Check the facts:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/11049112.htm

"Compelled disclosure of journalists' sources would have a devastating effect on the free flow of information. 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."

Apple has chosen to ignore California's Shield Law which protects journalists from revealing their sources. What's next, Apple's own brownshirted stormtroopers with Apple logo armbands.

They *must* be evil.

didn't actually bother reading the previous post, but I'm sure most of you will understand

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Check the facts:
What's next, Apple's own brownshirted stormtroopers with Apple logo armbands.

Once again, RC sees Apple's true intention through all the smoke-and-mirrors of a great product line, dedication to innovation etc. The deeply rooted goal of Apple is, indeed, total fascist takeover.

You hafta wonder why with a mind as sharp as RC's, why the current presidential administration hasn't hired him yet. He'd make a fine Minister of Truth.

Luckily for the defendants the CA courts are far and way the most OVERTURNED courts in the country. Hopefully the EFF will keep moving this up the line. Sadly, even the CA court of appeals, the 9th circuit, is constantly overturned as well, so this is a case that could reach the Supreme Court. The Supremes have ruled on this on many occassions and journalists are afforded a lot of 1st amendment leeway in such instances. Still, sucks to be the little guy up against the courts that are supported by the entertainment and tech companies that pay all the tax dollars in CA.

Whatever side you come down on in this case, let's be real about the sites we're talking about. By what stretch of the imagination are these news sites? Defining them this way dilutes the meaning of the word and will ultimately serve to hurt legitimate news sites. These are no more journalistic outlets than Tiger Beat or Sweet 16 magazines. Please, TMO, don't let your bias show in your coverage.

A bit of a biased story.

This story only uses descriptions like "Press", "News Sites", "Publisher", and "Journalists".

Come on, whatever the laws, I think we all know that PowerPage, AppleInsider, and ThinkSecret are not news sites, they are rumor sites, and that Jason O'Grady, Kasper Jade, and Nick dePlume are not members of the press but web site authors who solict rumors as to create the majority of their content.

I don't blame Apple. As much as I like hearing about what they are working on, I think anybody running this company would like to keep products secret until the big unveiling at a MacWorld show. Also, it skews expectations just like everybody thought there were going to be Photo iPod Mini's with Bluetooth recently. I know if I were trying to pass out things my company was working on, they would be eager to find the leaks and rightfully so. This "freedom of press" garbage goes too far sometimes.

MDN had this story first and more completely and they have tons of comments already, too:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5146/

Of course RC's insistence that Apple is Evil is no surprise, but it would be interesting to see what he or anyone else thinks the solution to this issue is. Not just for Apple, mind you, but for any company whose secrets are leaked to the press. Short of monitoring all employee communications 24/7, which is near impossible and would be incredibly expensive, how can a company prevent their employees from leaking sensitive company information? Come on, RC, show us that you're more than a whiner!

NM

I think the solution is for websites purporting to be friendly to Apple Computer to stop soliciting and publishing Apple's trade secrets.

The notion that this type of activity ought to be protected under the guise of free speech is a joke. It's fundamentally no different than the fencing of stolen goods.

Furthermore, whether or not you agree with me on that point, I can't see how you can believe that anyone who would knowingly publish material against Apple's wishes can be counted as a "fan".

The truth be told, they are exploiting Apple Computer for their own self interest. The potential for financial damage resulting from the leaking of trade secrets is real and significant. As a shareholder of AAPL I applaud the judge's decision and hope it stands.

Apple, like other companies, has trade secrets and needs to protect them - to the point of legal action.

One reason is that not all work in the lab makes it to the market - like the Apple PDA. A friend at IBM once told me that a new computer line was pulled less than 24 hours before its release, and was replaced by the System 34. He still doesn't know what was pulled because it was protected under trade secrets.

Breaking NDA agreements can cause damage to a company in terms of providing information to the competition. If and when a "secret" project is not released it can also damage the shareholders. I support Apple in defending their trade secrets and defending their rights under NDA clauses.

By the way, RC, the Brown Shirt Award is actually yours, based on your level of hatred and the zeal you put into attacking Apple with a total disregard of the truth. You are definitely a brown shirt kind of guy.

PowerPage, too? That explains their editorial after editorial about how Apple was doing such a great wrong. But they never revealed they were being sued, too. Scummy.

What a load of bull. Freedom of the press was established to prevent Government censorship. It doesn't mean rumor mills get to publish trade secrets and guard their sources.

Quote

Guest wrote:
A bit of a biased story.

