Apple Wins Initial Ruling

[fatchuck]

Sorry, but you are not correct in at least one aspect. "Asteroid" is still an unreleased product; that's DEFINITELY covered by trade secrets. Information about the iPod shuffle was at least two weeks before release; that may not turn out to be covered by trade secret protection, but it also may--there's at least a prima facie case to be made that it is--and that's something to be determined by trial.
And you are incorrect with respect to publishing trade secrets. There is established case law about this; if you published material that you know to be trade secrets and if you solicited it, you are open to a suit. Like it or not, but that's established case law.

Please cite your cases for established case law, because I think your argument is full of crap. Additionally, Think Secret is covered by the California Shield Law first enacted in 1935, and incorporated into the state constitution in 1980:

"The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."

Again, please cite your California-based case law, and where "trade secrets" law overrules state constitutional law.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Again, please cite your California-based case law, and where "trade secrets" law overrules state constitutional law.

California and 43 other states have the UTSA which SPECIFICALLY supercedes the shield law because what you don't get is that this information IS NOT SPEECH - it is property. Just because it is words and diagrams does NOT mean it is public information. The Uniform Trade Secret Act , in a way, established, business plans (trade secrets) as private property, just as building or land.

And by the way, California and Michigan were the first two states to adopt it!

 

[drewyboy]

OH please

Apple's trade secrets and research are *still* secret. Think Secret published leaked information about upcoming products that were due to be released within one week. That's hardly in the same class as say, releasing OS X's uncompiled source code base to the general public, or publishing the secret discussions of Apple management meetings.

As for openly encouraging people to email them, that is not a violation of any NDA unless Think Secret agreed to and signed Apple's NDA. They didn't. As a journalistic web site, it is their responsibility to encourage and publish leaks, just like TheStreet.com does, and NYTimes.com does, and every other frigging news site on the Internet does. The fact that they happened to release Apple leaks just galls your fanboy mentality, and I'm appalled that Apple is picking on these sites when we know damned well they wouldn't approach well-funded, well-represented publications like CNN or the Washington Post.

you know, i think u probably work for the press. your one of "those people" who stick their nose in everyone's business saying " i have the freedom of speech... blah blah blah". as for me i am happy apple is doing this. just cuz they decide to keep things secret unlike the name of the devil cough cough **gates*** cough cough, they actually like suprising the public and not allowing compeditors to see their cards.

 

[Punani]

The constitution is NOT a living breathing document - it is law - it is clear - it is concrete. That's why it takes a MAJOR ordeal to add an ammendment.

This is not a thread about Constitutional interpretation. However, your statement is an opinion. There are two camps to Constitutional thought one being a literalist interpretation, Antonin Scalia is considered the strongest member of the Supreme Court that adheres to this principle. The other camp supports a more dynamic and flexible interpretation that varies given the circumstances and times.

Both have very strong reasons and I understand them, but to argue that:

So, yes I hope the Constitution keeps it's meaning and purpose from the 18th Century. It wasn't an interpretive document. It was an enforcing document.

is fact is rather misleading.

 

[drewyboy]

oh also it's stupid things like the California Shield Law that screw this country up. so according to that, someone could leak "confidential" government info but be protected. its all bull.

 

[fatchuck]

you know, i think u probably work for the press. your one of "those people" who stick their nose in everyone's business saying " i have the freedom of speech... blah blah blah". as for me i am happy apple is doing this. just cuz they decide to keep things secret unlike the name of the devil cough cough **gates*** cough cough, they actually like suprising the public and not allowing compeditors to see their cards.

Thank you for replying to my argument, and for forgoing personal attacks born out of the inability to articulate yourself clearly and persuasively on a given topic. I appreciate it. 🙂

As for the others here who did bother to argue this case, you may be right, but I hope not. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[digitalbiker]

I am not a lawyer but doesn't Apple have to prove that they were damaged. I for one don't think that leaking information about an upcoming product damages Apple.

I know that you can make an arguement that , "IF" a competitor used this information. But you can't use "IF" as a grounds for damages can you.

I mean ThinkSecret didn't release electronic schematics or photos of internal components, or software code. In my mind those are "real" trade secrets. If there are no competitors who act on the leaked product information and produce a similar product "where is the damage".

 

[Koodauw]

Can I suggest that we keep this to the posted article and take the 1st ammendment arguement to a different thread?

