Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sites Looking to Block Subpoenas
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iBook said:
Oh, PLEASE. Any first year journalism text has a big chapter devoted to that. And look at the AP Style Book; has always contained chapters on libel, defamation of character, privacy, copyrights, patents and trade secrets.
Been doing it for a long time...ever since my journalism classes.
gwangung said:
Well... let's see here. As a journalist, with 10 years at real daily newspapers (Freedom, Knight-Ridder and Cox), I understand the difference between trade secrets and product-related speculation. Nothing on the site in question pertained to the how of what Apple intended to do (i.e., a trade secret), only the what. Perfectly reasonable.
Given that I have my AP stylebook beside me, I await your counsel on chapter and verse. Happy to direct my attention to what you believe are the relevant passages in the hymnal.
gwangung said:
Read my post. I only cited case law. The distinction between what is a public person vs. a private person varies in context and seems a bit to much to dive into on a Mac-related forum. Most people simply need to know the highlights: absence of malice and truth.
With respect to your other comments:
Patents are a matter of public record, so they're fair game as far as news coverage is concerned.
No one published the "secret formula" for Coca Cola here. Neither did anyone publish the source code for an Apple product. The Web site simply speculated that said product existed.
iBook said:
What, you don't think that actual specifications of a product two plus weeks before release wouldn't be a trade secret?????? THose specs pre-release would most DEFINITELY give Apple an advantage in marketing and distributing their product.
Apple may eventually lose their case, but, as I repeatedly said, it's far from clear that this is a slam dunk case.
iBook said:
As I said before this wasn't speculation, the writer knew it to be true. A fact.
They also knew a crime was being commited, when the employee divulged those facts, they also knew reporting those facts in the way they did would harm apple and provide no other benefit other than entertainment.
iBook said:
Um, details are PRECISELY what the case law is about; if you abstract it enough, and go up the generalization chain, you're not going to get much disagreement.
It's when you get into the guts of the matter at hand and deal with the details that you have problems. And you simply can't apply Sullivan v. NY Times here, as we're dealing with different legal princples (privacy/defamation of character are not equivalent to distribution of trade secrets). It's a simple minded equivalency that does not hold true and only serves to muddy the waters.
Sayhey said:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is representing Nick. You can make a donation to them at http://www.eff.com/support/
AmbitiousLemon said:
And those wishing to contribute to Apple's legal fund, should purchase a mac mini.
gwangung said:
Again, read my post, attached. I did not equate Sullivan with trade secrets. I mentioned Sullivan in the context of a defamation-related judgment.
If you want to open a separate forum and discuss the guts of Sullivan and other media-related court decisions, then fine. Let's do it. I don't see the point of getting into the guts of journalism-related court decisions in a computer-focused bulletin board.
Also, before you go around calling people "simple-minded," you should stop, take a deep breath and reconsider. This is a conversation, presumably among adults.
Especially when you made the "equivalency" between libel and corporate trade secrets. You then went on to say that "patents ... are protected," even though they're public record and are freely and openly reported all the time.
Attachments
AmbitiousLemon said:
Thank you! I was just looking over their website while you were posting the above link. For all of us frustrated lawyer wannabes, their site has the actual filing requesting the the protective order. It makes good reading, especially for those who have forgotten the First Amendment issues involved in the case. So, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation and please tell me how anyone can support Apple's position in this matter.
i still support apples position.
i still understand that revealing information that came from a nda source still makes the website accountable. and giving up the source in this case simply reveals who broke the law.
frankly, this is all much less about private free speech than it is about trade secrets and apples right to protect their intellectual property. specific factual information leaked out in advance about unreleased products was not a rumor per se, but someone inside breaking their nda. apple should be angry.
i still understand that revealing information that came from a nda source still makes the website accountable. and giving up the source in this case simply reveals who broke the law.
frankly, this is all much less about private free speech than it is about trade secrets and apples right to protect their intellectual property. specific factual information leaked out in advance about unreleased products was not a rumor per se, but someone inside breaking their nda. apple should be angry.
