EFF, a nonprofit group interested in protecting digital rights, said it would legally represent the owners of the two sites in their legal fight to "protect their right to keep confidential the identities of the people who supplied them with the information," the statement read.
"Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah told The Mac Observer. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."
On December 13, Apple filed suit against "Does 1-20" in a Santa Clara County district court. The company obtained a court order that allows it to issue subpoenas to AppleInsider and PowerPage for the names of the "Does" who allegedly leaked the information in question.
Also named in the complaint was Mac site ThinkSecret, but it will not be represented by EFF, Mr. Opsah said. The complaint against ThinkSecret explains that the site printed rumors of the audio product, but in fact, ThinkSecret only linked to messages boards discussing the rumors of such a product. The message boards are not owned by ThinkSecret.
Mr. Opsah criticized Apple for the lawsuit saying, "by filing suit, Apple is tacitly admitting these rumors are true, Apple is really helping people figure which rumors are true or not. The function is counter productive. And it's certainly not a coincidence these suits were filed before Mac Expo."
An Apple spokesman was not immediately available for comment to The Mac Observer.
Mr. Opsah told TMO neither owner of PowerPage nor AppleInsider have been properly served with subpoenas by Apple, 28 days after first filing suit. "Therefore, the next move is in Apple's court," he said. "Perhaps the company is re-thinking this suit and figuring out it's not in their best interest to sue its biggest fans or harass them."
The lawsuit in question is not connected to another recent suit in which Apple sued ThinkSecret for publishing what it calls trade secrets regarding unannounced products.
NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreement) are a part of most industries - basically people are promising not to talk or give away trade secrets and any information that could have an impact on a companies ability to do business
Apple employees sign an NDA as part of their employement package
Apple developers sign NDAs as part of their developer agreement
Press people sign NDAs when they are invited to see new technology
this isnt about free speech and first amendment rights
this is about people keeping and honoring their word and doing the right thing versus sleezing around
this industry has more news sites, more companies, more people that should be held totally accountable for their actions, but they arent, and the world goes on
CloseViewName:Bryan- TMO StaffPosts: 7325Joined: 11 Jun 2001 Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:20 pmSubject:
The part you are missing, however, is that none of these sites signed NDAs with Apple, certainly not where these products are concerned, which honestly negates your entire argument as it applies to the named sites.
CloseViewName:Guest Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:24 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreement) are a part of most industries - basically people are promising not to talk or give away trade secrets and any information that could have an impact on a companies ability to do business
Apple employees sign an NDA as part of their employement package
Apple developers sign NDAs as part of their developer agreement
Press people sign NDAs when they are invited to see new technology
this isnt about free speech and first amendment rights
this is about people keeping and honoring their word and doing the right thing versus sleezing around
this industry has more news sites, more companies, more people that should be held totally accountable for their actions, but they arent, and the world goes on
You're a regular rocket scientist. No one at thinksecret or the other sites signed and NDA. Basically apple is a miserable failure in controling its own employees to keep their mouths shut. It's apple's employees obligation not to violate the NDA; the web sites have NO such contractual obligation.
Short of blackmail or paying people to steal secrets from apple, all those sites are WELL within their rights to report on anonymous leaks from apple. Apple and its lawyers know this, and probably figure they can steam roll over such little guy sites, scare everyone, and make a lot of free press to boot. They have the added bonus of most mac heads being such ignorant koolaid drinking zombies as to defend anything apple does.
On top of it, if Macitynet.it's claims are true, that apple employees came over to them on public property and grabbed them physically for photos taken on public property, they have a law suit for assualt, battery, false imprisonment and perhaps other causes. The paparazi has long had the right to take photos of anything from/on public land. If you want privacy, you cover up. So if macitynet.it and others took photos of the device from outside the expo and they were forced to delete it, their rights were violated and apple should be sued. Those citizens would have been within their rights to physically beat the crap out of those guards touching them on public property in self-defense.
Despite apple marketing itself as a liberal lefty like company, its actions are bullying and far from its marketing image. This is a direct attack on the 1st amendment and unless the EFF backs these sites and thinksecret, its going to allow apple to get away with bullying the constitution.
The iPod is an incredible success and should be giving Apple a massive 'halo effect'...
Yet here in the UK VERY few people have even HEARD of a MAC, let alone do they know it doesn't crash and burn all the time like their current Windows machine. They don't know it is almost immune from all the (in)security crap that plagues Windows.