And I'll second the need for some products rumors.

 

[bosrs1]

Apple won a preliminary ruling allowing it to subpoena information from three Mac sites which helped leak information surrounding a recently rumored audio product ("Asteroid").

It was reported that earlier this month that lawyers representing these sites were challenging these subpoenas under first amendment protection.

The ruling is expected to be appealed.

Good. I'm all for free press, but stealing trade secrets goes beyond the press. And frankly it hurts Apple more then it genereates helpful buzz. I for one hope they win the case outright and get the flagrant thief sites to stop stealing secrets.

 

[Steamboatwillie]

I wish they'd spend the money they are spending on legal fees on some OSX advertising. 🙄

AND... what about some Mac Mini ad's? Seems to me that should be a bit higher on the list eh?

 

[MontyZ]

Okay, those of you who think this is a good thing Apple is doing, how does this possible scenario sit with you:

MacRumors happens to guess a future Apple product release correctly, say the 2-button wheel mouse. Apple actually releases a 2-button wheel mouse, and then promptly sues MacRumors to find out who gave them this information. MacRumors is forced to turn over all information they have about all of you to Apple lawyers. MacRumors has to hire expensive lawyers to defend itself, only for Apple to discover the info didn't come from some current or former Apply employee, it was just a good guess. By this time, MacRumors has racked up $20,000 in legal bills.

This is exactly what can happen if this lawsuit goes forward. It will set a dangerous precedent for companies to sue anyone if they hint at or guess future product releases, even if they just used a crystal ball to divine it. This type of lawsuit becomes a weapon, a way for a very rich company like Apple to financially ruin someone who is not rich, whether or not the accused is innocent or not. It happens every day in this country! The legal system in the USA is only fully accessible to the rich who can afford to hire $300+/hour lawyers.

The point is, how can Apple know for sure that the "rumor" was divulged by someone under contract or just a good guess? Does this still give them the right to sue anyone or everyone who makes a guess at their next new product? Maybe the responsibility rests on Apple to improve the way they guard their trade secrets instead of blaming and suing others for their own incompetency.

 

[maelstromr]

Awesome, not one, but two people who think case law and constitutional precedent stood still after the 18th century!

This decision by the judge is extremely bad for the public, and for people who publish rumors from non-government confidential sources. While Apple fanboys may like this decision, Apple NDA's aren't worth the paper they're printed on - look up the case law on enforcing commercial NDA's (including Microsoft, SCO, and Rambus) if you don't believe me. This decision is also bad because while the Apple leaks led to early knowledge of upcoming products, this precedent can also be used by Company A to force web publishers to cough up the names of sources who revealed Company A's illegal trade practices, environmental violations, or labor abuses.

In short, while Apple may benefit a little about keeping upcoming product debuts secret, companies who are a great deal more malicious than Apple will benefit from this decision by being able to track down the confidential sources who revealed Bad Activity A, B, or C and then fire and sue them into oblivion.

Of course, you may feel that's OK.

Well, you know one small smidgeon of the law, but don't seem to be familiar with several other very pertinent sections. Look up whistleblower protections and some out-growths of sarbanes-oxley et al. You are totally incorrect in your assessment of the situation...it is illegal to punish people for exposing illegal behavior. Good try though...when does first year law school end?

 

[EvilMole]

It's really cut and dry ... Think Secret solicits for information by phone number SPECIFICALLY for those that have information under non disclosure. This doesn't necessarily make what they publish illegal ... but the course of action it takes to get this information - is easily equatable to accessory to crime.

Two points. First of all, you're thinking of the wrong case. This is the case where Apple is attempting to obtain the sources of a story from three sites, not suing them for what they posted. This has nothing to do with whether the information was obtained in a way that was legal.

Secondly, the case hinges on whether TS and the others are doing journalism. By any rational view, they are - hence, the judge is completely wrong in denying them the same protection as other journalists.

Stop being such an Apple fanboy for ten minutes and you might actually make a decent argument.

 

[EvilMole]

I'm not surprised they won. The first amendment is about ensuring the government can't suppress criticism of it - it's not about publishing commercial in confidence information on web sites.

Historically it's very important that citizens be free to criticize the government. Trying to stretch such an important idea to cover Macintosh rumors demeans it I think.

