Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Businesses Government The Courts Apple News

Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers 374

Posted by Zonk from the friends-in-high-places dept.
puke76 writes "Remember the bloggers being sued by Apple? Well now they've attracted the attention and support of some major newspapers. There's a story over at BBC. The newspapers are arguing that journalism sources should be protected. Can we blog without legal repercussions?" From the article: "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers More

Newspapers Back Apple Bloggers

Comments Filter:

  • Public Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:45PM (#12214114)

    From the article:


    Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.


    Now, IANAL, granted, but I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest', and thus merit this sort of protection.

    Also from the article:


    "Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public," said the brief.


    This is cute...likening Apple to WorldCom, Enron (trying to cover up massive accounting scandals), and the tobacco industry (trying to pretend they believe tobacco is not a deadly drug), to Apple (trying to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property).

    Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but this sort of thing simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive. If it is granted that protection, then all legitimate journalism is weakened as a result, and we may ultimately see a decline in our right to free speech, rather than an increase.

    • Re:Public Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sanity ( 1431 ) *
      Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but this sort of thing simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive.
      And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.

      • Re:Public Interest? (Score:4, Informative)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:55PM (#12214261)
        And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.

        What about speech that isn't protected now?

        There has to be some arbiter.

        And in your model, anyone could break their contractual agreements freely without fear of any discipline or reprisal simply by leaking to any web site.

      • Re:Public Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hunterx11 ( 778171 )
        Apple didn't sue to censor the stories. They want the sources. Being allowed to be an accomplice to lawbreaking is allowed in some circumstances where there is a public interest. It is hardly a right.
        • There is already a whistle blower policy setup that should protect anyone reporting ilegal or unethical activity. Divulgine trade secretes because it violates some law isn't what happened though.

          I gree with you. Apple was trying to find thier mole in the works. This actualy borders industrial espionage. Apple has a right to keep this secrete as long as possible so that competitors don't have a way to develope a comepting stratigy.

          If however, some other juicy tidbit was released like "to make them affordab

      • Re:Public Interest? (Score:4, Informative)

        by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <tpaine.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:59PM (#12214320) Journal
        Speech is free as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. (IE: liable [wikipedia.org])
        • That's an interesting value judgement, because it moves Free Speech from near the top of freedoms to the bottom. In a contest between your free speech and my freedom to "whatever," the winner is "whatever."
      • Guess what, free speech isnt all that free. It costs, a lot, and those people who protect it are the ones who get to say what is and isnt protected. Random reporting of information in violation of laws is a case by case basis ), and not blanket protected.
      • There are laws in place and a judiciary system that has been created to help determine what speech is and isn't worthy of protection.

        Part of those laws allow for things like NDA's and the like. The violation of which is the core of this whole issue.

        The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you. Any sort of title making anyone above any laws seems fairly undemocratic to me.

        • Re:Public Interest? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TGK ( 262438 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:16PM (#12214535) Homepage Journal
          No, the title of Journalist does not make one above the law.

          At the same time, because the United States (likes to think that it) respects the freedom of the press, there are protections laid out for journalists.

          Noteably, there exists a kind of confidentiality between a journalist and his sources. A similar confidentiality exists between a doctor and patients, and between a religious officials and their parishoners.

          There exist some professions that rely on the trusted exchange of information between two individuals. We protect journalists because, were we to force them to give up sources, we would effectively silence any critical ideas. This is fundamentaly not what is meant by freedom of speech.

          Sure, Apple has a case against the people that leaked information. It doesn't have any buisness trying to extricate their names from the blogers in question. What is told to a journalist remains in strictist confidance. The Pentagon Papers are a perfect example of why.

        • The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you.

          And, if so, does the title of "blogger" also make one a journalist?

          For my nickel, that's the issue with legs in this little fracas. If bloggers have all the rights and freedoms traditionally afforded journalists, do they have the attendant responsibilities as well? And if so, who is in charge of telling them exactly what those are? Moreover, if a blogger has all the freedoms and none of the responsibilities of a journa
        • The question to me seems to be who all is legally obliged to assist Apple in enforcing its NDA. If you witness a crime, must you come forward and tell all you know?

      • Apple chose the RIAA as a bedfellow, and has adopted their tactics.

