Apple vs Bloggers

Moby Cock writes "Jason O'Grady has posted a story on his ZDNet blog detailing the state of the current legal trouble he is embroiled in with Apple. He views it as another salvo in Apple's efforts to stamp out rumour sites posting 'trade secrets' prior to the official announcements. The discussion becomes rather pointed and goes as far as to suggest that the case is really a case in support of freedom of the press." From the article: "At issue was a series of stories that I ran in October 2004 about an upcoming product that was in development. Was it the next great PowerBook? Maybe the a red hot iPod? Maybe a killer new version of the OS? Nah. The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.' Yawn."

RE: Apple vs Bloggers

[Eugenia Loli]

Thom at OSNews also posted his opinion on an editorial published yesterday:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14282 [osnews.com]

Re:Its still illegal

[burndive]

It's not illegal.

Yes. It is [tscm.com].

Re:No surprise.

[CRC'99]

At least he gets a reply from Apple!

I just get told to get bent when I'm reporting a fault with my equipment [crc.id.au]. I'd be happy to get Apple to fix my SuperDrives.

Telling people with faulty equipment to get bent? Evil? Check on both accounts.

Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"

[dr.badass]

Putting quotes around "trade secrets" doesn't make them not trade secrets. Telling them to a reporter does though.

Actually, according to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act [nsi.org], it doesn't:

(2) "Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Given that rumor sites operate on the principle of soliciting inside information, it's hard to make the case that they didn't know they had gotten some unless they admit that most of what they print isn't inside information (i.e., that they make it up).

Re:Not if...

[vought]

he didn't intend, or didn't know that the offense would injure the owner of that trade secret. It's not clear that Apple has suffered any injury (although they'll no doubt claim they have), but that is for the court to decide.

Jason O'Grady has been publishing leaks about unreleased Apple products for over ten years. I'd say he knows exactly what he did, and that it was against the law.

Re:Its still illegal

[ehrichweiss]

Actually depending on the circumstances, the employee may be the only one breaking any law. Since it's not known who told him or how, it could have been overheard in an elevator which would make him innocent of any wrongdoing. Theft of trade secrets involves KNOWINGLY spreading trade secrets and there are plenty of ways he might not have known.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Its still illegal

[Draveed]

Here, enjoy. Spy shots of a 2008 Mercedes C-Class [thecarconnection.com]. And for good measure, spy shots for the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe [thecarconnection.com].

Neither Mercedes or GM seems to be suing The Car Connection or Brenda Priddy, the woman who took the photos. Is this different from posting pictures of a Mac Mini before its announcement?

Re:Attacking the weak link

[smart2000]

The reason I'm upset with Apple here is that according to this blog post, Apple went after the ISP first. That to me is a low blow. The ISP doesn't want to get in trouble with a corporate entity of Apple's size, so they'll do whatever they need to in order to get out of the crosshairs of a lawsuit.

You are upset for the wrong reasons then.

I'm the ISP / person who was subpoenaed. I have no problem telling a company the size of Apple to pound sand, I've done it twice before and been successful. When I received the initial request I refused it because it wasn't a subpoena signed by a judge.

I don't feel threatened at all by Apple. At no point has Apple or their lawyers ever "intimated" me. On the other hand the EFF has attempted to coerce and intimidate me in this matter. Their legal filings imply that my conversations in response to the subpoena from Apple were violations of federal law. The EFF cherry picks what parts of the case they want to display on their web page. Meanwhile I have a foot tall stack of filings from the case.

Jason has left out that the reason that I got into the loop at all is because he used my phone and address instead of his for his domain registration. He has since changed it to a PO Box.

His article twists words ("...can sue any journalist..." to make it seem like he is being sued. He isn't. What has been requested is that he return the material that they have asserted is their trade secret, namely the documents that the leaker sent to him.

The assumption is that Apple would be able from the documents to tell who leaked the material. Jason asserts that they don't say "Confidential" or "Trade Secret" anywhere on them. Given the Apple attitude towards secrecy, I somehow find that unlikely.

Warning - Geeky Grammar Objection

[bcnstony]

This killed me: The stories about a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named 'Asteroid.'

The story is = The story's != The stories

'stories' means plural story, not 'story is'.

OK,OK, maybe grammar geek needs to get laid, but still!

Re:Its still illegal

[dwandy]

From TFA:

My position on the Asteroid postings is that I didn't steal the information and I didn't ask for it. Someone volunteered it to me and it looked credible, so I posted it. It wasn't marked confidential, trade secret or any such thing but it looked legit to me, so I ran it. When Apple later asked me to remove it, I complied.

The Law [tscm.com] (emphasis mine)

In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly-- (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization

So assuming he doesn't get journalist protection (which imho he should, and in which case this entire case is pretty much moot), then they have to prove that he knew it was obtained without authorization. Since he says it wasn't marked, and he wasn't told, unless they can prove otherwise, I'd say Apple is SOL... 'course IANAL. :)

I'm going to assume that Apple doesn't so much want him, as the for him to give up the source so they can lay some real hurt...