Yes, Apple can go after the websites
...which I'm assuming you already heard while I was sleeping soundly and recovering from the last big post. C-Net has the best coverage of this, so it's worth just reading about it there where you can get links to the papers and such. The comments from the EFF are worth a read. Clip:
The judge said that Apple can go ahead and obtain records from Nfox, the e-mail service provider to Mac enthusiast site PowerPage.In the ruling, the judge largely brushed off the question of whether the publishers were journalists and therefore protected from facing contempt charges for refusing to divulge sources under California's shield law. "Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded," he said. "But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass."
It's interesting that the EFF's main point was pretty much glossed over, and distressing at the same time as (from my limited understanding) it could play a big role in how the sites decide to proceed in some ways. From what I saw of the papers before, Apple's idea of a journalist was whoever they decided to issue a Press Pass to at a convention, which may explain some of my difficulty in getting them to return an email or phone call.
It's just very hard to get lawyers to actually talk about some matters (for reasons too boring to go into now -- but suffice to say lawyers are even more paranoid than myself, which takes some doing) but while there are certain loopholes in California's shield law for journalists, several people have mentioned to me that the shield law has stipulations in it that protect someone from facing bad things if they simply refuse to comply... so many things to dig into, so little time.
One of the things that has bothered me is that some of the Mac sites seem to be going out of their way to say that Apple isn't suing websites -- just subpoenaing them. It's true that they aren't directly suing the three that are being subpoenaed in this case (yet).
However, they are directly suing the website ThinkSecret for a whole lot of things, and if their allegations against ThinkSecret bother you, you should also be after them to sue AppleInsider.com and PowerPage.org into oblivion. Pretty much the same deal, just one is larger than the others... It's certainly going to be interesting to see what happens with the appeal, which the EFF said they'll definitely do when I talked to them earlier today.
At the end of the day though, I'm a little frightened for the Mac community. When you take a birds eye view, the main topics of discussion in the Mac community for a really long while have been Apple's lawsuit machine and iPods. The Mac Mini already has the feel of a footnote, and somewhere in there was a personal computer business that people just sorta stopped talking about.
Posted by drunkenbatmanMarch 12, 2005, at 12:06 AM
Comments (14)
Posted by: Cody at March 12, 2005 03:11 AM
Think about it this way - would it be ok to startup a website that is all about revealing trade secrets for companies? Let's say I have a disclamer on the site that says "come tell all about your company! and don't worry, I'm a journalist and will never have to reveal my sources!" If you think about it this just wouldn't fly. It doesn't matter if you are a journalist if you are helping someone to break the law for no useful gain (meaning not helping the public, ie no greater good cause, ie not exposing government corruption, etc). This is what the Judge understands and this is why you can't just say "I'm a journalist!" and get away with stuff like this.
Posted by: Mathias at March 12, 2005 03:49 AM
When you take a birds eye view, the main topics of discussion in the Mac community for a really long while have been Apple's lawsuit machine and iPods. The Mac Mini already has the feel of a footnote, and somewhere in there was a personal computer business that people just sorta stopped talking about.
As a reader, it's fun to watch you become obsessed with a subject and usually interesting no matter what the subject. Your piece on HPV is probably my favorite on the entire site.
But who am I kidding, I come here for the Apple fix you hand out eventually. I do think it is sad you (and how many others) are spending time "getting lawyers to talk to you" instead of researching your more technical articles.
Do not take this wrong, I am grateful for some of those pieces, especially for the Tiger Leak pieces you did. Those were impressive in several ways, but I do wish you could be focusing your attention on more interviews. Or CoreDATA, or CoreIMAGE, or CoreVIDEO as a follow up to your other pieces instead of things related to lawsuits....
Posted by: Richard at March 12, 2005 07:39 AM
Apple is entitled to protect their trade secrets. I think it's just that simple and the ruling made that clear: the label "journalist" doesn't allow you to break the law and the law states that a trade secret ought not be knowingly violated.
