Apple Legal vs Bloggers

[jazzkids]

they don't seem to treat their customers any better than PC firms.

agreed. they have gotten much more "big business" it seems. I guess it is to be expected, but there was something about dealing with an underdog. You rooted for them thing that they would be in your court when the time came. But now, it seems that they are playing more and more by the big boys rules

 

[melevittfl]

But I think I've demonstrated that they're overzealous about their cause to the point of it interfering with their success -- idealism without pragmatism doesn't win a court case, as they have repeatedly shown.

Notice that Caiwyn has completely ignored my post where I pointed out that the article he is relying on for his information on EFF's successes is completely bogus, claims the EFF lost cases that they weren't involved in, and written under by-line pseudonym often used by The Register to make silly claims in hopes of stiring up controversy.

You wouldn't by Andrew Orlinski by any chance?

 

[Caiwyn]

Notice that Caiwyn has completely ignored my post where I pointed out that the article he is relying on for his information on EFF's successes is completely bogus, claims the EFF lost cases that they weren't involved in, and written under by-line pseudonym often used by The Register to make silly claims in hopes of stiring up controversy.

You wouldn't by Andrew Orlinski by any chance?

No, I'm not. You wouldn't happen to be Corey Doctorow by any chance?

All you did was link to a boingboing post calling the author a liar with absolutely no argument to back up that assertion. As soon as flagrant name-calling becomes a debatable subject, I'll be sure to get back to you. If you'd like to start backing up your assertions, please feel free.

 

[fixyourthinking]

No, I'm not. You wouldn't happen to be Corey Doctorow by any chance?

All you did was link to a boingboing post calling the author a liar with absolutely no argument to back up that assertion. As soon as flagrant name-calling becomes a debatable subject, I'll be sure to get back to you. If you'd like to start backing up your assertions, please feel free.

Note the "newbie" under the name ...

The EFF only serves to harm our consumer rights and NEVER help them. Remember they also are against the RIAA ... yet actually litigate against Apple over iTunes DRM ... when it is the ONLY solution (that's viable) that allows legal (without question) music downloads.

I asked for the EFF's support for my website ... they turned me down because of politics ... when it is actually my site that will help their case in this situation.

 

[inkswamp]

Apple is full of it

I couldn't disagree more with Apple's position on this and I hope like hell that they drop this. It's the most annoying thing they've ever done.

Anyone--ANYONE--has the right to publish anything they want, including trade secrets. What Apple needs to do is invest their time and energy in tracking down which person under NDA let this trade secret out in the first place--and that does not give them leeway to bully any news outlet, bloggers included. This is the biggest hissy fit Apple has ever thrown and it's an embarrassment to them. Its continuation is starting to piss me off. 😡

As much as I hate to say this on an Apple forum, I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them big time. It will serve as a good lesson to them and to every tech company that tries to bully people around for exercising their right to free speech.

 

[inkswamp]

What's really funny about this is the fact that if Microsoft or some other huge corporation did this, all of the Macboys on this site would be freaking out, saying how "big, bad and evil" those companies are. Yet, I guarantee, many people in the future of this thread will spin this the opposite way, saying how they support Apple all the way and the lawsuit "makes sense." I can see it now...sometimes the blinders are on pretty tight around here...

Are you big enough to step up to the plate and admit you were wrong or were you just trolling? I've just read through all the comments and nobody is mindlessly defending Apple. In fact, it appears to be quite the opposite.

Perhaps an apology for being so insulting would be in order.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Anyone--ANYONE--has the right to publish anything they want, including trade secrets.

Are you ignorant, a flame, or just stupid ...

Read the Uniform Trade Secret Act:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tradesecret.html

Do I have the right to publish your children's full names, school where they attend, and times they arrive home ... perfect for molesters.

Do I have your permission to post your credit card number with CV2 code and expiration and your social security number here in these forums or on my website?

These two bits of information are your personal property ... not really information. Items that are confidential, future design diagrams are no different ... they are property ... they were STOLEN from Apple headquarters and are being trafficked on the websites in question.

