TMO Reports - Judge Orders Mac Site to Reveal Sources; Appeal Planned (UPDATE)
by , 4:00 PM EST, March 11th, 2005
The Mac news site O'Grady's PowerPage must divulge confidential sources in a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled Friday. Attorney's representing the site say they will appeal the decision next week.
Judge Kleinberg denied a protective order barring Apple from seeking information on who leaked information about an un-announced product, code-named "Asteroid". The court said that Apple can now go ahead and obtain records from Nfox, the e-mail service provider to PowerPage, owned by Jason O'Grady. In the ruling, the judge said that Apple's interests in protecting its trade secrets outweighed the public interest in the information.
In his 13-page ruling, Judge Kleinberg wrote, "the rumor and opinion mills may continue to run at full speed...What underlies this decision is the publishing of information that at this early stage of the litigation fits squarely within the definition of trade secret...The right to keep and maintain proprietary information as such is a right which the California Legislature and courts have long affirmed and which is essential to the future of technology and innovation generally.
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," Judge Kleinberg wrote.
In the ruling, Judge Kleinberg largely ignored the question of whether the publishers were journalists and therefore protected from facing contempt charges for refusing to divulge sources under California's shield law. "The California Legislature has not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, bloggers or anyone else," he commented. "Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded," he said. "But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass. The journalist's privilege is not absolute."
The court decision does not affect the possible serving of subpoenas in the future to AppleInsider reporter Kasper Jade, who writes for the site under a pseudonym, and Monish Bhatia, who provides hosting services for AppleInsider. The Mac Observer has learned that subpoenas seeking information from Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Jade were never served and have since expired. It is not known if attorneys for Apple will seek to re-issue those subpoenas.
Lawyers for the non-profit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told The Mac Observer they will appeal the judge's ruling by the end of next week. The court has given the plaintiffs a stay of seven business days to appeal before subpoenas are delivered to owners of the Mac sites.
"We're disappointed that the trial court ignored the Supreme Court's requirement that seeking a journalist's confidential sources be a 'last resort' in civil discovery," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Instead, the court asserts a wholesale exception to the journalist's privilege when the information is alleged to be a trade secret."
"The court decision is disappointing in that Judge Kleinberg agrees with Apple that they have exhausted all avenues of finding out who leaked the information," EFF attorney Kevin Bankston said. "We disagree with this because the judge has given no analysis as to why he thinks they have fulfilled their obligation."
Mr. Bankston said his clients are also disappointed that the court created an exception to the reporters privilege "when there is a mere allegation of a trade secret violation." He said the EFF believes this point affects "any and every business reporter in America."
"Essentially the court is saying that if a plaintiff alleges a reporter has published something containing trade secrets information, then that reporter is presumably a defendant and also has to give up their source without the litigant overcoming the First Amendment test."
Mr. O'Grady said Friday he is "disappointed" by the courts decision and will fight for his right to protect his sources.
"We're going to appeal," he told TMO. "This clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment. I think the judge's ruling is wrong, and we're going to fight this to the end."
On December 13, Apple filed suit against "Does 1-20" in a Santa Clara County district court. The company obtained a court order that allowed it to issue subpoenas to AppleInsider and PowerPage for the names of the "Does" who allegedly leaked the information in question. Journalists from PowerPage and AppleInsider had previously refused to release any information pertaining to the identities of their sources, citing first amendment protections and California's "shield" law, designed to protect journalists and encourage the publication of information in the public's interest.
Also named in the complaint was Mac site Think Secret. Although Apple first alleged Think Secret possessed trade secrets, it later admitted the site only linked to messages boards discussing the rumors of such a product and that those message boards were not owned by Think Secret. Apple has since allowed its subpoena against Think Secret owner Nick Ciarelli to expire, TMO has learned.
Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Jade refused comment to TMO on today's ruling, as did an Apple press spokesperson, who did not return repeated phone calls and e-mail for comment.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:18 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
CloseViewName:Joseph BruniPosts: 5Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:18 pmSubject:
Quote
AyaSofya wrote: At least the article prompted me to look up the definition of "movants".
I am mixed on this case, I can see both sides.
The problem that I currently have with the way EFF is handling this is they appear to be playing word games rather than getting to the crux of the situation. By playing word games, they are attempting to get people to react to generalizations. The judge on the other hand is doing a good job in getting past the rhetoric.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:29 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:30 pmSubject:
Quote
Joseph Bruni wrote:
Quote
AyaSofya wrote: At least the article prompted me to look up the definition of "movants".
