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.
This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about journalism or blogging.
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying you're wrong that protecting secrets is more important than free speech (and I'm also not saying you're right). I'm just saying "be honest about the situation or don't open your mouth". It's completely irresponsible of you to do otherwise.
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:4, Insightful)
The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right -- they didn't agree to these NDAs.
But at the same time, encouraging folks to break the law is a grey area of legality. At least one of these companies has a toll free number that they claim is anonymous that anyone can call and leave anonymous tips to avoid being caught. This signifies that they are knowingly encouraging someone to break their contract. Beyond that, they are participating in this -- which pushes
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not about journalism or blogging (Score:3, Informative)
Tell that to Judith Miller, the Times reporter who has been ordered by the courts to reveal her source. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p09s01-coop.htm l/ [csmonitor.com]
ok guys you know the routine (Score:3, Funny)
OS X Good, Windows Bad,
PowerPC Good, Intel Bad
everybody clear on this?
Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
and...
Thomas Goldstein, a former dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism who worked as a reporter for the New York Times, filed a brief in support of the Web sites. "Just because Apple does not want these publications to report on its activities does not mean that they are not news publications," Goldstein wrote.
This is setting a very dangerous precedent. If this holds up (through many appeals, unless I miss my guess), then what's to differentiate between CNN and CNN.com? Just because it's on the web means it's not journalism?
Re:Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're the representative of a large news organization that can
a) Buy Laws
b) Buy Politicans
c) Destroy Politicians
Then you're a journalist and entitled to their protections. If you're not a representative of an organization like this, you're not.
Re:Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
If the NYT had published an op-ed two months in advance about upcoming Apple products, then I would expect Apple to subpoena the NYT for the NDA violators as well.
Dangerous precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?
This is the beginning of an "authorized" press with greater freedoms than for anyone who dares to publish outside of it.
It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:5, Funny)
you can have it back when you learn to spell it*.
*and the answer isn't "I-T"
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever. I'm curious as to how 'journalism' can be confused with some guy writing something and distributing it to the masses. If I print flyers and distribute them on the street corner, am I a journalist? No. If I tape posters to streetlamps and hydro poles, am I a journalist? No.
Journalism is a profession that requires both skill and responsibility. To call bloggers 'journalists' is akin to calling an MCSE an 'engineer'. The word is far from the truth, and if being called a journalist requires nothing more than a voice, then the single most important career possible in an open and democratic society suddenly means nothing. When a loud voice and a sense of self-righteousness can be considered equal to understanding of ethics, unbiased reporting, and facility with the language, then 'journalism' is suddenly just a word, and all the respect it once deserved is lost forever.
These people are not journalists, they are not reporters, and they are not worthy of anyone's respect. They are helping someone who broke an NDA escape due process, something that I doubt any good journalist would be willing to do - but then, any good journalist wouldn't have posted the details in the first place.
This is not a free speech issue. This is a legal issue. Someone signed a contract saying they would not disclose the information they learned, and then they broke that contract. No one is speaking as to the blogger's right to post, they are only speaking as to the source's right to leak, which does not exist. This has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with contractual obligation, and the person who leaked this information should be revealed, as they can not and should not be trusted with sensitive information by any company, ever again.
Here's an example to put this into perspective: my company deals with a lot of personal information for thousands of clients. Do I want to hire someone who has, in the past, broken their contractual obligations? Do I want them leaking the spending habits of important clients to the press, putting my company and my business in danger?
Slashdotters are always talking about privacy issues, but the only things stopping me from leaking the (very) personal details of thousands of people onto the internet is my sense of ethics and an NDA. This person obviously does not have a sense of ethics, and if an NDA is worthless when hidden behind an 'anonymous tip', then you can all kiss your privacy goodbye.
