Apple vs Bloggers 271
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."
Yawn yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Symphathy for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was really as simple as "tell a reporter the trade secrets", then wouldn't it make sense for every big corporation to put out a newspaper/magazine and have a few reporters on the payroll to collect trade secrets? Corporate espionage happens & it'd be a lot simpler if disgruntled-employee-x could just tell a 'reporter' for the competitor some juicy information.
Attacking the weak link (Score:4, Interesting)
The other problem is that the blogger mentions that the information he received was not identified as "confidential" or a "trade secret". When asked to remove the information, he compiled (again, according to his account). To me it appears that this guy did was he was asked and only did what any gossip columnist would have done in a print publication. This concern here (and what apparently brought in the EFF) was that if this had been a print publication, it would have been expected that the reporter would have been covered by first amendment rights. Whether or not that entitles Apple to seek the identity of the informant is a job for the courts. I personally feel that the informer should be punished.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, sure, once it becomes public knowledge it's not really an issue, but you don't have the right to make it public just because you know it.
The portion of the law I quoted says this is not so in cases such as this one. If someone that works for Company A reveals trade secrets to you, Website B, and you have reason to believe it is a trade secret, then by publishing it you are liable for misappropriation.
Dealing in "stolen" information is illegal in the same way that fencing stolen goods is.
If the blogger misappropriated the "secret" (ie conducted industrial espionage), then it's a criminal case - though the standard of proving guilt is significantly higher. A criminal investigation could establish if the blogger is breaking security measures or subpoena the defendant for his sources, and possibly land the blogger in Contempt.
This is what is happening, more or less, though the criteria for "misappropriation" are far less than "industrial espionage"; simply asking for secrets seems to count. Apple is trying to figure out who leaked the information in the first place, but unfortunately the only people who know are more interested in protecting their preposterous parasitic business model than telling the truth. Hence it is now somehow a First Amendment issue.
Re:What about the other side of this? (Score:2, Interesting)
*flamesuit on*
The key difference between Google and Apple is that Apple is an exterior trend. Their products are generally physically inferior (as in, throw an iPod and a Diamond Rio down the stairs, and my money's on the Diamond Rio to survive) and less cost-effective than the competition (fact, not opinion).
Google, on the other hand, provides arguably the best service of its class, usually at the best price. I'm thinking primarily of Gmail here, though it certainly applies to lots of other services as well. Basically, I'm not saying Apple sux Gmail rulez (though that's definitely how I'm biased) - but rather, we're comparing a Paris fashion design company (Apple) to Osh Kosh B'Gosh / Levy's Jeans (Google)
So, basically, the theory goes that people are buying Apple because A) it's a surprise, and B) it'll be guarenteed trendy and eye-catching for months to come.
If the nefarious "competition" can figure out how an Apple device is going to look, and manages to rush something that looks substantially similar out the door - bang. Apple's lost a substantial number of customers. It doesn't matter if the "competition"'s device is half as good and self-destructs when the batteries go out - because by the time iWhatever comes out and is deemed "twice as good" as Nigerian Products Ltd's Gloriously Functioning Audio Versatile Unit, it's still not the first on the block to look the way it does.
Google, on the other hand, doesn't really lose as much from not being the first on the block. A startup site can copy Google's basic look and feel and have free webmail, free blogspace, free web hosting and even bonus free spyware (FOR FREE!!) - so what, who cares. People will migrate to Google's services, provided they're better/faster/cheaper/etc than the startup. While a Gmail address is a sexy, trendy thing in some circles, it's not something I'm chained to in the great wide out of doors. iWhatever, on the other hand, is - and if I, the shallow and none-too-savvy trendy consumer on the street, can save $20 to put towards Gapercombie and Fitch jeans AND buy something "totally new and seXXXy", then so be it.
Just my (probably incoherant and bouncing all over the place) two cents.
Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone knows that Apple protects information about forthcoming products - that's why the rumour sites exist. So it's disingenuous for Jason to say that he didn't know that the information was a trade secret or confidential. If anyone should know that Apple doesn't want to publish this information, it should be someone who attracts readers to his site with the promise of access to that information.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets" (Score:4, Interesting)
It's flat out good citizenship, and it IS a first amendment issue.
The trade secret laws are unconstitutional.