Cheers, jeers for ruling on Apple bloggers

A controversial court ruling that could force online journalists to reveal the identity of confidential sources to Apple Computer is drawing both cheers and jeers in legal circles.

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.

"Under this logic, if the Wall Street Journal ran a story about these documents, it could be prosecuted criminally."

--Peter Scheer
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

[Betty Roper]

Blogs != Journalism

Once upon a time, blogs were just personal web diaries. Now they're a new form of journalism?<br /><br />Not.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This judgement along with the judge is bullsh*t.<br /><br />Robert

[John Kuzak]

sensitive data

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.analogstereo.com/daewoo_nubira_owners_manual.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.analogstereo.com/daewoo_nubira_owners_manual.htm</a>

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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!