        If news of new technology leaked about an IBM or Intel technology, I doubt that we'd see lawsuits. Apple is very quick on this trigger, and the news media might just be able to convince the judiciary to see it this way.

        I don't really understand Apple's rabid lust for secrecy. It is my earnest hope that their product lines suffer until they get out of the business of suing their customers.

        They can keep their Tiger, thanks.

        • Emil. Place yourself in Apple's shoes for a money. I know that your post was a troll given that you mentioned the RIAA but make the effort to participate in this intellectual expercise.

          Now say that you are the CEO of a company and one of your employees was leaking trade secrets to a blogger. Now what if that leaked information could give your competitors an unfair advantage and allow them to get out a cheap knock off to the market before you could. What would you do? Would you not want to find out who was

          • ...politely invite the journalists to my office (paying their expenses).

            I would then politely ask to communicate with the leaker. I would promise no penalties in exchange for this.

            Is it more important for Apple to punish or to understand and improve the process that failed to keep their secrets? The leak was not Apple's fault, but the process was.

            In all things in life, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Corporate titans that trample individuals who cross them at every oppo

          • Place yourself in Apple's shoes for a money.

            Freudian slip?

      • Re:Public Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lp-habu ( 734825 )
        Perhaps you have the idea that "free speech" should mean "free of responsibility". It doesn't. Every freedom that you have is simply a freedom to do something without government interference -- nothing more. There is nothing to protect you from the consequences of exercising your freedom; that doesn't make you less free, it simply makes you consider the consequences. There is no freedom from responsibility; if you're not willing to take the responsibility then you have a problem of your own creation. An

    • Re:Public Interest? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nocomment ( 239368 )
      Agreed. The person who leaked Apple's secrets broke the law and deserves no protection from it, although I wish Apple would go easy on them, but make it clear that the next person will be made an example of. If I posted the windows source code in a JE would I be deserving of protection from microsoft? The dood signed a legal contract saying he wouldn't talk about it, and talked about it.

      • The person who leaked Apple's secrets isn't TradeSecret. TradeSecret is just reporting rumors it gets from its sources .. the SOURCE--i.e. the Apple employee who leaked the secrets--is the one who should be fired/being sued/etc.

        What's at issue is whether or not TradeSecret is answerable to Apple as to who their sources are. Like it or not, TradeSecret IS a publication and therefore is protected under the first amendment, and imho have no legal responsibility to divulge its sources to any entity, private o

        • Re:Public Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:15PM (#12214525) Homepage Journal
          When you say TradeSecret, I think you are referring to ThinkSecret. Also, ThinkSecret is NOT being sued. They were supeoned(sp?) to court to provide the source of the info, so the real leak could be sued. I actually agree with you that ThinkSecret IS a publication and IS deserving of of protection under the first amendment. Except that the journalist benefit is not absolute as the judge put it, and does not apply when a crime has been committed. In this particular case the guy the leaked the info commited a crime. Therefore is makes no difference if ThinkSecret is a journalism outlet (that's why the court spent so little time talking about that) because they'd still have to give up the info anyway. The court never even bothered to decide if ThinkSecret is a publication, because as I've said elsewhere, it doesn't make a difference if they are or aren't the end result is the same, give up the info.
        • Ah okay so I steal Windows Source code for longhorn and find a guy to post it to his blog and we both get off the hook?

          Thanks now I can go back to cracking Windows without fear. Can I use your idea in front of a judge just in case?

          Apple went after ThinkSecret precisely because someone broke their NDA. That is illegal behavior. If the ThinkSecret guy told Apple part of what he knew(say this username that logs in from this IP) this never would of went to court. Apple isn't out to ruin this kid just to f

    • Now, IANAL, granted, but I'm having a hard time understanding how leaking trade secrets about a company's upcoming product could be construed to be 'in the public's interest', and thus merit this sort of protection.

      And anyway, in this case the Judge ruled that Thinksecrets leak was 'a matter that attracts the interest of the public' and not a 'within the public interest' which were two different things.

    • This is cute...likening Apple to WorldCom, Enron (trying to cover up massive accounting scandals), and the tobacco industry (trying to pretend they believe tobacco is not a deadly drug), to Apple (trying to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property).

