Apple's Victory Over Think Secret, others

[slughead]

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/11049112.htm

Apple 1, bloggers 0
JUDGE SAYS WEB SITES CAN BE FORCED TO REVEAL SOURCES
By Dawn C. Chmielewski
Mercury News

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.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to extend to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.

Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling. He will hear arguments today from Apple's attorneys and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco digital rights group representing two of the three Web sites Apple subpoenaed -- Apple Insider and PowerPage.

The case raises issues about whether those who write for online publications are entitled to the same constitutional protections as their counterparts in more traditional print and broadcast news organizations.

Apple sought subpoenas in December against two online news sites that focus exclusively on its products: PowerPage (www.power page.org) and Apple Insider (www.appleinsider.com). The company filed a separate suit against Think Secret (www.thinksecret.com) on Jan. 4.

Apple's argument

Apple maintains that disclosures about an unreleased product, code-named ``Asteroid,'' constituted a trade secret violation. The company asked the court to force the Web sites to identify the source of the leaks.

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.''

Subpoena fight

The court earlier authorized Apple to serve subpoenas on the Web sites, seeking all documents related to Asteroid and information about anyone with knowledge of the postings about the product.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation fought the subpoenas, arguing the online publishers, like their print and broadcast counterparts, frequently rely on confidential sources to report on issues in the public interest.

``Compelled disclosure of journalists' sources would have a devastating effect on the free flow of information,'' said Kurt Opsahl, an EFF attorney. ``It's the lifeblood of a functioning democracy. Therefore the courts have to understand the vital connection between the confidentiality of sources and the freedom of the press.''

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the case.

Adding support

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.

[the cool gut]

That's right baby, you can take the 1st, and shove it up your ass.

[slughead]

Originally posted by siliconvalley.com
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.''

Sweet, so a two bit organization like Reuters is "news," and you speaking publicly is not.

[ipodandimac]

i'm glad apple one. i know other people dont agree, but i think lines were corssed. there's nothing wrong with specualtion, but blatantly giving out trade secrets is wrong. imagine you invent some great new thing that will make you millions and then someone spills the beans and youre surprise is ruined. seriously.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
imagine you invent some great new thing that will make you millions and then someone spills the beans and youre surprise is ruined.

The only reason some people want Apple to lose, is because they are so powerful, and blog sites like Think Secret are not.

If I ran a company, and there was some guy out there who did nothing but try to find out what I was working on and publish it on the net, I would fucking kill him. I'd like to see him try to hide behind the 1st amendment then.

[slughead]

Originally posted by the cool gut
The only reason some people want Apple to lose, is because they are so powerful, and blog sites like Think Secret are not.

If I ran a company, and there was some guy out there who did nothing but try to find out what I was working on and publish it on the net, I would fucking kill him. I'd like to see him try to hide behind the 1st amendment then.

That's super, although you're forgetting one thing: It's only a matter of time before the california journalist sheild law is "shoved up someone's ass." Maybe Apple will be on the other end of that one too, saying exactly what I'm saying "What's the difference between free speech by one, and speech by another?"

That's why I wanted Apple to lose.

Have fun :)

[slughead]

WHOA wait up
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141361&cid=11848262

I guess this one only applied to Appleinsider and others, not think secret.

damn slashdot, no wonder I said all those nasty things about them

[Vana Nisitor]

Originally posted by ipodandimac
there's nothing wrong with specualtion, but blatantly giving out trade secrets is wrong.

Does eBay blatantly fence goods? No. People steal stuff and use eBay as a way to fence it. There's a difference.

Do I think it's sleazy that AppleInsider, ThinkSecret, and other sites encourage employees of Apple to snitch? Sure. But do I blame said sites for employees snitching?

No.

Why isn't Apple going after it's own? More important: why doesn't Apple's own respect their company enough to keep their mouths shut?

[FallenFromTheTree]

The information provided in these forums is used to help the general
public make a well informed purchasing decision.

Apple's secrecy policy about updates and new product launches
directly challenges Apple's loyal user base to speculate on what's next.

Most of the time, all we can do is gather knowledge from reasonably
well informed sources to make an educated guess. Nothing more.

The heart of the matter for the consumer is that no one wants to
spend their hard earned money on obsolete or soon to be obsolete technology.

A perfect example of this right now is the wide spread
recommendation for consumers to wait for the next PowerMac revision.

The combined knowledge is these forums can directly affect the entire
computer industry.

We are telling the general public, professional users, stock analysts, and
trade publications that we, being the well informed, expect great things
from Apple and we will not support an inferior product.

