Every business in America has just had a large blunt instrument shoved up their backside. Employees now have license to steal and give away secrets. So much for protecting businesses in this country from disloyal and disgruntled employees.

The backlash from this could be fascinating.

I presume to declare I offer a relatively unique perspective on all this. I am at once a loyal/exclusive Mac user/consumer (since mid 80s), a shareholder with several hundreds of thousand of dollars in AAPL and a marketer/sales executive in practice for over 30 years. Despite the obvious vested interest(s), I agree whole heartedly with this decision.
There can be no greater tribute to our society's currrent level of accomplishment than agreement of value to free speech. If that compromises or limits a corporation's ability to hide their developments, too bad. It always has been and always will be a tug-of-war, and so it should be; otherwise there would be little 'development'. Steel is tested by fire and water, or it would not be strong, but I digress into metaphor.
Apple is a wonderful company creating products we all want to embrace. Their desire to keep secret their forthcoming line of new products is completely undestandable (and warranted), but their efforts to suborn or silence others in that process is reprehensible, metaphysically.
I want more 'new' from Apple, sooner, faster, better, but not at the expense of what makes our society great and best and I presume to say that means 'free'.
G.

If it is stolen?

If I come take your TV, it's free for me.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Every business in America has just had a large blunt instrument shoved up their backside. Employees now have license to steal and give away secrets. So much for protecting businesses in this country from disloyal and disgruntled employees.

The backlash from this could be fascinating.

This is different from whistle blowing on government corruption, industrial hazards such as exploding batteries, or stuff like that. In my opinion the blog is in a similar situation to a pawn shop selling stolen goods. Well the the court has a different opinion so Apple, and us stock holders, need to move on.

“Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.”

Howard Aiken, Computer Scientist

The Appeal Court that decided the matter was a California State Appeal's Court deciding California law. Accordingly, the decision only applies in California. SO, I do not see how business' across the country have anything to worry about.


Moreover, EFF's argument was only that Blogger's should be treated the same as traditional journalists. In California, a company can go to the journalist for information only after exhausting other sources, such as doing an internal audit.

Moreover, the Court was not convinced a tradesecret was involved.

There in is the rub. I guess what this says is that once a trade secret is leaked, no matter who does it, it is free game for anyone to publish about. And just because it was only California is just a testament that Apple could want to appeal to the supreme court. What if the supreme court decided against Apple?

The 9th circuit court of appeals is probably the most liberal (and most overturned) in the nation.

Apple will appeal it.

One legal strategy did not succeed. Do not accept defeat. Regroup and find a better way to protect Apple's trade secrets. Non disclosure agreements mean what they say.

Intruder: This was the 6th Circuit Court, a state court. The 9th Circuit you mentioned is a Federal court, and not related to this case.

Also, just in case it got lost in our longish article, the appeals process would take this case to California's Supreme Court (as opposed to the US Supreme Court). I do not yet know if Apple could appeal a Calif Supreme Court ruling to the US Supreme Court.

As I understand it, however, the US Supreme Court stopped hearing cases that didn't involve Federal law more than a decade ago (any attorneys are encouraged to correct or improve that comment!).

till the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court. Correct me if I'm wrong?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

Quote

Bryan wrote:
Intruder: This was the 6th Circuit Court, a state court. The 9th Circuit you mentioned is a Federal court, and not related to this case.

Also, just in case it got lost in our longish article, the appeals process would take this case to California's Supreme Court (as opposed to the US Supreme Court). I do not yet know if Apple could appeal a Calif Supreme Court ruling to the US Supreme Court.

As I understand it, however, the US Supreme Court stopped hearing cases that didn't involve Federal law more than a decade ago (any attorneys are encouraged to correct or improve that comment!).

Oops. My mistake!

I would think, though, that Apple could contest the applicability of the 1st Amendment here. That could go to the Supreme Court, could it not?

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Bryan wrote:
Intruder: This was the 6th Circuit Court, a state court. The 9th Circuit you mentioned is a Federal court, and not related to this case.

Also, just in case it got lost in our longish article, the appeals process would take this case to California's Supreme Court (as opposed to the US Supreme Court). I do not yet know if Apple could appeal a Calif Supreme Court ruling to the US Supreme Court.