This case isn't really about the first amendment. It's about whether TS, PowerPage and AppleInsider are protected by the Californian law which specifically protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. The judge held that they weren't, because they aren't "legitimate members of the press". This is quite obviously nonsense, and hopefully will be turned over on appeal.

 

[maelstromr]

This case isn't really about the first amendment. It's about whether TS, PowerPage and AppleInsider are protected by the Californian law which specifically protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. The judge held that they weren't, because they aren't "legitimate members of the press". This is quite obviously nonsense, and hopefully will be turned over on appeal.

Didn't we get over this journalist thing? Remember how journalists aren't necessarily protected if they are disseminating illegally obtained info/trade secrets? Doesn't ayone read the whole post before spouting?

 

[EvilMole]

California and 43 other states have the UTSA which SPECIFICALLY supercedes the shield law because what you don't get is that this information IS NOT SPEECH - it is property.

That's absolute nonsense. An enacted law cannot overrule part of a constitution, without the constitution being amended. That's the difference between a law, and a constitution. As the Journalist Shield is incorporated into the Californian constitution, it overrides the UTSA.

Whether it is property or speech makes no difference. Suppose, for example, that a journalist receives a stolen memo showing that Apple is dumping carcinogenic waste in China. This memo is copyright - the property of Apple, and would be specifically covered by UTSA. Does that mean that Apple has the right to force the journalist to reveal his source?

 

[fixyourthinking]

Two points. First of all, you're thinking of the wrong case. This is the case where Apple is attempting to obtain the sources of a story from three sites, not suing them for what they posted. This has nothing to do with whether the information was obtained in a way that was legal.

Secondly, the case hinges on whether TS and the others are doing journalism. By any rational view, they are - hence, the judge is completely wrong in denying them the same protection as other journalists.

Stop being such an Apple fanboy for ten minutes and you might actually make a decent argument.

Apparently you don't keep up ... this is a PART of the whole Think Secret lawsuit and since you haven't been following my posts (rants to some) I made a connection between Jason O Grady and Think Secret - so their sources are most likely one in the same or possibly shared.

I honestly don't think AppleInsider is all that involved - I think they parsed this from other information or got from a friend who knows a friend's dad who works for the trash pickup guy at ATI or something like that.

By ANY rational view - gossip (synonym for rumor) IS NOT journalism. I do believe it is protected speech though - just as long as it adheres to the ethical and legal flow of information.

"This has nothing to do with whether the information was obtained in a way that was legal. "

Umm .. they are trying to find these sources to see if they were coerced, broke NDA, or are committing corporate espionage. IT IS to find out what the sites know so Apple will know who and what entities to bring in to this. AND to relate - it is 1 slice of this legal pie's mess.

 

[maelstromr]

That's absolute nonsense. An enacted law cannot overrule part of a constitution, without the constitution being amended. That's the difference between a law, and a constitution. As the Journalist Shield is incorporated into the Californian constitution, it overrides the UTSA.

Whether it is property or speech makes no difference. Suppose, for example, that a journalist receives a stolen memo showing that Apple is dumping carcinogenic waste in China. This memo is copyright - the property of Apple, and would be specifically covered by UTSA. Does that mean that Apple has the right to force the journalist to reveal his source?

Ugh - read my earlier post about whistle blowing and the distinctions between WHAT you are revealing. Revealing illegal behavior is different than disseminating protected info. Illegal behavior cannot be hidden by copyright.

 

[EvilMole]

Didn't we get over this journalist thing? Remember how journalists aren't necessarily protected if they are disseminating illegally obtained info/trade secrets? Doesn't ayone read the whole post before spouting?

Wrong. Whether something is illegally obtained or not makes no difference to whether a journalist is protected. Think about it: neither TS, PowerPage, nor AppleInsider have been convicted of violating any law regarding trade secrets.

To judge that a source passed on information illegally, you would need to know who that source was, and the exact nature of the information passed on - in other words, that source would have to be exposed. This is why shield laws make no mention of how information is obtained.

 

[fixyourthinking]

That's absolute nonsense. An enacted law cannot overrule part of a constitution, without the constitution being amended. That's the difference between a law, and a constitution. As the Journalist Shield is incorporated into the Californian constitution, it overrides the UTSA.
...

This case isn't really about the first amendment.

Make up your mind. Is it about the 1st ammendment right or not?

I agree with your first argument.

