Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins Initial Ruling

EvilMole said:
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 Shield law - specifically, all unpublished information including "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort"
.
Click to expand...

not if your sources reveal trade secret!!

another post pointed out that federal law trumps state law - multi state law also holds a lot of weight. Almost EVERY state has adopted the UTSA.

The shield law is NOT the constitution and is sort of irrelevant seeing since NONE of the persons being ruled against here live there. Nick Ciarelli = New York, Jason O Grady= Pennsylvania.
 
maelstromr said:
What you don't get is that illegal materials CAN'T BE COVERED!

One more time:

ILLEGAL MATERIALS CAN NOT BE PROTECTED.
Click to expand...

Show me the court case where Think Secret, PowerPage or AppleInsider have been convicted of any illegal act.

Apple *saying* that something is illegally obtained doesn't make it so. Thankfully, that's the job of courts and judges, not corporations.

maelstromr said:
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."
Click to expand...

No, you're getting this case the wrong way round. Apple is specifically arguing that the sites are not protected by the shield law, because if they are then they cannot be forced to reveal their sources even if they are illegally obtained.

If that were not the case, the key argument would be about how the documents were obtained, not whether the sites are journalistic or not.
 
adzoox said:
not if your sources reveal trade secret!!

another post pointed out that federal law trumps state law - multi state law also holds a lot of weight. Almost EVERY state has adopted the UTSA.

The shield law is NOT the constitution and is sort of irrelevant seeing since NONE of the persons being ruled against here live there. Nick Ciarelli = New York, Jason O Grady= Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

The shield law is incorporated into the state constitution. This is not a federal case. What the information is is irrelevant to this case, which is SOLELY about whether TS et al are journalists, and therefore protected by the shield law.
 
Hopefully this will result in the shutdown of Think Secret. I'm tired of them leaking everything big about Apple. Especially when they revealed the Mac Mini. I've seen how it disheartens people who work for Apple to have their big suprises repeatedly crushed by some snot nosed college student.
 
bosrs1 said:
Hopefully this will result in the shutdown of Think Secret. I'm tired of them leaking everything big about Apple. Especially when they revealed the Mac Mini. I've seen how it disheartens people who work for Apple to have their big suprises repeatedly crushed by some snot nosed college student.
Click to expand...

This case has nothing to do with "shutting down Think Secret". This case is not about suing TS, it's about subpeonaing it and other sites to reveal information. Unlike the completely different trade secrets violation case, this is NOT punitive.
 
EvilMole said:
Show me the court case where Think Secret, PowerPage or AppleInsider have been convicted of any illegal act.

Apple *saying* that something is illegally obtained doesn't make it so. Thankfully, that's the job of courts and judges, not corporations.
Click to expand...
Apple is however searching for the leaks and will most likely file a complaint with the hopes of having these leaks arrested like they did Jose Lopez when he leaked trade secret information.

Should be interesting to see if the amount of facts released equal the hand drawn pictures that Jose Lopez released.

Most likely Apple will fight to say the amount of facts do equal a similar breach of confidential information.
 
This is just more of this sh*t that Apple has been doing lately.
Apple needs to change their motto to "Sue Different".
I really loath to see Apple going after journalists and suing their fans. This is a very sad chapter for Apple. 😡
Litigation is a terrible American tradition that produces nothing and drains our economy. (Yes I'm an American)

Why is Apple acting like this?
People are mentioning Apple in the same sentance as SCO.
What a drag.
😡
 
EvilMole said:
The shield law is incorporated into the state constitution. This is not a federal case. What the information is is irrelevant to this case, which is SOLELY about whether TS et al are journalists, and therefore protected by the shield law.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that. That's what the defendants lawyers are claiming, but I doubt very much that will be the defining principle.

And I doubt that the shield law can be extended into private tort action without extensive modification.

I note that you did not argue against the thesis that sites cannot publish illegally obtained information. Good. Because part of the findings of fact in the case will be to show that this information WAS illegally obtained.
 
EvilMole said:
This case has nothing to do with "shutting down Think Secret". This case is not about suing TS, it's about subpeonaing it and other sites to reveal information. Unlike the completely different trade secrets violation case, this is NOT punitive.
Click to expand...
Good. The sources of the leaks should be discovered. What if this were CIA secrets or Military secrets...
 
adzoox said:
not if your sources reveal trade secret!!

another post pointed out that federal law trumps state law - multi state law also holds a lot of weight. Almost EVERY state has adopted the UTSA.

The shield law is NOT the constitution and is sort of irrelevant seeing since NONE of the persons being ruled against here live there. Nick Ciarelli = New York, Jason O Grady= Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Sweet God. As for federal law, that's quaint, but this isn't being heard at the Federal level - it's being held in Santa Clara County courts, meaning it's covered by state laws. Federal law isn't relevant, and it's not part of this case.