As I understand it, however, the US Supreme Court stopped hearing cases that didn't involve Federal law more than a decade ago (any attorneys are encouraged to correct or improve that comment!).

Oops. My mistake!

I would think, though, that Apple could contest the applicability of the 1st Amendment here. That could go to the Supreme Court, could it not?

I agree. There is an undeniable element of that 1st amendment here.

Quote

gopher wrote:
I agree. There is an undeniable element of that 1st amendment here.

First off here is an excellent web site for those in the 4th Estate who have questions about the 1st Amendment. http://www.rcfp.org/handbook

The President, his Cabinet, Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, et al have concerns about the 1st Amendment and revealing leaks to the press. Now suppose this thing goes to the Supreme Court and it is ruled the press must reveal their sources when secrets are involved. To be sure leaks about an upcoming Apple product is not in the same league as leaks about upcoming military operations, but a precedent would be set that reporters/bloggers would have to reveal leakers. As President Coolige said; "The business of the United States is business."

What the Guest above me noted has been my overriding concern about this case from Day 1.

Did the sentence differentiate between the source (i.e., a possibly disgruntled employee) and the website that publishes what the source gives them? I would imagine that the repercussions towards the source could still be severe, and legitimately so, but that this just tells the company (Apple) that they cannot get at the source through the publisher of the material. In other words, it is not really saying it is OK to steal information and give it to others, but it is saying that whoever publishes material is not obliged to tell anyone where they got it. Is that right?
Put that way, it does sound a bit like saying a fence is above prosecution while the thief is a legit target, which is not the case where physical things are concerned (in fact, the fence is often punished harder than the petty thief).

And I think you all are from some other planet.
Free speech means just that.
If Apple wants to keep a secret, then they need to keep it themselves.
Secrecy is the frend of tyrants in this sort of case, and Apple (The Steve) was being a bit of a tyrant here.

(And linking to faux... er I mean fox news? Shame.)

Quote

Guest wrote:
Did the sentence differentiate between the source (i.e., a possibly disgruntled employee) and the website that publishes what the source gives them? I would imagine that the repercussions towards the source could still be severe, and legitimately so, but that this just tells the company (Apple) that they cannot get at the source through the publisher of the material. In other words, it is not really saying it is OK to steal information and give it to others, but it is saying that whoever publishes material is not obliged to tell anyone where they got it. Is that right?
Put that way, it does sound a bit like saying a fence is above prosecution while the thief is a legit target, which is not the case where physical things are concerned (in fact, the fence is often punished harder than the petty thief).

It is my understanding that the court ruling does not compel the blogs/websites to reveal the name of the leaker. It protects the news agency, not the source.

If Apple were to find out the name of the leaker, and went after that party then yes Apple would probably win. I would bet every that Apple employee and company officer has signed a non-disclosure agreement.

This is interesting Constitutional law because the 1st Amendment isn't too specific on what "Freedom of Speech" means. Here is the text:

"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."

Recently the names, dates of birth, and Social Security Numbers of every military veteran since 1975 was stolen about 28.5 million vets, I am among that group. Would it be okay to publish that information even if you were not the thief? After all there is such a thing as freedom of speech and the Veterans Administration should have kept the files secret. No of course not because all of us on that list could be negatively affected in the way of credit fraud and so on. Industrial espionage can negatively affect the employees if a competitor would use it bring out a clone of the product before the developer could benefit. By they way, my credit is already on watch because personal info was stolen from my bank a few years ago in a similar off-site theft in a contractor's home.

I am still mixed about the ruling. I believe in a strong press and other freedoms granted under our Constitution, but the Bill or Rights is not carte blanche to step on other people.

Not in favor of tyrants, but your argument basically just invalidates all intellectual property law as well and means any idea can be stolen, sold, given away and there is absolutely NO recourse if it is published in any manner.

Ownership of ideas just became a moot point. All your knowledge belongs to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

Bryan wrote:
What the Guest above me noted has been my overriding concern about this case from Day 1.

That was me. I made that post last night from iBook and I didn't have my password on that keychain. I need to do a synch.

Is the product in question locked down because of the case? I for one would LOVE an Apple-branded firewire breakout box to tame the analog audio space. (Please don't post back with suggestions, I have eMagic products already). Something in the Mini form-factor would be ideal, with internal 3.5" storage.