AND THERE IS NO SUCH constitutional right as Freedom of speech - there IS a right to NOT have the government abridge what you say or REPORT / SPEAK about the government.

But, given that most people have the view of Freedom of speech it's fine.

Clearly in this case, the "reporters" have obtained PROPERTY illegally and THEN turned around and reported it unlawfully.

Whether or not you think a law cannot supercede the constitution - the UTSA is a REAL law.

 

[maelstromr]

Wrong. Whether something is illegally obtained or not makes no difference to whether a journalist is protected. Think about it: neither TS, PowerPage, nor AppleInsider have been convicted of violating any law regarding trade secrets.

To judge that a source passed on information illegally, you would need to know who that source was, and the exact nature of the information passed on - in other words, that source would have to be exposed. This is why shield laws make no mention of how information is obtained.

Double wrong.

It is not the "journalist's" activities that are being attacked, it is something in their possession. If I have a computer that I bought legally from someone, but they stole it, is that computer mine? No. Do i have any recourse other than to hope i can get my money back if they catch the guy I bought it from? No.

Your reading of the law suggests that journalists are sacrosanct and can never be held accountable for anything. There is lot's of FEDERAL precedent (including a couple recent terrorism cases) that suggest otherwise.

FYI - federal law trumps state anything.

 

[EvilMole]

Apparently you don't keep up ... this is a PART of the whole Think Secret lawsuit and since you haven't been following my posts (rants to some) I made a connection between Jason O Grady and Think Secret - so their sources are most likely one in the same or possibly shared.

Apparently, you know nothing of the law. It's an entirely seperate case, which is one of the reasons why EFF is representing TS in this case, but not the other one. What's more, I don't give a rats ass if you made any particular connection: what matters is the legal facts, as put before a court.

I honestly don't think AppleInsider is all that involved - I think they parsed this from other information or got from a friend who knows a friend's dad who works for the trash pickup guy at ATI or something like that.

Again, I don't care what you think. I care what the law says, and about teh facts put forward in the case.

By ANY rational view - gossip (synonym for rumor) IS NOT journalism. I do believe it is protected speech though - just as long as it adheres to the ethical and legal flow of information.

First of all, if it's gossip then the other case against TS must collapse. Printing gossip isn't breaking any trade secrets law.

However, TS isn't printing gossip as you and I both know: it's printing facts. Facts, what's more, that are obtained through conventional journalistic method. Unlike you, I know Nick dePlume and how he works. He's a journalist, by any reasonable measure of the word.

Umm .. they are trying to find these sources to see if they were coerced, broke NDA, or are committing corporate espionage. IT IS to find out what the sites know so Apple will know who and what entities to bring in to this. AND to relate - it is 1 slice of this legal pie's mess.

Simply accusing someone of having obtained information illegally does not mean Apple, you, or anyone else can then instantly have access to a journalists sources. The shield law is clear on this: it makes no distinction about how information is obtained.

 

[EvilMole]

Make up your mind. Is it about the 1st ammendment right or not?

Read what I said again. The constitution I'm referring to is the Californian one, not the US one.

 

[EvilMole]

It is not the "journalist's" activities that are being attacked, it is something in their possession. If I have a computer that I bought legally from someone, but they stole it, is that computer mine? No. Do i have any recourse other than to hope i can get my money back if they catch the guy I bought it from? No.

Source materials are specifically covered by the Calif. Shield law - specifically, all unpublished information including "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"

Your reading of the law suggests that journalists are sacrosanct and can never be held accountable for anything. There is lot's of FEDERAL precedent (including a couple recent terrorism cases) that suggest otherwise.

FYI - federal law trumps state anything.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. However, I am suggesting that the Calif. Shield law specifically covers these kinds of materials.

 

[maelstromr]

Source materials are specifically covered by the Calif. Shield law - specifically, all unpublished information including "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"




I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. However, I am suggesting that the Calif. Shield law specifically covers these kinds of materials.

What you don't get is that illegal materials CAN'T BE COVERED!

One more time:

ILLEGAL MATERIALS CAN NOT BE PROTECTED.

Do I need to say it again?

THE REASON WE HAVE A COURT LOOKING AT THIS IS SO APPLE CAN SAY..."this was illegal, so not protected." The judge says "yes/no, you can/cannot have this information." Apple is on the way to getting a "yes, I agree, this trade secret was illegally obtained, you can have this information."