Comments on: Apple goes to the source

CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh examines the implications of a court battle pitting Apple against a handful of bloggers.

[Llib Setag]

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS v. NON DISCLOSURE CONTRACT

THAT is the real issue before the Courts.

Does the California Constitutional freedom of the press outway the legal non disclosure contract signed by the Apple employees who leaked proprietary secret information to the Internet BEFORE that Apple information was released to the public by Apple?

If this was Microsoft/Intel/Sun/Adobe/IBM/Dell/HP,instead of Apple,what would they be pursuiting legally?

Would CNET think they were behaving like Nixon?
Is CNET the same as Internet Rumor Sites or are they more like CNN?

[declan00]

apple vs. microsoft

LS: I can't speak for my colleagues, but I would have written the same column if Intel/Sun/MS/Adobe/etc. had tried the same legal tactics. The legal principles involved are the same.

(I say this as someone who's used Apple computers for 22 years and believes their hardware and software to be by far the best around.)

[Philips]

Thanks

Thanks for saying that! Seems people are hard to get that simple truth.

I'd say that I'm on side of Apple in this issue.

Have I developed product, and MY employee had leaked info - I'd definitely fired him ASAP. Period.

[Llib Setag]

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS v. NON DISCLOSURE CONTRACT

THAT is the real issue before the Courts.

Does the California Constitutional freedom of the press outway the legal non disclosure contract signed by the Apple employees who leaked proprietary secret information to the Internet BEFORE that Apple information was released to the public by Apple?

If this was Microsoft/Intel/Sun/Adobe/IBM/Dell/HP,instead of Apple,what would they be pursuiting legally?

Would CNET think they were behaving like Nixon?
Is CNET the same as Internet Rumor Sites or are they more like CNN?

[declan00]

apple vs. microsoft

LS: I can't speak for my colleagues, but I would have written the same column if Intel/Sun/MS/Adobe/etc. had tried the same legal tactics. The legal principles involved are the same.

(I say this as someone who's used Apple computers for 22 years and believes their hardware and software to be by far the best around.)

[Philips]

Thanks

Thanks for saying that! Seems people are hard to get that simple truth.

I'd say that I'm on side of Apple in this issue.

Have I developed product, and MY employee had leaked info - I'd definitely fired him ASAP. Period.

What's a "periodical publication" & upon what is Kleinberg ruling?

I'm truly baffled. How is an active blog not a "periodical publication?" California's shield law doesn't define the term. Has it been defined elswhere as "only paper periodical publications?"

Judge Kleinberg doesn't seem to be questioning whether any of the three bloggers is "a legitimate member of the press." He did not rule on that question on March 3, from what I've read. Indeed, he asked, "Isn't there a balance ... between trade secrets and protections of journalists?"

It appears that Kleinberger assumes bloggers ARE journalists, and is only considering whether they should nonetheless be compelled to reveal their sources in this case because "Theft and use of trade secrets is a crime."

Is Kleinberger ruling on whether a journalist can be compelled to reveal sources in furtherance of a criminal investigation?

[declan00]

periodical publication

David: When in doubt, judges tend to turn to a dictionary. At least one (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/) defines periodical as amagazine or newspaper, period.

The judge in the Sports Illustrated case did just this when deciding whether the magazine qualified as a "newspaper." I don't expect the California judge to do any differently. Regardless, though, my point is that the law should be clarified so there's no room for argument.

What's a "periodical publication" & upon what is Kleinberg ruling?

I'm truly baffled. How is an active blog not a "periodical publication?" California's shield law doesn't define the term. Has it been defined elswhere as "only paper periodical publications?"

Judge Kleinberg doesn't seem to be questioning whether any of the three bloggers is "a legitimate member of the press." He did not rule on that question on March 3, from what I've read. Indeed, he asked, "Isn't there a balance ... between trade secrets and protections of journalists?"

It appears that Kleinberger assumes bloggers ARE journalists, and is only considering whether they should nonetheless be compelled to reveal their sources in this case because "Theft and use of trade secrets is a crime."

Is Kleinberger ruling on whether a journalist can be compelled to reveal sources in furtherance of a criminal investigation?

[declan00]

periodical publication

David: When in doubt, judges tend to turn to a dictionary. At least one (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/) defines periodical as amagazine or newspaper, period.