This information is also not being reported in the "spirit of journalism" - to report ... instead Jason O Grady, Nick Ciarelli, and whoever's behind AppleInsider report these stories to artificially raise hit totals to show potential advertisers. They DIRECTLY profit off of these stories and often report malicious defaming stories on their website about Apple Computer.

Will all those disagreeing with Apple please post reasons with intelligent counter argument why you disagree?

 

[matticus008]

Anyone--ANYONE--has the right to publish anything they want, including trade secrets. What Apple needs to do is invest their time and energy in tracking down which person under NDA let this trade secret out in the first place--and that does not give them leeway to bully any news outlet, bloggers included.

As much as I don't particularly care for Apple's tactics, bloggers are NOT journalists. In order to qualify for the same protections as journalists, they must follow the same obligations and responsibilities as journalists. Until that time when bloggers are held to journalistic standards, they are private citizens who have material they have no right to access--a subpoena to name the source is well within Apple's rights in its effort to stop the leak. Moreover, people absolutely do not have the right to publish trade secrets or other confidential documents/ideas wherever and whenever they please. Say what you will about the issue, but the law as it stands is in Apple's favor.

 

[fixyourthinking]

As much as I don't particularly care for Apple's tactics, bloggers are NOT journalists. In order to qualify for the same protections as journalists, they must follow the same obligations and responsibilities as journalists.

Now this I will disagree with ... this is NOT in Apple's favor. Look up the definitions to the word "journalist" and the word "reporter".

reporter (as in "communicator") n. : a person who investigates and reports or edits news stories

journalist (as in "writer") n. : a writer for newspapers and magazines

Where are these standards you speak of contained in these two definitions?

During the last election ... the best place to find information was from BLOGs not from the mainstream "press".

News and news reporting is a result of an action and a medium ... not the result of training or standards.

Would you not call Rush Limbaugh a journalist or a reporter or news commentator? Agree or disagree with his politics or like or dislike his show ... he did not graduate from college nor does he have any formal "journalism background". He also does not follow your standard way of reporting.

Although I despise Jason O Grady and Nick Ciarelli ... as a blogger (myself) who is facing this exact same issue ... I believe bloggers can be journalists ... but that is NOT what Apple is arguing here. It's the EFF trying to twist the shield law and its application to this case that has you doubting the veracity of journalism ... not actual fact or circumstance.

Here is a good case for you:

Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press, says that asking whether bloggers are journalists is the wrong question. "Bloggers is a vague amorphous term like telephone users", he says. "Just like some telephone users are journalists and some are not; the same thing with Bloggers. The medium doesn't answer the question. It has to do more with the function that the person is performing. That's how we approached the shield law question. If the Bloggers' involvement is to report information to the public and to gather information for that purpose openly then they should be treated like a journalist.

"There should be a functional analysis in addition to or instead of the current analysis of what medium you are writing in, " Leslie said.


As the courts have confirmed what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content," says Kurt Opsahl (attorney for the EFF). Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism - regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the internet"

 

[inkswamp]

As much as I don't particularly care for Apple's tactics, bloggers are NOT journalists. In order to qualify for the same protections as journalists, they must follow the same obligations and responsibilities as journalists.

What are you talking about? Journalists have exactly the same rights that private citizens do--the very same freedom of speech that is the issue here. They can write whatever they want on their blog. The only time that's curtailed is where the writing is intended to incite violence or libels someone. Because journalists take on a lot of added responsibilities and ethics does not negate a person's right to say what they want.

Besides, if that's the case, shouldn't Apple now be going after all the mainstream news outlets who have reported on this story and refered to the secret product? If your contention is that a source is irrelevant and publishing trade secrets is against the law, then a lot more lawsuits should be coming. But that's not going to happen because a) you're wrong about that and b) Apple is trying to bully the little guy.

Until that time when bloggers are held to journalistic standards, they are private citizens who have material they have no right to access--a subpoena to name the source is well within Apple's rights in its effort to stop the leak.