They don't know they look cool (because they've never seen one).
They don't know they run loads of software, including MS Office!
They don't know this because Apple have never told them. If Apple has a marketing department in Europe I wonder where they are all hiding.
And when the Mac faithful stand up and sound of about some GREAT new products, he sues them...
It's actually REALLY easy to sell Macs to people suffering under Windows terror - I know, because I fix PCs for consumer users and take along my Powerbook when doing so. LOADS of my customers are SO impressed by the Mac that they buy one, yes, they really do. It is EASY and would be even easier if that wasn't the first they had seen or heard of the Mac experience.
Putting a few well placed ads in mags, papers and maybe even TV shows isn't rocket science and hardly takes a degree in marketing to figure out that - right now - with millions of happy iPod owners pacing the streets - it would help sell LOADS of Macs.
Maybe they like being niche so much they don't want to grow their market share?
Jobs is in control of Apple, his personality leads it, so HE must be to blame for not marketing his products properly.
These sites are meant to acting in the Apple communities interest but personnaly I think they have been taking things too far and are damaging Apple's bottom line.
Yes I can see that the timing of these lawsuits is probably too late to stop the damage this time, however if Apple don't act the set a precident.
What rights does the owner of a trade secret have?
A trade secret owner can prevent the following groups of people from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission:
* people who are automatically bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose or use trade secret information, including any employee who routinely comes into contact with the employer's trade secrets as part of the employee's job
* people who acquire a trade secret through improper means such as theft, industrial espionage or bribery
* people who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them
* people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret, and
* people who sign nondisclosure agreements (also known as "confidentiality agreements") promising not to disclose trade secrets without authorization from the owner. This may be the best way for a trade secret owner to establish a duty of confidentiality. Even though employees are bound under an implied duty not to disclose sensitive information, all employees who come into contact with a company's trade secrets -- including high-level employees and company presidents -- should sign nondisclosure agreements, because such agreements make it clear to the employee that the company's trade secrets must be kept confidential. In addition, a company's lenders, investors and potential investors may require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.
This case is not about freedom of information or protecting a free press. It is about people being denied permission to publish material that they have no right to publish.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:43 amSubject: inane
Quote
Guest wrote: These sites are meant to acting in the Apple communities interest but personnaly I think they have been taking things too far and are damaging Apple's bottom line.
Yes I can see that the timing of these lawsuits is probably too late to stop the damage this time, however if Apple don't act the set a precident.
What rights does the owner of a trade secret have?
A trade secret owner can prevent the following groups of people from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission:
* people who are automatically bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose or use trade secret information, including any employee who routinely comes into contact with the employer's trade secrets as part of the employee's job
* people who acquire a trade secret through improper means such as theft, industrial espionage or bribery
* people who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them
* people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret, and
* people who sign nondisclosure agreements (also known as "confidentiality agreements") promising not to disclose trade secrets without authorization from the owner. This may be the best way for a trade secret owner to establish a duty of confidentiality. Even though employees are bound under an implied duty not to disclose sensitive information, all employees who come into contact with a company's trade secrets -- including high-level employees and company presidents -- should sign nondisclosure agreements, because such agreements make it clear to the employee that the company's trade secrets must be kept confidential. In addition, a company's lenders, investors and potential investors may require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.
This case is not about freedom of information or protecting a free press. It is about people being denied permission to publish material that they have no right to publish.
This is inane. A trade secret owner is not afforded protection if they FAIL to protect their secrets. Note the beggining of the paragraph says thats what rights the tradesecret owner has to "PREVENT" disclosure. The reality is that apple *FAILED* to prevent its employees from disclosing. Once disclosed, the cats out of the bag and apple cannot take action to prevent anything--the deed is done.
One of the requirements of a trade secret owner is to take the necessary steps to keep their employees from blabbing. Apple is notoriously sucky at keeping its employees quiet or it is notoriously slippery in planting its own rumors. Anyway, if thinksecret or others were breaking in to apple, if they were blackmailing apple, if they were paying apple's employees to steal secrets or engage in some type of corporate espionage, trade secret *damages* would apply. Regardless, the opportunity to *prevent* is no longer at issue.
However, short of that, if their employees decide to spontaneously blab to the world and/or press, then the press is free to publish. And that is the issue. Once an apple employee blabs, is the press free to publish without expecting to pay damages for the company's failure to control its own secrets. The law is clear on this. Barring payment/espionage/blackmail, then yes, the press is free to publish without expecting to pay and damages for the *company's own negligence* in not being able to keep its employees' mouths shut.
"Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah told The Mac Observer. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."
Nope, this is crap. Blogs are aggrandized of public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.
In Ireland, (second home of Apple) the Mac has also had a fairly weak retail presence, to such an extent that shops actually refuse to carry Mac software,
games etc.
Now, however, a growing number of retailers (including the Virgin MegaStore)
have started to carry the iPod.
Some mobile/cellphone outlets have also started to carry iPods, but, more interestingly, the iMac G5.
These new developments would suggest a divergence from the Apple Mini Store strategy, at least in this case.
That was supposed to be: Blogs are aggrandized public diaries.
Anyway, to followup. Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:49 amSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: "Bloggers break the news, just like journalists do. They must be able to promise confidentiality in order to maintain the free flow of information," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah told The Mac Observer. "Without legal protection, informants will refuse to talk to reporters, diminishing the power of the open press that is the cornerstone of a free society."
Nope, this is crap. Blogs are aggrandized of public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.
Drudge broke the lewinsky story that caused the impeachment of a president. Even Woodworth didn't have that happen with Nixon. Sure, many bloggers are not journalists, but others are. Further, thinksecret and others are *definately* not bloggers and are journalists. They regularly investigate stories and publish them. They are among the only ones investigating and reporting on the battle between apple and the retailers, among many other stories.
Guest wrote: Blogs are aggrandized public diaries. Some bloggers may take it upon themselves to posture as if they are journalists but this is simply egotism, which the law is not required to stroke.
...
Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.
Unless you've somehow been appointed as The Official Arbiter of Journalist Credentials, your first paragraph is crap.
As for the second, Apple's "rights" stop when they can't keep control of their own information, and their ability to control that information ends at their corporate door. They do not have the right to keep someone, anyone for that matter, from speculating or commenting on what they may be doing.
Last edited by Steve W on Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total Reply | Quote
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:50 amSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: That was supposed to be: Blogs are aggrandized public diaries.
Anyway, to followup. Fanatics are free to foment their thrall of Apple but Apple also has rights and when these rights are infringed upon, Apple should be capable of seeking redress. It's that simple.
Yea, and in this case they have no rights and are just using the legal system bully the little guy.
Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it.
This round of lawsuits gives Apple the right to subpoena the information, if in the end they actually drop the suit. It's part of due process that they are entitled to, just like the web site companies are entitled to representation and to have their day in court. And face it, calling bloggers journalists at this point is a stretch, and as a journalist myself, I am fully aware that there is no absolute protection for your sources. It comes down to choices.
So, come on people, use common sense and logic when making arguments. Don't just throw out aspersions that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:04 pmSubject:
Quote
Tiger wrote: Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it.
This round of lawsuits gives Apple the right to subpoena the information, if in the end they actually drop the suit. It's part of due process that they are entitled to, just like the web site companies are entitled to representation and to have their day in court. And face it, calling bloggers journalists at this point is a stretch, and as a journalist myself, I am fully aware that there is no absolute protection for your sources. It comes down to choices.
So, come on people, use common sense and logic when making arguments. Don't just throw out aspersions that aren't grounded in any sort of reality.
Here you are a journalist on a blog site. Your snobbery is duly noted. Again, one of the biggest stories in recent history was broken on a web site, the drudge report, a blog at the time. You are a journalist if you investigate things and report them to the public, plain and simple. And by the way, journalistic standards at the "proper" outlets suck. Look at the dan rather case. Even the times sucks. Their last report on the apple rumors lists Next Inc. as a public company that deals in fleece wear among other things completely unrelated to NeXT Inc. which was *NEVER* a public company.
So spare me on the snotty journalist attitude. You guys blow just as bad, the only difference is you get paid to blow and they do it for the love of hype/exposure/or just heck of it.
Now as to the law, which you are blissfully ignorant of. True, being a journalist does not give you total immunity from revealing your sources, but the 1st amendmend does give a serious degree of immunity. Barring situations where national security is involved, and a few other *EXCEPTIONS* the press has a great deal of lattitude in keeping its sources anonymous for the SAKE of a free press. Your ignorance on this is duly noted.