      If you don't think that the Tobacco industry's knowledge that it's product killed people was a "trade secret" than I don't know what is.

      The one who committed the damage here was the one who talked to the blogger not the blogger.

    • Now, don't get me wrong...I'm all about the free speech...but pornography simply doesn't deserve the same sort of protection that journalists receive. If it is granted that protection, then all legitimate speech is weakened as a result, and we may ultimately see a decline in our right to free speech, rather than an increase.

      My point is that "legitimate" journalism is not weakened by protections of borderline journalism, if anything it is strengthened by having had the boundries moved that much further out.
    • A "trade secret" can only be secret if it's, well, *kept secret*. The problem isn't the guy who wrote up the secrets in his blog, but the employee who breached his contract by passing the secrets along in the first place. If Apple is embarrassed by the actions of this employee they need to sue the employee, not the blogger.

      If you somehow think corporate America should have greater protections when it comes to guarding its secrets than Joe Smith down the street does, then the problem isn't Apple, the empl

      • Re:Public Interest? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rycross ( 836649 )
        The point was that Apple was trying to force the blogger to disclose his source.

        So thats exactly what they were trying to do. Punish the employee.
    • Ok, let me make this simple, 'cuz there's really only 2 issues here.

      1) If someone discloses trade secrets to you, can you be subpoenaed? The answer here, is obviously yes, though I would argue that you also have a fifth amendment right to remain silent (as some over zealous prosecutor might make an arguement for conspiracy to commit fraud). In the context of this question, whether someone is a journalist or not is irrelevant.

      2) Does a journalist have a right to protect their sources, and what is the

  • Where does it stop? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) * <.nowalmart. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:46PM (#12214120) Homepage Journal
    I am an ardent backer of free journalism, but I see this case pushing a very fine line. Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?

    Suppose someone writes a trade secret in an anonymous Slashdot story submission? In an anonymous Slashdot comment? In a LiveJournal entry? In a Slashdot journal entry?

    Should these all be protected under the guise of journalism?

    The Internet blurs the line between professional journalism and amateur writing, which is one of the great things about the new levels of communication that is available to anyone able to get online.

    This case can hold the precedence to start the "slippery slope" of protecting anything written online. While this might sound like a wonderful idea to the "Information wants to be free" crowd, I see it as being very dangerous.

    This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

    • Answer came from the judge (Score:5, Informative)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:48PM (#12214167)
      This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!

      The judge in the case rightly realized that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.

      The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
      • Tell ya what: You promise to not reveal trade secrets on your web site about my up coming products, and I will promise not to stream the vid of the interesting things you do with Zelda at the Do_Drop_Inn on Tuseday nights. Both bits of information are uniquely private, both can be recorded and archived without too much trouble these days, and neither is in the public interest or any one else's business. It really is that simple.

    • Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:49PM (#12214170) Journal
      There's nothing in the Constitution that says freedom of the press only applies to professionals.
      • The speech in the form of freedom of the press IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.

        What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, also may be in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including Californ
    • Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?

      The flip side of that question, though, is that the special status of "journalists" in the US is a consequence of state or local law, or pure custom. A special status for "journalism" in federal law isn't nearly as clear-cut as it's commonly assumed to be.

    • I agree that it is a bad test case, and the most damaging thing that could result is because of the blatant issues, the courts decide that blogging isn't journalism, and we're stuck with the decision.
      However, until the issue is pushed and the courts recognize that blogging is is journalism, it isn't considered journalism and doesn't have any inherent rights.
    • ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

      While I agree with you, I have to ask one simple question: Why now? Apple has had plenty of oppurtunity to stop ThinkSecret in the past. This isn't some new website we are talking about. Why has this leak become the focal point for a lawsuit? If Apple hasn't protected their rights in the past from this infrigement, what gives the

    • >>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue). What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information different from what those of us in large
      • (Awww, crap! I forgot to preview.)

        >>This case is a bad test of the "bloggers as journalists" question anyway. Had a paper newspaper done the exact same thing, the law would not protect the paper either. ThinkSecret knowingly asked someone to disclose a trade secret, and then knowingly published this "secret" for no reason other than to publish it (and maybe reap some ad revenue).

