Apple seeks blogger records in information leak case

Apple seeks blogger records in information leak case
Bay City News

Friday, March 4, 2005



A Santa Clara County judge is considering whether Apple Computer can subpoena the Internet records of a number of Web site operators who posted alleged trade secrets about one of the company's upcoming products.

The sites, www.powerpage.org and www.appleinsider.com, are devoted to the Cupertino-based company and its products. The operators claim they are journalists and that the First Amendment and California state law protect them from having to reveal information about their sources of information.

Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg issued a preliminary ruling on Thursday allowing Apple to proceed with the subpoenas. Today he heard oral argument from attorneys for both sides and appeared unswayed by the arguments of Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kurt Opsahl, who represents the Web site operators.

"Why isn't ... a, quote, journalist in this case the equivalent of a fence?'' Kleinberg asked Opsahl and the other Web site operator attorneys at the beginning of today's hearing.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/baycitynews/archive/2005/03/04/apple04.DTL

It is going to be hard to define the difference between tradional and non-tradional reporters.

but I couldn't disagree more with Apple here, mostly because their case could have wider implications for the blog/website world in general. I mean, what if someone tips of Atrios or Kos to some big scandal they're not supposed to know, they don't have the right (like journalists) to keep their sources confidential? Strange.

I'm a mac addict as well, but I also worry about the wider implications of trying to discover a leak in the corporation by these means. Seems this should be handled in-house and not made into something that could undermine the first amendment even more than it already is of late.

I'm a Mac addict too, but Apple is wrong here.

not try and destroy them. They help generate serious buzz and excitement for Apple's products, how is that a bad thing? Oh, Steve Jobs is a control freak, I almost forgot. :D

The transformation of Apple into a beard for the music industry mafia and now as a bully toward bloggers is a sad spectacle.

Power corrupts.

Curious on how the judge will rule in this case.

I was at first a bit outraged at Apple for this , but upon consideration, I think they have a case. It is easy to say that this is a freedom of the press thing, Apple is a big bad company for suing the little innocent bloggers but the issue has to do with company trade secrets being actively solicited by these bloggers FROM individuals under NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) with Apple. Freedom of the press essentially permits the press to be critical of the government without fear of incrimination. This would apply to matters of government corruption, the public good, etc.

However there ARE laws regarding the protection of trade secrets. These bloggers WERE publishing Apple trade secrets, and actively seeking out such trade secrets from individuals under non-disclosure. This is illegal. Couching this behind "freedom of the press" doesn't pass the sniff test.

that's pushing it a bit. I mean, I practically live on the Mac rumour sites and they just have a form for anonymous submission of any info, it's not like they're out there paying people for said info, or seeking out specific people.

I, too, love the Mac rumor sites. The issue is either that they have determined it is an Apple employee that is providing the information, specifically in violation of NDA. It IS illegal to disclose company trade secrets, and this stuff was coming verbatim from Apple internal stuff. Asking the rumor site to disclose the source is not completely outrageous. This would be along the same lines of a pharma company going ape-shit because results of drug trials were released prior to a drug coming to market. There is the potential for serious impact on the value of the stock, and can result in grave financial repurcussions.

I develop Mac software, and we take the NDA very seriously. While at IBM, we had a person canned because he gave a contract developer a pre-release updater to OS X ( this was back before OS X was released, some 2 years prior, in fact ). And even though the developer was also under NDA, IBM could not risk the exposure.

I understand the outrage some people may feel about this, and it is easy to pass this off as, "oh the rumor sites generate interest in new product." That's all well and good, but at the same time, this can have a serious impact on current product sales, stock prices, etc. It isn't all just "harmless."

This isn't a first amendment issue. This is a violation of the Uniform Trade Secret Act by the bloggers in question, and the individual(s) under NDA which are disclosing very specific information about upcoming Apple products. Check out this description of the UTSA; it is pretty cut and dry.

Uniform Trade Secret Act