Just because they don’t get published on paper doesn’t mean they are not reporters.
In the case of Apple Vs. Does, Apple filed a lawsuit against its employees who leaked information about new Apple products to three two online news sites, AppleInsider, ThinkSecret and PowerPage. The judge had ruled Apple can force the three two website publishers to surrender the names of their sources.
Update: After the Court ruled, Apple did not in fact subpoena the journalists in this case to name their sources. It subpoenaed one of their email providers.
More update, Apple filed a separate lawsuit with ThinkSecret, see ThinkSecret Press release.
I always wonder what if, say the San Jose Mercury-News to publish the same article, it’s quite likely that the court would not have ruled that it would have to reveal its sources under California law. If print or broadcast medium could be sued without having to reveal their sources, so could the website publishers.
It’s dangerous to see web news outlets do not have the same protections as more traditional ones. Besides, rumor is freely publishable. These people like Apple enough to conjure and forecast future endeavors, then perhaps Apple should be thankful.
Today, Electronic Frontier Foundation posted a “friend-of-the court” brief supporting these websites.
From the brief:
Amici Curiae respectfully urge this Court to adopt a funtional intent-based test to determine that Petitioner journalists are entitled to claim the newsgatherers’ privlege.
Further reading:
Wikipedia: Apple v. Does
- 2011: 狐狸先生幾多點？(0)
- 2008: 假如我不是女人(8)
- 2007: 燃えろ! 応援団2 キタ！！(5)
- 2007: 外國壽司(14)
- 2007: 每日一囧 - 比賽(9)
- 2002: 怪夢(0)
- 2002: Pouch for iPod(0)
- 2002: 何苦呢(0)
- 2001: I want to believe (0)
06:46 on April 24th, 2005
Air Lines，Microsoft及Friendster都有發生。另外，Apple亦對非其員工的bloggers提出訴訟，指控他們洩漏其公司商業機密。此事在香港的網誌社群中亦有 討論 。
16:48 on April 12th, 2005
If San Jose Mercury posted such a News and got sued by Apple, SJM should defend themselves by Freedom of Expression.
Legal system in capitalistic country is a shield of the big corporations to do something pussy, but not fight for the justice, quoted from Long Hair a.k.a. Hong Gue.
I really hope that Software Patent in EU will not be another example of this shielding effect.
17:09 on April 12th, 2005
This case hinges on the difference between web sites and more traditional media. Apple argued that the shield law doesn’t apply to web sites. It’s a sad thing.
01:45 on April 13th, 2005
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Just because some schmuck can write code and make a website doesn’t make him a journalist. Besides, another issue is that “trade secrets” do not qualify as “news”, and those who reveal them illegally or against corporate policy should not be protected as “sources.” Don’t you think Apple has a right to protect its secrets and find out which of its scumbag employees are violating its rules? I wouldn’t want those people working for me, and, fortunately, the law does protect corporations from this kind of shady behavior. In fact, the only reason Windoze exists is because Apple was ripped off by Bill Gates. I don’t blame Apple for not wanting something like that to happen again. If a legitamate newspaper published Apple’s trade secrets, Apple would probably still have a case. By the way, there is really no such thing as “Freedom of Expression.” It’s not in the Bill of Rights (nor should it be). The whole idea behind American freedom is that people are free to express themselves… so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. And that’s just what these little rumor-whores are doing, thinking that the law will protect them, but it doesn’t. It’s not about websites vs. actual newspapers. It’s about protection of property, which was stolen–in this case, the property is intellectual in nature and not physical. If you put yourself in Apple’s position, I’m sure you’d be pissed too. I know I would. By the way, speaking of “Long Hair”… I really don’t know much about it, but someone who wants more democracy for HK but goes around wearing Che Guevara (who was a communist) t-shirts is just really confused to me. Sorry to be so pissy in this comment, nikita.
11:14 on April 13th, 2005
Rumor. Where does it come from without somebody violate the NDA and tell the website? Forecast – new Final Cut Pro release in every NAB show – so there is rumor FCP is going to release; Predication – Toshiba announce new 1.8inch 60GB HD, so we predict the next iPod would have 60GB; or, solely guessing by your wildest imagination; But in recent year these so called Rumour site is rely on “Inside Source” that is suppose to be a non disclosure agreement. You are not suppose to talk about it, or you will be SUE. You knew it when you sign it. Media or publishing may not be sued without reveal it source is refer to what it publish – when is the last time you saw a newspaper talking about TRADE SECRET? CONFIDENTIAL or PROPRIETARY INFORMATION? Because these kind of “news” aren’t suppose to talk about and should’t have receive. I agree these kind of apple insider news is an interest of public, i would love to hear about it, but itself is not public interest;
11:48 on April 13th, 2005
I do agree that rumour harm business, especially when the Apple related rumour is way too accurate historically. Wise consumer may consult the rumour site first before buying and not consider the product line that will be update soon.