While I'm wishing, where's the bluetooth Mighty Mouse?

If Apple were to release Asteroid, it would no longer be a trade secret, but legal action concerns the violation *at the time of the offense*. So releasing it shouldn't affect the case. Or was the product so bad that it was killed off internally? Or were the rumors false? Bait for flushing out the culprits?

As far as disgruntled employees are concerned, all the more reason to keep them gruntled in the first place. I'll bet the leakers ultimately made Apple a better company, either by improving treatment of workers, or strengthening information security.

When did a "product" become a "trade secret"? There's a reason patents exist.

I get a huge laugh out of Apple cultists jumping to the defence of their favorite control-freak-managed company. When car magazines publish spy photos of new prototypes being tested at secluded tracks, there are no lawsuits. Put the news shoe on the other (Microsoft) foot for a minute - if MS was doing this, you'd all be whining "monopoly" or some such bully lingo.

Contrary to what you believe, not ALL Apple products are that innovative, and merely reporting about one does not constitute a breach of national security. Get over yourselves.

Signed,
22 yr IT veteran who isn't willing to create yet another online acct to post one comment (especially on a Mac site)

When a car company tests a vehicle on a test track, it is visible to the world (although not necessarily easily). A person outside the track can legally use a telephoto lens to take the pictures and there can be no recourse.

This case is different because the information that was published was not openly available to the public. It had to be acquired by an employee within the company, in violation of their NDA. Essentially it was stolen from the company. Publishing that information would be similar to fencing stolen goods. At least, that is Apple's position. And probably the same position would be held by any other corporation that creates products. Release of that information can (and often does) create financial harm to the company because it allows their competitors insight into their plans and products, potentially giving them an opportunity to create a similar product to compete.

I would feel the same way about information stolen from Microsoft or any other company. Theft of information is crime that has a tangible effect on the company's bottom line and should be prosecuted.

With all of the comments about disgruntled employees and such, it should be noted that what was ruled here was a protection of the journalists who published the information, not the people who leaked the source. If you have such a beef with the fact that someone leaked information (like that's never happened before), you would do well to remember that journalists, whether you respect them as a traditional news source or not, are free to print the news. Not to mention that in many cases, leaks need to be printed. Or is everyone here too young to remember Watergate?

Quote

Guest wrote:
With all of the comments about disgruntled employees and such, it should be noted that what was ruled here was a protection of the journalists who published the information, not the people who leaked the source. If you have such a beef with the fact that someone leaked information (like that's never happened before), you would do well to remember that journalists, whether you respect them as a traditional news source or not, are free to print the news. Not to mention that in many cases, leaks need to be printed. Or is everyone here too young to remember Watergate?

I am old enough to remember the Watergate burglary and the aftermath when it was current events. Watergate was about malfeasance, this current case is about publishing trade secrets.

Well the court has ruled and the ball is now in Apple's court (pun intended) to take it further or not.

I would bet that this case is not yet settled, Apple could appeal and a higher court agree with their position. If not then wait until it happens to a bigger business and the leak results in a huge financial loss. It is one thing to be a journalist with integrity and another to be a paparazzi.

An IT person with low regard and contempt for Apple? They are few and far between. /saracsm

Everyone here seems so concerned about the protection of the trade secrets at issue (and rightly so) but that is not what this case was about. The case was about Apple trying to throw their muscle around - it was a tantrum on their part - and they just got smacked by the courts! The 6th Circuit Court very accurately threw out their case and made the statement that "We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news" - this is the heart of the case - Apple trying to make a determination as to what a "legitimate" News site - this is absurd at best. As for Apple's huge over-reach in terms of demanding the release of emails and isp records - this is akin to wire tapping or opening someone's confidential mail. It is one thing for a company to have access to employee emails made from the company but to demand your personal emails and records from your isp is at least an invasion of privacy. Again the courts were most correct in seeing this for what it was and teling Apple to pull their head in!

I wholeheartedly agree with Apple on this. As a stockholder, how much did that leak cost me?

I worry about the employees.

I was a contractor with Apple at the time Steve returned.
I walked into the office one day and said, "Hi. What's new?"
With fearful eyes, my friend replied, "A lot, but I can't tell you."

