It's not a 1st amendmant issue. You can't publish stolen trademark information. Nick isn't uncovering illegal activity, so he has no defence to hide behind.
Damn man you don't have a clue about how the US legal system works do you?
Trademarked information is not protected under the constitution. You seem to be basing your opinion from your own moral compass(which is fine, you're a standup guy) but this is in fact a 1st amendment case. Journalists sometime air laundry that is embarrasing. Many times its for the greater good but sometimes you get the bad too.
Why are we still arguing if it ias a First Ammendment case or not. It's not. The First Ammendment prevents things like the government forcing prior restraint in free speech. It does not state you are free from the consequences of that speech or provide any blanket immunity from non-governmental entities suing you over speech you have uttered/written.
The courts have a long history of exceptions to universal free speech including: defamation, causing panic, fighting words, incitement to crime , sedition and obscenity.
Apple is suing under the "incitement to crime" principle, one the courts have held up strongly in the past. The relevant issue in the case is whether or not TS "incited" someone to break a legal contract and provide info which was legally under protection. If that is true then there is no First Ammendment right, if it is not true then there is no case. Either way there is no First Ammendment question. Finding the source is the only way to prove whether or not TS directly incited a crime or not, and because this is a civil case that is Apples duty.
The First Ammendment also does not provide shields to journalists against disclosing sources in cases like this. Some Federal Circuit Courts (but not all, and not the Supreme Court) started granting shields in the name of the First Ammendnment in 1972. Because it is not universally recognized, shields remain a gray area and even within the jurisdictions they hold in they have limits when it comes to illegal activities.
There we go again, illegal activities not being covered. It really boils down to whether or not the source was commiting a crime or not, and you can only tell that by finding the source. There are ways a source could legally have obtained the info and then innocently passed it along to TS, but not if they were an insider or signed an NDA.
I'm not going to enter into this debate. Each person has their views and no amount of arguing will change those views.
But, I will say that IF there really is an insider feeding information to Think Secret, I regret that they may not have taken appropriate precautions to totally mask their identity. Then Think Secret could willing and expeditiously forward what information they had to Apple, which would provide zip for clues to the identity. End of problem, end of law suit and we could all happily move on to more important speculation.
This is a 1st amendment issue which takes precedent over whatever flimsy complain Apple has.
Wrong. It's not a first amendment issue any more than if the guy next door put up a huge billboard with your credit card details and the full names, ages and schools of your children. Unless you'd be okay with that as well?
It's not a 1st amendmant issue. You can't publish stolen trademark information. Nick isn't uncovering illegal activity, so he has no defence to hide behind.
This isn't actually abut stolen trademark information. I don't think trademark, or patent law has been brought up in this case in an argumentative means, and I doubt it will. Trade secrets (duh <- that's me) I just realized you were probably thinking of trade secrets, and not trademarks. DUH AGAIN (on me )
Anyway, since 1979 the Law has recognized that trade secrets are, information of commercial value. It is also Information that is deemed as in need of protection. It is exclusive knowledge of economic value where persons, or entities such as Apple have an interest in protecting its value, and common law has establish that trade secrets are property.
"Since trade secrets are property whose value is tied to their secrecy, the courts have ruled that people who possess trade secrets that they do not own do not have a constitutional right to share those secrets."
In the end this was stoled property. The information by definition was property. This guy trafficked the information to millions over the internet.
Like it or not if your caught trafficking in stolen goods weather you knew it was stolen or not, your still guilty, and punishable by law.
Everything I just wrote has already been established in this case in court. Everything has also been ruled on many times elsewhere, and it is just like industry standards.
All Apple wanted was the emails from the two remaining sites I think. They already have the ones from the PowerPage. The reason was because they didn't own their email address. But the problem is if these other two guys don't give in, it will be out of Apples hands soon because once (TS, and whoever) disobey a the court order, and lay on that 1st amendment crap (that doesn't apply to this case) are going to be screwed. Because apples attorneys will no longer be in charge. The government (governing body) will be, and Apple just receives the end results after that.