NDAs are basically agreements that say hey... we can fire you if you tell anyone. But they're double-edged swords for the company. The only thing Apple did by going after the guy is acknowledge that there was some truth to it, in a sense nullifying the purpose of the NDA. That's the only thing publicly going after an NDA ever does. How can you keep a secret if you tell everyone the secret is out?
It's like someone posted earlier - there are better (for the company), more discreet ways to go after an NDA violator... but I won't mention it either since I like the hype they produce.
As for the first amendment issue, I think everyone deserves the right to speak without persecution. But you can't deny that Americans have been giving up that right little by little for a while now. We've been surrendering the first amendment to the corporations ever since they heard the term MP3 (and before that). As it stands now, if I opened up an MP3 file in a hex editor, printed that out and posted the results in a New-York times full page ad... that would be illegal and I could be sued by the RIAA for it. Technically it's free speech, but I could also go to prison for it.
Have you noticed Apple doesn't give a **** about rumors of products they don't release? Why would they? The rumor site will hang itself by decreasing its own credibility.
It's like someone posted earlier - there are better (for the company), more discreet ways to go after an NDA violator... but I won't mention it either since I like the hype they produce.
As for the first amendment issue, I think everyone deserves the right to speak without persecution. But you can't deny that Americans have been giving up that right little by little for a while now. We've been surrendering the first amendment to the corporations ever since they heard the term MP3 (and before that). As it stands now, if I opened up an MP3 file in a hex editor, printed that out and posted the results in a New-York times full page ad... that would be illegal and I could be sued by the RIAA for it. Technically it's free speech, but I could also go to prison for it.
soniquev8 said:
heck, i want to have the music i've made get purchased on itunes (it's available there) instead of stolen by the kiddies. it's not just corporations, even though it's easier to make it a nameless faceless huge entity. for music, it's bands, recording studios, gear manufacturers, indie labels, ma and pa music stores, etc. - everyone in the business got hit. so the mp3 thing isn't relevent other than to say that's another area where ARTISTS RIGHTS are forgotten by those running off at the mouth about the right to "share" stolen mp3's and all of that *********. heck, if music is free i'd like to know why my music gear, lessons, studio time, cd pressings, video production, distribution, management, etc. isn't free. oh, i forgot, music costs money to make and distribute. anyhow, this is all off topic. other than to say that the creators of intellectual property are portrayed as bad guys just for protecting their own stuff. hey, it's their right to protect their stuff as they see fit.
Well, workplace morale is a factor. Apple can be quite the political and uptight place to work at *times*. Wouldn't want to tighten the screws too hard.
Not that any employee in his right mind is quitting with the stock till AFTER the stock split *L*
Not that any employee in his right mind is quitting with the stock till AFTER the stock split *L*
gwangung said:
On the other hand, a company will never publish its customer lists.
Apple itself, however, released all the details on these products a few days/weeks after the leaks.
Isn't it a stretch of the term "trade secret" to use it to cover something that will be handed out in glossy brochures in a few days?
try revisiting an earlier thread on this topic.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/106024/
second post down and we see the info that has tended to inform my opinion on the matter. the website didn't have to be under nda to be in the wrong and held accountable.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/106024/
second post down and we see the info that has tended to inform my opinion on the matter. the website didn't have to be under nda to be in the wrong and held accountable.
pounce said:
You make some interesting observations. Interesting because they point to a willingness among individuals to compromise the rights of a larger group for the sake of their personal views. Not saying you're wrong, though I and a whole lot of other people disagree.
However, by your logic, it seems to me, you should no longer read rumor-driven sites such as MacRumors.com; rather, you should await whatever news Apple releases at apple.com. Otherwise, your actions (i.e., I want news Apple isn't willing to share publicly yet!) do not reflect your speech (i.e., Throw the book at 'em!).
AidenShaw said:
Perhaps. On the other hand, what are you thinking of when you hear the term "trade secret"? Legally, it covers material that conveys a substantive advantage in the market by being kept secret (and the company takes substantive steps to keep it secret). I don't know of any case law that specifically covers instances of things that are temporarily secret...but I can't rule it out (and there is the case of car makers being secretive, alluded to above). Certainly, things like internal documents laying out its marketing strategy would have a strong case of being covered; this instance may fall into that.
pounce said:
Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.
