Apple Legal Documents Unsealed

[MacRumors]

MacNN reports that the Electronic Frontier Foundation won the right to unseal court documents related to Apple's investigation into the source of leaks for an unreleased product codenamed Asteroid.

Apple filed suit in December of 2004[/url] and issued subpoenas to several sites which released information regarding the unreleased product.

The subpoena of enthusiast websites has been the focus of significant discussion and controversy. Much of the debate stems from the protection of such websites under journalistic claims.

The latest documents reportedly reveal that Apple did not conduct an exhaustive investigation prior to pursuing the subpoenas:

"This is a crucial issue in the case, which will be heard by the California Court of Appeal, because the First Amendment and the California Constitution require that Apple exhaust all other alternatives before trying to subpoena journalists.

 

[Abstract]

Well, they DID get the information from someone, particularly AppleInsider, so it's not like Apple has to look any further than what AppleInsider prints on their front page.

 

[ebunton]

So is there a summary of those documents available somwhere?

 

[SiliconAddict]

Well, they DID get the information from someone, particularly AppleInsider, so it's not like Apple has to look any further than what AppleInsider prints on their front page.

So I guess the RIAA is in the right suing the crap out of some grandma or a dead person based on preliminary records. Right? Right? This is the same BS behavior. Steve'o over reacted and went ballistic. Bet money on it. in some ways Apple is no better then MS. Pity too.

 

[WillMak]

that's sad that they are doing this. But I can understand. Thinksecret/sppleinsider's product leaks must have given me at least 9,000 dollars in profit over the years.

 

[Abstract]

AppleInsider was getting their news from......not surprisingly......an insider. How else could they know as much as they did? The "snitch" obviously shouldn't have been releasing all the info he could remember about future Apple products before they were released. From what I know (right now), it doesn't seem absurd for Apple to go after AppleInsider immediately. The evidence was on AppleInsider's website. It's not like AppleInsider is hearing "rumours" and publishing rumours. They were getting 100% accurate information from someone under legal obligation to ****, and AppleInsider knew it.

It costs money for Apple to do things like this, but they have to. They have to protect their secrets so that this doesn't continue. If Apple didn't do this and let it slide for a few years, they have no legs to stand on later when the info leaks get completely out of hand and they start to stop it. Too late. Why didn't they do anything about it before, right?

So I guess the RIAA is in the right suing the crap out of some grandma or a dead person based on preliminary records. Right? Right? This is the same BS behavior.

Preliminary or not, I'm pretty sure AppleInsider still existed at the time of the subpoena, and I'm very sure AppleInsider was getting their info from someone who was still alive...

 

[EvilMole]

AppleInsider was getting their news from......not surprisingly......an insider. How else could they know as much as they did? The "snitch" obviously shouldn't have been releasing all the info he could remember about future Apple products before they were released. From what I know (right now), it doesn't seem absurd for Apple to go after AppleInsider immediately.

The golden rule in law is that the accuser has to prove its accusations, not assume them - something that you're obviously having a hard time grasping. There's no legal assumption that AI got its information from anyone who'd signed an NDA.

Suppose, for example, someone inside Apple told me about Product X, violating his own NDA. I tell AI. Now, AI hasn't got its information from anyone violating an NDA, nor is it knowingly distributing a trade secret: It has no reason to assume that information I give it as a trade secret as I'm neither an Apple employee nor under NDA. Neither is it under any obligation to ask me whether that information came from.

However, none of this is actually relevant, because the law is very clear. Before seeking a subpeona, Apple MUST make full efforts to investigate the leak internally. Obtaining a subpeona for a journalist to reveal a source can only be used as a last resort, not a short-cut. The law - quite rightly - regards a journalist revealing a confidential source as a serious matter, and not something to be done lightly. Apple quite clearly, failed to make a proper investigation and took a short cut.

Except that, I suspect, it knew full well what it was doing. The intent of subpeonaing AI et al wasn't really to find the source: with such a limited potential pool of candidates, that should have been easy anyway. It was, instead, to send a "chilling effect" through the media, warning them off covering Apple products before announcement.

Ironically, it has had the opposite effect. Since the attack on the little guys, media outlets like the Wall Street Journal appear determined to get the scoop on Apple products early - and the WSJ in particular has done so. This was entirely predictable to anyone who's worked in the media (reporters don't like to see other journalists dragged through court), yet, because Apple has such poor connections with the media and thinks PR is about issuing press releases, it didn't see it coming.