Do you have any background in journalism? I do and I can tell you that your whole characterization of this is way out of left field. Bloggers can choose to hold themselves to "journalist standards" if they want but it doesn't take away their right to report what they have learned--whether it's a trade secret or not. They have that right. Period. A journalist has a different mission and might choose not to report such information but that's entirely his own self-imposed decision. You're misreading this concept of "journalistic standards." Because a journalist choses to adhere to a set of ethics does not mean the rest of us have to as well. It's a set of standards imposed from within an industry--not something with the force of law behind it.

Moreover, people absolutely do not have the right to publish trade secrets or other confidential documents/ideas wherever and whenever they please.

You make that statement based on what? Apple, frankly, is behaving worse than Microsoft in this case. Does that change your opinion at all? Let's see... does Microsoft sue every person who leaks embarrassing internal memos? Hmm... not that I recall.

Say what you will about the issue, but the law as it stands is in Apple's favor.

Only inasmuch as they are a giant comporation with money and power trying to intimidate a little guy. If the playground bully is beating up a 90-lb. geek, my money's on the bully too, but that doesn't mean I agree with the bully's behavior. It's ridiculous and I think Apple's behavior is awful, if not unconstitutional.

 

[matticus008]

What are you talking about? Journalists have exactly the same rights that private citizens do--the very same freedom of speech that is the issue here. They can write whatever they want on their blog. The only time that's curtailed is where the writing is intended to incite violence or libels someone.

That's not what I said. I said that bloggers don't have the same rights as journalists. Whether they should have those rights is a big part of this issue--otherwise it'd just be another unremarkable case.

Besides, if that's the case, shouldn't Apple now be going after all the mainstream news outlets who have reported on this story and refered to the secret product? If your contention is that a source is irrelevant and publishing trade secrets is against the law, then a lot more lawsuits should be coming.

No, that's not what I'm saying. If Apple is looking to control the leak, then finding the source of the leak is the first step in doing so. Bloggers are private citizens, and have no right to withhold information requested by subpoena. If I get wind of a military document that I'm not supposed to know about, and they give me a subpoena to tell them where I got it, I have no legal right to refuse. Journalists don't have to name their sources, but bloggers are not journalists, and as private citizens, they must comply.

Do you have any background in journalism? I do and I can tell you that your whole characterization of this is way out of left field. Bloggers can choose to hold themselves to "journalist standards" if they want but it doesn't take away their right to report what they have learned

That's central to the legal issue. Do you have any background in law? The fact that bloggers can CHOOSE when they want to be treated as journalists and when they don't is the biggest reason they're not currently considered journalists. "Freedom of the press" doesn't apply to people who aren't members of the press. A real journalist can only stop being a journalist on their personal blog--see the problem?

Only in as much as they are a giant comporation with money and power trying to intimidate a little guy. If the playground bully is beating up a 90-lb. geek, my money's on the bully too, but that doesn't mean I agree with the bully's behavior. It's ridiculous and I think Apple's behavior is awful, if not unconstitutional.

The "90-lb geek" in this case is not complying with the law as it is written. If the "geek" goes to the court, they'll say "give the 'bully' what he wants--you don't have a right to it." I don't think this is a particularly important case in and of itself, and as I said I don't agree with their tactics in making an example out of this case. But they're not wrong because they chose this moment to act within their rights and didn't choose other moments.

This lawsuit is a result of the blogger(s) refusing to comply with a legal request, and then a court order. Apple didn't sue them right out of the gate with no warning. If someone asks you to give you something (and you refuse), then gets a court document that says you have to give it to them (and you refuse), then takes you to court over that refusal, how is that person a bully?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Anyone--ANYONE--has the right to publish anything they want, including trade secrets.

That's a mighty bold absolution that I couldn't disagree w/more. Freedom of Speech, for good reason, is not absolute.


Lethal

 

[inkswamp]

That's not what I said. I said that bloggers don't have the same rights as journalists.

Yes, they absolutely do have the same rights as journalists. What confuses me is where you get this notion that journalists somehow have special rights. When journalists refuse to turn over their sources, they can and do go to jail. I disgaree with that too in the same way that I disagree with Apple going after any blogger for their sources. But as far as rights go, they have all the same rights that any journalist has.