As for the rest, only the court's decision on whether "Nick de Plume" was complicit in the violation of the NDA Apple signed with the "Does" involved will matter at this point.
But as a matter of debate, where is the TRADE SECRET in saying Company X will announce Product Y at Event A? What "intellectual property" does said company lose via the announcement of a product name and a surface-level description of its functionality?
I have to say this again because I think it bears repeating. Apple is on a personal witch hunt here, and it's willing to drag the courts into its corporate paranoia. Does anybody really think Apple lost a single dime from the pre-show rumor mill?
My answer: No.
For those of you who answer yes, you would also have to stand behind Apple Records' decision to sue Apple Computer.
Same flawed logic seems to apply in the filing of both cases.
Does anyone really understand?
It seems that all the comments i have read have misinterpreted what is going on here. Apple is NOT trying to block these websites reporting the press, OR shut them down or anything like that. A subpeona just forces them to disclose who gave them the information so that Apple can rightfully deal with those employees who BROKE THEIR NON-DISCLOSURE CONTRACTS. This is an illegal act, and Apple has to be given the ability to act upon this. If employees can see that their breach of these contracts can go without response from Apple, what will prevent them from breaching these contracts in the future?
Everyone is posting comments on how Apple has no right to shut down the rumour sites, and they should backoff, but nobody is actually paying attention to the fact that Apple has not actually tried to shutdown the rumour sites. They just want to seal the leaks. If the rumour sites can find things out in a legal way, that is fine, but Apple needs to be able to enforce these binding contracts with its own employees somehow, and if these rumour sites know which employees have breached the contracts, Apple should be given this information.
It seems that all the comments i have read have misinterpreted what is going on here. Apple is NOT trying to block these websites reporting the press, OR shut them down or anything like that. A subpeona just forces them to disclose who gave them the information so that Apple can rightfully deal with those employees who BROKE THEIR NON-DISCLOSURE CONTRACTS. This is an illegal act, and Apple has to be given the ability to act upon this. If employees can see that their breach of these contracts can go without response from Apple, what will prevent them from breaching these contracts in the future?
Everyone is posting comments on how Apple has no right to shut down the rumour sites, and they should backoff, but nobody is actually paying attention to the fact that Apple has not actually tried to shutdown the rumour sites. They just want to seal the leaks. If the rumour sites can find things out in a legal way, that is fine, but Apple needs to be able to enforce these binding contracts with its own employees somehow, and if these rumour sites know which employees have breached the contracts, Apple should be given this information.
AidenShaw said:
ALL the details? Really? The so-called "Asteroid" device has not been released yet. And it's that specific device that this particular lawsuit is about. The Think Secret situation is a separate case.
iBook said:
the product mentioned has still not been released. there is no way to determine if the release of such information did cause trouble or financial loss to apple. i don't think we have enough information to determine what the effects of leaked information of future hardware releases is.
in any event, a subpoena to determine who it was that broke their nda via legal channels is not personal out of line at all. the point is simple and the logic is not flawed. it's not corportate paranoia when we realize that proprietary information has been released in violation of some nda. it's not a witch hunt. there was some specific source that violated a legal agreement, and for that there is legal recourse. your colorful terminology is misleading. personal and witchhunt and paranoia are poor descriptors of this situation. it's specific legal business. and it's apples right to pursue and enforce nda's, otherwise they wouldn't have them.
and this is all about finding out who it was that did disclose the information. not about muzzling the media or free speech. and while some people may think it's somehow "wrong" for apple to enforce their legal agreements, it seems that the only bad guys here are the ones who broke the nda. no flawed logic there, and no colorful but deceptive language.
gwangung said:
There is a shield law in California. One passed by the voters. If you read the request for a protective order filed by the EFF lawyers you would know that. Although I've seen a lot of interesting lectures on the limits of the First Amendment, many of which don't apply to this case, I've yet to see much about how limiting our free speech rights in order to protect Apple from having product releases revealed in an untimely manner is a good idea.