 

[ScubaDuc]

that's sad that they are doing this. But I can understand. Thinksecret/sppleinsider's product leaks must have given me at least 9,000 dollars in profit over the years.

Remember, once the information has appearted on thinksecret or appleinsider, it becomes "public" so you have no unfair advantage over other investors. It would be different if someone working for a rumor side would trade based on the "leak" before it was made public.

 

[FunkSpaceMonkey]

that's sad that they are doing this. But I can understand. Thinksecret/sppleinsider's product leaks must have given me at least 9,000 dollars in profit over the years.

How did you make that profit?

 

[swingerofbirch]

How did you make that profit?

If he's talking about why I'm thinking he is: the stock market.

Apple's stock usually goes up after big announcements.

 

[Skylor]

How did you make that profit?

I've made profit many times. Before I bought my first iPod, I read the site and saw that they were releasing Mini versions. If I wouldnt have read it, I can guarantee you that I would have bought a mini even after having a regular ipod.

 

[1macker1]

To invest in stock based on the posting of a rumor site is a dangerous game.

 

[slu]

That "article" was painful to read. Doesn't anyone proof read anything anymore?

 

[bernardb]

Apple Enemies

Apple enemies are crawling out of the sewer yet again. They cannot stand to see Apple's continuing success year after year so they must try to bring the company down through any means, no matter how petty.

This is a ridiculous issue and saying Apple is just like Microsoft is like saying George W. Bush is like Einstein....absurd!

 

[EvilMole]

Apple enemies are crawling out of the sewer yet again. They cannot stand to see Apple's continuing success year after year so they must try to bring the company down through any means, no matter how petty.

This is a ridiculous issue and saying Apple is just like Microsoft is like saying George W. Bush is like Einstein....absurd!

Oh yawn. It's nothing to do with enemies. It's about shattering people's illusions about what Apple is REALLY like. The fact is Apple makes fantastic products, some of the best in the world. However, that doesn't mean the company is Good, Great, or always does the right thing. The fact is it did a very stupid thing when it started spraying out the law suits - a decision driven by Jobs' ego and childish anger rather than by sound business reasons.

 

[Stridder44]

So? Apples taking action against people and protecting it's secrets. Big deal. The "insiders" should of known they were risking themselves when they decided to leak info. Of course it's a shame tho, I too enjoyed the rumors and whatnot (and made money on side as well). But its all understandable. It had to happen someday.

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[alexf]

in some ways Apple is no better then MS. Pity too.

Yep, just another big, greedy corporation... So what else is new?

At least they make nice products, unlike Microsoft.

 

[nagromme]

I've never thought Apple was in the wrong to go after the leakers (clearly), nor after the rumor sites IF they obtained their info illegally (maybe offering incentives to break NDA).

But it seems clear that the way Apple went about this was wrong--and not very smart. I'm with the rumor sites on this.

 

[fixyourthinking]

The golden rule in law is that the accuser has to prove its accusations, not assume them

Wrong ... I have to have suspects first ... that's why they call them suspects.

I could have all the evidence in the world and it still does not command guilt or innocence ... that's why there is a jury system. Apple has enough proof that this was trade secret information and receiving AND reporting on such are against the law.

Yes, the point of origin may be an Apple employee ... but the end result is that this is STOLEN information and Think Secret, AppleInsider, and The PowerPage are TRAFFICING STOLEN INFORMATION. They are breaking a law that supercedes the shield law, and ... just to be bratty ... they are NOT journalists.

Oh yawn. It's nothing to do with enemies.

Wrong again .. you don't know this and have no way to back that up... my hunch is IT IS enemies ... those involved in the reseller lawsuit perhaps .... perhaps Creative ... who declared "War on the iPod"

 

[EvilMole]

I could have all the evidence in the world and it still does not command guilt or innocence ... that's why there is a jury system. Apple has enough proof that this was trade secret information and receiving AND reporting on such are against the law.

Actually, it's the judges and courts that decide whether or not there's "enough proof", not corporations. Of course, if you want to live in a land where corporations act as judge and jury, please feel free to move there. America, thankfully, doesn't see it that way.

Yes, the point of origin may be an Apple employee ... but the end result is that this is STOLEN information and Think Secret, AppleInsider, and The PowerPage are TRAFFICING STOLEN INFORMATION. They are breaking a law that supercedes the shield law, and ... just to be bratty ... they are NOT journalists.

