Apple CEO vows to take "blogger" suit to Supreme Court
Apple Computer chief executive Steve Jobs told a crowd at this week's Wall Street Journal 
All Things Digital Conference that he will take his lawsuits involving several Apple online news sites to the Supreme Court if he has to.
Shortly after demonstrating a new version of iTunes and dodging questions about whether Apple would enter the video market, Jobs began to justifying his decision to sue online journalists for reporting on Apple's future product plans.
The Apple CEO claimed that "no one has the right to publish confidential information just because they can," according to a post made by Wired magazine co-founder John Battelle on his Searchblog website.
Jobs vowed to take the issue to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Asked why he pulled all Wiley books from his Apple Stores over an unauthorized biography driven to market by publisher, Jobs said, "I didn't want to do business with them." But then he added, "People can publish whatever they want to publish."
All Things Digital Conference that he will take his lawsuits involving several Apple online news sites to the Supreme Court if he has to.Shortly after demonstrating a new version of iTunes and dodging questions about whether Apple would enter the video market, Jobs began to justifying his decision to sue online journalists for reporting on Apple's future product plans.
The Apple CEO claimed that "no one has the right to publish confidential information just because they can," according to a post made by Wired magazine co-founder John Battelle on his Searchblog website.
Jobs vowed to take the issue to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
Asked why he pulled all Wiley books from his Apple Stores over an unauthorized biography driven to market by publisher, Jobs said, "I didn't want to do business with them." But then he added, "People can publish whatever they want to publish."
Comments
Ironic.
Thanks AppleInsider... What great insight.
I approve of both moves.
Originally posted by bredlo
I would also reserve the right to choose not to be the distributor for a book that was unfavorable about me. Did Jobs try to stop the publication? Nope. He just chose not to help it reach an audience through the Apple store.
He didn't just restrict the one book, however. He stopped all Wiley books from being sold in Apple stores. That's just childish petulance, and not particularly smart business.
Look at it this way: it may be ego on Steve's part, but is it really fair for this pubisher to put out a negative book on the CEO of one of it's business partners? Should they think that the two things are totally unrelated? I don't. You can't remove personal feelings from business deals, nice as it might be if you could. Although Steve has thought from the hip many times in the past to the detriment of Apple, this is one time where I think he has every right not to want to deal with a company that would put a negative message out there... it's really a conflict of interests and I don't see it impacting Apple negatively at all to pull their books from Apple retail locations.
Jobs will lose his battle in the Supreme Court if he tries to stop news agencies from reporting. As long as TS, AI, Joeseph Blough, come across information by legal means, Freedom of Speech wins out.
He is making an ass out of himself whether he is right or wrong.
Steve needs to stop acting like he is on the playground and get some thicker skin and plug those leaks.
As far as pulling the books off his shelves goes, he can do whatever he wants. That business and it is his constituional right to do so.
Edited to correct one typo that macFanDave pointed out.
Originally posted by aplnub
As long as TS, AI, Joeseph Blough, come across information by legal means
That may be the real issue here.
Additionally, it is interesting to see what happens when the (unstated) "right" of privacy butts up against the (stated) right of press freedom.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That may be the real issue here.
Additionally, it is interesting to see what happens when the (unstated) "right" of privacy butts up against the (stated) right of press freedom.
It will be interesting.
Steve doesn't sue over facts about his private life in the book he pulled. He will sue over private facts about products his company makes.
It comes down to Steve treating website only publications as non-legitamate news outlets. Matt Drudge would probably disagree with him...
Originally posted by aplnub
It comes down to Steve treating website only publications as non-legitamate news outlets.
Possibly. It may really come down to the fact that the information revelation was a violation of a legally-binding contract (NDA), and that Apple believes that the enticement to violate the agreement came from the source that reported the information.
Originally posted by aplnub
Matt Drudge would probably disagree with him...
Oh boy.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That may be the real issue here.
I thought it was the only issue... freedom of speech will prevail regardless of what level of the court system Jobs wishes to get involved with. However, if somebody broke a NDA to make this info available to one of these people/sites, that's an entirely different story.
Steve should be going after the folks that made the information available, not the folks who posted it.
On a related note, are there any precident setting cases of somebody breaching an NDA in the computer industry which was proven to directly affect the company who issued the NDA?
Originally posted by aplnub
Jobs will loose(sic, it should be lose) his battle in the Supreme Court if he tries to stop news agencies from reporting. As long as TS, AI, Joeseph Blough, come across information by legal means, Freedom of Speech wins out.
It's quite clear that they didn't get the information by legal means. The givers of the information were certainly violating their NDA's. The "journalists" were doing nothing more than receiving stolen goods. This is also illegal.
Of course, your standard is faulty. Some speech can be protected even if the information is NOT gained by legal means. This is what whistleblower statutes are for.
Originally posted by mikef
I thought it was the only issue... freedom of speech will prevail regardless of what level of the court system Jobs wishes to get involved with. However, if somebody broke a NDA to make this info available to one of these people/sites, that's an entirely different story.
That actually is the story here.
Originally posted by mikef
Steve should be going after the folks that made the information available, not the folks who posted it.
But if it can be proven that the poster enticed the breach of contract, well, then it is less about "free speech" (which everyone wants to make this about) and more about actionable offense.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But if it can be proven that the poster enticed the breach of contract, well, then it is less about "free speech" (which everyone wants to make this about) and more about actionable offense.
i'm quite unconvinced of that argument. as i see it there are three parts of the transaction. requesting, receiving, and publishing leaked info. each of these steps, to me, seem legal.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i'm quite unconvinced of that argument. as i see it there are three parts of the transaction. requesting, receiving, and publishing leaked info. each of these steps, to me, seem legal.
I agree. Otherwise, Jobs would be suing reporters for asking about future products everytime he does an interview.
Maybe Power Mac users should file a lawsuit against Jobs for promising 3 GHz and not delivering. How much has that hurt sales?
But I?m no english major, so whatever.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i'm quite unconvinced of that argument. as i see it there are three parts of the transaction. requesting, receiving, and publishing leaked info. each of these steps, to me, seem legal.
Actually, the law is quite clear here.
It's illegal to induce someone to pass confidential information. It is illegal to pass it, and if it's suspected that the information was illegaly obtained, the party publishing it can be sued.
A reporter is reguired to attempt to obtain information through legal means. If the information recieved wasn't obtained through legal means, then the reporter is required to attempt to find a legal way to obtain it. If that can't be done, and it's published, then (s)he and the publication can be sued.
It doesn't really matter what anyone here wants to happen or not. The law is established. It isn't in dispute. If it gets to the Supreme Court, four things could happen.
The Court can refuse to hear the case, which means that whatever decision the Apeals Court made stands.
The court hears it and rules in favor of Apple.
The court hears it and rules in favor of the defendants.
The Court strikes down the whole law, or part of it.