This story only uses descriptions like "Press", "News Sites", "Publisher", and "Journalists".

Come on, whatever the laws, I think we all know that PowerPage, AppleInsider, and ThinkSecret are not news sites, they are rumor sites, and that Jason O'Grady, Kasper Jade, and Nick dePlume are not members of the press but web site authors who solict rumors as to create the majority of their content.

They are journalists. Journalists find out information, then relay it to the masses.

These web sites found out some information and relayed it to thousands of people.

Why aren't they journalists? Because they didn't go to Journalism School?

They are not journalists because they peddle in trade secrets and rumor. Those sites are more of an equivalent to borderline felons or tabloid, not journalists. Journalists have some standards that these sites clearly don't.

We don't have freedom of the press if we start taking particular kinds of information and exempting it from the freedom to publish and disseminate.

If a person signs a non-disclosure agreement with Apple and then shares the embargoed information, the person signing the agreement has violated their contract. Apple can and should go after them.

However, if a website gets their hands on the information, if they haven't signed an NDA, they have no legal reason not to publish it. It may be rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible, but there are no laws against being rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible. If the information is economically damaging to Apple, that's unfortunate, but as long as the information is factual there is no legal basis to restrict it.

If we give corporations the ability to identify information that is exempt from the basic underlying concept of freedom of the press, then we have gutted the First Amendment. Corporations wield far more power in our current society than ever, and we need as much protection from corporations as we do from our government.

Quote

edtekker wrote:
We don't have freedom of the press if we start taking particular kinds of information and exempting it from the freedom to publish and disseminate.

If a person signs a non-disclosure agreement with Apple and then shares the embargoed information, the person signing the agreement has violated their contract. Apple can and should go after them.

However, if a website gets their hands on the information, if they haven't signed an NDA, they have no legal reason not to publish it. It may be rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible, but there are no laws against being rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible. If the information is economically damaging to Apple, that's unfortunate, but as long as the information is factual there is no legal basis to restrict it.

If we give corporations the ability to identify information that is exempt from the basic underlying concept of freedom of the press, then we have gutted the First Amendment. Corporations wield far more power in our current society than ever, and we need as much protection from corporations as we do from our government.

it's not the issue here. This is the refusal to disclose the source of that information, not the publishing of the information itself.

Moreover, in this particular lawsuit anyway, ThinkSecret, AppleInsider, et al, have not been sued. They are NOT defendants in this lawsuit. They've been subpoenaed as third parties. The lawsuit is against "John Doe" which is a placeholder until Apple's legal team can determine who leaked the information. Once they discover that, the "leaker" will be substituted back in for the amended complaint. And presumably "John Doe" has signed an NDA.

Engine Joe, I don't disagree. Apple is not (currently) suing these websites. I was responding to earlier postings, such as this one from iBill:

<i>The notion that this type of activity ought to be protected under the guise of free speech is a joke. It's fundamentally no different than the fencing of stolen goods.

Furthermore, whether or not you agree with me on that point, I can't see how you can believe that anyone who would knowingly publish material against Apple's wishes can be counted as a "fan". </i>

There are those that believe the press can be restricted from spreading information that hurts business. (Remember Oprah being sued under Texas' "Veggie Libel Law"?) Apple is in their rights to seek information from the websites to help determine who leaked their information. However, Apple has also routinely threatened to sue these same websites for publishing images or descriptions of new devices that have been leaked to them on the basis of "trade secrets." If Apple desperately needs to keep that info secret, they need better security. Once the info is out "in the wild", they should no longer have right to restrict its dissemination. It puts the corporation in the position of defining the limits on press freedom, and that is simply not acceptable.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:
Apple, like other companies, has trade secrets and needs to protect them - to the point of legal action.

One reason is that not all work in the lab makes it to the market - like the Apple PDA. A friend at IBM once told me that a new computer line was pulled less than 24 hours before its release, and was replaced by the System 34. He still doesn't know what was pulled because it was protected under trade secrets.

Breaking NDA agreements can cause damage to a company in terms of providing information to the competition. If and when a "secret" project is not released it can also damage the shareholders. I support Apple in defending their trade secrets and defending their rights under NDA clauses.

By the way, RC, the Brown Shirt Award is actually yours, based on your level of hatred and the zeal you put into attacking Apple with a total disregard of the truth. You are definitely a brown shirt kind of guy.

As an AAPL investor, I support you. As a Mac fan, I have reservation over Apple's action.