        What definition of "blogger" includes Think Secret? And how is Think Secret's request for confidential information diff

    • " Where does "journalism" stop and "somebody just writing something down" start?"

      There is no difference. The amount of money or the amount of people reading a publication is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the publication is a journalistic source. People handing out "zines" on a street corner are only different in terms of quality than those of larger media outlets. Laws that grant corporations privileges should also also apply to the lone citizen voice, or there should be no such privileges at a
    • the "bloggers as journalists" thing was only breifly brought up. It was disregarded in this case as moot, because as the Judge said
      "The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime."
      In this case the crime being a violation of the trade secrets act. The guy leaked internal information broke the law. Therefore, no protection would be granted even if it be decided that thinksecret is a journalism outlet (which in my opin
    • There is no difference between journalism and writing something down. Or, at least there shouldn't be. I'd wager than the +4 comments on slashdot come from people more intellegent than 99% of journalists. Yet they somehow have journalists credibility?

      I'd sooner read the comments section of slashdot than another error-riddled BBC technology article.

      The Cato Letters [wikipedia.org] were just some guys writing crap down, do you really think the founding fathers wanted THAT illegal?
    • You know the thing is - if this were MS going after these bloggers I don't people on slashdot would take this stance.

      The fact if a real newspaper or a magazine had reported on this same issue apple wouldn't have got nearly as far.

      The final question is at the end of the day - are bloggers journalists - and if they aren't, what are they?

  • Great (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:46PM (#12214121)
    Great

    So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a web site!

    No secrets! Power to the people! Down with the the man!

    And stuff.

    * Cue slashdot chorus singing "That's the companies' problem and they should hire their own investigators to find the leaks" *

    An interested public != public interest
    • Hmmm. Let's try some other examples...
      • So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a newspaper!
      • ... is simply by leaking it to a TV reporter!
      • ...is simply by printing it on handbills and leaving them in a public place!
      • ...is simply by posting to Usenet from the public library!
      • ...is simply by calling
      • Nice try, but hardly the point.

        The web sites in THIS CASE (i.e., a case that involves information most definitely NOT in the public interest, therefore meaning that the information and its sources are NOT protected, and also that the web site operator is likely in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by publishing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained by the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement) should be compelled to reveal their sources *if they know them*, whic
        • So how does the fact that this information was revealed on a "web site" (your words not mine) have any bearing at all on the case? Oh yeah, it doesn't. There is nothing different about this case if web hadn't been involved at all. So what was your point again?

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:However (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The I Shing ( 700142 ) *
      I do agree. I'm not going to condone Apple's heavy-handed approach to this situation, but I think that what happened with Enron, WorldCom, and the tobacco industry is nowhere near the same ballpark. Those companies were all concerned with the public's reaction, or the government's reaction, whereas Apple was concerned with the reaction of their competitors. Apple doesn't see this as someone blowing the whistle about corporate misdeeds, or some internal memo surfacing about studies that prove the harmful eff
    • I would imagine that much of what was made public concerning Enron, Worldcom etc. were just as much of a trade secret to Enron, Worldcom etc. as whatever Apple considers to be trade secrets. The only probable difference is that it was later shown that that there was corruption within Enron, Worldcom etc. "Whistle blowing" is not a license for an individual with privileged information to disclose those secrets to the public. That said, A free press is sacred in a free society; I do not believe that a journ

  • First Sign that Blogging is Dead (Score:5, Funny)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:50PM (#12214194) Homepage Journal
    and that everyone interesting has already moved on, is when the popular media backs you doing it.

    Just like when grunge died.

  • Judge's Words, Paraphrased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:51PM (#12214202)
    I think I recall reading that the judge in this case said, essentially, that information of interest to the public is not the same as information in the public interest. It was in the public interest to report wrongdoing on the part of Enron, WorldCom and the tobacco industry. It is of interest to the public what the next Apple products might be. The informants in the former case should be protected. In the latter case, not. The judge in this case seems to be a very clear thinker in that respect.

  • Not surprising, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:51PM (#12214209)
    I think throwing their support behind bloggers accomplishes two goals for the mainstream press:

    1. It shows they're not "old media" looking to kill "new media" with any chance they're given.
    2. It keeps one source of their information coming

    Many news stories in the last few years never would have happened were it not for bloggers. The mainstream media made a killing reporting on things that were originally posted on blogs (the Dan Rather document comes to mind as a big example).