MOD PARENT UP! Now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, guys, I get a big hard-on for the Constitution of the United States, but I' getting sick and tired of all the critics following this case claiming that any sort of victory for Apple is a threat to free speech, or that there's no difference between ThinkSecret.com and CNN.com, yadda yadda yadda. Being a journalist is not just starting a web site and pronouncing yourself as one -- that's as meaningless as buying a box of bandages and starting a medical practice as Dr. Nick Riviera.
If anything, bloggers and "news sites" might be comparable to freelance op-ed writers, free to write whatever they want on whatever topic they want. That does not automatically give them the rights and privileges of journalists, just like being the webmaster of whitehousenews.org gives you instant access to the White House Press Pool.
(An exception, of course, is if you're a conservative shill using an alias and working for a fake news organization while moonlighting as a gay escort... but the Bush Administration clearly uses a looser set of ethics than the rest of us...)
what journalism is (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Nick Riviera is a doctor, and somebody who starts a website is a journalist... they're both just getting started out and the quality of their output will be low for a while (well, maybe in Riviera's case it'll stay low). The point is, "being a journalist" is something that happens by degrees along a continuum
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: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.
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:5, Informative)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That is, Congress can't make a law denying the press the right to print information. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say anything about a reporter's ability to keep sources confidential in the face of a court subpoena. This is why 31 states feel the need to have shield laws that provide that very protection.
So ultimately, it will be California's shield law, not the U.S. Constitution, that determines whether or not the proprietors of the websites in question are part of the "press," and whether or not they can be forced to divulge sources. If you want to read up on the specifics, check out this site [thefirstamendment.org].
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
The first amendment essentially grants "Journalist" rights to every citizen.
You're missing the point. The Constitution has nothing to do with it. It says nothing about confidentiality of sources. The shield law does. And though the Constitution extends its protection to all citizens, the shield law clearly does not - especially since it's a state law and not a federal o
Re:Dangerous precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
The minute you start having special rules and liscences to define who is the press or who gets free speach, those rules quickly become "those who only say what we want them to say"
I can't honestly believe so many people have failed to understand the 1st amendment. It was specifically meant to EXCLUDE the sorts of things being said here, namely government definition o
If Microsoft is a Virus, Apple is a Tumor (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft wants to infiltrate every device bigger than a toothbrush, agreed. But how much worse would it be if Apple took over? (I realize this is verging way out into hypothetical land.) In Bizzarro Apple Land, only rich, Blaupunkt-owning, BMW-driving hipsters would be allowed to compute. Your Mac could be taken away by armed fashionistas roaming the streets. Every PC would cost at least $5,000 and developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System. Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses, and instead use elaborate abaci manned by legions of idiot savants.
At least, that's what Mistress Cleo says.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If Microsoft is a Virus, Apple is a Tumor (Score:5, Insightful)
So like the target market of the Mac mini?
developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System
So those free developer tools?
Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses
So like super computing?
I think you are basing your ideas off the Apple of old run not by dreamers but by boring businessmen. Apple has and is changing and at quite a rapid rate. They want everyone to experience and enjoy their products, a quick look at the drop in prices of all their product lines would indicate that. Not to mention of course that Mac OS X is the most accessible operating system out there now, no funky 3D interface, not strange and bizarre "elite" windowing system just plain system Desktop metaphor with reasonable consistency for joe user.
Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
What makes someone a journalist? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does everything written to a wiki or a blog get full first amendment protection - not just your own free speech, but the ability to quote or reference facts from anonymous sources with impunity? That would be a great loophole, the Internet equivalent of "touching base" -- you caaan't get me.
As for these sites, IMO they were established news organizations, and likely deserve such protection given their reputation and audience. However, I consider it a matter of fact to be decided by the courts whether a given individual is afforded these protections, as they should never be automatic.
Further reports... (Score:5, Funny)
Great . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
A few things: (Score:4, Informative)
- This is not about "freedom of the press". You are free to publish (ie: the government can't sell publishing licenses), but you are still responsible for your actions, just as with speech.