This lawsuit is a result of the blogger(s) refusing to comply with a legal request, and then a court order. Apple didn't sue them right out of the gate with no warning. If someone asks you to give you something (and you refuse), then gets a court document that says you have to give it to them (and you refuse), then takes you to court over that refusal, how is that person a bully?

Because we live in an ostensibly free country where we have the right to say what we want without fear of being bullied. Supposedly. As I alluded to, there are reasonable restrictions on that as far as inciting violence and libelling others, but beyond that, it's fair game. And yes, Apple is behaving like the playground bully by pursuing this in this way. I don't begrudge them their right to go after the leak, but I do very much take offense at the idea that any corporate entity will harass anyone exercising their right to free speech. That's bogus. Apple is absolutely wrong, morally and legally.

I stand by my previous statement. I hope Apple gets their ass handed to them. I love their products, but I will celebrate such a result. They are wrong to use their power in this way.

 

[inkswamp]

That's a mighty bold absolution that I couldn't disagree w/more. Freedom of Speech, for good reason, is not absolute.

I meant in the context of this case. If you read all of my other comments, you'd see that I've twice qualified that statement.

I think in this instance Apple is completely wrong, and is acting like a bully. If someone tells me something that they are contractually obligated to keep secret, am I then contractually obligated to keep that secret? No. Am I legally bound to reveal who told it to me? No.

Sorry, when it comes to personal rights versus big corporations, I will always take the side of personal rights. It's sort of depressing to see anyone arguing otherwise.

 

[matticus008]

Yes, they absolutely do have the same rights as journalists. What confuses me is where you get this notion that journalists somehow have special rights. When journalists refuse to turn over their sources, they can and do go to jail.

You're grossly oversimplifying. Journalists, as professional members of the press, make legally binding confidentiality agreements with their sources. When they are questioned by a subpoena, they can and do cite their confidentiality agreements--a legal backing which is defensible and permissable in most cases. Only when a court determines that the confidentiality agreement should be trumped by the importance of the issue do journalists go to jail. Usually, though, the confidentiality agreement is upheld. A blogger makes no such confidentiality accords (or specifically if you prefer, has not done so in this case) and has no legal defense. There ARE differences between individuals and recognized members of the press. If there weren't, why would some bloggers be pushing so hard for recognition as bona fide journalists?

Because we live in an ostensibly free country where we have the right to say what we want without fear of being bullied. Supposedly.

This isn't about the free speech of a blogger being suppressed. The individuals in question had no right to the information that they received, information that was protected by an NDA. Apple told them to stop and identify the source of the illicit goods. The "speech" in question didn't belong to the blogger(s). If you have collected still images of a film that's still in production and post them, you can be told to take them down. That's not stifling free speech.

Free speech covers your own thoughts and comments about something. It's not free speech to share what doesn't belong to you. If you get an advance copy of a manuscript which an author is trying to sell and put it up on your blog, which then gets picked up and repeated across the Internet, that's not free speech--that's damaging to the author and owner of that manuscript and you're potentially facing a (perfectly legal) lawsuit. If Apple were suing because these individuals said "I heard Apple is going to release so and so from a reliable souce" then yes, I would agree with you.

But they didn't. They published excerpts and materials that they did not own and did not have permission to use. They wrote, "look at what we got our grubby hands on" and posted the source material.

I don't begrudge them their right to go after the leak, but I do very much take offense at the idea that any corporate entity will harass anyone exercising their right to free speech. That's bogus. Apple is absolutely wrong, morally and legally.

You've admitted to them exercising their rights--how are they wrong, legally?

Sorry, when it comes to personal rights versus big corporations, I will always take the side of personal rights. It's sort of depressing to see anyone arguing otherwise.

It's not about big corporation vs. little guy just because those are the parties involved. It could easily be two individuals in this same situation, or two big corporations.

 

[technicolor]

Yeah, and what about the models who pose for ads with the shuffle when it came out. I know I'd talk...

You think apple is dumb enough to let some model know what new products are coming ahead of time?

You can pose anyone wit anything, even if they were never there for the ads. Its called Photoshop.