Funny how the musings of noted Windows fanboy Paul Thurrott uses wording very similar to those of our own RC. Could they be the same? Check his latest drivel and decide for yourself.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Whatever side you come down on in this case, let's be real about the sites we're talking about. By what stretch of the imagination are these news sites? Defining them this way dilutes the meaning of the word and will ultimately serve to hurt legitimate news sites. These are no more journalistic outlets than Tiger Beat or Sweet 16 magazines. Please, TMO, don't let your bias show in your coverage.

I visit these more often than I do any of the major news outlets. They are without a DOUBT disseminators of news in the Mac community. Many of the "news sites" pick up their news from these sites.

Apple is after it's employees that reveal trade secrets.
If those employees sign non-disclosure agreements and then reveal secrets than Apple has every right to go after them.
Tranz4m

Quote

Guest wrote:
They are not journalists because they peddle in trade secrets and rumor. Those sites are more of an equivalent to borderline felons or tabloid, not journalists. Journalists have some standards that these sites clearly don't.

Yea I saw Dan Rather's standards. The Star and the Inquirer by law are protected as journalists. So is the NY post, that piece of crap rag and it's page 6. I believe Think Secret is tons better than the above sources. Heck, at least they have someone there that went to Harvard.

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:

Quote

edtekker wrote:
We don't have freedom of the press if we start taking particular kinds of information and exempting it from the freedom to publish and disseminate.

If a person signs a non-disclosure agreement with Apple and then shares the embargoed information, the person signing the agreement has violated their contract. Apple can and should go after them.

However, if a website gets their hands on the information, if they haven't signed an NDA, they have no legal reason not to publish it. It may be rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible, but there are no laws against being rude, obnoxious, or irresponsible. If the information is economically damaging to Apple, that's unfortunate, but as long as the information is factual there is no legal basis to restrict it.

If we give corporations the ability to identify information that is exempt from the basic underlying concept of freedom of the press, then we have gutted the First Amendment. Corporations wield far more power in our current society than ever, and we need as much protection from corporations as we do from our government.

it's not the issue here. This is the refusal to disclose the source of that information, not the publishing of the information itself.

Moreover, in this particular lawsuit anyway, ThinkSecret, AppleInsider, et al, have not been sued. They are NOT defendants in this lawsuit. They've been subpoenaed as third parties. The lawsuit is against "John Doe" which is a placeholder until Apple's legal team can determine who leaked the information. Once they discover that, the "leaker" will be substituted back in for the amended complaint. And presumably "John Doe" has signed an NDA.

That is incorrect. Thinksecret is in fact being sued.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Apple is after it's employees that reveal trade secrets.
If those employees sign non-disclosure agreements and then reveal secrets than Apple has every right to go after them.
Tranz4m

Even if they have not signed NDA, is not morally correct to reveal trade secrets.

Quote

edtekker wrote:

If we give corporations the ability to identify information that is exempt from the basic underlying concept of freedom of the press, then we have gutted the First Amendment. Corporations wield far more power in our current society than ever, and we need as much protection from corporations as we do from our government.

Exactly... I'm sure Enron concidered their tricks to manipulate California entergy prices as 'trade secrets'. Do we really wnat companies to be able hide things like this easier?

Granted, a new product release isn't anywhere near as important for the public to know about as as the illegal power manipulations, but once you try to limit the reporting and investigative methods of journalists (no matter how you define them) you also close off methods to find and detect more serious actions of businesses.

Freedom of the press helps keep the government in check, but it also helps keep business in check.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Engine Joe wrote:


it's not the issue here. This is the refusal to disclose the source of that information, not the publishing of the information itself.

Moreover, in this particular lawsuit anyway, ThinkSecret, AppleInsider, et al, have not been sued. They are NOT defendants in this lawsuit. They've been subpoenaed as third parties. The lawsuit is against "John Doe" which is a placeholder until Apple's legal team can determine who leaked the information. Once they discover that, the "leaker" will be substituted back in for the amended complaint. And presumably "John Doe" has signed an NDA.

That is incorrect. Thinksecret is in fact being sued.

Not in this suit.

Quote

They are not journalists because they peddle in trade secrets and rumor. Those sites are more of an equivalent to borderline felons or tabloid, not journalists. Journalists have some standards that these sites clearly don't.

That's bologna.

That's like saying the folks over at the New York Times aren't journalists because they got their hands on a classified government document and published information about it (which they can do). That's exactly like what happened in this case.