Excluding the wild guess and prediction, who should Apple target when somebody can easily obtain the trade secret from the Apple insiders? The insiders who violated the NDA or the rumor site who disclose the information from the insiders? Remember, rumour sites haven’t sign any NDA with Apple. The insiders expose the trade secret to the media/rumour sites should risk their jobs/future. IMHO, Apple should enforce their NDA inside their company first if they are really pissed off with the accuracy of rumour site. And I do think that if Apple switch their mind to enforce NDA instead of sue the rumour sites, they will not be that filthy.
11:54 on April 13th, 2005
Apple once again shoots itself in the foot. If MS did this you can imagine the howls of laughter from the Mac users. Now Apple is famous for bringing out truckload of lawyers and screwing its users. I am certain this comes straight from Steve Jobs as well – he has always been VERY concerned about secrets leaking out.
This suit will go nowhere. The only claim Apple might have is against the people who supposedly broke their NDA and supplied the information. Suing the guy who published is pointless and stupid. These website publishers did not sign a NDA or anything, they simply heard a rumor and repeated it. What Apple is trying to do here is take away any legitimacy that internet publishers have by marginalizing them and what they do. Does Apple have the right to go after journalists or bloggers to show where their leaks are, or do they just have to monitor their employees better? From what I understand there was a perfunctory internal investigation and they leveled the charges.
Furthermore, some Apple employees leaking product information only a few weeks before those products were launching anyway. Apple called this a “trade secret” leak, but unless you imagine yourself to be up against some insane competitor who can clone your iPod Shuffle in two weeks, it seems like a fairly spurious claim to me.
I was suprised that the judge avoided the “what is a journalist” argument. There is not a license requirement to become a journalist, and anyone can start a newspaper. Or do you think one should have a government-approved liscence? “Bloggers” and websites should have the same, full, unequivocted protections as larger, traditional print/broadcast media, hence the Freedom of Press.
12:09 on April 13th, 2005
The trade secret I read from a newspaper was the former legislator Gary Chen Kai-nam scandal. His assistance leaked the information of a undisclosed consultancy, a service to passing on government documents to business contacts which had also offered to Li Ka-shing too. Note that Mr. Chen tried to sue his assistance who leaked “trade secret”. In the end the leaked information sent Cheng to a 18-month sentence.
12:20 on April 13th, 2005
Moreover, I think it’s worth noting that Apple did not in fact subpoena the journalists in this case to name their sources. It subpoenaed one of their email providers. I think we should all be suspect about a court case which allows a company to subpoena your emails not because you may have information vital to national security or to some other public good, but because somebody (not you) somewhere broke an NDA, and you were involved.
Apple Vs. Does FAQ
13:39 on April 13th, 2005
I have not been following the case close enough to make specific comment here, but in response to nikita’s comment on “license requirement” you may as well be interested to learn about this:
“the San Francisco Board of Supervisors … will soon vote on a city ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate.” — see Personal Democracy Forum
14:03 on April 13th, 2005
Internet News blurred the line between public and personal. Slashdot/Wikinews/boingboing/ThinkSecret can somehow a newspaper as the news onsite are reported by some amateur reporters. However, these site are not really look like a ordinary newspaper as it is not reported by professional journalists.
SJM is a extreme case. What if a big media website, say C|Net, received such a piece of Apple classified information from a Apple Insider and reported it on their website? Can C|Net deserved the same right by law that protect the newspaper (eg. they can report something w/o expose the source of information) ? Are the reporters in C|Net qualified as “journalists”?
14:56 on April 13th, 2005
Apple is suing ThinkSecret for exposing Mac mini alike news. The trade secret is that Apple is about to sell a $500 Mac, but that is not a competitive secret, seeing how there were already computers selling for less than $500 before such information was released.
Thanks Wilson for the link, it’s been slashdotted.
06:04 on April 16th, 2005
網誌審查
網誌作為一種新興的媒體，言論自由所保障的範圍若何，其實尚有現存&#…
00:51 on April 19th, 2005
[...] April 19th, 2005 再談Apple Vs. Does
今天跟陳生說了幾句有關Apple Vs. Does 的想法，可惜只說了幾句，沒有甚麼談得到，然後看到Wilson的網誌�� [...]
00:42 on April 27th, 2005
[...] ��底，傳招rumor site 及其email provider 上庭又是不是正確？ Previous entry: Legal rights for web news outlets Previous entry: 再談Apple Vs. Does
Posted in 蘋 [...]