- Related Stories
-
Judge: Apple can pursue fan site sources
March 11, 2005 -
Apple suit foreshadows coming products
January 5, 2005 -
Apple identifies employee as alleged source of leaks
August 28, 2000
Issued Friday, the ruling states that a Web site that published confidential Apple documents could not protect its sources from an Apple inquiry. In this case, the criminal activity of leaking private corporate data trumped reporters' traditional right to protect their confidential sources, the judge said.
media attorney
Dan Westman, an attorney specializing in trade secrets law, applauded the decision.
"I think it will be extremely persuasive to any other judge in any other court who reads it," said Westman, a partner at Shaw Pittman in Northern Virginia. "I do believe if it goes up on appeal it would be upheld."
But media attorney Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the ruling could be destructive to the operation of an effective media.
"It's a thoughtful but seriously wrong decision," Scheer said. "Under this logic, if the Wall Street Journal ran a story about these documents, it could be prosecuted criminally. That's an absurd result."
The decision comes as part of a broader case in which Apple is seeking the identity of unknown people who leaked confidential prerelease product data that was subsequently published on three separate enthusiast Web sites, including Think Secret, PowerPage and AppleInsider.
The sites themselves are not being sued directly in this case. But Apple has issued a subpoena to PowerPage's Internet service provider, Nfox, asking for e-mail and other records that might be relevant to the case. A separate subpoena has been approved by the court that would force AppleInsider to give up any of its own documents that might relate to the identity of the person who leaked the information.
The Web sites, which are being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say they are covered by the laws that often protect
See more CNET content tagged:
attorney, identity, Apple Computer, decision, media






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.
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.
This judgement along with the judge is bullsh*t.
Robert
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.
- Hooray!
- by Michael Grogan March 14, 2005 7:09 PM PST
- 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!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)