Score:1, Interesting)
Constitution [usconstitution.net]: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; ...
vs.
Judge: Kleinberg ... ruled that no one has the right to publish trade secrets that only could have been provided by someone breaking the law.
How can a law that overrides the freedom of speech be constitutional? If a whistle blower discloses embarrassing/incriminating "trade secrets" will the press / people be denied their constitutional freedom of speech to disclose the information?
either way (Score:2, Interesting)
Over the last couple of weeks, though, the feeling started to fade. It's completely gone now.
Apple is just another company.
You'd think after the cancer scare Jobs would have mellowed out.
Re:And yet, on the other hand... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they don't. The Constitution does not protect the right of a corporation to do anything. There is no fundamental right to make money, to go into business, or anything similar. Witness false advertising laws, which are wholly consistant with free press and free speech. The myth of corporate "rights" is a recent one, and somewhat devestating. Even if you feel that corporations should have rights, there is no fundamental document stating explicitly which rights they do have. This means that any judge ruling on the topic has to navigate solely through precidence, and may override it at whim. Objectively evaluating the standards by which a corporation should be held is damn near impossible.
So, in short, no. Corporations do not presently have rights, but have a set of a sort of "virtual rights," which exist only in court precedent, and in convention. There is no formalism for corporate rights.
As a side note, if you believe that corporate abuse is any less deadly in today's world than government abuse, or even that they aren't in many ways the same thing, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Re:-1, Flamebait, Astorturfing, and Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
So in other words, let's say that the judge forces the bloggers to reveal their sources... and the sources turn out not to be Apple employees, and committed no crime in acquiring the information. Whoops! If there were any evidence that a crime had been committed, then the judge would be (both legally and morally) justified in forcing the reveal. But since no crime has been reported, he can't rightfully force the reveal.
The judge made a bad call.
Re:Yeah, its great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A refreshing victory for common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Then not only is the magazine liable (yes, you are liable if you should have known or guessed that the information is protected as a trade secret), but the person upstream of them is liable. As is the original source. Everyone in the chain between the original source and the magazine is liable.
Receiving trade secret information functions nearly exactly like receiving stolen goods - if you get some, even if you did so in good faith, you are at fault. Doesn't matter how far down the chain you are, you remain at fault.
Re:Constitution vs. Judge (Score:3, Interesting)
If the top secret information has made it to some random journalist, it's probably too late to keep the secret. And trade secret law IS unconstitutional if it gags those who have not agreed to the confidentiality agreements.
As for free speech not covering the publication of "stolen (or secret)" documents, you might want to get acquainted with New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as the Pentagon Papers case.
I can't help but wonder "If it have been CNN..." (Score:5, Interesting)
I had just told him there was no way he could put me on the air. Intel was at that time reeling from the consequences from the fiasco that was the math flaw in the Pentium processor.
What I had in my possession made that math flaw look like a minor hang nail.
I had trade secret documents from Intel, legally released to me under non-disclosure agreement (since expired, so now the tale can be told).
The contents of those documents revealed flaws in Intel 486 processors that basically rendered them "Unsafe at any speed".
Countless users were suffering crashes, data loss, God alone only knew what forms and totals of lost productivity, revenue, opportunities were being wracked up daily due to the serious flaws. And even Microsoft was being unfairly painted with creating even less reliable software than they genuinely deserved to be excoriated for (the infamous BSOD's weren't always their fault...)
Steve was trying to convince me that "the public good" out weighed my honoring Intel's non-disclosure agreement.
He told me that I could mail the documents to him and that "CNN protects its sources."
Here it is 10 years later and I wonder, how many folks would agree with Steve and how many will support my decision to not hold Intel accountable for their abuses of the public trust.
The simple math flaw had reportly cost Intel $600 million for a few million chips shipped. The cost of a recall for the far more serious flaws in the 100's of millions of 486 processors shipped could very well have bankrupted Intel, many 486 chips were soldered to their boards.
Or at the very least have damaged their reputation so badly they would have had a very hard time regaining the public's trust.
I just wanted to say, the Judge today served up a nice fat juicy sound bite for the press to report. But he's wrong. The right of large corporations to protect their trade secrets is not absolute.