The informative contributions and commentary posted to these forums are made by independent authors. We are free to post our opinions
and our speculations based on the best available knowledge.

The editors of these forums have merely provided a place for us
to share our thoughts.

[Denmaru]

Your´re glad that Apple won? Are you serious?

Think about it for a second. If Apple getsn away with this, there will be no more "Apple INSIDER" News whatsoever. As FFTT said, we would buy machines, when the next revision is just 5 days away.


Cool gut, I can understand your reaction, but go back to school (if you´ve finished it by now) and ask your teachers about "Freedom of speech" and "fundamental rights". Sure, you would be angered, but it´s good that you have no legal way to stop him.

What´s more, if Apple wins this fight, other companies could get the same idea, and even more, some News-Sites like Reuters could run into trouble.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by Vana Nisitor
Do I think it's sleazy that AppleInsider, ThinkSecret, and other sites encourage employees of Apple to snitch? Sure. But do I blame said sites for employees snitching?

No.


You do realize that it's illegal to publish information that is obtained from someone who you know signed an NDA? Apple is WELL within their rights.

[UnixPoet]

Originally posted by the cool gut
...Apple is WELL within their rights.

But is it within their interest?

[Vana Nisitor]

Originally posted by the cool gut
You do realize that it's illegal to publish information that is obtained from someone who you know signed an NDA? Apple is WELL within their rights.

That's right. Someone signed an NDA agreement. They are blabbing. They are the problem.

Analogy: you've got a marriage where the man has strayed. Why? There's a hot babe at the office.

Your/Apple's argument: if the hot babe at the office was fired, the man wouldn't have strayed.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by Vana Nisitor
That's right. Someone signed an NDA agreement. They are blabbing. They are the problem.

Analogy: you've got a marriage where the man has strayed. Why? There's a hot babe at the office.

Your/Apple's argument: if the hot babe at the office was fired, the man wouldn't have strayed.

Wrong, and the analogy doesn't work. If you take information from someone who signed an NDA, and you publish that information KNOWING that person signed an NDA, you are liable wether you signed anything or not.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the Act holds liable those who receive trade secrets that were knowingly misappropriated)

You don't like it? Fine - go to China, where IP is a fucking free for all, and see how that suits you.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Those of you defending Apple's rights in this matter don't seem to
care one bit about the consumers rights in all of this.

Do you think Apple actually gives a rats a$$ about the consumer
who purchases a new system 15 days before a known revision?
Hell no!

I've asked Apple employees point blank about any scheduled
updates or revisions and they will not tell you a word.
Most will not even inform you that you have 14 days to return
your purchase with no questions asked.

In my opinion this is deliberately misleading a customer in order to
push outdated equipment with a total disregard for consumer ethics.

I for one am glad that a few brave souls put themselves at risk
to help us stay better informed.

[Wil]

Fallen
You can ask all the Apple employees you want either in retail or in it's Campus in Cupertino and you will have the same answer,which is zip,nada,I don't know.Want to know why,Apple tend to compartmentalize information in regards to their products,so you may ask an software engineer working at iMovie 5000 HD about the release of Apple's New G6 terabyte computer and he'll be looking at you like you are mad or something.If you want you can ask the designer of the damn G6 and he will have blank for an answer or he will say I don't know.Once hardware and software products go to testing and preproduction,the level of secrecy in companies like Apple goes into high gear that when they release their products,their employees at their retail store will only know about it either the day before,a meeting before Jobs presentation or during his presentation. Same goes to the little people at Cupertino.Apple treat sit like a military secret because it's not only profit,but recognizition.You can talk all you want about consumer rights,but intelligent consumers know that in regards to tech products,it's already obsolete when you already bought it even though it's a new release.
And oh by the way,the receipt on your purchase will tell you that you have 14 days to return the merchandise for a refund and in Chicago,they even tell it to you verbally.

[Vana Nisitor]

Originally posted by the cool gut
Wrong, and the analogy doesn't work.

~ and so why do you leave the analogy to refute it?

You see, you're talking about oranges, while I'm talking about Apples. Why can't you admit that the blabbermouths are the problem? Why are you blaming the press quoting the blabbermouths?

Suppose Apple closed this site? What's stopping an AppleBlabberMouth from visiting any forum on any site and blabbing? The sympton is gone, but the problem remains.

So what's next for you? Do websites with forums take responsibility for any member who appears suddenly and blabs trade secrets? If yes, the only solution~ using your strained argument~ is to shut down ALL web forums, no matter the topic (sports, religion, Pez) to fix Apple's problem of having blabbermouths...

Using my fair analogy, you'd have to fire every woman in every office for being a 'hottie' to protect husbands with wondering eyes...

ludicrous...

