The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: OneCall's Weekend Sale - 20 Great Items at Great Prices All Weekend Long

Apple Wins Initial Ruling Against 3 News Web Sites (UPDATE)

by , 1:00 AM EST, March 4th, 2005

Apple Computer can force three Mac news Web sites to disclose where they got confidential information about about an unreleased Apple product, a San Jose, Calif. judge tentatively ruled Thursday. A full hearing on the matter is set for Friday.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg refused to protect the publishers of AppleInsider.com, PowerPage.org, and ThinkSecret.com from Apple's request that the three Mac news sites turn over records that could disclose who their sources were regarding stories about an un-announced audio hardware product code named "Asteroid" or "Q97".

Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling, which was handed down March 2, but revealed in court papers Thursday.

"We're disappointed that the tentative ruling was a denial," said Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) attorney Kurt Opsahl, in a prepared statement. "We will now concentrate on making our case before Judge Kleinberg, Friday.'

Mr. Opsahl previously said that if the court decision did not go in its favor, the EFF would seek a writ from the Calif. Court of Appeals that would protect the journalists from disclosing information about their sources.

EFF lawyers argued Thursday that while the Uniform Trade Secrets Act holds those who receive trade secrets liable if they knowingly disseminate confidential information, Web sites and their journalists are protected by the California Constitution, the California Evidence Code, and the First Amendment and that the case threatens the basic freedoms of the press. The subpoenas should not be permitted because Internet journalists deserve the full protection of traditional print and broadcast journalists, the brief said.

In December, Apple filed a seven-page "John Doe" lawsuit and requested the owners of three Mac news Web sites produce all "documents relating to the identity of any individual or individuals who have knowledge regarding the source of posts on its site disclosing information about the product."

On February 16, Apple agreed to not serve subpoenas on the three Mac news sites seeking information on who allegedly leaked product secrets until the court held Thursday's hearing on the matter.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
View Name:RealityCheck -   Troll Posts: 392 Joined: 06 May 2004
Subject: Apple Now Turning On Its Fans - Yes Apple Is Evil
View Name:Guest
Subject: Apple now turning on employees who expose trade secrets
View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject: CA most overturned courts in the US
View Name:Guest
Subject: "News" Web Sites? Please
View Name:Guest
Subject: Not Journalists
View Name:Guest
Subject: Relax
View Name:Guest
Subject: Yawn - much better discussion over at MacDailyNews
View Name:Guest
Subject: So What's the Solution?
View Name:Guest
Subject: But RC IS nothing but a whiner. NM
Close Name:iBill Posts: 545 Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Subject: The Solution

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.

Close Name:kenaustus Posts: 601 Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Subject: There are reasons for trade secrets

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.

View Name:Guest
Subject: PowerPage
View Name:Guest
Subject: Freedom of the press
Close Name:pourhadi Posts: 55 Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Subject: Journalists

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?

View Name:Guest
Subject: RE: Journalists
Close Name:edtekker Posts: 56 Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Subject: Freedom is Freedom is Freedom

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.

Close Name:Engine Joe Posts: 412 Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Subject: Re: Freedom is Freedom is Freedom

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.

Close Name:edtekker Posts: 56 Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Subject: Engine Joe, I don't disagree

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.

Close Name:Mace Posts: 9163 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: There are reasons for trade secrets

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.

View Name:Guest
Subject: RC's Secret Identity
View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject: Apple is after it's employees that reveal trade secrets
View Name:Guest
Subject:
View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:Mace Posts: 9163 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: Apple is after it's employees that reveal trade secrets

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.

Close Name:JimWCB Posts: 301 Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Subject:

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.

Close Name:Engine Joe Posts: 412 Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Subject:

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.

Close Name:pourhadi Posts: 55 Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Subject: RE: Journalists

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.

View Name:Guest
Subject: Bloggers and News Organizations
View Name:Guest
Subject: Apple Has Overstepped Its Bounds With Me
View Name:Guest
Subject: Bloggers and News Organizations
View Name:Guest
Subject:
Close Name:zewazir Posts: 374 Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Subject:

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.

View Name:Guest
Subject: Apple Area 51
Close Name:Mace Posts: 9163 Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Subject:

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.