p2pnet - rss feed: Apple versus its friends
p2p news / p2pnet: Apple had tough questions to answer in the first day of the court hearing in which it’s trying to get an order which’ll allow it to find out who leaked information on new products before it was itself ready to leak it.
The case is particularly telling because Apple isn’t going after rivals firms. Rather, it’s going after sites which actively support it and its products.
“Although a lower court ruled last year that Apple should be able to gain access to electronic records of the enthusiast sites, a three-judge appeals panel in the State of California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, peppered Apple’s lawyer with questions,” says CNET News.
“The judges wanted to know whether the information at issue represented a genuine trade secret as well as whether journalists’ right to protect their sources outweigh Apple’s right to protect its trade secrets.”
Judges, “peppered Apple lawyers with questions about its technology and its own internal investigation”.
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), representing PowerPage.org, “is hoping the appeals court will pull the plug on a subpoena that could yield details about who leaked information about Asteroid, a FireWire audio interface for the GarageBand music program,” says the story
“In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed ‘John Doe’ defendants. The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage’s e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted.
Apple separately sued Think Secret for supposedly infringing on Apple’s trade secrets in “soliciting inside information,” says the story, adding:
“There was also a good deal of discussion in court Thursday about whether Apple had been exhaustive in its internal investigation of who leaked the documents. The company said it has examined several internal server logs and questioned the 25 employees who had access to the information. However, the company did not question the workers under oath, something Apple maintains it should not need to do.”
The EFF opposes Apple’s discovery, “because the confidentiality of the media’s sources and unpublished information are critical means for journalists of all stripes to acquire information and communicate it to the public,” it states.
“Because today’s online journalists frequently depend on confidential sources to gather material, their ability to promise confidentiality is essential to maintaining the strength of independent media. Furthermore, the protections required by the First Amendment are necessary regardless of whether the journalist uses a third party for communications.”
Also See:
leaked information - Apple vs PowerPage, reloaded, April 20, 2006
CNET News - Apple vs PowerPage, reloaded, April 20, 2006
EFF - O’Grady v. Superior Court
April 21st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Alright, there are things I totally or partially support for p2pnet, but this story is unfairly biased. Apple is suing their friends? And before I argue this, I’m going to say while I like Apple, I’m not one of their fanboys - I don’t always agree with them.
The company has a policy, and they place trust in the people they hire. Their trade secret is to come out with something new and surprising, but not tell about it before it comes out (the Intel Macs were the exception, but even then, nobody knew when they’d come out). When reporters bring out information on trade secrets, and report it to the public, that infringes on the company’s rights. And to give information which goes against Apple’s trade secrets is to call them friends? They are not friends, but a bunch of snitches. Same thing with the workers who betray their company.
If someone were told what comes out next, the customer would wait, and not buy the one Apple has now. Now, I don’t agree with the trade secret, but my point is that this story is biased and inaccurate - the reporters, like Think Secret, are not “friends.”
What about reporters’ rights? Well, Apple has done nothing illegal, so that is when reporters have no right in snitching on business’ practices.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:20 pm
“Their [Apple’s] “trade secret” is to come out with something new and surprising, but not tell about it before it comes out…”
That is called MARKETING. Just because Apple comes up with it’s own (pretty shakey IMHO) definition of what a trade secret is does not redefine what the legal system’s definition is.
Apple wanted (still wants?) the “leaker’s” head on a platter. It’s that simple. They apparently did/do not care one whit about what kind of terrible legal precedent they may set.
Freedom of the press? Who needs it…
April 21st, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Right! Bring back the whip!
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
So,
Do you believe they would be doing this if the story were
leaked to , say, The New York Times or PC-World ??
Once again, this suit is NOT what it appears on the surface.
The internet frightens corporations, politicians, and anyone
that relies on secrecy, mainly because of just how FAST word
travels. It is not in the best interests of .. some .. for blogs
and small “news” sites to be treated the same as ‘Major’ media,
with all of the same rights and benefits ( you know, confidential
sources, first amendment rights, etc. ). In some ways, this is
similar to the RIAA bullshit in that it is about COMPETITION.
Unless big money steps on it, the internet is gonna be really tough
competition when it comes to breaking news.
So, to answer my own question,
” Do you believe they would be doing this if the story were
leaked to , say, The New York Times or PC-World ?? ”
No way.
Major publications have the CASH to back up their rights.
Rights, apparently, are only worth the money in your pocket to defend them. Can you say .. “RIAA Lawsuit”
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
First, anyone who reveal’s any company’s upcoming product, a product that significant company resources have been expended to bring to market, a product that, if revealed early, gives competitors a leg up and thus could cost the company untold revenue in the long run, such a person is no friend to the company. How would you like your “friends” to announce the pair of aces in your hand as you are competing in a high stakes poker game?
Second, certainly the spirit of the laws that protect journalists from revealing their sources is intended to protect citizens from behind-the-scenes criminal activities being staged in the world of politics and big business, not to reveal a company’s trade secrets for entertainment purposes or financial gain. It would be perfectly appropriate to protect a journalist or blogger from revealing sources that reported on say, the illegal dealings that went on inside of Enron, or the tobacco companies hiding of cancer causing evidence, etc.. But that is not what is happening here.
Apple has an ironclad, fully legal non-disclosure contract with each of its employees. For an employee to reveal IP info to someone outside the company is a criminal act of theft. All the journalist/blogger defendants in this case were fully aware of this. Trade secret law is very real and is very important to the competitive aspect of the free enterprise system we enjoy here in the US. Competition benefits us the consumers immensely and must be protected in every way possible. What these reporters are doing is undermining important mechanisms that enable and encourage competition, and they are doing it by soliciting employees to steal sensitive intellectual property from a company. Are these journalists/bloggers protecting us from criminal activity brewing inside of Apple? No. They are selling stolen goods. To protect them under First Amendment rights is a distortion of the intent of the law. As a shareholder, they are costing me money and I want them stopped. I say hang ‘em!
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I am the one you are responding to. And I’ll quote, “Do you believe they would be doing this if the story were leaked to , say, The New York Times or PC-World ??”
The answer is NO, you know why? The NY Times or PC World does not have the irresponsibility to participate in the illegal activities of undermining a legal trade secret of a company. It would be one thing if the trade secret involves tobacco or Enron (the idea suggested by another person responding to this article), but this is a trade secret for the purpose of their company.
If someone is snitching within their company on something they signed a contract on, and that (those) person(s) is (are) violating that contract, the company has every legal right to discover who that person is because they are a traitor to the company.
When an NY Times reporter does report something false or misleading, the dirty reporters are taken care of, that is, fired, sued, etc. Bloggers, however, do not have a boss because they are their own boss, and that is why court action must be taken to reveal the source. Therefore, your argument that people should have the freedom of speech to infringe on a company’s niche is invalid.
April 23rd, 2006 at 8:24 pm
“The NY Times or PC World does not have the irresponsibility to participate in the illegal activities of undermining a legal trade secret of a company. ”
LOLOLOLLOLOLOL !!!!!
ROFL !!!!!!!!!!
Googlety googly google.