All the coverage on Apple suing Internet sites for publishing their trade secrets makes some interesting points about bloggers and on-line media. The challenge is that the definition of a legitimate news source gets into a real grey area when it comes to the Internet.

Certainly an on-line version of the NY Times or Forbes qualifies as a legitimate news source. And I would also say Salon type pubs would qualify as well. But the problem I have is with on-line "news" that wants the rights of traditional news organizations without taking the responsibilities that go with it.

For example someone like Drudge has certainly had good scoops on occasion. But his site isn't what I would call a true news site. Drudge-type sites are about edgy opinions. They can say whatever they want. Their reputation rises and falls by how much PR impact their work generates. And if they exaggerate shamelessly to play to their audience, no one calls them to task.

Forbes on-line has to base its reputation on its ability to deliver insightful and (somewhat) objective news. Sure, the NY Times and Dan Rather screw up on occasion. When they do, their rep takes a major hit -- they can also get taken to court for damages. But can you imagine bloggers or one-person Internet sites caring about journalistic truth? Honestly, how often to most bloggers admit they got the facts wrong.

So I can't buy these kinds of sites being treated the same as true news outfits. They don't deserve to be treated like a news organization until they take the responsibility on their shoulders to be a fair mirror for our society. That's the standard.

A lot of the media is framing this issue as one of Apple's integrity. Apple is simply showing that this guy needs to take responsibility for his actions. I know this site well. It's fun to read. But about a third of it's "scoops" are off base or flat out wrong. If a real newspaper had published Apple's trade secrets or dumb Apple rumors, the reporter would have been fired. So does this guy get a free ride? The real question is why legitimate news sources aren't stronger in pointing out how sloppy this Internet reporting really is.

After 25 years in the news business, I'm a bit surprised that the readers of this site don't know a bit more about the First Amendment, about journalism, and about the difference between an internal non-disclosure agreement and the publication of information that is leaked by a current or former employee of an organization.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Period. There's no test as to whether a person is a "legitimate" journalist. Were that to be the case, it would give the government the ability to shut down any and all media outlets that publish opposing viewpoints. A journalist is merely an individual who is practicing their freedom of speech by disseminating information through one of many methods of mass communication.

Apple's attempt to force the people who run these sites to disclose their sources is an ugly power play on their part. Journalists routinely defy court orders to protect their sources in cases such as this, in which they have obtained information that a corporation or the government would rather not have floating around. Whether Apple likes it or not, these sites have a constitutionally protected right to publish whatever they see fit. If a federal judge disagrees, then that federal judge is acting from some political interpretation other than a First Amendment "purist" would take.

Apple can rightly take action against the person who leaked information or violated a non-disclosure agreement. Their proprietary information does indeed belong to the company, and anyone who leaks it against company policy is putting their ass in a sling.

But to attempt to muzzle the freedom to publish the information after it was leaked is a Big Brother move that's plenty revolting to me. Here's hoping that the EFF prevails. We will all be better for having a free and fearless media, unafraid of such corporate intimidation.

As for me, I think maybe it's time to look into Linux!

Hello Guest. You write that "... I can't buy these kinds of sites being treated the same as true news outfits. They don't deserve to be treated like a news organization until they take the responsibility on their shoulders to be a fair mirror for our society. That's the standard."

The fact is, there is no such standard, and never has been. For good reason. Should the First Amendment rights to Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech ever be held to any kind of legitimacy standard, we would be creating a constraint that would destroy the last sorry semblance of civil liberties that we in this country:

Amendment 1 [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

Nothing here about whether one person's viewpoint is more "legitimate" than another's, and thank goodness there isn't.

What you do have, of course, is the ability to pick and choose which media sources you want to invest your time in, or which you want to agree with. But the right to publish is clearly open to anyone regardless of whether they work for the New York Times or whether they operate a blog.

Sorry to disagree so adamantly, but this is a critical point that's clearly being overlooked in this discussion.

Uh oh, Apple's desire to maintain more secrecy than the open door that is Microsoft touched a nerve for Reality Check. And the numbers are so good for Apple lately, all he can do is go for an "evil company" angle. If they're evil for ignoring California's law, which they actually haven't, then what's Microsoft? After all, they've flat out broken California laws.

My understanding is that the lawsuit is against those who violated their NDAs. The current action in the courts is to determine whether Apple has the right to force these sites to reveal their sources as third party witnesses to the actual lawsuit.