    Regardless of the legality or morality of the blogger's actions, I see this as a win-win situation for mainstream media.

    • "Many news stories in the last few years never would have happened were it not for bloggers. The mainstream media made a killing reporting on things that were originally posted on blogs (the Dan Rather document comes to mind as a big example)."

      Wait... your using the story Dan Rather ran about Bush as an example of a positive contribution of blogs to the mainstream media?

      You do realize the documents were completely fake right?

  • Since when did the BBC... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lxt ( 724570 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:52PM (#12214221) Journal
    ...become a "newspaper"?

    I actually heard a report on BBC Radio today about Apple's image, which touched upon the whole rumour site issue - they had an interview with the EFF lawyer who defended the sites. The basic point was Apple had slightly tarnished it's "little kid taking on the world" image.

    • RTFA (Score:2)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      Eight US newspapers and the Associated Press agency have thrown their support behind three bloggers sued by Apple.

      BBC is just reporting on the story.

  • The Difference... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:52PM (#12214226) Homepage Journal
    Enron, World Con^Hm, big tobacco were hiding dirty business. Apple was trying to keep a new product under wraps until scheduled announcement. These are, um, apples and oranges.

    • Enron, World Con^Hm, big tobacco were hiding dirty business. Apple was trying to keep a new product under wraps until scheduled announcement. These are, um, apples and oranges.

      What do expect from newpapers, clear, unbiased, and accurate information?

    • So? people have been publishing leaks in newspapers for years, but since it's a blog it's up for grabs?

      And is anything they had had been patented, or a registerd copyright, it wasn't really a trade secret.

  • The difference: illegal activity vs information (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:53PM (#12214239)
    In the cases sited (whistleblower cases), the people involved were exposing violations of Federal law.

    In the Think Secret case, the issue is whether a journalist (whatever definition you use) can refuse to provide the identity of an individual (or individuals) who provided trade secrets or confidential information about upcoming products.

    Even the tobacco guys were more like whistleblowers, as they showed (or tried to show) that Congressional testimony by executives was demonstrably false.

    The Think Secret case is nowhere near this, and Apple will most likely succeed. If Think Secret exposed a violation of law somewhere (death rays to be deployed in Cupertino, toxic waste, etc) then maybe they'd have a chance.

    But as is, well, Think Secret is toast. They've gotta use better anonymizers, that's all.

  • This isn't 1st Ammendment Rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fussili ( 720463 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:57PM (#12214292)
    as John Gruber noted it's pure and simple trade secrets law:

    http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times

    Now I don't happent to know the legal system in the US all to well, my knowledge of IP law only covers the English system but it's fairly clear that this case has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. Desperately trying to paint it as such is simply indicative of having no case to answer Apple's claim.

    I was shocked to see the Instapundit being dragged in, Paul Reynolds is a law professor for Pete's sake. This isn't Bloggers trying to get the protection of Big Media because we have it at law, this is trying to do what many people have attempted in the past - using the 1st amendment as a shield to protect fraudulent activity. It hasn't worked in the past and it looks like it wont now.

    All this case will prove is that bloggers are as much subject to Trade Secrets law as anyone else.

  • If you support the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @12:59PM (#12214321) Homepage
    and you don't like the position they are taking on this case, let them know: information@eff.org [mailto].

    I have written and told them I DO NOT WANT my donation being used for this case, as I don't believe "freedom of the press" should be used as a "get out of jail free" card. There should be proof of "public interest" first.

  • Comparisons not valid. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by unclethursday ( 664807 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:01PM (#12214335)
    Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public...

    Except that the ThinkSecret et al cases have nothing to do with the whistle blowing that went on with Enron, WorldCom, and the tobacco industry. If the blogger sites had found out information that Apple was cooking the books and defrauding their stockholders and raiding their employees 401K plans and other retirement funds, or was knowingly coating their products in a toxic chemical that will eventually lead to a debilitating or fatal disease, then there would be similarities.

    Releasing info on upcoming products that, while the public would be interested in for other reasons but do not affect the greater good of the public, is not whistle blowing. In the "public's interest" and for the Public Good are two entirely different things.

    Basically, these news organizations and the AP are trying to ensure they cover their asses in the future, hoping that they can still protect whistle blowers, but it sounds to me like they have completely forgotten what the term whistle blower means. Either that, or a lot of the reporters had planned on doing similar things, and don't want to face the repercussions of doing so. Either way, they are in the wrong on this issue, not Apple.

  • How did I know when I saw this thread that we'd immediately get 30 replies defending Apple? Funny, but I also suspect that if Microsoft did the exact same thing, there would immediately be 30 replies bashing Evil Bill's empire-mongering.

    But if you guys want to keep pretending that Apple is some noble philanthropic organization while Microsoft is a greedy capitalist leviathan, you go right ahead. Delusion is sure preferable to harsh reality, isn't it?

    -Eric

    • But if you guys want to keep pretending that Apple is some noble philanthropic organization while Microsoft is a greedy capitalist leviathan, you go right ahead. Delusion is sure preferable to harsh reality, isn't it?

      New here? Welcome to Slashdot!

      Although the typical slashdotter deludes themselves into thinking they're more intelligent (and certainly more 'intellectual') than Joe Smith on the street, they're just as much into knee-jerkery as any prole. They just knee-jerk about different things, then s

  • One thing to blog... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by feloneous cat ( 564318 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:03PM (#12214354)
    And quite another to be charging advertisers.

    Let's face it, these are not Uncle Joe blogging about a rumor, these are folks making a buck off someone breaking a confidential agreement. Even bona fide journalists go to jail when they break the law or encourage someone to break the law to get a story.

    I don't like NDA's, but the reality is they are legal and binding agreements. And breaking an NDA to get a 10-20 jump on an announcement is, in my view, rather stupid.
  • I love bloggers for they raise issues that the main stream media chooses not to raise.

    However, my issue with [some] bloggers is that some of them know nothing, and to make matters worse, they do not know that they know so little or nothing at all!

    Some of these bloggers to the extreme, I am sorry to say, know so little to even know that they know nothing!

    We live in interesting times don't we?

  • What would you have done if you were Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ABaumann ( 748617 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:14PM (#12214514)
    Every so often, people mention Apple being mean and heavy handed in this instance, but think about what you would have done in their shoes.

    Apple has had multiple leaks over the past few months.

    - 60 GB iPod
    - OS X 10.4
    - iPod Shuffle
    - iPod Mini

    So, basically everything they plan to come out with gets leaked. They need to prove that their NDA's mean something. They asked for the source, couldn't get it, so they subpoenad. Then, the guy supboenad said he wouldn't reveal his sources because of freedom of the press or something, so Apple sued.

    It's crucial that companies be able to protect their information. Can I divulge business sensitive information to reporters because I know they can't reveal me as their source?

  • Oh please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @01:15PM (#12214528) Homepage

    Since when has the public had a right to know about product specs that haven't been released and are being held under a NDA? This is not some Pentagon Paper revelation or finding out that an employee under a NDA saw dumping of toxic chemicals or a warning sticker on the product saying that exposure lead to cancer. This was an attempt to get people to violate their NDA so that these apple rumor sites could get the inside scoop before the mainstream media.

    A lot of these chicken littles are focusing on this to exclusion of the FEC's remarks about federal regulation of online speech. How quickly the tune would change for bloggers like Michelle Malkin, if someone did this to them [blindmindseye.com]. Imagine if someone paid your spouse to take your journal information and then published your secrets online. You'd be livid too.

    The problem with these rumor mills is that they make money by reporting on this that they have no intention of scrutinizing for accuracy whilst coyly suggesting that, "this is the unofficial truth from inside the company." It's one thing to make conjectures, to spout off and things like that. It is quite another to make a business out of what amounts to low-key libel. Apple's sales of the iPod shuffle according to one source I read may have been damaged because sites like ThinkSecret reported a price that Apple never claimed was possible and had no intention of selling at, thus creating an expectation that they themselves had never tried to create. That's not free speech, that's bordering on libel.

  • "For us, this case is about whether the First Amendment protects journalists from being turned into informants for the government, the courts or anybody else who wants to use them that way," Mr Tomlin said.

    The issue here is that of sources. Apple is forcing, through court action, the identies of the sources in question. As the newspapers and the AP see it, this sets a dangerous precedent and one that is quite blurry. Up until now, the media has been protected from having to reveal its sources -- a gua

  • This whole thing is happening at the boundary of two huge grey areas: Journalistic Freedom and Trade Secrets.

    In the past, companies would be happy to have free publicity, especially the positive kind. Viral marketing is just an upgrade to classic 'word of mouth' and is both free and effective. So, in this case, more benefit was probably done than harm.

    If this escalates, soon anyone who writes non-official information about a product that discloses some features or product details may be sued for unoffic
  • is that they are not supposed to feed rumour mills, they are supposed to report facts that are in the public interest. Trade secrets about a software release are not in the public interest unless the software is malicious. Send those bloggers to their blogging graves if you ask me. It appears that not even these so-called newspapers read the judge's opinion, that this is separate from scandalous fraud cases like worldcom and enron.

  • Not everything is a trade secret! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lmlloyd ( 867110 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @02:02PM (#12215176)

    It is great and all to talk about how this is a case that deals with trade secrets, not freedom of speech, but I can't help but notice that time and time again all the Apple supporters consistently ignore that the judge they are so fond of quoting specifically said that he doesn't know if this material is actually a trade secret!

    A trade secret is not any little piece of information a business decides it doesn't want to get out. Many businesses these days like to put up forums in lieu of giving a customer a phone number to contact, that doesn't make their phone number a trade secret. Many businesses like to keep pay of their employees confidential, that doesn't make your paycheck a trade secret.

    A trade secret is an invention, process, or method that is vital to your business, and that you actively protect and to which you actively limit internal access. For example, a formula for some sort of beverage, might be a trade secret, however, if you post the formula in the break room of every bottling plant, then you can no longer expect protection of trade secret status for that formula, because you have failed to maintain secrecy. By the same token, it is HIGHLY unlikely that ANY marketing material (even internal marketing material) could be considered a trade secret. By its very nature, marketing material is practically in and of itself a violation of the very concept of a trade secret. Trade secret law is a subset of IP law that exists to protect highly sensitive information that is critical to the core business of a company. It is not a method by which the owner of a company is suppose to be able to sue someone for letting the public know his favorite color.

    What is really at issue has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not a company is entitled to protect its trade secrets. If this were a clear trade secret, then there would be no debate. What is at issue here is whether or not a paranoid company can get away with trying to claim that every trivial piece of information generated in the day to day operations of their business, can be claimed as a trade secret any time they choose.

    The ramifications of this are huge! It means that any celebrity could successfully sue for any rumor about them acting badly on the set, because how they act on the set is a trade secret. Any movie studio could sue anyone for passing rumors about an in-production movie, because that is a trade secret. Any software company could sue anyone publishing rumors about their development, because that is a trade secret. You are talking about completely standing our current model on its head, and shifting the balance of power to the company with a presumption that it is the reporter who must show some public good, rather than the company which must show some demonstrable harm.

    Anyone who thinks that is a trivial change, is someone far too enamored of a single company to think rationally about this issue. There are a plethora of sites and publications (this one included) that would pretty much have to shut their doors if it is decided that a company can arbitrarily use trade secret protections for any information they choose, unless some grater public good can be demonstrated.

  • The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Score:4, Informative)

    by dafz1 ( 604262 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2005 @02:19PM (#12215365)

    Apple is enforcing their rights under the the Uniform Trade Secrets Act(UTSA) [nsi.org]. Here's the pertinent parts of that law.

    (1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.
    (2) "Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
    (3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
    (4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

    1. TradeSecret induced breach of the NDA(or a duty to maintain secrecy), by asking readers for Apple Secrets. Go to their webpage [thinksecret.com], and click on the "Got Dirt?" link.

    2. Misappropriation - ThinkSecret had reason know the information was "acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use."

    3. ThinkSecret would qualify as "a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity."

    4. Finally, as defined by the UTSA, Project: Asteroid "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from no being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

    Is Apple wrong for using the law? Apple is entitled to the protections of law, just as much as I am. Is the UTSA unconstitutional? That's for the courts to decide.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close