No ruling has been issued on Apple subpoenas?
The news on the Apple subpoenas got a little weird(er) today.
The last post had the New York Times saying that Apple had won -- yet the EFF's press release said no ruling had yet been issued. If you haven't yet read it, I'd check it out as it gives a mini-version of what went on in the court room.
I was a little confused by the conflicting data, so I asked an attorney at the EFF to clarify why so many news outlets were saying a ruling had been issued...
"Our press release correct, rumors of our demise were exaggerated."~ Kurt Opsahl, Staff Attorney for the EFF
Basically, they're still waiting on the decision which should come soon, and some people perhaps jumped the gun.
Update: Yep, the ruling has been delayed. It's looking pretty bad -- Apple's argument basically seems to be that only the websites they happen to give Press Passes to at MacWorld deserve traditional protections.
Posted by drunkenbatmanMarch 04, 2005, at 06:47 PM
Comments (9)
Posted by: drunkenbatman at March 4, 2005 06:54 PM
Trust no one. :) However when you're forced to, it's good to ask yourself what they'd gain versus what they'd lose.
Posted by: mr rhodes at March 4, 2005 06:56 PM
This could be semantics rearing their head, or people taking what they heard and projecting... or people deciding they needed something to run with for their Friday story... maybe the judge signaled his intentions in the court but didn't actually give a ruling... good catch DB
Posted by: at March 4, 2005 07:10 PM
Since this site is just a mouth piece for the electronic frontier foundation now I would guess he trusts them
Posted by: wasabifan at March 4, 2005 09:11 PM
The point the EFF makes that I find is good, is that Apple has not used all of their internal powers to try and track down their internal leaks. Instead, Apple is trying to bully the little guy that runs a simple website into handing over their leak.
This serves two purposes. One, they get their leak with little expense. Two, it could kill off several rumor websites they see as thorns in their side. A simple two birds (or more in this case) with one stone approach.
Unfortunately, this sets a dangerous precedent at the expense of the journalistic community.
Posted by: Cap'n Hector at March 4, 2005 09:18 PM
Since when has DB been a "mouth piece" for EFF?
He seems to be presenting a fairly balanced view of the case, IMNSHO.
Posted by: ml johansen at March 4, 2005 09:51 PM
He seems to be presenting a fairly balanced view of the case, IMNSHO.agreed, i wish he would pick a focus and stick to it. he's proven he's a trustworthy place and i trust his point of view and i'd get _all_ my news from drunkenblog if he would stick to it, but whether he posts news seems to be on a whim
Posted by: ml johansen at March 4, 2005 09:54 PM
sorry i messed up the tags, first time trying to use them...
He seems to be presenting a fairly balanced view of the case, IMNSHO.
agreed, i wish he would pick a focus and stick to it. he's proven he's a trustworthy place and i trust his point of view and i'd get _all_ my news from drunkenblog if he would stick to it, but whether he posts news seems to be on a whim
posted button
Posted by: mindflayer at March 5, 2005 01:09 AM
It's a blog. :)
Odd. Who is right? Do you trust lawyers, even EFF lawyers?