I am mixed on this case, I can see both sides.
The problem that I currently have with the way EFF is handling this is they appear to be playing word games rather than getting to the crux of the situation. By playing word games, they are attempting to get people to react to generalizations. The judge on the other hand is doing a good job in getting past the rhetoric.
Yea, word games like making a bright line rule that anytime there is a trade secret the press can now be sued. Real tricky those guys! Those guys making little to no money to defend civil liberties. Oh I keep forgettting, that's right. It's apple. So if they start burning women and children, I'm sure there will be a great rationalization by you mac zealots for that as well.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:31 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
Not to mention that no matter our personal opinions on this case it is a matter of law.
I am leaning towards Apple's position. Not because I drink Arcee brand kool aid, but because of the trade secret aspects. Keeping a confidence is important to me, I am retired military.
When I worked for Beagle Bros Software, breaking an NDA was grounds for immediate dismissal. We took the warning seriously.
Quote
Joseph Bruni wrote:
Quote
AyaSofya wrote: At least the article prompted me to look up the definition of "movants".
I am mixed on this case, I can see both sides.
The problem that I currently have with the way EFF is handling this is they appear to be playing word games rather than getting to the crux of the situation. By playing word games, they are attempting to get people to react to generalizations. The judge on the other hand is doing a good job in getting past the rhetoric.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:41 pmSubject:
Quote
AyaSofya wrote: Not to mention that no matter our personal opinions on this case it is a matter of law.
I am leaning towards Apple's position. Not because I drink Arcee brand kool aid, but because of the trade secret aspects. Keeping a confidence is important to me, I am retired military.
When I worked for Beagle Bros Software, breaking an NDA was grounds for immediate dismissal. We took the warning seriously.
Quote
Joseph Bruni wrote:
Quote
AyaSofya wrote: At least the article prompted me to look up the definition of "movants".
I am mixed on this case, I can see both sides.
The problem that I currently have with the way EFF is handling this is they appear to be playing word games rather than getting to the crux of the situation. By playing word games, they are attempting to get people to react to generalizations. The judge on the other hand is doing a good job in getting past the rhetoric.
Yes, and despite what you may think, apple should not have the right to abridge everyone's civil liberties as a right for not being able to figure out where they have a leak on their corporate ship. If you were a captain, you wouldn't subpoena the reporters that too snapshots of your sunk ship (even if it would should have been secret) as the problem. You wouldn't subpeona the sea. You'd find which of your crew were repsonsible, get to the bottom of it yourself and fix your own damn leak problems.
CloseViewName:Steve WPosts: 482Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:49 pmSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
Agreed. Suddenly everything about every corporation will become a trade secret. The absolute last thing a corporation wants is for anyone to know or say anything about them that they haven't said themselves. This will guarantee it.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:03 pmSubject:
Quote
Steve W wrote:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
Agreed. Suddenly everything about every corporation will become a trade secret. The absolute last thing a corporation wants is for anyone to know or say anything about them that they haven't said themselves. This will guarantee it.
Companies try to use that argument today. But read what the judge had to say. He agrees that in the case of whistleblowers there's a reason to protect sources. That's different from people who reveal confidential information just because it makes them feel important. The public has no right to know about future Apple products until Apple decides to tell us. That's all the difference we need.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:25 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Steve W wrote:
Quote
Anonymous wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
Agreed. Suddenly everything about every corporation will become a trade secret. The absolute last thing a corporation wants is for anyone to know or say anything about them that they haven't said themselves. This will guarantee it.
Companies try to use that argument today. But read what the judge had to say. He agrees that in the case of whistleblowers there's a reason to protect sources. That's different from people who reveal confidential information just because it makes them feel important. The public has no right to know about future Apple products until Apple decides to tell us. That's all the difference we need.
First of all, who determines the public interest? It's not only about things that might blow up or abuse of its employees or about its anticompetitive practices (all of which apple has been accused of). The public is interested in not wasting money and making informed decisions. How many times do we get grumbling consumers when apple announces a machine that the consumers would have held off for a couple of weeks if the knew it was coming. This is no different than the auto rumors that are constitutionally protected as said the supreme court. Also there is entertainment. We allow lots of information on page 6 of the NY Post, about PEOPLE for crying out loud. This is a company. And that's jsut for entertainment.