- There is a federal trade secrets act that says publishers can be found liable if they knew, or should have known, that information was a trade-secret being leaked.
Re:A few things: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called the First Amendment.
This situation is simple. The judge believes trade law overrides the First amendment, as well as 200+ years of journalistic tradition.
This is becoming increasingly common. Americans don't understand and don't care about their civil rights. And when judges become so pro-business that the First becomes a null, we've gone over the top at last.
All the more sad that so many Bush judges are now on the bench. The current situation is only a precursor to the next fifty years of amazing new findings by rightist judges. The legal atmosphere will be unrecognizable to anyone freshly imported from the 20th century.
And I am ashamed, horrified that Apple, of all companies, is doing this. I'm reconsidering my future purchases of their products.
Getting scooped on your product launch is part of being a free society. Any NDA's one has with one's employees is NOT the journalist's problem. A major part of journalism (pre-Bushism) is the cultivation of secret sources that reveal things their bosses don't like revealed. And Thinksecret is a news outlet, in the Ben Franklin tradition. If a gay call boy can get a daily pass under a fake name to the White House FOR TWO YEARS to be an undercover shill, and not be charged, and Robert Novak can out a CIA agent along with an entire CIA front company to ruin a White House critic without being arrested for treason, a man can report on an Apple product without being ruined.
Re:A few things: (Score:4, Insightful)
Respectfully, if you view the constitution as absolute, and feel that any speech and any sort of publishing should be completely protected, I can see your point. That's not how things currently work, though, so is the topic for a different discussion.
Getting scooped on your product launch is being part of a free society, yes, but we are also a society of laws. What good are NDAs if employees merely have to drop a note to any journalist who is free to publish it, and never say who leaked it? Any sort of secrecy would become impossible.
Every type of protection has exceptions. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded room and claim freedom of speech. We have laws against slander and libel. You are free to speak, but responsible for your actions.
Soliciting someone to break the law is illegal. If the journalist knew that the source was breaking the law by telling him this, he has a moral and legal responsibility to society to behave correctly.
Contracts are a matter of law. Unless you claim the NDA was invalid or something (which you could do), this is fairly clear.
Now, if the greater public good were at stake, if this were about pollution or other threats to people's lives, or livelihood, I can see a need to protect, however, leaking confidential product releases isn't one of them.
This man wont be ruined, this man could simply give up his source.
Appeal & refuse to comply. What's news? (Score:5, Insightful)
If forced, I'd refuse to comply. Yes, doing so will park you in jail. Blogs are publications and are often widely syndicated; they're often used as sources for major broadcast and dead tree news stories. ThinkSecret is as legitimate as the Talon; well, bad example on the latter.
Trade secrets are not national security. ThinkSecret and the other folks weren't trafficing in them (selling them to competitors) which would be industrial espionage; they were writing news articles about them.
Is The Register [theregister.co.uk] a legitimate news service? Is Tomshardware [tomshardware.com]? Is Slashdot? Is Democracy Now [democracynow.org]? What about al-Jazeera [aljazeera.com]? Fox News [foxnews.com]? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" and an "illegitmate" news agency?
Re:Appeal & refuse to comply. What's news? (Score:5, Insightful)
National Security is not the only reason that something should be held secret. Private information, whether it belongs to a person or a corporation should generally be considered private, especially when ones source is of questionable legality.
For an only partly applicable analogy (a better one doesn't come to mind), the patterns on my underwear is not a matter of national security, but it's not really anyone's business either. I don't care for the whole world to know about it. But if you decide you want to write a story about it, how you get your information is a pretty significant part of your job. If you ask me, or maybe my girlfriend, and one of us cough up the info, then fine, run with it. If you're courting people who you think may have broken into my house and rifled through my dresser, well, that's a bit sketchy. And when I read the article you published, and realize you probably know who it was that broke into my house and went through all my stuff, I'd expect you to tell me who it was. Otherwise you're basically aiding a criminal.
