Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Apple Pushes to Unmask Product Leaker 255

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the say-what-you-must dept.
Zack Wells writes "Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters? Apple claims they should not. Its lawyers say in court documents that Web scribes are not 'legitimate members of the press' when they reveal details about forthcoming products that the company would prefer to keep confidential. That argument has drawn stiff opposition from bloggers and traditional journalists. This is related to a case of an Apple news site, PowerPage.org, who leaked information about a FireWire audio interface for GarageBand that has been codenamed 'Asteroid.' The subpoena is on hold during the appeal. In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed 'John Doe' defendants. The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage's e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Pushes to Unmask Product Leaker

Comments Filter:
  • Apple gets so much attention, publicity & free defense from the bloggers.

    It would be stupid of them to alienate their biggest fanbase - but that's precisely what they're doing. Seems more like a personal vendetta then a business....
    • Thats the only correct answer to this, what are these apple people, stupid evil morons?

      Concerning the difference between an online and a paper-press journalist, you get the question, what is a journalist? The one who gets paid for it? Do you have to register somewhere? Freedom of speech should count for everyone equally anyway.

      From a practical point of view: Maybe bloggers that get troubles like this should subscribe to the journalist unions (or collective), just to have increased protection from the gr

      • Freedom of speech should count for everyone equally anyway.
        Not if you signed a NDA - then you gave up your right to tell about matters that concern Apple
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I think, perhaps unintentionally, they're laying new groundwork for the expansion of the 4th estate. It's pretty clear from the outright character assassination that was so common in print early on in our country's history that the founders intended the qualification for being a member of the press as having access to one. And look what technology and democracy has wrought, printing presses for all, distribution included. Any jackass with an opinion and a way to disseminate it is probably a member of the
      • by jcr (53032) <jcr@NoSPAM.mac.com> on Friday April 21, 2006 @06:32AM (#15171683) Journal
        Their other avenues for protecting their creations (patents, copyrights and trademarks) I presume they are already aware of.

        I see that you left out trade secret law, which is what this case is all about.

        -jcr
    • Seems more like a personal vendetta then a business...

      Would you care to guess what product secrecy is worth to Apple, in dollar terms?

      They're exercising their fiduciary duty to find and stop these leaks.

      -jcr
      • Would you care to guess what product secrecy is worth to Apple, in dollar terms?

        Would you care to guess what the free cheerleading Apple gets from fanboys like you and me is worth to Apple in dollar terms?

        I'd guess it's a helluva lot more then a leak (that in itself promotes excitement & buzz). Apple are jeapodising the very fanbase that supports them most.

        Lets take you as an example - you've posted 5178 times on slashdot, I'm going to presume (conservatively) that 1/2 your posts are "Apple are great" p
        • How are they alienating the bloggers, though they are simply trying to stop employees leaking secrets. If a blogger pulls some new Apple product out of his ass, Apple can't stop him. And you'd be a lot more excited about Apple's products if you were like 'whoah, I've never seen anything like this before!', than if you've been hearing about it for 2 years, when you'll say 'at last, they released it, and.. it's not as great as I had hoped', that kind of thing. I like surprises. I like going to see movies wher
          • How are they alienating the bloggers....

            Hmmmn, I don't really expect you to read the article, but at least read the first line of the summary:
            Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters? Apple claims they should not
            • I dont tend to trust the summaries here anymore, though that sentence seems to imply that journalists are allowed to find and disseminate trade secrets, so maybe it's true. I guess the definition of a blogger is one that keeps a journal, so yes you could call them journalists. I don't tend to equate bloggers with Mac fanboys though, I tend to equate them with opinionated people who like to write a lot. I may fall into that category also, though so far I've not been so full of myself to start a blog (I do ha
        • Would you care to guess what the free cheerleading Apple gets from fanboys like you and me is worth to Apple in dollar terms? I'd guess it's a helluva lot more then a leak (that in itself promotes excitement & buzz). Apple are jeapodising the very fanbase that supports them most.

          Forget the rest of your post - this line is poingiant enough. Apple perfected viral marketing before it was cool. They spend $x on marketing and because of the fan base really get about $x^x worth of marketing.

          Not only

      • Well there is more than one way to do it. Censorship is bad for your corporate image, do the opposite. If apple rumours sites/blogs are a problem they can just create more of them with fake information or, even better, information that lead competition to routes found to be impractical (e.g. "next OSX will implement a completely DB-based filesystem"). Popularity of fake sites is easy to achieve, since apple can allow them to score some controlled hits and build up credibility.

        You don't appear evil, you kee
    • That was my thought exactly. I wonder if the execs at Apple that are responsible for this have any idea how much their success has to do with the goodwill they get from the very people they're attacking. It will be easier than they think to become the Bad Guys in the marketplace, and there are a lot of other companies making portable MP3 players out there.
  • by Stevecrox (962208) on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:51AM (#15171597) Journal
    Over the last few years I've seen companies fire employee's over their blogs, its not exactly a new idea. Ok in this instance the person used a online news site to 'get the information out'. It seems pretty clear whats going to happen. This employee probably broke a confidentiality agreement as well, these aren't things whicvh you can choose to ignore because your excited about your campanies new product. As much as bloggers like to be considered the new form of journalism they aren't, they are just people (often with overinflated ego's) who want to have their say.