And why dont YOU use yoru common sense. Thinksecret barely has money enough to keep them in burgers and sneakers, much less bribe people at apple. Is it possible, sure, and so is Santa getting together with little Kim. Is it plausible, no. What is way more likely is apple cant keep its employees from blabbing and it has a LONG history of this. Steve Jobs has often been quoted as saying his companies are unique ships, the leak from the top. The reality is they are bullying these little guys for completely ulterior motives.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:09 pmSubject:
Quote
Tiger wrote: Isn't the point of the lawsuit to find out just who did leak the information? If they were employees who signed NDAs? If the websites coerced, paid for, or otherwise obtained the information illegally? Afterall, these are the assumptions. Lawsuits cost Apple money too you know (and therefore us as customers!), so Jobs and co. probably have a good reason for filing this one. Heck, I signed an NDA once when given a product preview. I read the small print. It is scary stuff if you violate it. .
One other thing. No, that's not the point of the lawsuit. It's to punish thinksecret for supposedly paying for trade secret violations. If they want to know who leaked things, they would sue John Doe (remember workerbee) and then subpeona witness, which may include thinksecret. You don't sue people you want information from for the wrong deeds of others. That is a clear cut abuse of the legal system and if it was proved apple could be seriously sanctioned for it.
Guest 8:49, what does my ego have to do with this?
Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?
The second: the suit is to force TS to divulge the names of those who have breached their NDA with Apple. The merits of the case are tenuous, but Apple is still within its rights to try. And this doesn't in any way constitute bullying. Apple has their livelihood to protect. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. And their rights don't end because someone bound by an NDA failed to comply. That's more crap logic.
CloseViewName:Guest Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:09 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: Guest 8:49, what does my ego have to do with this?
Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?
The second: the suit is to force TS to divulge the names of those who have breached their NDA with Apple. The merits of the case are tenuous, but Apple is still within its rights to try. And this doesn't in any way constitute bullying. Apple has their livelihood to protect. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. And their rights don't end because someone bound by an NDA failed to comply. That's more crap logic.
You brought up ego in the first place as an ad homonym attack on bloggers. I'm pointing out your opinions are not above your ego as well.
Anyway, you are completely wrong about the suit. I cannot sue you because some one you know did something wrong (at least not without a conspiracy charge which is not present in this case). Apple is suing thinksecret for paying/soliciting employees to divulge secrets. They cannot sue thinksecret to just give information about apple employees that may have broke NDAs. Agian the way to do that is apple would file a suit against John Doe (like they did in the worker bee case) and then subpeona witnesses that may know something about the harm caused by JohnDoe/Workerbee. To file a suit against a witness as a way to compel them to "talk" is illegal and it is *not* what apple did here.
Perhaps you mean to say that their suit against thinksercret on such solicitation charges is a mere ruse to do just that, and there I may well agree with you. However, they are not within their rights to abuse the legal system in such a manner, and if it were proven that they were doing so, they would be subject to serious sanctions.
Guest wrote: Steve W, for the first point, all you have is a fallacious appeal to authority (a non-existant authority at that). Can you address the facts of the case?
Of course it's a non-existent authority! I was simply noting that in your first paragraph, you attempted to take on the authority to decide who is and is not a journalist. The facts of the case include the fact that these people are journalists, contrary to your opinion.
Other World Computing: OWC Mercury Elite FW800/FW400/USB2/eSATA TOP-RATED Solutions offer High Performance, Reliable storage for all your data storage needs. Industry leading 2yr limited + up to 5yr HD Mechanism Warranty too! Up to 2.0TB(2000GB), 500GB specials from $199.99
NEW MacPro Memory 800Mhz With Apple Spec Heat Sink 2GB Kit $104 / 4GB Kit $184 / 8GB Kit $362 Click to Maximize your Macs...
NEW MacPro Memory 800Mhz With Apple Spec Heat Sink 2GB Kit $104 / 4GB Kit $184 / 8GB Kit $362 Click to Maximize your Macs...
Mac observers can now play Party Poker for Mac as well as Mac casino games by going to MacPokerOnline.com.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.
Cuisinart ICE-20 Automatic Frozen Yogurt/Ice Cream/Sorbet Maker: 49.95 
32 LEDs Bright Flashlight, Aluminum Case with Button Switch and Lanyard: $9.34 Delivered 
Combo Universal USB car & travel charger: $5.95 Delivered 
Plenio 2G 7" Touchscreen GPS Navigation System: $189.99 Delivered 
Western Digital 500GB My Book Home Edition Triple Interface External Hard Drive: $127.99 Delivered 