Trade secrets are a big deal and in Apple's case an even bigger deal. Apple's big guns are innovation, creativity, design, and the ability to hold new and futuristic ideas a secret. If all of this stuff was totally transparent the rip off artists would get shitty cloned stuff to market before Apple. It's bad enough that the wintel world copies as much as they do as fast as they do (have they no shame? I guess not).
I think it's amazing that there's this much fuss about Apple being the bad guy by protecting legal trade secrets but very little fuss about the Bush administration squelching totally legal investigations into pretty much every evil thing it does. Come on journalists and bloggers, wake up, Apple is not the evil empire, they're trying to protect a legal competitive advantage.
Posted by: i was a fan at March 12, 2005 08:20 AM
Apple is entitled to protect their trade secrets.
yes, and i'm entitled to play my music as loud as i fuckng want before 11pm (its 10pm some places) but it doesn't mean i'm not an asshole for doing it. so fucking what that apple can have a surprise spoiled, so can every other company, and guess who is the one pulling this shit. apple computer.
even sites that DEFEND what apple is doing say this is just a legal intimidation tactic to get what they want, their own leaks which they can't stop. where i come from bullying someone to get what you want (threatening if someone doesn't do something because you are more powerful is bullying yes?) is wrong. they may be able to do it and you may wipe yourself to sleep at night because you fall asleep dreaming of an apple between your legs, but its still wrong.
even if you think they have every right, that your super smart apple computer that never makes a mistake is right, i would bet anything that whatever they think they gained from this will be far outweighed by the negative press its brought them. i was a huge apple fan, they can suck m y nut now. no i'm not gonna throw my powerbook in the trash, but will i buy another one? maybe, but it won't be the same and i won't have the same feeling if i do.
and you know what, it won't even stop the leaks, its been proven over time in other companies it is a culture thing. it just makes it more valuable to do it and people cover their tracks better... just like filesharing. kill one service and it is quiet for awhile and then comes back bigger and stronger than ever.
sorry pal your beloved apple is a stupid ogre lately who is paying their lawyers overtime instead of funneling it into research and development. and dont kid yourself thinking i'm the only one because all you hang out with are hardcore zealots.
Posted by: WhoCares? at March 12, 2005 09:26 AM
DB,
Stop thinking that a few apple sites = "the mac community" or that they have much to do with the real world.
And just talk about Macs instead of focusing on this small case.
It's YOU who decide what to write about.
Everyone and his mother thinks he has a mission to save free speech or what? All that in the same country that voted for Bush twice. Common'. Those so called "journalists" broke the law. That's all.
I read Think Secret for years, but you won't make me think he's a journalist and I don't even understand he wasn't smart enough to cover his tracks. Same for the guy who leaked the Tiger build, what a moron.
And to "you were a fan", you just forgot two things: There are laws to say what you can and can't do. Then, you mismatch everything, P2P, Apple, legal Team, R&D, your nuts, etc. into a big mess.
You can try to package all this with loads of "fucking, super, smart, pal, etc", to feel like a cool dude, your post is still empty.
Go work on something you're good at.
Posted by: barron at March 12, 2005 11:07 AM
When someone posts something for all the world to see are they a journalist?
If I spay paint a message on the side of a building, am I a journalist?
Does my comment here, available to the world, make me a journalist?
If I plunk down a few dollars to register a domain and then post a rant or few, am I a journalist?
No. Not in my eyes anyway.
It takes more than the ability to write and show the world that you can do so, to be a journalist. It also takes integrity.
Publishing trade secrets shows a lack of that vital quality which seems to be so hard to find these days. Letting the world know of the next iteration of electronic device, automobile, or widget of any kind before it's company is ready to share that information only satisfies curiosity. It doesn't make the world a better place, solve crime, or save lives. Keep the magic behind the curtain and let us all enjoy the show.
Posted by: at March 12, 2005 02:10 PM
hey 'drunken batman', if the world needed another blog with an opinion, especially one that goes on and on and on, i think they would say so...
