iGary said:
The judge is accurate in his interpretation of the law. Trade secrets are not public domain and are not protected free speech. There is a right to privacy.
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 Wins Initial Ruling (Officially)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The judge is accurate in his interpretation of the law. Trade secrets are not public domain and are not protected free speech. There is a right to privacy.
cubist said:
Stealing information does indeed deprive the owner of full use of that information by depriving the owner of what ever advantage it would have had otherwise over the competition. Which is an accepted part of common law and does not violate the US Constitution. Which by the way is capitalized.
~loserman~ said:
Your opinion that I must disagree with. The principle here is that if the protections are removed, then the services offered by these people (priests, lawyers, doctors, counselors, etc.) become effectively worthless, or at least greatly diminished.
If you admit to your lawyer that you've committed the crime and that admission can then be use against you, guaranteeing you'll get the most severe punishment, then you'll never admit it. If you don't admit it, then your lawyer can't do his best to do his job because he doesn't have all of the information. Thus, the efficacy of the lawyer is greatly reduced.
Similarly with a doctor. A person won't admit to something that could have medical complications because it could implicate him in a crime and you've gone and removed doctor patient confidentiality.
Or a counselor. If a person killed someone twenty years ago and wants to seek help to deal with the issues surrounding the murder, your argument is that any counselor this person went to should turn him in, so of course he won't go to a counselor. Then the issues will fester, and get worse, until he acts on them and kills again. (And this one applies to priests, too, btw.)
I know that these are arguably extreme cases, but I'm trying to make a point. Eliminating confidentiality is a very dangerous place to tread. It means that you couldn't trust anyone.
For that matter, why not just legalize blanket tapping of phones and emails? The only people that have anything to fear from such a thing are those who have something to hide, right?
Do I need to go on?
macnulty said:
The judge, it appears, is not accurate in his interpretation of California Shield laws, though, which are part of the California Constitution. It seems that he's arguing against these laws being appropriate. I just don't think it's really up to him, is it?
macnulty said:
If a reporter doesn't have to reveal the source of someone who exposed the name of an undercover CIA operative for political motives, why should TS not have the same rights? This case isn't about national, government secrets, it's just a stupid product launch.
macnulty said:
Apple Computer is not an individual, and TS was not publishing Steve Jobs' credit card number, so, that is a weak argument.
MontyZ said:
Boo. VERY stupid argument back to you. Corporations have rights akin to individuals (that's why they're legal entities and that's why there's such a thing as trade secrets) and publishing trade secrets IS like publishing someone's credit card number---that's how they make money!
C'mon, folks can do better than this.
The information published by TS is no vital information The Public should now about, but a companies tradesecrets that are none of our business.
The people harmed: the company (Apple)
the people making profit (or call it profile) TS
all the rest is the usual legal nonsense the US is so famous for.
The people harmed: the company (Apple)
the people making profit (or call it profile) TS
all the rest is the usual legal nonsense the US is so famous for.
what is ... what is not
Business plans, schematics, CAD drawings, financial/part detail contracts are NOT speech, they are physical property.
Speech is ONLY speech if it is used to deliver publicly.
Many have made this point in other discussions about this topic:
Your credit card information is written down - potentially I could get a neighbor of yours to retrieve a credit card statement from your mailbox. So, if I received this information from your neighbor - am I able to publish this information freely on ThinkiGary.com?
iGary said:
macnulty said:
Business plans, schematics, CAD drawings, financial/part detail contracts are NOT speech, they are physical property.
Speech is ONLY speech if it is used to deliver publicly.
Many have made this point in other discussions about this topic:
Your credit card information is written down - potentially I could get a neighbor of yours to retrieve a credit card statement from your mailbox. So, if I received this information from your neighbor - am I able to publish this information freely on ThinkiGary.com?
bit density said:
Pish-posh. Trade Secret has no contract with Apple. Apple cannot bind them in any way. Trade Secret is not even in California, so the law does not apply to them. The case is absurd on its face.
Let's suppose I write "Cubist Confidential" on some slides, and leave them in the street. If you pick them up and publish them, is that a crime? If there is such a law, it's absurd.
In fact, let's try it! This post is "Cubist Confidential" and contains trade secret information.
Copy of lawsuit ruling: could be reversed on appeal
Here is a copy of the ruling in the Apple v. Does case: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/apple/appledoe31105opn.pdf
I'm guessing that this ruling will be appealed by the defendants. The presiding judge anticipates that by noting that he's giving the defendants time to pursue any appeal before he's going to enforce the order.