Most of all though, what it doesn't take into account is reality. In the real world any lawyer will be able to muddle together an argument why something is merely a proprietary trade secret and not a public interest. That design flaw in the Pinto, hell that's an UPCOMING FEATURE! You can't prove it till after the fact. You cannot have scrutiny by the public till it's too late, if ever. Those powerbook exploding batteries in the 15" models, features. Worst, you're putting the reporter in the position of KNOWing what information is under NDA. If I get an anonymous email in my mailbox about some upcoming feature, how the hell am i to know if it's not a purposeful leak by steve jobs himself (and apple has been known to put out purposeful leaks) or if the information is accurate or on NDA? So because there is no way to determine that, it's safer never to publish anything.
The judge is not in reality if the thinks the rumor mills are going to continue as they did when there is no way for them to determine the pedigree of anonymous information. It will quell things or send them overseas.
I work for a newspaper, handling pre-printed advertisements. There is a very strict rule about not taking any of these advertisements home before they go out with the paper. Why? Because there's a very good chance the advertisers' COMPETITION will find out and put out some kind of counter-sale or special, costing the original advertiser a LOT (as in thousands of dollars, NOT an exaggeration!) of money in lost sales.
It's the same thing here. Apple isn't protecting its trade secrets from the public, but from their competitors who could use this information to create their own similar product and end up costing Apple a LOT (probably beyond thousands of dollars) of money, again, in lost sales.
Maybe they could afford to lose a few grand ONCE, but if allowed to continue, it adds up very quickly.
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," Judge Kleinberg wrote.
CloseViewName:Guest Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:40 pmSubject:
"apple should not have the right to abridge everyone's civil
liberties as a right for not being able to figure out where they have a leak on their corporate ship."
So I have a civil liberty to divulge Apple Computers' trade secrets? Excellent! Then why don't I just walk into their R&D devision and download everything into a bagfull of thumb-drives? It's a civil liberty, isn't it?
I think that the reporting over on DaringFireball demonstrates that Apple is clearly within their rights and that the trade secret laws are on their side...
but do they help themselves or do harm when they pursue these cases. One of Apple's strength's is their corporate image. If it is tarnished in the public eye, which is purely perception, have they gained?
Considering that this has been going on for years and that Apple is doing better than ever, Apple is going to have a hard time demonstrating that information like what ThinkSecret posted is going to cause irreparable harm to the company.
Yes, I have a right to break into your house to steal your stuff, because that's in the public's interest, it will save us MONEY!
Yes, I have a right to hack into your computer and steal that super-duper analysis you spent a week putting together because it will tell me what's the best thing to buy, and that's in the public interest, as it will help all of us make INFORMED DECISIONS!!!!
Yes, we all have an insatiable desire for stuff (not just information) and I don't want to spend my money on the wrong stuff. That's my right, isn't it - the Declaration of Independence talks about the pursuit of liberty and happiness, or something like that, doesn't it?
Corporations are evil (A corporation does not consist of people and those people's livelihoods - no it doesn't!) So you and I have rights to trample upon corporations because we have a right to save money and make informed decisions. Yes, that's my civil liberty and Apple dares to abridge it!!!
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:23 amSubject:
Hey, it's not all about image or what the "public" might think is right. ("Public" is actually just those who make the most noise.) That's like blindly following the polls.
There is such a thing as right or wrong regardless of what the public thinks - ya know, the "public" might actually be wrong. GASP!
Apple should just do what is right. In the long run, doing the right thing will reap success. The "public" will eventually come to their senses.
[/quote] Most of all though, what it doesn't take into account is reality. In the real world any lawyer will be able to muddle together an argument why something is merely a proprietary trade secret and not a public interest. That design flaw in the Pinto, hell that's an UPCOMING FEATURE! You can't prove it till after the fact. You cannot have scrutiny by the public till it's too late, if ever. Those powerbook exploding batteries in the 15" models, features. Worst, you're putting the reporter in the position of KNOWing what information is under NDA. If I get an anonymous email in my mailbox about some upcoming feature, how the hell am i to know if it's not a purposeful leak by steve jobs himself (and apple has been known to put out purposeful leaks) or if the information is accurate or on NDA? So because there is no way to determine that, it's safer never to publish anything.
The judge is not in reality if the thinks the rumor mills are going to continue as they did when there is no way for them to determine the pedigree of anonymous information. It will quell things or send them overseas.[/quote]
Reality is that publishers publish. Reality is that companies can identify that something is a trade secret, and request removal. Reality is that if request is refused, companies can warn. Reality is that if warning is ignored, companies can file lawsuit.