Posted by: jdb at March 12, 2005 04:42 PM
You might want to actually read the decision (it is clear from your post that you didn't.) When you are done with that, read the earlier filings. It is an eye opener to realize that nearly 100% of the discussion on the web and in the news is wildly inaccurate.
You might even say it is frightening.
The reason why the EFF lawyers arguments were glossed over was because Apple's lawyers weren't asking for what the EFF thought they were. Apple is going to subpoena NFox. NFox isn't a journalist and doesn't want shield laws and those laws can not apply unless there is a threat of contempt. No contempt, no California shield law.
EFF tried to argue that NFox shouldn't be allowed to turn over info to Apple under a strained argument that it would be illegal under the Stored Communication Act. This wasn't even referenced in the decision so it must have been disposed of in the hearing itself.
The judge simply ruled that there is no protection automatically given to a journalist (if indeed the rumor sites are journalists, that was left undecided.) If you receive information in violation of the UTSA and the California Penal Code, you receive no protection from subpoena by the California courts.
Ultimately, this ruling allows Apple to subpoena email from NFox. All other hand waving and flailing is just hysteria.
Posted by: Squozen at March 12, 2005 06:10 PM
"hey 'drunken batman', if the world needed another blog with an opinion, especially one that goes on and on and on, i think they would say so..."
I like the site enough to have donated some cash. What have you contributed lately?
Posted by: Tarobot at March 12, 2005 06:44 PM
Hey drunken batman, can you please continue to make a blog with an opinion. I'd especially like one that goes on and on. Thank you for helping to combat group-think and people who can't understand the difference between discussion and name-calling.
Posted by: pat at March 13, 2005 11:20 AM
I have been looking for a source for an informed opinion filled with insightful opinions. Isn't it refreshing to actually be able to sit and read about the same subject for more than 30 seconds without having to click through to subsequent pages, or hunt around to get the same shallow analysis rehashed a thousand times?
I'm tired of reading articles that imply by their lack of length (and press release cut-and-paste style reporting) that no more than 20 minutes of thought went into them.
I don't necessarily think that TS was right (law wise), but I don't think being merciless, while right in the eyes of the law is a particularly wise choice of action for a company who survived years of crappy hardware and software rollouts based solely on the loyalty of it's customers. A lot of would-be Apple customers read those sites in hopes of the one day they will be able to afford buy a Macintosh. I read MacOSRumors and TS for years before I bought my first computer (a Wallstreet PBG3.) I've bought more since.
Many of the people who read those sites have little understanding of the law, but here comes a tug of war on the emotions of their (Apple and TS) customers. This polarizes their customers. Some choose the side of TS, which means Apple loses customers, and that is the direct effect. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong; Apple is losing customers, and that is bad for them. Duh.
Posted by: pat at March 13, 2005 11:23 AM
>I have been looking for a source for an informed opinion filled with insightful opinions.
I even proofread. duh. You know what i meant.
Posted by: Nabil at March 24, 2005 02:20 AM
Your posts continue to be insightful and well written, regardless of whether I agree with them (what a boring world THAT would be).
This has all really made one more troubling (and longer standing) issue: by and large, bloggers don't fact-check. Reading another article (or worse, blog) and assuming that the statements made there are correct is begging for trouble, and that's exactly what has been happening with this case. The "blogosphere" is inherently a mob mentality, and true to form, we have collected our pitchforks and torches without actually bothering to read the court documents, and ascertaining FOR OURSELVES what the actual situation is.
You can take the suggestion and ignore it as your leisure, but considering your site traffic and frequent slashdottings, I think it would be nice if you checked your facts against the facts provided by jdb in an earlier comment, and if they prove to be the case, update the original entry (leave the original text? Sure, but add an "Updated:" section like you have with other posts).
Just a thought.
I agree that one of the biggest problems for Apple with these lawsuits is that they've managed to deflect the conversation about them away from their really cool products and towards their really oppressive political/legal moves.
Come on Apple, you've gotta be more savvy than that.