http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times

and

http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/nyt_credibility

justice is served on a big fat 'screw you' plate!

Just give Steve the names of the people who talked so he can fire their sorry butts. Geez.

yeah!!

Quote

macnut wrote:
http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/new_york_times

and

http://daringfireball.net/2005/03/nyt_credibility

Darn, we were beat out by the predictably wrong and historically verbose, yet mentally ill equipped, sycophants.

At least the article prompted me to look up the definition of "movants".

I am mixed on this case, I can see both sides.

A great decision! There is no reason a company cannot protect it's trade secrets.

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!

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.

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!

You are a jackass.

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.

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!

You are a jackass.

Well that settles it. Apple must be right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MacWeek, whose business was also pre-announcing Apple products and prices, would definitely be crushed by the same judge.

Oh yeah, and Spencer F. Katt, Robert X. Cringely, and CNET watch out:
you're next.

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.

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!

"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.

"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.

Oh, no, my civil liberty has been abridged!!!!

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!!!

Oh, help us all!!!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Jason

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 the rights of or demeaning the status of bloggers, when the rumor sites weren't blogs to begin with...

Quote

Mav wrote:
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 the rights of or demeaning the status of bloggers, when the rumor sites weren't blogs to begin with...

Well, yes and no...

Technically speaking a "blogger" is "one who maintains a web log"...and a web log is defined as "A frequent, chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links." (according to http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/ )

Certainly all of these website pre-dated the more modern image of a blog from Movable Type, Blogspot etc...but the basic concepts are all there--frequently-updated, chronological stories/essays about assorted subjects, with links to source material, usually with personal takes on the subject, and almost always including some sort of comments/feedback. The key thing is to distinguish between FACT and OPINION--most blogs, including news-related blogs, include both; the important thing is for them to clearly SEPARATE the two.

In that sense, TMO is itself a "blog", taking pains to separate out factual news information from the "TMO Spin" (staff opinions on the story covered).

The bottom line is that the distinction between a "professional" journalist and an amateur is blurring--and the pathetic job that the so-called "legitimate" press has been doing for the past several years, combined with crap like the Gannon/Guckert scandal, is making the "legitimate" press less and less respected at the same time that bloggers are becoming more and more respected.

I am surprised to see how many experts in constitutional law, and in particular experts on the intent and meaning of the 1st Amendment, there are that read TMO! /sarcasm

The 1st Amendment was written to guarantee that the people were able to watch and criticize the GOVERNMENT without fear of government reprisal (IN MY OPINION). This opinion is based on the study of the history of the time, as criticism of the government (or more importantly being persecuted FOR criticizing the government) is one of the reasons why so many left home to go to the new world. This amendment (and in fact the whole darned Constitution) was written to guarantee the rights that were denied in their countries of origin. It appears to have been extended a bit to include corporations (the watching of, that is) when the information is for THE PUBLIC GOOD, hence the watchdog rules (both government and corporate watchdogs), which are interpretations of the amendment.

And saying that reporting on a new, unreleased product is in the public interest because people would have saved money if they had known about it is just plain silly. Saving money is NOT a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

NOTE: I am NOT a Constitutional Law expert, nor do I claim to be. I just paid attention in Civics class. And I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.

I'd suggest anyone who posts a comment here (or anywhere else) to do a bit of reading before submitting their comments. At least that way you won't come across as a dumbass.

A few points:
1. The person who commented on the auto industry. I dont' have a reference for you, but I believe all that is covered is information obtained in public areas (i.e. road testing, publically accessible areas, etc.) and freely obtainable by anyone with the means (say a camera). That's why those photos of the new models you see in Car and Driver are always on a public road or at some test track where the manufacturer can not control access. Someone who posted confidential company info about a new model or production technique would likely face similar subpoenas as Powerpage or AppleInsider.

2. As already pointed out, the whistleblower is still covered by this ruling (that really stupid cancer quote early on). Read the decision, or even just the relevant parts quoted in the news stories covering this ruling. You'll save yourself a lot of humiliation and perhaps have something more meaningful to contribute.

3. I encourage all of you to go to the EFF's website and look at the various documents they have posted. Read through them and decide for yourself what type of spin they are trying to put on this. I think they see this as a test case for online freedom of speech. I see it differently and had a rather infuriating discussion via email with someone who works there about this. Either way, it's a good source of information.

In reading through their documents, you should note that they try to shy away from some facts in the evidence to advance their agenda. For example, the source documents used by PowerPage are referred to as "alleged trade secrets" although in another document filed by Apple's legal team, they are declared to be clearly marked as "Apple Internal Documents Confidential" or something to that effect (I don't remember the exact phrase) which should clearly make the documents trade secrets. Unfortunately, the original source documents aren't linked to from EFF so there's no way to verify this, at least in my quick search for them online.