For the obtuse, here are some indicators of a trade secret even before the infringed-upon company requests removal:
1. Publishing that I have seen internal documents (the documents are stamped APPLE NEED-TO-KNOW CONFIDENTIAL).
2. Publishing the codename alongside the guessed product name and its specifications and date of release (based on a series of documents that linked together reveal a list of specs for a codename without ever identifying the product name).
There's no need to go overseas. Just use the vague words "sources said". Don't mention internal documents. Don't mention codenames. If removal requested, ask company to provide evidence that its protected; if evidence provided, remove article.
First, I'll admit I'm a total Mac-head Apple apologist sycophant cultist. That doesn't mean that I believe Jobs and/or Apple are infallible. If the reports of Apple selling used equipment as new, or that they've acted fraudulently in regard to warranties, etc., are true, we have a right to know. We don't have a right to know what their new offerings are, though, until they are officially announced.
I read Think Secret, Apple Insider, and O'Grady's Powerpage daily, but I don't believe I have a *right* to know alleged trade secrets published by these sites. Apple has an obligation to protect this information. If said information was obtained illegally, which is likely the case here, Apple is compelled to find the source if possible, and let the consequences fall as they will upon the responsible parties.
The First Amendment guarantees Americans our most important right, that is to freely express any idea. There are, however, obvious limitations to this concept. This is an easily proven fact; to dispute it is ridiculous. Publishing stolen information is no more legal than is libel, for instance, because they can be demonstrated in court as fact. There is no legal way to obtain this information without signing an NDA. (Rumors on the other hand, like satire, are usually protected by law due to the nature of the content, i.e. speculation, humor or opinion. That appears to be the opinion of the judge in this case, and I concur.)
I will be very surprised if Apple does not prevail in this case, regardless of the politics of the deciding jurist. It may cost Apple some goodwill in the online "press," and it may cost them some loss of customers as well. Contrary to the idea that Apple is acting out of arrogance, they are more likely responding out of obligations to corporate responsibility. If this sounds like BS to you, I must assume you are not a board member of a Fortune 500 company.
Guest wrote: A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.
I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
Read the bit on whistleblowers; the judge has already covered that.
If ThinkSecret had information that Apple's products caused lung cancer, then they can release the info and protect their sources. Otherwise, all they're doing is publishing trade secrets.
To paraphrase, and it's only common sense, the judge said there is a huge difference between the public interest and an interested public- these websites are not whistleblowing, they are trafficking in trade secrets, speculation and smoke, half of which is all bs anyway, which they never retract. Meanwhile, these "poor bloggers" are raking in advertising dollars.
Sorry, they are not journalists, they are opportunists and do not and should not have the protections of journalists to cower behind while they count their cash, and in the case of Little Nicky, pay his way thru Harvard.
Guest wrote: Sorry, they are not journalists, they are opportunists and do not and should not have the protections of journalists to cower behind while they count their cash, and in the case of Little Nicky, pay his way thru Harvard.
No, no and once again NO. That's NOT what the judge said at all. What he said was that IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they are "real" journalists or not; the bottom line is that the journalist-source-protection-clause doesn't apply in this case anyway, because a) there was no justifiable excuse for the info to be leaked (no public good); b) the leakers were committing a crime in doing so (violating their NDA); and c) the bloggers *knew* about b and proceeded to publish the info anyway, profiting from doing so (via increased ad revenue from the increased site traffic), which amounts to trafficing in stolen goods.
The judge *specifically* avoided ever addressing the question of whether the bloggers are "real" journalists and therefore whether they should be given the same protections as other "real" journalists. THAT'S the issue which so many bloggers are so concerned about, and it's ultimately a non-issue in this instance--no ruling was made one way or the other by this decision.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:03 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: I cannot wait tiil some reporter is prevented from letting you know your kids' medicine causes cancer because how the product is made is a trade secret. Rejoice!
But if you actually read the ruling, the judge basically says he would have ruled differently if the information was IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I think that telling people about intentionally hidden, life-threatening side effects would fall under that heading?
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:18 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote: To paraphrase, and it's only common sense, the judge said there is a huge difference between the public interest and an interested public- these websites are not whistleblowing, they are trafficking in trade secrets, speculation and smoke, half of which is all bs anyway, which they never retract. Meanwhile, these "poor bloggers" are raking in advertising dollars.
Sorry, they are not journalists, they are opportunists and do not and should not have the protections of journalists to cower behind while they count their cash, and in the case of Little Nicky, pay his way thru Harvard.