Let me give you a quote here just to leave you with a view of the big picture.
"Since trade secrets are property whose value is tied to their secrecy, the courts have ruled that people who possess trade secrets that they do not own do not have a constitutional right to share those secrets. Normally, activities like speaking or printing what you know would be constitutionally protected as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. In this case, however, revealing (or misappropriating) a trade secret is essentially theft?the taking or destroying of property?and the courts have consistently held that you have no constitutional right to perform criminal acts"
I keep telling you man. The first amendment does not apply to this sh*t.
I had a thought about Think Secret. If they wanted to get back at Apple for filing a lawsuit against them, wouldn't this be the ultimate way?
When you find out that Apple is releasing a small update, announce yourself, that they are releasing dual core processors on this date, stirring up huge excitement among fans, then change it to a later date at the last second, causing more havoc, then at the very last minute, announce the actual new specs.
Think Secret comes out on top with the right specs, and Apple looks even more stupid for releasing a small speed bump after major hype has been created for something exciting.
I am only generally familiar with the facts of this case. However, I will provide a little law:
?A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.... The subject of a trade secret must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business. This necessary element of secrecy is not lost, however, if the holder of the trade secret reveals the trade secret to another in confidence, and under an implied obligation not to use or disclose it. These others may include those of the holder's employees to whom it is necessary to confide it, in order to apply it to the uses for which it is intended.... The law protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner's volition, but by some improper means, which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance? KEWANEE v. BICRON,_No. 73-187 ,_SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ,_416 U.S. 470; 94 S. Ct. 1879; 40 L. Ed. 2d 315; 1974
There is no currently-recognized First Amendment protection for disclosure of trade secrets by a journalist and there is not likely to ever be one. It doesn't matter if you're a journalist for the NY Times or a writer for a web site like Think Secret. Disclosure of a trade secret w/o the secret-holder's authorization would constitute an unlawful taking for which Apple may recover civil remedies. One important issue is whether the info is really a trade secret. Another is whether Apple made reasonable efforts to protect it as such. But I assure you, its not "open and shut" either way.
Comments
Originally posted by the cool gut
It's not a 1st amendmant issue. You can't publish stolen trademark information. Nick isn't uncovering illegal activity, so he has no defence to hide behind.
Damn man you don't have a clue about how the US legal system works do you?
tcg I suggest you do a little reading.
Trademarked information is not protected under the constitution. You seem to be basing your opinion from your own moral compass(which is fine, you're a standup guy) but this is in fact a 1st amendment case. Journalists sometime air laundry that is embarrasing. Many times its for the greater good but sometimes you get the bad too.
The courts have a long history of exceptions to universal free speech including: defamation, causing panic, fighting words, incitement to crime , sedition and obscenity.
Apple is suing under the "incitement to crime" principle, one the courts have held up strongly in the past. The relevant issue in the case is whether or not TS "incited" someone to break a legal contract and provide info which was legally under protection. If that is true then there is no First Ammendment right, if it is not true then there is no case. Either way there is no First Ammendment question. Finding the source is the only way to prove whether or not TS directly incited a crime or not, and because this is a civil case that is Apples duty.
The First Ammendment also does not provide shields to journalists against disclosing sources in cases like this. Some Federal Circuit Courts (but not all, and not the Supreme Court) started granting shields in the name of the First Ammendnment in 1972. Because it is not universally recognized, shields remain a gray area and even within the jurisdictions they hold in they have limits when it comes to illegal activities.
There we go again, illegal activities not being covered. It really boils down to whether or not the source was commiting a crime or not, and you can only tell that by finding the source. There are ways a source could legally have obtained the info and then innocently passed it along to TS, but not if they were an insider or signed an NDA.
I'm not going to enter into this debate. Each person has their views and no amount of arguing will change those views.
But, I will say that IF there really is an insider feeding information to Think Secret, I regret that they may not have taken appropriate precautions to totally mask their identity. Then Think Secret could willing and expeditiously forward what information they had to Apple, which would provide zip for clues to the identity. End of problem, end of law suit and we could all happily move on to more important speculation.