Now in Apple's case, it's a little different, but someone broke an NDA, a legal-contract that they willingly signed, and Apple wants to know who it is so that they can take actions against them that they feel appropriate. ThinkSecret can play dumb all they want, but with as long as they've been around, they understood that they were soliciting information that they're only going to receive if someone breaks an NDA. By not giving up their sources, they're helping someone who broke the law get away with it. I don't understand how that is defensible.
The point of all this (Score:5, Insightful)
They can only be angry because TS reports are sufficiently accurate to be believable, and this can only happen if there is some kind of inside source close enough to Apple blowing the whistle.
What Apple really wants are the names of the whistleblowers, so they can be at least fired, if not slapped with a lawsuit themselves so that no further leak ever happens.
Unfortunately this will not work. At the very worst TS will be compelled to reveal their sources. They can only be found "guilty" of conveying a message. AFAIK TS have not signed any contract with Apple and are therefore breaking no law in publicizing what they know (or think they now).
If the TS sources were smart, they were anonymous, and therefore no data at all for Apple at the end of this rigmarole.
If the sources are not anonymous then Apple will indeed fire and sue a couple of guys, and promptly the next round of leaks (for leaks will not stop, indeed they will become hotter and more valuable each time Apple tries to squash them) will indeed be anonymous, encrypted, whatever. Apple will be back to square one only this time when they sue the next round of leak sites those people will be better armed to tell Apple to take a walk.
There is no way Apple will end up doing something productive about this business. In the meantime they are burying themselves into a nice PR hole.
Why don't everybody who think Apple is making a mistake tell that to Apple [apple.com]?
This is pretty important (Score:5, Insightful)
"In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to 'legitimate members of the press.'"
So basically Apple is saying bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and the judge (tentatively, meaning it is a preliminary ruling) agreed. If this holds water, the consequences can be huge. Some questions will need new answers: Who is a legitimate member of the press? What is a "news organisation"? If an online presence is not enough to caractherize such an organisation, what is? A paper? A radio?
This a fine new front in the "us against them" battle for the Internet.
This isn't a good case for journalist protection (Score:4, Insightful)
This is somewhat different. Here the leak itself is the scandal. Some guy is breaking his NDA for some unknown reason - fame, revenge, to make himself feel good, whatever. For goodness sake, "Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets. This case has nothing at all to do with protecting sources who are putting themselves at risk to expose a dark secret that the public needs to know about.
This isn't about protecting a journalist's sources. It's just greed. This guy is not a journalist, he's merely exposing other people's secrets to make money. Calling himself a journalist doesn't make it so. If a person can be labelled a journalist (with legal source protection) just by creating a web site containing trade secret information, then the legal protection for trade secrets exposed in this way is weakened considerably.
Re:This isn't a good case for journalist protectio (Score:3, Insightful)
if it's unknown, then why do you list those examples? Perhaps there are other reasons? but that doesn't matter, because whistle blowers often do it to make them selves feel good, or some sort of personal gain.
""Think Secret" was even soliciting people to talk to them about Apple's trade secrets."
reports solicit people for secrets of one sort or another all the time, it's there job.
"This case has
Re:This isn't a good case for journalist protectio (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? The legal definition of who can exercise freedom of the press in the States and in California is quite broad. Further, their motives in this matter are irrelevant. Exposing other peoples' secrets is a legitimate press activity when the secrets are relevant to the public good (Apple's marketing strategy easily falls under this).
In summary, I believe these site
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
Re:Apple's marketting strategy absolutely is not.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your personal financial success is not a "public good". Nor is the collective financial successes of all potential buyers of Apple products.
In fact, it's pretty easy to argue the reverse (as obnoxiously) since a decrease in Apple's profits due to leaks may adversely affect
This article is not about the Think Secret suit (Score:5, Informative)
I just wanted to point out that the San Jose Merc news article that's linked is not about Apple's lawsuit against Think Secret. It's referring to a separate suit against "John Does," as part of which three sites, including Think Secret, received subpoenas. They're completely different suits.