And, the Shield Law *is* part of the California constitution, /unlike/ the Trade Secrets law, so yes, the Trade Secrets law is further on down the legal totem pole, and I hope it stays that way once Apple fails after this ruling is appealed.

Interestingly, no one has replied to MontyZ's post above. I guess for some, everything Apple does is justified, even when it's clearly abusive. Additionally, journalists *are* protected. See this from Think Secret's legal counsel, whose legal opinion I will take over all the IANAL's (I Am Not A Lawyer) in here:

"The Supreme Court has said that a journalist cannot be held liable for publishing information that the journalist obtained lawfully. Think Secret has not used any improper newsgathering techniques. We will be filing a motion asking the Court to dismiss this case immediately on First Amendment grounds under a California statute which weeds out meritless claims that threaten First Amendment rights."

Given that Think Secret legally obtained the information, and did not break into Apple, or hack their servers, or torture/extort Apple employees to get the information, I think they'll win.
 
fatchuck said:
Sweet God. As for federal law, that's quaint, but this isn't being heard at the Federal level - it's being held in Santa Clara County courts, meaning it's covered by state laws. Federal law isn't relevant, and it's not part of this case.

And, the Shield Law *is* part of the California constitution, /unlike/ the Trade Secrets law, so yes, the Trade Secrets law is further on down the legal totem pole, and I hope it stays that way once Apple fails after this ruling is appealed.

Interestingly, no one has replied to MontyZ's post above. I guess for some, everything Apple does is justified, even when it's clearly abusive. Additionally, journalists *are* protected. See this from Think Secret's legal counsel, whose legal opinion I will take over all the IANAL's (I Am Not A Lawyer) in here:

"The Supreme Court has said that a journalist cannot be held liable for publishing information that the journalist obtained lawfully. Think Secret has not used any improper newsgathering techniques. We will be filing a motion asking the Court to dismiss this case immediately on First Amendment grounds under a California statute which weeds out meritless claims that threaten First Amendment rights."

Given that Think Secret legally obtained the information, and did not break into Apple, or hack their servers, or torture/extort Apple employees to get the information, I think they'll win.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?
 
EvilMole said:
Show me the court case where Think Secret, PowerPage or AppleInsider have been convicted of any illegal act.

Apple *saying* that something is illegally obtained doesn't make it so. Thankfully, that's the job of courts and judges, not corporations.



No, you're getting this case the wrong way round. Apple is specifically arguing that the sites are not protected by the shield law, because if they are then they cannot be forced to reveal their sources even if they are illegally obtained.

If that were not the case, the key argument would be about how the documents were obtained, not whether the sites are journalistic or not.
Click to expand...


Can someone throw up the text of this vaunted "shield law" (a law is NOT part of the constitution, by definition.) My firm doesn't have access to CA laws for free and I'm not going to waste time checking to make sure I'm reading the right thing off google.

I want to know exactly where evilmole gets the idea that anyone protected illegally obtained, and thus illegitimate information. I really don't believe such a card blanche was ever offerred. (And I still hold that federal precedent trumps whatever cali wants anyway.)
 
we wouldn't have this problem if apple would just layout a road map ala intel. This could definitely suck for macrumors, might turn into a ghost town.
 
fatchuck said:
Sweet God. As for federal law, that's quaint, but this isn't being heard at the Federal level - it's being held in Santa Clara County courts, meaning it's covered by state laws. Federal law isn't relevant, and it's not part of this case.

And, the Shield Law *is* part of the California constitution, /unlike/ the Trade Secrets law, so yes, the Trade Secrets law is further on down the legal totem pole, and I hope it stays that way once Apple fails after this ruling is appealed.

Interestingly, no one has replied to MontyZ's post above. I guess for some, everything Apple does is justified, even when it's clearly abusive. Additionally, journalists *are* protected. See this from Think Secret's legal counsel, whose legal opinion I will take over all the IANAL's (I Am Not A Lawyer) in here:

"The Supreme Court has said that a journalist cannot be held liable for publishing information that the journalist obtained lawfully. Think Secret has not used any improper newsgathering techniques. We will be filing a motion asking the Court to dismiss this case immediately on First Amendment grounds under a California statute which weeds out meritless claims that threaten First Amendment rights."

Given that Think Secret legally obtained the information, and did not break into Apple, or hack their servers, or torture/extort Apple employees to get the information, I think they'll win.
Click to expand...


Try supremacy clause and reference a small event some of you may have heard of in the mid 19th century. You see, the Northern United States of America believed that Federal government did trump state law, and the confederate states of america believed the states were more central and trumped federal authority. The last I checked, and someone might have more current information, the score was USA - 1 CSA - 0.

EDIT bosrs1 beat me to it. and I apologize in advance for the idiot flame, which i leave up.
 
gwangung said:
I note that you did not argue against the thesis that sites cannot publish illegally obtained information. Good. Because part of the findings of fact in the case will be to show that this information WAS illegally obtained.
Click to expand...