The key word you're missing out is KNOWINGLY. What's more, you're wrong about it superceding the shield law: In California, the shield law is part of the state constitution, whereas the the UTSA is not, and constitution beats regular law.

What's more, Apple has to prove that the information was stolen, and that it made sufficient efforts to keep it as a trade secret AND in order to get a subpeona, it MUST make every possible effort to find the leak without going to the courts. It's not a technicality: it's the law. I don't get why you don't understand this very simple fact.

Wrong again .. you don't know this and have no way to back that up... my hunch is IT IS enemies ... those involved in the reseller lawsuit perhaps .... perhaps Creative ... who declared "War on the iPod"

Well if you want to descend into conspiracy theory, that's your right I suppose.

 

[fixyourthinking]

The key word you're missing out is KNOWINGLY. What's more, you're wrong about it superceding the shield law: In California, the shield law is part of the state constitution, whereas the the UTSA is not, and constitution beats regular law.

Yes that is the keyword and Think Secret, PowerPage, et al KNOWINGLY reports stolen information/trade secrets/business plans ... why they even ASK/SOLICIT for your stolen information by phone number right on the site and articles also often start out with "Our sources inside Apple" - those sources must be coerced to breaking NDA which is also a crime.

The shield law is NOT part of the CA constitution (if it is ... please point it out on the ca.gov website) - it is a law like any other. Also, Apple can choose to have California law OR the home state of the defendant's law apply. The crime was committed in their home state after all.

Here's the California Constitution http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html - the shield law was incorporated into the understanding of the constitution of California.

The purpose of the shield law is as follows:

The bill's author argued, "The main purpose of the shield law is to prevent government from making journalists its investigative agents and to prevent a journalist who is trying to cover the story from becoming part of the story (which makes them wholly unable to cover it)." The amendments will help to ensure that journalists in California are not used by prosecutors and litigants in this way.

Besides this fact, the "shield law" DOES NOT APPLY TO STOLEN PROPERTY! The information these websites reported were business plans - not environmental hazards, not Enron-like scandal, and especially not news.

The UTSA DOES supercede in this case ... the main reason being it is a law that is repected and in place in 42 other states ... something the shield law is not.

The rest of your arguments don't even deserve response due to their "nanny nanny boo boo" nature.

 

[EvilMole]

Yes that is the keyword and Think Secret, PowerPage, et al KNOWINGLY reports stolen information/trade secrets/business plans ... why they even ASK/SOLICIT for your stolen information by phone number right on the site and articles also often start out with "Our sources inside Apple" - those sources must be coerced to breaking NDA which is also a crime.

Quoting a source inside Apple doesn't automatically mean you're quoting someone who has violated NDA. Apple has to prove this - and in order to prove it, it must narrow down the source to a group of people. In order to do that, it MUST make best efforts to track down the leaker WITHOUT a subpeona. This it did not do, and it's likely that its case will fail thanks to it.

The shield law is NOT part of the CA constitution (if it is ... please point it out on the ca.gov website) - it is a law like any other.

Article 1, Section 2b, from the link you provided:

"A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with
or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical
publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person
who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in
contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any
other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to
disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or
employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other
periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished
information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or
processing of information for communication to the public."

It's very clear. It's in the state constitution. Before throwing around links, I suggest you read them.

Also, Apple can choose to have California law OR the home state of the defendant's law apply. The crime was committed in their home state after all.

Except that, once prosecuted, it may not choose to "switch" the case. There's this thing called double jeopardy, you see. Fifth amendment to the US Constitution. Look it up.

Besides this fact, the "shield law" DOES NOT APPLY TO STOLEN PROPERTY! The information these websites reported were business plans - not environmental hazards, not Enron-like scandal, and especially not news.

That's irrelevant to the point. The point is that a clear shield law exists, is part of the State Constitution, and therefore can only be trumped by Federal law - which Apple has not prosecuted under.

The UTSA DOES supercede in this case ... the main reason being it is a law that is repected and in place in 42 other states ... something the shield law is not.

In a state case, the existence or otherwise of a similar law in other states is irrelevent. It is not Federal law.

 

[Naimfan]

Just a question to Adzoox and Evilmole: Are either of you lawyers?

Bob

 

[MontyZ]

.