Originally posted by hmurchison
It wouldn't matter if my point was moot or not.
This is a 1st amendment issue which takes precedent over whatever flimsy complain Apple has.
Wrong. It's not a first amendment issue any more than if the guy next door put up a huge billboard with your credit card details and the full names, ages and schools of your children. Unless you'd be okay with that as well?
Originally posted by the cool gut
It's not a 1st amendmant issue. You can't publish stolen trademark information. Nick isn't uncovering illegal activity, so he has no defence to hide behind.
This isn't actually abut stolen trademark information. I don't think trademark, or patent law has been brought up in this case in an argumentative means, and I doubt it will. Trade secrets (duh <- that's me) I just realized you were probably thinking of trade secrets, and not trademarks. DUH AGAIN (on me
Anyway, since 1979 the Law has recognized that trade secrets are, information of commercial value. It is also Information that is deemed as in need of protection. It is exclusive knowledge of economic value where persons, or entities such as Apple have an interest in protecting its value, and common law has establish that trade secrets are property.
"Since trade secrets are property whose value is tied to their secrecy, the courts have ruled that people who possess trade secrets that they do not own do not have a constitutional right to share those secrets."
In the end this was stoled property. The information by definition was property. This guy trafficked the information to millions over the internet.
Like it or not if your caught trafficking in stolen goods weather you knew it was stolen or not, your still guilty, and punishable by law.
Everything I just wrote has already been established in this case in court. Everything has also been ruled on many times elsewhere, and it is just like industry standards.
All Apple wanted was the emails from the two remaining sites I think. They already have the ones from the PowerPage. The reason was because they didn't own their email address. But the problem is if these other two guys don't give in, it will be out of Apples hands soon because once (TS, and whoever) disobey a the court order, and lay on that 1st amendment crap (that doesn't apply to this case) are going to be screwed. Because apples attorneys will no longer be in charge. The government (governing body) will be, and Apple just receives the end results after that.
Let me give you a quote here just to leave you with a view of the big picture.
"Since trade secrets are property whose value is tied to their secrecy, the courts have ruled that people who possess trade secrets that they do not own do not have a constitutional right to share those secrets. Normally, activities like speaking or printing what you know would be constitutionally protected as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. In this case, however, revealing (or misappropriating) a trade secret is essentially theft?the taking or destroying of property?and the courts have consistently held that you have no constitutional right to perform criminal acts"
I keep telling you man. The first amendment does not apply to this sh*t.
When you find out that Apple is releasing a small update, announce yourself, that they are releasing dual core processors on this date, stirring up huge excitement among fans, then change it to a later date at the last second, causing more havoc, then at the very last minute, announce the actual new specs.
Think Secret comes out on top with the right specs, and Apple looks even more stupid for releasing a small speed bump after major hype has been created for something exciting.
Sounds to me like that is more likely!!
Just my two cents.
?A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.... The subject of a trade secret must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business. This necessary element of secrecy is not lost, however, if the holder of the trade secret reveals the trade secret to another in confidence, and under an implied obligation not to use or disclose it. These others may include those of the holder's employees to whom it is necessary to confide it, in order to apply it to the uses for which it is intended.... The law protects the holder of a trade secret against disclosure or use when the knowledge is gained, not by the owner's volition, but by some improper means, which may include theft, wiretapping, or even aerial reconnaissance? KEWANEE v. BICRON,_No. 73-187 ,_SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ,_416 U.S. 470; 94 S. Ct. 1879; 40 L. Ed. 2d 315; 1974
There is no currently-recognized First Amendment protection for disclosure of trade secrets by a journalist and there is not likely to ever be one. It doesn't matter if you're a journalist for the NY Times or a writer for a web site like Think Secret. Disclosure of a trade secret w/o the secret-holder's authorization would constitute an unlawful taking for which Apple may recover civil remedies. One important issue is whether the info is really a trade secret. Another is whether Apple made reasonable efforts to protect it as such. But I assure you, its not "open and shut" either way.