Your final premise that it would squelch "any articles they didn't approve of"... is simply untrue. It would have stopped anyone from printing stolen information that is intellectual property. There is a big difference between leaked information from a government or private entity that is in the public interest versus stolen information that is of commercial value and in this case, the judges got their heads up the wrong side of their rear ends.

The "bloggers" were not only in possession but also trafficking in stolen intellectual property and actually should be facing criminal charges, not just civil lawsuits. As should the employees who released the information in the first place. There was no public interest to protect here. This wasn't about a potentially life threatening or situation that involved any sort of safety issue. It wasn't going to cost consumers anything. But it sure cost the company, didn't it. The product went unreleased and backhandedly they are told there is NO right to corporate privacy.

I guess next time they'll just quietly make people disappear since the court system apparently cannot be trusted. Welcome back to the 1950s.

LOL. Yeah screw freedom of the press. The whole idea is that the press should feel free to report on anything without getting in trouble. The only wrong doing was on the part of the employees who originally leaked the info. And that's between Apple and its employees. This is a risk that is shared equally by all companies. Because of that, things on a whole will stay balanced and the system continues to work.

I loved the 1950s comment though. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? In fact it almost seems like you are just rehashing a bunch of things you heard other people say just so you can sound like you have a stance on this issue.

It's not unusual for a court to order a plaintiff to pay the legal costs of respondent(s) who prevail. That is to keep wealthy people and corporations from "punishing" someone even though the wealthy person/corporation lost the legal battle.

Thus, this is not news. It would have gone unnoticed if it did not involve Apple.

Biff:
Do you believe the press has any responsibility to not disseminate corporate trade secrets? It seems to me the sites in question were publishing information gathered unethically to satisfy the curiosity of readers. Curiosity is not the same as publishing materiel known to serve the public good. It is accurate to assume the sources were obligated to maintain confidential information under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Obviously the sources broke the trust and maybe the law.
For the time being Apple decided not to appeal the court opinion. It did so without compromising its rights. Apple was not attempting to punish the sites, but rather gain information that could identify the sources of leaks.

Nope. I guess my two degrees in journalism and 15 years in the business don't give me any credibility to talk about it at all.

Freedom of the press has been and always will be within limits of responsibility. They teach you that in HIGH SCHOOL journalism. Maybe you'll get that next year. (See, snide comments can go both ways).

As for "rehashing" what others said, try looking back at a lot of the posts months ago and you'll find out that mine were many of the comments out there posted on this case in particular. There is no "trying to act like I have a stance on this issue." I have a stance alright and I've been perfectly clear about it all along. Stealing is stealing. Trafficking in stolen property is still a felony. Apparently, the judges decided in this case it was ok to overlook that.

And before anybody asks, I do not, nor have I ever work for Apple. I don't own stock in the company and haven't in several years. I do however follow ethics and communication law as a hobby and have since graduate school.

I usually am a big fan of Apple, but this time they were in the wrong. Monetary loss from leaked trade secrets may seem important, but think of this:

What if corporations or the government were given the power to decide who is a journalist and who isn't - or what information is in the public interest and what isn't?

Would a government that could stop the spread of information on Asteroid be willing to let reporting on the Abu Ghurayb Prison go through? What organization would be in charge of making this decision? How would the public hold them accountable if we never knew what news they were suppressing?

I still think there is a problem with the idea, in this case, that every bozo who sets up a blog page can now be covered by laws created to protect "the press".

If that is true then every man, woman, and child, can publish confidential information that was meant to be protected under an NDA. I'll just secretly pass any confidential information that I have onto the 14 year old next door neighbor to put on his MySpace page to post to the world and it's all okay? Maybe that confidential info includes your copyright materials you were going to publish, or a patent you were going to file? No biggie right?

I find this to be a disturbing precedent. This was *never* about freedom of the press, and although I respect and admire EFF on a number of other issues, this is just bull.

I also disagree with the author. Dealing in industrial espionage should *not* be protected; companies have a right and a responsibility to their stockholders to ferret out people leaking trade secrets. The leaks at Apple are damaging the company. Maybe not every time they leak information, but often enough and suddenly the company goes belly up due to losses.

These guys are NOT Karen Silkwoods, protecting the public by playing whistleblower, they're weasels damaging the company's future business. And they *should* be fired. And these so-called bloggers are not journalists. I have respect for people who detail threats to public well-being, or who bring to light corrupt public figures, but these people traffic in rumours, lies, and illegally-obtained trade secrets.

And Biff, I'm weary of your continued churlishness and weak-assed ad hominem arguments. Sometimes you make very valid points, but then you lose credibility by name-calling and condescension. Give it a rest, please.

Last note: If these bloggers were revealing anything connected to DHS, they'd already be tanning at Club Gitmo, or wondering wheer the sun is deep inside a Supermax.

What’s frightening here is how many people are so quick to give up everyone’s freedom of speech on the premise these bloggers did something wrong or illegal. It’s the same mentality which sanctions illegal searches by cops, or other constitutional transgressions by government.

Unless we protect everyone’s constitutional rights, then no one’s rights are safe. The bloggers broke no laws, and were under no obligation to keep Apple’s secrets for them.

(Seems like my registration has become invalid here for some reason, so I will appear as a Guest, then, being too lazy to re-register...)
Anyway, I am quite sure that the court took into consideration the character of this "blog", judging it to be a regular online publication.
I also think that it cannot be seen as industrial espionage since the rumours were publicized and not sold for profit to a competing industry. There is not a motive of profit involved, as I see - if one doesn't consider profit from advertisement, but then also printed press would fall suspect.
Not knowing the premises for this verdict, I would assume that these would have been some of the considerations. That again would naturally lead to view these "blogs" not as merely private blogs, but news sites. Hence the verdict and in this light, I cannot see how they could have ruled otherwise.