[Vana Nisitor]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

Those of you defending Apple's rights in this matter don't seem to
care one bit about the consumers rights in all of this.


Do you think Apple actually gives a rats a$$ about the consumer who purchases a new system 15 days before a known revision? Hell no!

Using this argument, we should sue movie chains for knowingly selling tickets to crappy movies. Hey, they know it sucks~ the reviews are in the house is typically empty. So why do they keep selling tickets, knowing a superior movie is coming next week?

Most will not even inform you that you have 14 days to return your purchase with no questions asked.

Horsehockey. Ever been to an Apple store? Don't think so. Every time I wait in that line, I hear the 14 day policy explained like a mantra. The reps sound like idiots doing it. Why? It's the only store I've been to that does so. As an adult consumer, it's your responsibility to ask what the return policy is, since there's no standard out there.

In my opinion this is deliberately misleading a customer in order to push outdated equipment with a total disregard for consumer ethics.

I'll give you that there's a more elegant way to handle dated equipment. I think Apple should do what all retail does: have clearance sales. Clearance indicates something is coming shortly.

What is coming? Should you wait for it? That's up to you, not Apple. And no, they shouldn't have to explain what's coming either. Should competitors know what Apple is about to? Don't think so...

[ipodandimac]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
In my opinion this is deliberately misleading a customer in order to
push outdated equipment with a total disregard for consumer ethics.
oh please. call up dell and ask them the same question. they'll give you the same answer. really as long as you sometimes visit these forums or any mac related site, you have to be stupid to not know when new products are speculated to be coming out. there is no reason for someone to have to tell you that an update is coming.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I suppose we should all just hush and trust corporate leadership
and our noble government to do what's best for all of us.

Ignorance is bliss

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by Vana Nisitor
~ and so why do you leave the analogy to refute it?

You see, you're talking about oranges, while I'm talking about Apples. Why can't you admit that the blabbermouths are the problem? Why are you blaming the press quoting the blabbermouths?

First off, TS isn't the press, it's a blog. Second, if your dealing with illegally obtained information, your entering a gray area - more so in this case, because there are laws specifically targeted towards this.

Suppose Apple closed this site? What's stopping an AppleBlabberMouth from visiting any forum on any site and blabbing? The sympton is gone, but the problem remains.

Apple isn't closing this site, they are requesting that this site, and it;s ISP to hand over all information regarding the correspondence of IP.

Using my fair analogy, you'd have to fire every woman in every office for being a 'hottie' to protect husbands with wondering eyes...

I have no idea what your analogy even means or how it applies to this. My arguement is certainly not "strained" because a judge has already sided with Apple.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you have a problem with the laws that Apple is trying to uphold, then fine - but that isn't apples fault.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I suppose we should all just hush and trust corporate leadership
and our noble government to do what's best for all of us.

Ignorance is bliss

You've fallen from the tree all right.

I mean, fuck, judging from the some posts here - you'd think this case was like Pacific Gas & Electric vs Erin Brockovich

[FallenFromTheTree]

Am I really the only one here noticing that our civil rights are being challenged more and more each day?

Why not just hand over complete control of all journalism and media to those who allow corporate greed to dictate the content of their publications?

Perhaps the department of homeland security should moderate all
web publications to insure conformity to government policies and ideology.

The whole idea of an OPEN FORUM is to allow us the freedom
to express our thoughts, opinions and knowledge without fear
of repression.

Any attempt to restrict this freedom of speech should be fought
with every means at our disposal.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Any attempt to restrict this freedom of speech should be fought
with every means at our disposal.

Well, I can certainly understand TS's motive to cloud the situation with this "free speech" bull shit.

Would you buy goods, you knew where stolen? Do you think because you didn't steal them yourself, that the law doesn't apply to you?

I'm sorry, but if your going to deal with people who are engaged in breaking NDA's and profiting from it, nonetheless - then you'd have to be a moron to think that you are going to be able to use the 1st ammendment to protect you.

[FallenFromTheTree]

First of all, I doubt that the 19 year old college student
who started TS at the age of 13 is making much more
than it might take to cover his server and bandwidth expenses.

I'm fairly sure the editors of AI are pretty much in the same boat.

If it were not for the information we find in these forums,
we might still believe that only Apple technicians could
open a Mac Mini and we would be forced to pay more than
double the going rate for a 1 GB RAM card.

We might not know that many $1700 23" HD displays have a serious
problem with too much pink.
Or that you can purchase a very nice 24" Dell display for $500 less.

Or that many Powerbooks are having multiple quality control issues.

