Apple wins initial ruling on subpoenas
From the NYT:
Apple Computer Inc. can force three online publishers to disclose where they got confidential information about new Apple products, a judge tentatively ruled. Judge James Kleinberg of state court in San Jose, Calif., refused to shield the publishers from Apple's inquiries.Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that seeks to protect civil liberties related to technology, sought the order on behalf of the publishers. "We're disappointed that the tentative ruling was a denial," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer for the foundation. He said he would appeal the ruling.
Whether the decision was based upon the EFF's argument that online publishers are subject to the same protections as journalists -- and the courts decided they aren't -- or whether the court decided they are afford the rights of journalists but that Apple had done what they needed to isn't yet known.
The EFF's argument was that Apple might well be able to subpoena the sites in question in regards to their ThinkSecret case, but the requirements if they were protected under the status of journalists is much, much higher. More information (and court papers up till today) regarding the case is available at the EFF's Apple vs. Does page.
If you're curious about why the EFF is doing what they're doing, they have a great writeup entitled "Why we Fight Apple's Subpoenas".
Update: Looks like some news outlets jumped the gun...
Posted by drunkenbatmanMarch 04, 2005, at 02:11 PM
Comments (2)
Posted by: jdb at March 4, 2005 09:38 PM
Cnet has a quote from and EFF lawyer: "Apple is saying that trade secrets are an exception to reporters' privileges," said EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl. "If trade secrets are an exception, then a business writer should be concerned every time he or she gets a tip in their e-mail box."
He seems to be saying that Apple isn't arguing that the publishers aren't journalists, just that they don't get shield law protection.
Soft power Apple, soft power...