BSA backs Apple
p2pnet.net News:- Ominously (and predictably) Intel, Genentech and the Business Software Alliance are backing Steve Jobs’ bid to trample America’s First Amendment rights by trying to get a court to rule three online journalists must name confidential sources.
If he succeeds, Apple will be able to ride rough-shod over freedom of speech online, in the process opening the door wide for the entertainment cartels, as well as the BSA, whose members include: Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Avid, Bentley Systems, Borland, Internet Security Systems, Macromedia, NC Software/Mastercam, Microsoft, Network Associates, SolidWorks, Sybase, Symantec, UGS PLM Solutions, VERITAS Software.
‘Policy’ members are Cisco Systems, Entrust, HP, IBM, Intel, Intuit and RSA Security.
Briefs, filed this week in a California appeals court, “support a tentative ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg,” says CNET News. “Kleinberg ruled that Apple could subpoena e-mail records of Macintosh enthusiast site PowerPage, which leaked confidential information about a music hardware device code named Asteroid, one of Apple’s upcoming products.”
Similarly in Apple’s sights are AppleInsider and Think Secret, two other webpubs which, ironically, support Apple.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
James Kleinberg – Apple vs Freedom of the Press, p2pnet, March 21, 2005
CNET News – Apple gets tech support in court, April 29, 2005
May 1st, 2005 at 2:36 am
Well, if i operated a website, i’d have to stop reporting anything from or about the listed companies. I mean how do i know who the ppl reporting this stuff to me are? They might *SAY* they work for the press dept of one of those companies, but how do i know this for certain?
Just because they’ve got an email address at the company is no help, just because it comes faxed on the company’s letterhead is no guarantee either. In fact, short of physically going to the company’s HQ, seeing the head of the PR/Marketing dept and getting the info in hardcopy personally from them, with a waiver stating that the company does want this info published online and will not at any stage in the future change their mind and sue me, i wouldn’t take the risk.
In fact i’d probly decide to take no risks at all, and erase everything on my website that even mentioned the companies listed at all. Lets face it most website ops/owners are nowhere near as large or as wealthy as the companies listed in the article and couldn’t possibly afford to fight a lawsuit.
So all in all, it’d be so much safer to delete everything on the website about all of the companies listed, and never mention them again.
Ever.
May 1st, 2005 at 2:39 am
Doh! hit submit instead of preview.
I forgot to mention that even if they can prove that they do work for the pr/marketing dept and they are authorised to issue press releases, i’d still want that waiver signed. Just in case that person didn’t actually have permission to give me that particular info, in spite of working for the appropriate dept.
Mistakes can be made, and i’ll be damned if i’m gonna let myself get sued because of someone else’s screwup.