I'll argue against it. What did Think Secret do illegally to obtain the information about upcoming Apple products? Did they torture someone, or break into their premises or servers, or blackmail/extort an employee of Apple?

Publishing trade secrets when you're a journalist *is* fair game. That's what journalists do, and I'm confident that the courts will find likewise on appeal.
 
fatchuck said:
I'll argue against it. What did Think Secret do illegally to obtain the information about upcoming Apple products? Did they torture someone, or break into their premises or servers, or blackmail/extort an employee of Apple?

Publishing trade secrets when you're a journalist *is* fair game. That's what journalists do, and I'm confident that the courts will find likewise on appeal.
Click to expand...
Think Secret did nothing illegal, however they are protecting someone who did... which is aiding and abetting.
 
gwangung said:
I very much doubt that. That's what the defendants lawyers are claiming, but I doubt very much that will be the defining principle.

And I doubt that the shield law can be extended into private tort action without extensive modification.

I note that you did not argue against the thesis that sites cannot publish illegally obtained information. Good. Because part of the findings of fact in the case will be to show that this information WAS illegally obtained.
Click to expand...

Apple cannot use the argument that it believes that the information was illegally obtained in order to override the shield law, because that would not be sufficient, legally, to do so. Apple's argument is as follows:

1. It seeks a subpoena in order to reveal which employees/informants broke NDA in supplying the sites with this information.
2. The sites are not journalists, and therefore cannot claim protection under the shield law.

Were it enough simply to argue that the information were obtained illegally to override the shield law, Apple would not have to demonstrate the second point. However, illegally-obtained information is protected, so Apple has to demonstrate that the shield law does not apply or its efforts to obtain a subpoena will fail.
 
EvilMole said:
Apple cannot use the argument that it believes that the information was illegally obtained in order to override the shield law, because that would not be sufficient, legally, to do so. Apple's argument is as follows:

1. It seeks a subpoena in order to reveal which employees/informants broke NDA in supplying the sites with this information.
2. The sites are not journalists, and therefore cannot claim protection under the shield law.

Were it enough simply to argue that the information were obtained illegally to override the shield law, Apple would not have to demonstrate the second point. However, illegally-obtained information is protected, so Apple has to demonstrate that the shield law does not apply or its efforts to obtain a subpoena will fail.
Click to expand...
Apple is right on both counts. The sites are not journalistic, and they did facilitate the exposition of trade secrets.
 
maelstromr said:
Try supremacy clause and reference a small event some of you may have heard of in the mid 19th century. You see, the Northern United States of America believed that Federal government did trump state law, and the confederate states of america believed the states were more central and trumped federal authority. The last I checked, and someone might have more current information, the score was USA - 1 CSA - 0.
Click to expand...
That might matter if they were arguing in Federal court, but they're not - they're arguing in State court, where state laws and penalties are applied, not Federal ones. In fact, if this were in Federal court, it would be thrown out since there isn't a Trade Secrets law at the Federal level (please cite the law if I'm wrong).
 
bosrs1 said:
Apple is right on both counts. The sites are not journalistic, and they did facilitate the exposition of trade secrets.
Click to expand...

First things first. Macrumors.com also facilitates the exposition of trade secrets - see the front page link: "Got Mac News/Rumors? Submit It." I guess you'll gladly support Apple when they come after MacRumors?

Also, if Think Secret is not journalistic, why has MacRumors and dozens of other Apple-related publications linked to them as an original (not secondary, like MacRumors is) source for rumors and stories?

Clearly, they are journalists given that they are the first point from which accurate, original reports and scoops are reported (as opposed to re-posted second hand reports like Slashdot, MacRumors, and other web sites do).
 
maelstromr said:
I want to know exactly where evilmole gets the idea that anyone protected illegally obtained, and thus illegitimate information. I really don't believe such a card blanche was ever offerred. (And I still hold that federal precedent trumps whatever cali wants anyway.)
Click to expand...

I can't find the full text of the law itself. However, there's judgement in the case of Beth Wilson et al at http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/in_re_willon.html. Here, a journalist printed information about a pending criminal prosection in violation of a gag order - a criminal action. However, judgement was that the journalist did not have to turn over the source of the leak, because he was protected by the shield law, despite obtaining the information illegally.
 
fatchuck said:
That might matter if they were arguing in Federal court, but they're not - they're arguing in State court, where state laws and penalties are applied, not Federal ones. In fact, if this were in Federal court, it would be thrown out since there isn't a Trade Secrets law at the Federal level (please cite the law if I'm wrong).
Click to expand...
And in ThinkSecrets case Apple isn't suing a fan, they're suing a corporation.

If Apple had sued Nick personally, the case would have already been thrown out of the California court.

Since CA Courts (under the Supreme Courts eye) have ruled that individuals with little or no money shouldn't be forced to defend an expensive trade secrets case in another state (aka, file it where they live.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back