The judge in the Sports Illustrated case did just this when deciding whether the magazine qualified as a "newspaper." I don't expect the California judge to do any differently. Regardless, though, my point is that the law should be clarified so there's no room for argument.

[ejames0406]

Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers

The Constitution of the United States doesn't make a distinction between media outlet types (TV, Newspaper, Magazine, Web Site or Web Blogger) when it speaks about "free speech" and "freedom of the press". It protects the individual?s right to "free speech" and the "freedom of the press". If Apple gets away with this type of attack on web based media; what will be next? If the Washington Post broke a story like "Watergate" today but published it on its web site; could be compelled to divulge their sources?

[Llib Setag]

Apple wants to strong arm criminal employees, NOT free speech/press

All Apple is attempting to do is enforce their legal right to
prosecute their disloyal employees who break the Apple Non-
Disclosure Contract by giving away trade secrets.

Why should they continue to be employed by Apple if they broke
their legal non-disclosure contract?

Freedom of speech does not mean you can shout FIRE in a movie
theatre and start a stampede...THAT'S against the law. All
Constitution freedoms have caveats. America is a check &
balance system of rights & laws.

[ejames0406]

Apple Computer's attempts to strong-arm Web publishers

The Constitution of the United States doesn't make a distinction between media outlet types (TV, Newspaper, Magazine, Web Site or Web Blogger) when it speaks about "free speech" and "freedom of the press". It protects the individual?s right to "free speech" and the "freedom of the press". If Apple gets away with this type of attack on web based media; what will be next? If the Washington Post broke a story like "Watergate" today but published it on its web site; could be compelled to divulge their sources?

[Llib Setag]

Apple wants to strong arm criminal employees, NOT free speech/press

All Apple is attempting to do is enforce their legal right to
prosecute their disloyal employees who break the Apple Non-
Disclosure Contract by giving away trade secrets.

Why should they continue to be employed by Apple if they broke
their legal non-disclosure contract?

Freedom of speech does not mean you can shout FIRE in a movie
theatre and start a stampede...THAT'S against the law. All
Constitution freedoms have caveats. America is a check &
balance system of rights & laws.

Bad analogy.

Since when is knowingly disseminating NDA-protected trade secrets in a public medium equivalent to "journalism"? Come on, now.

Bad analogy.

Since when is knowingly disseminating NDA-protected trade secrets in a public medium equivalent to "journalism"? Come on, now.

Biased Reporting

This article, like many in the media, is biased. Reporting by
qualified media should be objective--reporting the facts.

Writing that Apple is trying to "strong-arm" and making others
"second-rate citizens", makes it look like Apple is guilty of doing
something wrong. The court may yet rule in their favor. If it is
the author's belief that Apple is wrong, yet the law says they are
correct in their case, then the issue should be with the law, not
Apple. Only time will tell.

The problem is that we bland reporting doesn't always impress
news editors or readers.

I am all for protecting the rights that support our freedom of
speech, but I also believe in the rights that protect intellectual
property. The court must decide where the line between the two
are drawn.

[declan00]

opinion expressed in a column...

Damien: This is a column, not a news article. One of the primary purposes of a column is to express an opinion; in your words, be "biased."

You can argue with my facts or whether my opinion is right or wrong, but arguing with the fact that there's an opinion expressed does seem a bit silly.

Biased Reporting

This article, like many in the media, is biased. Reporting by
qualified media should be objective--reporting the facts.

Writing that Apple is trying to "strong-arm" and making others
"second-rate citizens", makes it look like Apple is guilty of doing
something wrong. The court may yet rule in their favor. If it is
the author's belief that Apple is wrong, yet the law says they are
correct in their case, then the issue should be with the law, not
Apple. Only time will tell.

The problem is that we bland reporting doesn't always impress
news editors or readers.

I am all for protecting the rights that support our freedom of
speech, but I also believe in the rights that protect intellectual
property. The court must decide where the line between the two
are drawn.

[declan00]

opinion expressed in a column...

Damien: This is a column, not a news article. One of the primary purposes of a column is to express an opinion; in your words, be "biased."

You can argue with my facts or whether my opinion is right or wrong, but arguing with the fact that there's an opinion expressed does seem a bit silly.