No one is going to walk out of work Monday night unless they leave their first-born as safekeeping.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Everyone here seems so concerned about the protection of the trade secrets at issue (and rightly so) but that is not what this case was about. The case was about Apple trying to throw their muscle around - it was a tantrum on their part - and they just got smacked by the courts! The 6th Circuit Court very accurately threw out their case and made the statement that "We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news" - this is the heart of the case - Apple trying to make a determination as to what a "legitimate" News site - this is absurd at best. As for Apple's huge over-reach in terms of demanding the release of emails and isp records - this is akin to wire tapping or opening someone's confidential mail. It is one thing for a company to have access to employee emails made from the company but to demand your personal emails and records from your isp is at least an invasion of privacy. Again the courts were most correct in seeing this for what it was and teling Apple to pull their head in!

A bank employee steals account numbers, sells them to an anarchist blog who then posts them publicly. Would not the investigators request a subpoena that the blogger reveal their source. It is world of difference between the Apple case and outing a CIA agent, breaking into a political rival's office, or other criminal acts.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with Apple on this. As a stockholder, how much did that leak cost me?

I worry about the employees.

I was a contractor with Apple at the time Steve returned.
I walked into the office one day and said, "Hi. What's new?"
With fearful eyes, my friend replied, "A lot, but I can't tell you."

No one is going to walk out of work Monday night unless they leave their first-born as safekeeping.

I too am a stockholder, the incident probably did not cost us much, if anything. It is the precedent that is important. Trade secrets are no longer safe behind an NDA, they are available to the highest bidder. Nothing like selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver.

As to the Apple employees. They will probably be okay, Stalin Steve will probably not send one out ten to the Gulag, but there will be more security training. Some of the suits may be in trouble. That reminds me didn't their head lawyer recently resign, a coincidence perhaps?

Quote

Guest wrote:
I presume to declare I offer a relatively unique perspective on all this. I am at once a loyal/exclusive Mac user/consumer (since mid 80s), a shareholder with several hundreds of thousand of dollars in AAPL and a marketer/sales executive in practice for over 30 years. Despite the obvious vested interest(s), I agree whole heartedly with this decision.
There can be no greater tribute to our society's currrent level of accomplishment than agreement of value to free speech. If that compromises or limits a corporation's ability to hide their developments, too bad. It always has been and always will be a tug-of-war, and so it should be; otherwise there would be little 'development'. Steel is tested by fire and water, or it would not be strong, but I digress into metaphor.
Apple is a wonderful company creating products we all want to embrace. Their desire to keep secret their forthcoming line of new products is completely undestandable (and warranted), but their efforts to suborn or silence others in that process is reprehensible, metaphysically.
I want more 'new' from Apple, sooner, faster, better, but not at the expense of what makes our society great and best and I presume to say that means 'free'.
G.

Could not agree more. I like Apple too... but we are not talking about giving away the secret to the F-22 fighter (although that has probably already been done). Freedom of the press is one of this country's few remaining freedoms... and it is fading fast.

At last some people who understand that this is a case about Freedom of speech and Apple trying to limit that... Apple's actions here are reprehensible. We understand their frustration at confidential info being leaked but that is no excuse for their trying to demand that only "approved" news sites be protected by freedom of speech - next minute they will be demanding to preview everything anyone prints about them...

Quote

Guest wrote:
At last some people who understand that this is a case about Freedom of speech and Apple trying to limit that... Apple's actions here are reprehensible. We understand their frustration at confidential info being leaked but that is no excuse for their trying to demand that only "approved" news sites be protected by freedom of speech - next minute they will be demanding to preview everything anyone prints about them...

More correctly is that SOME people BELIEVE that this is about freedom of speech. It is much more complex than that, and it probably is not over.

"Steve Jobs isn't a real judge."- Court

The court didn't say Apple's docs weren't stolen. They didn't say that those who violated NDAs are free from being sued.

The court simply said that you can't take shortcuts in a civil suit by claiming that a blogger isn't a journalist so you can go through his emails. Period.

If you don't think journalists need such special protections, you need to catch up on your reading.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
If you don't think journalists need such special protections, you need to catch up on your reading.

Apple just needs to slip a message to the NSA that the guy is a possible terrorist. No stupid judge with his fancy laws and concerns for people's rights will hinder them.

Spoken like a true patriot- of Britain circa 1776!