Here is a copy of the ruling in the Apple v. Does case: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/apple/appledoe31105opn.pdf
I'm guessing that this ruling will be appealed by the defendants. The presiding judge anticipates that by noting that he's giving the defendants time to pursue any appeal before he's going to enforce the order.
ASP272 said:
That sucks for Apple, who found a piece of his hardware announced months before it was ready to ship -if it ever ships-.
The second part is really easy, that should teach greedy bloggers from publishing trade secrets, we all love rumors -that's why we're here, right?- and will keep posting them, as long as they are that: rumors.
lalcan said:
Ya know, I totally agree. Thinking about it, disclosing the source will not really hurt TS, as long as that is all Apple is requiring them to do, disclose the source. And rumors should be rumors! I don't want to know factual information. We didn't see much in the last keynote speech we didn't already know, and that was a bit of a bummer.
~loserman~ said:
Now we're in different territory. In the territory of GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME, there is no confidentiality protection for doctors, counselors or lawyers. If you have a client that you know or suspect is going to commit a crime, particularly if the crime is to endanger someone else, if you don't report it you can be prosecuted as an accessory. For priests, it's a little bit murkier. I believe that it's generally left as an issue of conscience.
How so? The Shield law was meant to protect whistleblower sources... not people stealing information.Snowy_River said:
Candyfingered said:
That's where the judge or appelate will have to do the balancing act. It's clear there's a great public good in protecting sources in order to have the public well informed on matters of state in order that we, the people, may govern correctly (that's a major rationale for freedom of the press, not just to have press freedom for the sake of press freedom).
But there is also good for the public to have such things as customer lists, secret processes, etc., remain away from public discourse, as they are the fruits of labor of individuals who created them--and they should be able to make money from their labor, even if the press can't get at those customer lists and processes.
The balancing act is where the judge draws the line, because the judge has to weigh the two goods....and make no mistake about it, there >IS< much public good in corporations having some of the information kept confidential.
Excellent explanation, gwangung. I think we all need to be reminded that there are two competing concerns to weigh, and it is clear that neither "all secrets must be protected at all times" nor "the public has a right to know everything that anyone learns" is a sensible point of view.gwangung said:
ASP272 said:
Doesn't hurt TS? If your business is based on rumors, but you turn in the sources of your rumors whenever the company in question asks you to, how many people do you think will be inclined to be sources for you? If you don't have sources, what do you suppose will become of your rumors? This would basically push TS in the direction of such sites as MacOSRumors, and others, that people around here love to put down as being so terrible, and never right. It's remarkable how people here can praise a site for having accurate rumors, then turn around and say that it's appropriate for them to get sued by Apple for having sources for those accurate rumors.
Snowy_River said:
Applauds
I think it really boils down to Apple possibly having some rogue employees.
Don't you know Steve is really pissed off.
Snowy_River said:
I dunno....you think this is going to be chilling for papers to use people breaking NDAs and sources who deal in trade secrets? That's already illegal in the first place....
Nothing stops Think Secret and other papers from working harder, ask questions that don't infringe on trade secret protections and coming up with conclusions from that.
bit density said:
I did not say you going to a pawn shop and buy something that was stolen, simply you have no way of knowing that.
However, pawn shop owners have been arrested for receiving stolen goods, how much trouble they are in depends on whether they knowingly knew it was stolen or whether they should have known. Like a guy shows up to the shop with a bunch of DVD player in box with a packing label still on them with a name other than the person holding them. Well common sense tells you this is probably not on the up and up. If you take it from him you probably going to be in trouble. This is exactly how police catch people, they show up with stuff that is obviously stolen and see if the guy goes for it.
In Apple case if the person handed information over to TS or any other persons which was clearly marked as Apple property and and you would think that TS would know if the information is public or not since watch Apple very closely, it becomes hard for them to say they had no idea. Therefore, they probably knew it was stolen.
As the judge has pointed out, Apple has the right to know who took that information. Obviously TS, does not want to tell them because in the future it kills their ability to gather this information since people will not risk it if they think Apple can find out who they are. Also, if Apple finds out who and puts the chain of events together, this could bring criminal charges for all parties involved.
Maestro64 said:
Two years back I bought a Newton 2100 from a Pawn Shop. Two days later, I was called and told I had to surrender it or reveal the new owner if I didn't have it. Pawn Shops are responsible for their items and the purchaser agrees to surrender the item if SUBSTANTIAL evidence can be provided that it was stolen or someone else's property.
In my case, I bought it within hours of it coming out. Someone else had seen it and notified the original owner that one was in a pawn shop.
There are many precendent laws that Think Secret has to deal with.