Whether the sites have the right to publish the information is not at issue in this particular action. Apple has sued about whether sites have the right to publish trade secret info, and to my knowledge lost those suits, as is proper. The sites, regardless of their standing as "legitimate" are definitely protected.

Tho, IMO, it is rather scummy of them to publish trade secrets of the types being revealed. It is one thing to reveal "trade secrets" of the type pulled by Enron top executives. It is another issue to be publishing trade secrets which a company has legitimate reasons to keep secret.

However, in this issue, it is not the publishing of the secrets that is being disputed, but rather the sites keeping their sources secret. The security of sources is indeed a major issue in jounalism. However, I personally do not believe this blanket protection should include protecting people who have volated the law. The people who revealed the trade secrets of Apple in violation of their NDAs have violated the law. Admittedly, not criminal law, but most definitely civil law. Protections of journalism sources should NOT protect people from being responsible for violating the law.

Truths are that Apple has created much competition. To survive it must vigoursly defend their unique market gems. Without innovation there is really no Apple to speak of. Having that in mind, Apple relies on outside input of their new products before they are relesed to the public. These products are turned over to the users for their evaluation and have signed very strict confidentiality agreements. That means no sharing! FOR YOUR EYES ONLY! If these folks who spill the beans and think they are safe to do so, have something else coming. What if they are sharing secrets to the boys at Microsoft???

I agree that it is very unfortunate that Apple has to clamp down on some of our favorite sites. It makes Apple look like a big bully. I praise these sites and their work for trying to give us a peak at the exciting things to come. I would not slap them with any form of punishment, "Just tell us what we need and we will leave you alone" should be Apple's action.

I think we are facinated with what Apple has in store for us. Much like we are facinated with Area 51. We like to get close, we want to take pictures, and we want to cross the line, just a little bit. If we get caught, we get caught. It is part of the game.

I also think it is a benefit to us to make sure that the products are tested well before they are released to the public otherwise we complain to no end that there wasn't enough development. Somebody just broke the rules, that's all.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
... The security of sources is indeed a major issue in jounalism. However, I personally do not believe this blanket protection should include protecting people who have volated the law. The people who revealed the trade secrets of Apple in violation of their NDAs have violated the law. Admittedly, not criminal law, but most definitely civil law. Protections of journalism sources should NOT protect people from being responsible for violating the law.

Agree. Violation of law should not be protected by First Amendment.

The point of protecting a company's secrets is to protect their investment from being stolen by competition, NOT to allow a gala celebration at MacWeek. We're talking about leaking a look or feel and artist's conceptions. We're not talking about an algorithm being published here. Apple bias can really be amazing when you support the kind of draconian messures Apple takes.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The point of protecting a company's secrets is to protect their investment from being stolen by competition, NOT to allow a gala celebration at MacWeek. We're talking about leaking a look or feel and artist's conceptions. We're not talking about an algorithm being published here. Apple bias can really be amazing when you support the kind of draconian messures Apple takes.

Quite correct. And Apple has quite a lot invested in industrial design. And that's what this case is about. Apple contends that someone has violated their NDA to reveal rather detailed specifications on the design of the Mac Mini. Apple claims that their internal review processes have failed to identify the leaker, and so they are asking the rumor sites to identify their sources. The rumor sites have refused, and so Apple has gone to the courts to ask for a subpoena for this information.

To give an example of how this leak could have been considerably detrimental to Apple's investment in design, imagine if Intel had paid attention to the leaked information, and constructed their recently-disclosed 'concept' plastic case that just happens to look like a boxier version of the Mini... a month ahead of Apple's Mini release. Instead of being hailed as innovation from Apple, the Mini would have been vilified as a 'me-too' effort, since Intel had announced first.

(Pre-emptive disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)

And from a 'journalists have the right to protect their sources' standpoint - certainly they do, and that ability to keep sources anonymous is an important part of the ability of the free press to balance out the government and corporate power. However, that protection, as has been stated time and again, does not extend to violations of law. Whistleblowers, such as those involved in the Enron case, have explicit legal protections against some prosecution, and therefore their revealing of information in this capacity will fall under journalistic protection as well. A person violating a nondisclosure agreement for other reasons than revealing illegal activity is violating civil law, and has no guarantee of journalistic protection.

I doubt Apple's specifications and plans for the Mac Mini are an instance of illegal activity. Hence, the disclosure was a potentially illegal act, and Apple is within the law to ask that the source of this information be disclosed to them.

I don't see this as draconian at all, and I'm honestly having difficulty understanding the argument that it's somehow wrong.

Jason