I also can't help but wonder what the Judge in today's case would have had to say to CNN if I had been at risk in breaking my non-disclosure agreement with Intel?
Apple has their problems, and if enough customers are persistent enough they generally own up to them and take responsibility for making things right. And today's ruling didn't cover the kinds of information being disclosed that I had from Intel.
But if Apple rides success with their iPod's upwards and loses the ability to take responsibility, I hope today's ruling doesn't come back to bite us in the ass.
Yeah I know, sounds great coming from the guy that covered Intel's ass when he had the chance.
But for a moment, just a moment there, I was tempted to mail those documents.
What motivated me to silence wasn't a fear of CNN being forced to turn me over. No, it was the advice I got from the local Intel distributor: if anything about the 486 showed up on CNN, Intel would act like I had released it to CNN, whether Intel could prove it or not.
Turns out, the company I worked for had already gone to Intel and covered their asses... (and Intel paid them off very nicely too)
After today's ruling, I wouldn't even be tempted.
Bravo Judge, on this day that will live on in infamy for the actions of a few in Spain this date 3/11/4, you have indeed struck a blow to protect truth, justice and the American way.
Re:Zeig Heil apple! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there is more to it than that. I honestly don't think that in this instance any thunder was stolen and any harm was done.
What I think Apple is trying to do is weed out their "mole" before next time when it may really matter. if a secret is let loose far enough in advance it could give competitors a chance to piece together a competing product for release at the same time. This could have serious implications for a company.
Besides that, by taking care of the insider now, it puts all of the other company employees/contractors on notice that they need to decide where their loyalties are while working for Apple.
Apple certainly thinks that taking all this negative publicity now is an investment that will pay off in the future. Probably akin to lancing a boil.
It certainly could be risky for Apple though, as they do employ people arguably from a 'free thinking' part of the country, and the next mac rumor might show up in a plain brown envelope that is completely untraceable, just to 'prove' Apple wrong on this lawsuit.
Re:Offtopic...? (Score:3, Interesting)
mmmm.... Well, Think Secret is somewhat of an accessory-after-the-fact. If an NDA was violated - and Apple did show that the leaked information was both very detailed and clearly marked confidential - then a crime has been committed. If a crime has been committed then the (alleged) victim has a right to pursue the criminal through the courts. Even a New York Times or Washington Post reporter would have been required to turn over their source if this fact pattern had applied.
Some people are offended at any restriction on the individual's right to say absolutely anything they want to [1]. That's fine. I just want to hear them make the case for a mandate of a totally transparent society, it's usually pretty funny. An absolute freedom of speach means a total lack of privacy. My usual argument is the classic 'give me your Social Security number', and follow any good defence of a refusal with 'if someone stole your info, should he be allowed to tell me ?'
Yes, that was a strawman - and they always need a brain - but it's locally scoped. And I wanted an excuse to make a point. And a reuctio ad absurdum, not that ther's anything wrong with that one.
Another argumaent in favor of this ruling is the fact that an NDA is a contract. 'If you promise not to tell anyone,w e'll tell you something' plus a signature make a contract. Courts exist to enforce contracts. If the court didn't demand the production of the offender then the public should have be outraged.
Most people complaining are ignoring a LOT of details, the others can't support the implications of their whole position.
[1] Any free society desperately needs this vocal minority, however annoyon gthey sometimes are.
Re:-1, Flamebait, Astorturfing, and Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
No, and I suspect it never has actually happened as such. The phrase itself comes from a Supreme Court ruling (Schenck v. US, 1919) concerning the publication of Socialist propaganda during World War I.
If I remember correctly, many parts of the ruling have been overturned or supersceded, but the particular principle, that free speech is not absolute, still stands.
In fact, I'd say that speech is more protected now than it was at that ruling, when sedition laws were in full effect. Printing anti-government propaganda is a national pasttime these days, but back then, it'd get you thrown in jail.
You have the right to speak your mind, your beliefs, your opinions, your lies, your truths, your propaganda, you even have the right to tell people to rape and kill and steal and overthrow the government. You do not have the right to willfully endanger the lives of others by causing false panic or inciting immediate criminal behavior.
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Re:This spells the end of the magazine (Score:3, Interesting)