Without open forums places like XLR8yourmac might not be there
to help us repair and modify our systems.

We should not fault the editors of these web publications
for providing a means for us to express our opinions or
to provide the general public with helpful information.

[TednDi]

I think that I am with Fallen F.T.T on this one. Apple in my opinion uses the good will and buzz generated by these sites to sell products but, when the news isn't quite what they want they wave the stick.

I wonder how many great ideas and features discussed on these and other boards managed to make it into a produced version. I would bet quite a few.

If apple has someone read these boards to ferret out leakers than what is to say that they aren't equally siphoning off the best ideas too.

I am sure there have been some GREAT mockups and ideas that have found it into an designers mind.

And I do think that the front page is news.

Very specific apple news.

[groverat]

If you take information from someone who signed an NDA, and you publish that information KNOWING that person signed an NDA, you are liable wether you signed anything or not.

I don't know what definition you are using for "liable", but it certainly isn't in any legal sense. NDA does not apply to anyone who didn't sign the NDA.

What you advocate with that idea is nothing less than a corporate-run fascist state.

There's a reason the judge didn't provide a rationale, it's because he's got hundreds of years of legal precedent against him.

[FallenFromTheTree]

This goes way beyond Apple vs. Appleinsider, ThinkSecret and Powerpage

The important issue is whether independent authors or journalists and the publishing editors of open forum web publications qualify for protection under the first amendment.

The validity of their professional standing as journalists seems to be on the table.

We should also keep in mind that there was no intended malice towards
Apple in the posting of the Asteroid specifications.

IN FACT, the publication of the mini movie
" How to Open Your Mac Mini "
was far more harmful to Apple, but you don't see them sueing
for NDA violations.

If Apple WAS sueing for damages caused by that movie clip,
they would have to come after me for posting the link to several
forums and the film maker who created it.

I posted that information as a contributing author to a web publication.
Does that make those publications liable for my post?


What the EFF is arguing is that web publications ARE in fact
entitled to protect the anonymity of their sources.

You better believe that if that same source had leaked newsworthy information to the tech writers over at AP news that source would be protected.

[slughead]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Am I really the only one here noticing that our civil rights are being challenged more and more each day?

No, but me and cool gut have had this discussion before so I'm staying away.

The guy's obviously a mac fanboi--one of these high school kids that don't know about the first ammendment and moreover don't care.

It's cases like this one that dissillusion kids to "learn how it is" and become like cool gut.

With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights. They're not buyin' the bullsh¡t anymore, they're smart enough to know America's ditched them, and they've adapted.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by slughead
With all the invasions on free speech during the past 20 years, it's no wonder kids today are less and less enchanted with the bill of rights.

Invasions of free speech? I'm sorry, how about invasion of privacy - which I think this is more about. You think it would be cool for me to start a blog, and post pictures and personal information about your family? Hey - I'd just be using my right to free speech.

There are lots of people who know Apple has a slam dunk case, and they aren't all Apple zealots.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Unfortunately, if more people don't wake up and see what's going down that ditch is going to keep getting deeper and it will be lined with so much slippery excrement that no one will be able to escape.

[the cool gut]

Jesus, I feel like I'm arguing with the bible thumpers in apple outsider.

[FallenFromTheTree]

Apple may have a clear cut case against their own employee,
but they should not be allowed, under first amendment protections
to force the publishers to disclose their source.

I didn't intend to take this thread off topic, but I think our freedom
to express ourselves should not be taken lightly.

In fact, I can think of more than 1500 good reasons right now
why that freedom should be cherished.

[Wil]

Fallen
Let's stay away from this case for a while and consider the ramifications if DePlume and others win this case.Since DePlume as well as others can get now get away in releasing trade secrets about Apple,what would prohibit others from doing the same things on other companies.What if it becomes really serious,say a person getting personal info on people and posting their financial records over the web or people leaking sensitive military or State secrets over the web because it's the First amendment thing.Lawyers of these websites can now argue successfully that it's a First Amendment thing regardless of whatever damages had occured.Do you know who's going to be affected by the backlash,bloggers,real honest to goodness private unpaid citizen journalists.The First Amendment didn't include being responsible for your words and accepting the consequence of it because the meaning was explicit even when it is not written done.
De Plume and others as well as their attorneys knew if they didn't falsely represent themselves as bloggers and journalists,they are screwed big time.
The biggest loser in here is the bloggers either way because if DePlume wins,every site now in existence will become blooger sites and they will now be protected under the First amendment and they now get away with murder even if they do things illegally.If Apple wins,it's bad for the bloggers because the presiding judge made the wrong decision in her opinion which if you connect it with the McCain-Feingold Act will effectively shut up the legit bloggers until the Act is repealed.