Anyway, I'll let you form your own opinion about this case. I encourage you to read and learn as much as possible about both sides of the case. There is a plethora of opinion pieces out there, some with very good points and some with not so good points. Whenever possible, look at the source material and judge it's validity for yourself. Learn to recognize opinion for what it is, and don't treat it as fact. Being informed (not just interested) is the cornerstone of being an active member of society.

"In god we trust. All others must have data." -Robert Hayden

For years, a variety of sources (Katt, Cringely, MacTheKnife, Libes, etc.) have published precisely the sort of information that ThinkSecret publishes, and Apple has left them alone. Why? The answer is simple:

1. The information isn't trade secret, because Apple doesn't suffer damage from its disclosure.

2. The other publishers have deep pockets and are unlikely to roll over and play dead.

3. It would be a publicity disaster for Apple to go after Ziff-Davis, InfoWorld, the Mercury News, etc..

Regarding:
1. The information isn't trade secret, because Apple doesn't suffer damage from its disclosure.

A long, long time ago, MacWeek did publish such info and had at times difficult relationships with Apple. But those were the pre-Jobs days when no one got fired for leaks. Since Jobs return, things have tightened up considerably and none of those cited have since published anything with codenames, product diagrams/pictures, or detailed diagrams while claiming to have internal documents, significantly before the actual release date.

2. The other publishers have deep pockets and are unlikely to roll over and play dead.

Well, none of the "publishers" involved so far have rolled over and played dead. Only amateurs actually believe that this is a consideration.

3. It would be a publicity disaster for Apple to go after Ziff-Davis, InfoWorld, the Mercury News, etc..

Not exactly. If they sued those others, it would be corporation vs. corporation, and the "poor little Nick in College' angle loved by the media would totally disappear.

Three strikes. You're out.

thanks

I love how people try to argue against a JUDGE of all people. You know, the guy who actually DOES THIS FOR A FREAK'N LIVING! You know, the guy who ACTUALLY WENT TO SCHOOL FOR THIS!

Geez, just because most of you think you know alot about computers doesn't mean you know the law. Give it up.

"First of all, who determines the public interest?"

Um, that would be the judge.

Companies will take advantage of any leaked information. It's bad enough they copy and steal AFTER the fact.

See the new Luxpro Super Shuffle if you think it doesn't happen.

It's even closer to a total ripoff than the iMac clone was 5 years ago.

I see no "abridging of everyones rights" here at all. I see them seeking the proper, legal, means of protecting private property. They didn't squash the publication, they didn't buy it and close it down, they went to the courts for the right to find the information out about who stole their property and either gave it away or possibly even sold it. It is their corporate right to protect themselves. It does become a balance of whose rights trump the others. But that's why the courts are involved. (hmm, here's a thought...a mediator?)

Democracy in action. Maybe at the end of this case, we will see somebody held responsible for his or her own actions for a change? There seems to be a move in this country to restore that after the last 3 decades of abdicating it.

Quote

Guest wrote:

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.

If this had been Microsoft we would be denouncing them as corporate demons, but it is Apple so it's ok.

I have used Mac since my trust old IIcx, and love their products, but let's drop the "Apple is all good and all pure" attitude. They are a large corporation in the business of making money.

I'm am glad they exist because I use my Mac every day here at work, but let us not confuse them with Amnesty International.

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.

However
From the article;

Quote

"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.

The judge seems to be explicitly excepting whistle-blowers that reveal health, safety, and corruption issues so I don't think that poison in cough syrup could be kept from the public by making it a trade secret.

Quote

BlueDjinn wrote:

No, no and once again NO...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.

I agree with your basic logic...if we can confirm that our assumptions a, b, & 3 are in fact true.

For example, upon whose word do we have it that (b): Apple's NDA has indeed been violated?

For example, is it not possible that Apple is trying to *claim* an NDA violation which doesn't exist...but the leaker exploited a loophole that Apple is embarassed of?

Similarly, we frequently can put 2 + 2 together from very arguably "clean" sources and correctly conclude "4", which is supposed to be restricted information. Its often called 'Compilation of Sources', and Apple's problem is that there is no one individual who has violated the NDA.

There simply are too many loophole ways to circumvent the letter of NDA's. Granted, we would like people to meet the spirit too, but in a Court of Law, that doesn't necessarily count.



-hh

The judge, bless him for his even-handed approach to the issue, actually *cited* whistle-blowers as being protected. So why the alarmist reaction? Is reading the entire file too much to ask before whipping off some reduction ad absurdum argument?

Is rhetoric even taught in schools anymore?

"If this had been Microsoft we would be denouncing them as corporate demons"

Why? They have just as much a right to keep trade secrets as Apple does.