    But I have to ask if that person had gone to a newspaper where would we be legally?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      "As much as bloggers like to be considered the new form of journalism they aren't, they are just people (often with overinflated ego's) who want to have their say."

      Just people who want to have their say, and you believe that a bad thing? You apparently don't believe they should have their say.

      You do realize, I hope, that eventually (probably not so long from now) all news media will be distributed primarily over computer networks?

      Do you understand the implication of this? How do you define "journalism"?
    • by bitkari (195639) on Friday April 21, 2006 @06:45AM (#15171712) Homepage
      As much as bloggers like to be considered the new form of journalism they aren't, they are just people (often with overinflated ego's) who want to have their say.

      So what exactly is the difference between a 'blogger' and a 'journalist'?

      A journalist is merely a person that records information, usually for publication.

      Certainly, a typical blogger often writes more opinion than fact. However, the same can certainly be said for a great many 'real' journalists and contributing writers for many publications, both online and offline - none of whom would be raked over the coals by Apple for being given leaked trade secrets.

      Just because someone has the backing of a large media conglomerate, publishing house, or broadcaster, doesn't make them more of a journalist than a freelance writer with their own website.
      • by everphilski (877346) on Friday April 21, 2006 @09:18AM (#15172375) Journal
        The difference *I* see is that the supposed anonymity of a blogger - working from their home behind the front of whatever service they use , using whatever handle they choose - allows them to lash out irrationally. Journalists on the other hand are tied to their real name and to a paycheck. They can hide sources but they can't hide who they are and who they represent. There is a missing layer of credibility in the blog system, and yes there are journalists who lose their credibility but generally when they do they also lose their paycheck and their post.
      • by lowe0 (136140)
        "So what exactly is the difference between a 'blogger' and a 'journalist'?"

        The consequences. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean Apple doesn't take action against journalists who release confidential information - good luck ever getting early info out of them again, after burning them once. Hell, Apple will burn anyone who releases confidential information - look at ATI for an example.

        The problem is, Apple doesn't have a relationship with the bloggers that they can use as a carrot. The stick (liti
      • The real problem here is that real journalists shouldn't have a lot of the rights that real journalists have... If they didn't, among other great things, we wouldn't neet to worry about the distinction.

        If a journalist (blogger or otherwise) won't reveal the name a of a law breaking source, the journalist should be heald accountable in proxy. Combine that with the appropriate laws to protect whistle blowers, and we won't need a double standard to distinguish journalists from regular people. We'd also get the
  • by mcai8rw2 (923718) on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:51AM (#15171598) Homepage
    The differences in laws that are applicable ONLINE and in RL are quite significant. I remember a time when if an online shop published the wrong price on thier ecommerce website that they were abound to honour orders placed for goods at that price.

    That was changed.

    Being that the online world is intensly different to RL, i would have suggested that certain aspects of everything should be governed differently on the net as in RL

    Different countries have different laws...prephaps we should think of the net as a 'different country' in its own right, as opposed to an extension of the host country? And thusly, apply a separate set of laws.
  • by ThePhilips (752041) on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:53AM (#15171600) Homepage Journal
    One thought came to my mind. In all, I can't imaging any other explanation why Apple would want to throw money on such litigations.

    Imaging scenario. Company X (Apple in the story) develops new cool product. Employee A leaks (for money or for fun) info about the product. Patent holding companies/competitors Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc start patenting *everything* possibly related to the product. Product comes on market. Patents as usually get granted and competitors start sueing company X.

    What Apple (or any other company) can possibly do to avoid such situations???
    • I can't imaging any other explanation why Apple would want to throw money on such litigations.

      Let me try to give you an idea of why product secrecy is so important to Apple.

      Remember the G4 iMac? Remember seeing it on the cover of Time?

      Apple got that cover story because 1) it was news, and 2) they were able to promise Time an exclusive on the story. You can't buy the cover of Time as an ad placemement, but if you could, it's probably worth about a hundred million bucks.

      Apple has come a long way from the
      • Remember the G4 iMac? Remember seeing it on the cover of Time?

        For those of you who don't remember - you can see the cover (with steve jobs looking quite sexy, iMac in background) here [time.com] (I kid, I kid, real cover here) [time.com]

        Apple got that cover story because 1) it was news, and 2) they were able to promise Time an exclusive on the story. You can't buy the cover of Time as an ad placemement, but if you could, it's probably worth about a hundred million bucks.

        No - Apple got the cover story because the iMac looked damn
        • When any high end car maker announces a new/cool model, it will make the front pages of all the car mags,

          Time is not a car mag. Or a Mac mag, or a PC mag or any other kind of trade or consumer mag. It is one of the world's major news titles. It doesn't have the choice of putting a Mac or a Dell on its cover, it has the choice of putting a Mac or George Bush...or JK Rowling....or Manny Ramirez...or Romano Prodi...or Tom Cruise....or anyone else who happens to be top of the news agenda at the time.