Nick dePlume
Publisher and Editor in Chief
Think Secret
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
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 g
Defining "Journalist" where? (Score:5, Informative)
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 t
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's a lot more to it than that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it say "speech" is limited to political speech, an
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shield Law/UTSA/Copyright/Trademark/Patent (Score:4, Informative)
The law that does apply here is the UTSA - Uniform Trade Secrets Act - it specifically says you cannot report or disseminate information you know or can easily research and know is trade secret.
Really, copyright law applies here too - Think Secret was posting copyrighted/Patented information (that was not yet available at USPTO.GOV)
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?
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,
Re:Now correct me if im wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone revealed information that allowed a journalist/reporter to know that Valerie Plame was a secret agent and the "government" is attempting to have the journalist reveal their source of that information so that whoever committed the felony can be convicted.
Nobody is trying to convict the journalist, though he/she may be charged wi
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:5, Informative)
It's been a long standing tradition, but there is no federal law concerning it. This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am aware that there is a large proportion of Mac fanboys here on Slashdot, but Apple's antics lately have borne a striking resemblance to some of those from Microsoft, and I see no particular reason why they should be applauded.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. If you *know* something, you aren't *speculating.* To continue your wall street analogy, that's the difference between teh talking heads on CNBC and insider trading. If you have access to the information, it ain't speculation.
I keep wondering what precident Apple can site for having authority over the writing of non-employees. If I write in my blog that there's a new Apple product called the iPod Macro, and it turns out to be true, can they sue me?
Nope, but if you've claimed your source is an apple employee, they can *subpoena* you. Remember, this kid isn't being sued - he's being subpoenaed.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I 'leak' confidential data, I am breaking that contract, and subject to various penalties, including, but not limited to, termination of employment, legal action, etc.
Apple employees in California are likely in the same boat. They (likely) sign non-disclosure agreements at the time of hiring. I can't imagine this being waived, as secrecy is quite important for Apple.
If I were in charge of anything at Apple, I'd want to know which of my employees had broken their word, their contract, and the law, for a moment of fame. I may not agree with the way that they are going about it, but if they worked for me, I'd want to know who it was too.
They'd be out on the street before the ink was dry on the pink slips...
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.
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:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it is more of an Apple rumor site. If the site is using a source within Apple, then it would seem that the site is knowingly publishing trade secrets. I can't really agree with Apple's methodology, but due to numerous leaks they have to find a way to close the security hole.
This s
More Slashdot Inaccuracy (Score:5, Informative)
This ruling wasn't on the Think Secret [thinksecret.com] lawsuit, which is a separate but related case. In this case, Apple wants to subpoena two Mac news sites, and the ISP of one of the sites for information to help them track down who leaked the information.
In the Think Secret matter, Apple is suing the actual publisher because the believe that he contributed to the theft of trade secrets because he actively solicits such leaks on his website. Whether Power Page [powerpage.org] or Apple Insider [appleinsider.com] have similar solicitations, I don't know, but they're not getting sued, they're getting subpoenaed.
[rant]It's becoming typical of slashdot editors to skip over important details and post articles that contain sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.[/rant]
Whether this is leak was harmful to Apple is not as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Remember, it's not just the consumer that now has access to this information, but Apple's competitors. I think Apple can fairly make the claim that this is very harmful to their business, though it would be up to a court to decide that matter.
As to Apple going after the publisher or reporter of the story, the freedom of the press issues, and the California shield law, keep in mind that such laws are based on balancing the public interest and the public right to know against private interests, privacy, and trade secrets. Shield laws were to designed to protect whistleblowers. If Apple had been committing accounting fraud, or some such scandalous behavior, and an employee leaked the information to one of these sites, then the California shield law could appropriately be applied.