An interested public is in the public interest! Maybe if more people were interest we'd have better voter turn out. Democracy where we can't get half the voters to turn out. Anyway, what all of you guys fail to understand is this judge doesn't follow the law of the land! This case has been settled by the supreme court. This is protected. Auto magazines that publish upcoming model information have been found protected by the supreme court. The only difference is that these are bloggers and it's a CA court where they will do anything the tech/movie companies ask because that's CA's major industry. And it's exactly why CA is the most over turned court in the country BY FAR.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:52 pmSubject:
Quote
BlueDjinn wrote:
Quote
Guest wrote: Sorry, they are not journalists, they are opportunists and do not and should not have the protections of journalists to cower behind while they count their cash, and in the case of Little Nicky, pay his way thru Harvard.
No, no and once again NO. That's NOT what the judge said at all. What he said was that IT DOESN'T MATTER whether they are "real" journalists or not; the bottom line is that the journalist-source-protection-clause doesn't apply in this case anyway, because a) there was no justifiable excuse for the info to be leaked (no public good); b) the leakers were committing a crime in doing so (violating their NDA); and c) the bloggers *knew* about b and proceeded to publish the info anyway, profiting from doing so (via increased ad revenue from the increased site traffic), which amounts to trafficing in stolen goods.
The judge *specifically* avoided ever addressing the question of whether the bloggers are "real" journalists and therefore whether they should be given the same protections as other "real" journalists. THAT'S the issue which so many bloggers are so concerned about, and it's ultimately a non-issue in this instance--no ruling was made one way or the other by this decision.
Yes, yes and yes...while I agree about the judge saying that whether they are journalists or not isn't the point, by the same token, I agree that "Nicky" seems to be a parasite trying to hide behind the first ammendment. The other people's attorneys appear to be trying to do the same and it's a legal farce.
I do not think it is bad PR for Apple to protect its trade secrets. It builds confidence in the company. The leakage of and trafficking in trade secrets harms Apple, its customers and stockholders. It's something to be very concerned about and I'm glad the judge has seen through the legalese mumbo-jumbo smokescreen these defendants' attorneys' have put up.
The Trade Secrets Act doesn't protect illegal acts of a company and doesn't apply here any more than the first ammendment would protect any alleged illegal acts either.
CloseViewName:Jason Varner- TMO Mac SpecialistPosts: 1125Joined: 05 Jan 2002 Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:57 pmSubject:
Quote
Guest wrote:
An interested public is in the public interest! Maybe if more people were interest we'd have better voter turn out. Democracy where we can't get half the voters to turn out.
Might want to check the opinion again - I think you've either misread or misinterpreted. The precise quote you're referring to is:
Quote
Judge Kleinberg wrote:
{Page 12} An interested public is not the same as the public interest
In other words, just because the public is interested in something does not imply that disclosure of it is in the public interest. Public Interest is a legal term that covers materials that affect the health, safety, and well-being of the public. Disclosure of, in this case, technical specifications of an Apple-designed Firewire device, while certainly interesting to some segment of the public, does not fall under the category of Public Interest.
Quote
Anyway, what all of you guys fail to understand is this judge doesn't follow the law of the land! This case has been settled by the supreme court. This is protected. Auto magazines that publish upcoming model information have been found protected by the supreme court. The only difference is that these are bloggers and it's a CA court where they will do anything the tech/movie companies ask because that's CA's major industry. And it's exactly why CA is the most over turned court in the country BY FAR.
Could I ask you for a cite on that US Supreme Court decision? I'd be interested in reading it for myself. I doubt that the legal precedent here is quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be - the facts of that case may differ considerably from this one, making any precedent set there considerably less forceful. In addition, the Court may have been examining the application of a state "shield law", in which case its conclusions may not apply to California.
Lastly, I'm curious as to the source of your assertion regarding the California court system. I have heard an assertion like this regarding the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over California. In which case, may I note, this motion was filed in a different court. Either way, I'd like to know how the 'most overturned court' decision is arrived at. For all I know, we're just counting the raw number of overturned cases, which is unlikely to be of much value, since the 9th Circuit Court, and California likely also, has a very heavy case load.
CloseViewName:MavPosts: 1090Joined: 17 Oct 2003 Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:48 pmSubject:
To go off on a bit of a tangent, what's with the press calling PowerPage, AppleInsider and ThinkSecret "bloggers"? IMHO, they're simply rumor or rumor/news sites, since they predate "blogs" AFAIK, and don't really fit the definition of "blogs" (we're not talking "diaries" or "personal thoughts" here, really). I can't help but wonder if certain members of the press are up to their usual sensationalistic ways again, pointing to this case as crushing
