Apple's Victory Over Think Secret, others
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...y/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to the Web sites a protection that shields journalists from revealing the names of unidentified sources or turning over unpublished material.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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...1&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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by the cool gut
...Apple is WELL within their rights.
But is it within their interest?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
and our noble government to do what's best for all of us.
Ignorance is bliss
~ 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.