[FallenFromTheTree]

I understand and respect your viewpoint Wil.

It will always be difficult to clearly define responsible journalism.

How does one define legitimate blogs?

What makes a blog so important, is that we are free to publish
opposing views on ANY subject without fear of government
intervention.

The downside is that some individuals may abuse that freedom.

But where do we draw the line?

[slughead]

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
But where do we draw the line?

*Raises hand* How about no trade secret laws?

We have copyrights, we have patents, we don't need trade secret laws. Trade secrets could be classified as the paint color of the walls of the clean room, or what's the best kind of goggles to wear when dealing with lasers. They're not important usually, and certainly not important enough to put limitations on other people's free speech.

NDA's are contracts and are OK, but just because someone signs a contract, it shouldn't mean that everyone around them suddenly loses privacy and free speech rights.

The only thing you can't write is something that someone's copyrighted, and even then you can change wording, not use it for commercial purposes, or just use a small part of it.

[Wil]

Slughead
Will not happen,the reason is this,to protect a business from corporate espionage .
I'll give you an example,let's say company A would release a product that would revolutionalize computing after an expensive R&D,but nobody knows what it is,then let's say No Secrets rumor site was able to contact an unknown source at the company and was able to obtain the complete specs of X product and he posted it on the web.Company B's employees was able to deduce what kind of product company A is going to release and proceeds to make adjustments on it's own products.A few days before Company A would release product X,Company B already with great fanfare release product Y and it was hailed to be innovative and it garner a lot of media and corporate attention.Would you hazard a guess what kind of reception would Company A would have when it release it's product.Guess what company would be labeled innovative and who is a me-too guy.
The company that got hurt was company A and whatever it does,it won't be able to recover the financial losses it suffered because someone from the outside induced an employee to talk even if No Secret proclaims to the world that Company B copied it from Company A

[FallenFromTheTree]

How exactly does a blank e-mail form induce someone to
share a bit of knowledge?

[Somynona]

Wikipedia has a page on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Does

[hmurchison]

God this case only tells you one thing. That the United State legal system is just a big contradiction.

We have our Federal Consitution which has been amended over and over yet we still cannot give someone an easy answer to.

"Do I really have Free Speech?"

So know a Judge has stated that the protection given to Journalists only applies to "legitimate" Journalists who work for larger papers. OMG what a horrible finding that negates the biggest opportunity for expanding our potential source of information. The Internet.

It's rather simple. The onus is on Apple to protect their trade secrets. The rights granted by the Constitution of the US are paramount and ursurp most contradictory laws passed underneath.

The only way we can truly have freedom is to be able to have an open channel of communcation between those in the press and the consumer. This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide. I look for his ruling to be overturned.

Hint...if you all want job security. Go into Law...I expect our rights and freedoms will continue to be chipped away until they mean nothing but some excuse to invade some country and replace their leadership...oops too late.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by hmurchison
This judge requiring that TS, Appleinsider and TPP give up their sources is tantamount to asking them to commit journalistic suicide.

Well, I believe part of Apples argument was that these "offenders" are not journalists. Do you think they are? You think anyone who can post something on the web should be considered journalists?

TS keeps saying that if a regular newspaper published that report, it would be considered good journalism. But a regular newspaper would have never even solicited that type of information in the first place. I believe that a respectable journalist respects the privacy of a law abiding individuals and companies. And quite frankly they should be sued whenever they cross that line.

[hmurchison]

Well, I believe part of Apples argument was that these "offenders" are not journalists. Do you think they are? You think anyone who can post something on the web should be considered journalists?

This is the crux of the issue. Who gets Journalistic protection and who doesn't? I guess it's time to draw up some parameters about who/what/were. I think this Judges ruling was "old school" thinking and poor.

It's not important on whether a newspaper solicited the information but rather it's important that they have the "right" to do so. Today it may be Apple computer but tomarrow it maybe something important to people as a whole. I feel for Apple because they have leaks that they cannot plug but I don't like our legal system working to do jobs that are best suited to be handled internally. Small government is preferrable to large government IMO.

[Somynona]

Please feel free to contribute to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Does

Anyone can edit it.

[FallenFromTheTree]

If it were not for the internet, blogs, forums and other web news
publications we would still be getting nothing but canned, filtered
and sanitized spin from the corporate owned mainstream media.

Apple may have a legitimate case against their employee,
but questioning the legitimacy of web news publications as a protected
media is opening a big bad nasty can of worms.


And all this because a 19 year old college student scooped them.


Some of you may find this an interesting read too.

http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm