Cheers, jeers for ruling on Apple bloggers

(continued from previous page)

journalists from having to divulge the identity of their sources. Apple argues that the sites are simply publishing stolen information, and should not benefit from those protections. In a separate case, Apple is suing another enthusiast site--Think Secret--directly for trade secret violations.

In his decision Friday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg avoided the question of whether the enthusiast sites qualified for the same legal protections as traditional journalists, saying that Apple's right to protect its secrets trumped any legal protections afforded reporters under state or federal law.

The information about Apple's unreleased products "is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive (or not) would be," the judge wrote. "The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the (Uniform Trade Secrets Act) or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else."

Some media advocates were cautious as they digested the decision's impact on Friday. Terry Francke, founder of open-government organization Californians Aware, said the decision could dissuade corporate sources from talking with journalists, but still left open protections for important public issues.

"I would think that an immediate and direct impact...would be to make future leakers of proprietary company information extremely careful," Franke said. "But I don't think it would be nearly as threatening to whistleblowers with social or politically sensitive information as to those with information of a highly technical nature."

But Scheer said the ruling could cripple business reporting, which often relies on confidential sources inside companies.

"Newspapers and television and radio stations could avoid problems by not doing any of the serious reporting that would involve internal records, and only printing the things that corporations wish you to read," Scheer said. "If they did that, we would have a much less meaningful press."

CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report.

[Betty Roper]

Blogs != Journalism

Once upon a time, blogs were just personal web diaries. Now they're a new form of journalism?

Not.

There's a world of difference between an individual sharing corporate secrets and a bona-fide news organization (and their lawyers) vetting a news story.

It's just part of the on-going control of the Wild West of the Web. It's all good.

[Bill Dautrive]

Blogs

Blogs are no different from this site.

[hardedge]

Bloggers are certainly journalists

I would ask you to consider the origin of the word. You use it yourself, blogs are personal -journals. Journalists are people who write down events in their -journals. Reporters are people who -report- either live from the scene or from the information contained in -journals. The onlt difference we see now is in form, not substance.

The judge's decision in this case has some odd overtones. He, in particular, focuses in on "trade secrets." However, his ruling could easily be adapted and applied to mainstream journalists who leak secret or confidential reports, memoranda, etc. from the government. It incredibly easy to make a case that a classified government document has even more import than a "trade secret" just based on the wording that the judge himself used in the decision.

Inadvertantly or not, Apple and the judge have opened up a potentially slippery slope, and then some, with possiblly far reaching ramifications for the mainstream news media.

[Jimmu411]

The difference...

We all know that the first ammendment was only meant to protect Multi-Billion dollar conglomerates persuing large advertising profits. Not for a few silly individuals who upset corporate apple carts in the quest for truth!

[robert1275]

intellectual theft should be protected

Company trade secrets exceed the rights of journalistic reporting. I believe the judge is correct in this decision. Otherwise any corporate person could leak company sensitive data at will to any news source without fear of being caught and possibly subvert a company to damages that these leaks could incur

[hardedge]

Intellectual theft is only peripheral

This particular judgement only peripherally relates to the theft of intellectual property. It's real effect is to compel reporters to reveal their sources should they become privy to confidential information and publisize it.

There was no intellectual theft...

These people didn't steal a thing. They blabbed about new upcoming product but nothing was stolen. There are were no trade secrets involved. No one stole operating code or chip designs ore anything else. They just talked about an up coming product.

This judgement along with the judge is bullsh*t.

Robert

[ok_tanis]

Give me a break

Ok, lets put this into perspective. The people who posted on the website gave out private information about a new product that Apple was launching. This information, given certian conditions, could have hurt the company finacially. And you think these people have the right to do this? If anything, I think Apple should have the right to sue this website for releasing the info, not only sueing them for the sources that leaked this information.

Lets say the judge swung the other way. This would open the door for people to sell information to the highest bidder without fear of getting caught. Lets see, I could get Hailey Berry's home address, phone number, security codes, etc because someone in her camp decided to sell this information to a website. Is this right? But, if the judges ruling said the website did not have to divest its informant, this person would have been able to do this and never punished.

Sorry to say, but all those that fear this will limit our first ammendment rights need to get a grip with reality. The first ammendment gives us the right to speak our opinion without reprimand, not publish classified information. Too many attrocities online and in journalism are done under the so called protection of the freedom of speech.

[Michael Grogan]

Hooray!

for the judge who stalwartly upheld Apple's god-given right to make obscene profits! Let's all stand up and fight, fight, fight to protect government of, by and for the corporate entity!