One last detail. It is possible that the leaker(s) is not an Apple employee, but a consultant or contractor, or an employee of a contractor. I don't know if this matters much to the case at hand, since outsiders granted such information almost always have to sign an NDA as well.
BTW, I'm not picking on you, you just seemed a little unclear on the subject, like many other slashdotters posting here. I chose to reply to your post because you seem reasonable and coherent and I'm a long time (since 1975 at least) Led Zep fan.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
> I think that Apple should be allowed to know the sources if it was an Apple employee, if not then they have no reason to know.
Then all Think Secret has to do is tell them whether or not the source is an Apple employee. If the source is employed by Apple, then a name or an email address could be provided and then Apple can take it from there. If the answer is 'no', then Think Secret should have no further obligation toward the issue.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
On top of that, the legal fund that Woz is contributing to is not related to this case at all -- it's an entirely different case involving the bittorrent distribution of a pre-release build of Tiger, the next version of OS X.
Apple, here is an easy solution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of crucifying a penniless web journalist, tie bonuses of the development staff to news leaks (or lack thereof). Give your employees a reason not to snitch on you.
Do you think that IBM would be reacting like this if news of a new Power5 server leaked?
Apple, you make interesting products, but I hesitate to buy from you as you so often act like a grade school playground bully.
Solve your problems with constructive action instead of trying to ruin peoples' lives.
Re:Apple, here is an easy solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think Secret solicited NDA violators to leak information about upcoming Mac products, and got somebody to do so. Right there, they were violating California law, and Apple could have pressed charges, but they instead took the high road, and merely demanded the identity of the scofflaw who committed industrial espionage against their company be revealed, so they could purge him from their company.
The publisher of Think Secret chose to withold that name, in spite of having no legal (or moral) leg to stand on whatsoever.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
Wozniak does.
Woz is even contributing to the poor boy's legal fund.
No, you're thining of another case [drunkenblog.com]: three gentlemen who leaked a Tiger dev seed onto BitTorrent. This has nothing to do with this ThinkSecret case.
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
You are wrong in a lot of ways (Score:5, Informative)
2) This is being tried in California
3) California has an specific law protecting journalists from this kind of thing, the Shield law:
"California enacted a shield law in 1935 and, in 1980, incorporated it into the state constitution. The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."
I don't know if it aplies to this case, but the law exists.
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: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:Missing one thing here... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've given away your bias there by writing "blogger/journalist". If you claim that this law truly extends to anyone writing on any web page, then you're effectively arguing that anyone who doesn't want to reveal who told them anything can simply write on a web page that someone did, and then use the shield law as an excuse not to tell the court. The scope for damage in giving legal weight to that argument is far greater than anything we're discussing here.
the other way around ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You are wrong in a lot of ways (Score:4, Informative)
I never was able to determine exactly how it'd apply to this case, but again, IANAL.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:4, Informative)
If you'd RTFA, you'd find that that is what they are doing in THIS case.
O'Grady's powerpage definitely NOT journalism (Score:3)
And talk about freedom of speech? When The PowerPage readers started challenging what O'Grady was posting on his website and just spitting out rants about how Apple sucks, he ended all comments - now you can't comment on articles any more.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm about to reference a Daily Show here, but it still is a fact. Recently, CNN (along with other major "journalism" places) broadcast a story they claimed to be breaking when what they were really doing was reading someones blog.
Face it, If you can publish to the web, and report information which has been given to you/you find, you are a journalist. If you do not fact check and post everything you get, then you are a bad journalist, but still, a journalist.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing about the release of Apple's internal plans that was 'for the public good'. The only good was for Apple's competitors. They could now see what Apple was planning and react to it.
These publishers and their sources should be hammered by the court IMHO.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are...Parent is shill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll vote 'No.'
Bullshit. What is a journalist? ANYBODY can be journalist.
Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected (Score:4, Informative)
No. You, sir, are incorrect. In theory, for one to be a true journalist, one must do actual research. Fact checking. One must have some type of editorial review process.
thinksecret is better than Drudge (or
The prolbem is that mass media has become beholden to corporate Amerika and doesn't do things like extensive fact checking (paging Dan Rather) or exercise good editorial review (NYTimes scandal(s), anyone?). The skimp on these things because of economics--they *have* to get the "scoop" to get the ratings or they can't make their corporate masters look bad. Never mind the fact that such "scoops" are often just rehashes of baseless speculation posted by bloggers.
Dan Rather got the story right, his team even asked the White House for comment. What they failed to do was verify that the smoking gun was, in fact, a gun not the steaming pile it turned out to be.
If you follow the ANYONE can be a journalist, then should also follow the "ANYONE can be a
Irrelvant issue (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were, are they immune from subpoenas?
I don't think they are. Yes, they could refuse to talk. They could also be held in contempt of court AND thrown in jail, being material witnesses, or at least possessing material evidence, in knowing who leaked this information to them.
Yes, it is less critical than national security and treason; but it is still law, it is still a valid issue of trust and contracts.
Social Scientists Too... (Score:3, Interesting)
But, the implications for all sorts of research are a little freaky.
It's not the judge...Apple is right in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
In a case with implications for the freedom to blog...
The implication to reveal trade secrets?
Believe it or not, you don't have the freedom to say absolutely anything you want. There are slander laws, libel laws, harrassment laws, trade secret protection laws, and so on. If I worked as a higher-up in Coca-Cola, I wouldn't be able to post the top secret Coke formula on my blog without expecting a lawsuit.
Apple is well within their rights in this case. Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
And no, people, Woz is not contributing to the legal fund of this case. That is a a different case involving the Tiger torrent. I mention it because I've seen at least three posts pointlessly referencing Woz (as if that would matter anyway...because Woz disagrees, we all must as well?).
Re:What??? (Score:3, Informative)
In each case the law states that it is illegal to publish, make use of, or otherwise benefit from information which the user has reason to know is protected as a trade secret.
The defendant knew for a fact that this information was protected, and that the information was gathered from those who were contractually obligated not to divulge it (it was covered under NDA).
Thus, it was a civil crime for his source to
Re:A Vote From the Heart? (Score:5, Informative)
One does not have to have a printing press, or a press pass to be journalist.
True.
These three publishers have no agreement with apple computers, and are not bound by any promise by others who have made promises to apple.
True.
If a judge said to you, "change your vote, or go to jail." Would you?
What the hell are you talking about?
This case is simple. The law says it is illegal to publish information you have reason to suspect is a trade secret. These journalists did. Apple sued them for the name of the person who gave them the info. There is no federal law to protect sources. Applicable state laws only protect sources if the story exposes government corruption, organized crime, or public health issues. This is a very good thing. The journalists are guilty and Apple deserves to know the source so they can fire him or her.
Let me present a hypothetical situation. I have a great deal of stock in a company and I'm a journalist. I find a source at a company that competes with the company I own stock in. I pay them to give me all their computer passwords and bank account numbers, then publish them on the front page. Their stock tanks, the company I invested in goes up, I make a bundle. If there was a blanket protection for journalists and sources I'd not only be free from prosecution, but there would be no way to stop me from doing it again and again.
I'm all in favor of protecting whistle blowers who expose corruption, crime, and public health issues, but this is a case of none of the above. This was publishing trade secrets for profit. Apple is being nice and only asking for a name instead of damages.
Re:A Vote From the Heart? (Score:3, Informative)
Your simplification of the case is wrong because California has a specific law protecting journalists from revealing their source.
Your simplification of the judge's ruling is wrong because the CA shield law only protects a limited subset of journalists, which the judge tentatively ruled these journalists do not meet because they are electronic media and do not own or work on behalf of a TV station, channel, satellite company, etc.
Re:Bad news for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad news for Apple (Score:3, Funny)
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.