          With

          • With an exclusive a Mac isn't even *on* the news agenda for Time.

            Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

            Wrong.

            Look at the date on the cover that I linked to. (Jan 14th 2002)

            Now, look at the date [imaging-resource.com] of the macworld expo where the iMac was announced and demod (Jan 7th, 2002).

            I think you need to understand how the publishing industry works (or perhaps the definition of the word 'exclusive').
        • No - Apple got the cover story because the iMac looked damn sexy

          Nope. Time didn't know what it looked like when they made the deal.

          -jcr
      • by twitter (104583)
        Apple can't just let this go, because letting it go is a lousy thing to do to all the Apple employees who do honor their agreements and STFU about upcoming products.

        You do realize that telling all of your employees to STFU is a lousy thing to do in the first place, don't you?

        Also, your adoration of Time Magazine (TM) falls in line with Apple's unAmerican "legitimate members of the press" fallacy. The former Soviet Union had a "legitimate press" which the state defined. "Truth" and "News" were the only o

    • What Apple (or any other company) can possibly do to avoid such situations???

      Maybe they could patent everything about their own product first?

      Just an idea.
    • Imaging scenario. Company X (Apple in the story) develops new cool product. Employee A leaks (for money or for fun) info about the product. Patent holding companies/competitors Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc start patenting *everything* possibly related to the product. Product comes on market. Patents as usually get granted and competitors start sueing company X.

      That is a false scenario. US patent law (see 35 USC Section 101) requires an invention to be new in order to be patentable. [cornell.edu]
  • by Yaztromo (655250) <yaztromo.mac@com> on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:56AM (#15171607) Homepage Journal

    This whole case still has me puzzled. Apple apparently was working on a product to provide a firewire break-out box for use with their GarageBand product. Someone inside Apple (or outside and on an NDA) leaked it to an Apple rumours website, which published it. Apple then fired off a lawsuit against John Doe, and decided to drag the website(s) in question to court to get them to reveal the identity of the source of the leak.

    All well and good, except one thing: where is the product? Whatever happened to this GarageBand break-out box? It has never materialized, and it's what -- a year-and-a-half later? You can't tell me that Apple suddenly decided to cancel this product just because news of it got leaked to the web. So far as I'm aware, it isn't like any of their competitors have such a product on the market, or that the leak has caused them any actual harm.

    It makes me wonder -- did this product ever really exist to begin with, or was this some sort of fake product "trap" to try to find the source of product leaks to rumour websites?

    Or is this product still in development, to be released at some later date?

    Something about all of this just doesn't strike me as right (besides the whole freedom of the press, and confidentiality of sources issues). It isn't as if this is the first Apple product to be leaked to the press. Perhaps this one was leaked well before Apple was ready to announce something? Does Apple think it knows who is leaking this information, but wants sufficient proof to fire them? Does "Asteroid" even exist (and it sounds like a useful product to me -- with GarageBand '06's new Podcast creation features, even I'm starting to think of interesting ways I can put something like this to use)?

    There is something more to this that Apple doesn't want us to know. I just can't quite pinpoint what is going on...

    Yaz.

    • There's at least one Garageband specific controller that I know of - it's the M-Audio iControl [m-audio.com]. And I don't use Apple stuff or follow gear stories particularly closely, so I dunno much about it other than that it exists :)
    • You can't tell me that Apple suddenly decided to cancel this product just because news of it got leaked to the web.
      Why not?
    • You can't tell me that Apple suddenly decided to cancel this product just because news of it got leaked to the web.

      Let's see... A minor product like that, unlikely to ever generate even a whole percentange point of Apple's revenues? It's entirely possible that such a product got cancelled. It's even possible that anyone on that product team is now seeing their career at Apple stalled under a cloud of suspicion until the big mouthed asshole is identified and canned.

      If you were a manager at Apple, would y
    • There is something more to this that Apple doesn't want us to know. I just can't quite pinpoint what is going on...

      "Asteroid" is actually the codename for a much larger, more subversive project from Apple. Using fake headlines to lure in bloggers and subsequently suing them, they will allow them to settle out of court anonymously. But, what they don't say, is that "out of court" actually means "secret death camps", and that apple is planning to unleash a mass extermination of bloggers, purging their vile,
    • "Something about all of this just doesn't strike me as right (besides the whole freedom of the press, and confidentiality of sources issues)"

      Is is just me or does this situation seem more like corporate espionage than leaking a news story? Freedom of the press is critical to have a truely free society, but what news story did this break? What was it with this story that the people needed to know in order to maintain a free and informed society? I may be off base, but it just seems to me that the people
    • by johnpaul191 (240105) on Friday April 21, 2006 @09:16AM (#15172352) Homepage
      the story on the rumor sites was that Apple ran into some last minute issue with the hardware. who knows if the whole thing was a ruse? like other people mentioned, mAudio is just company that makes gear that works with GarageBand.app. i know Apple sells the mAudio devices in their stores (online and brick+mortar), so it is not like they are hard to find. for Apple to get into that market, they must think they can make a device that has some feature the others are lacking. Apple may make one for the heck of it, but it also may be tied into software features that never came to GarageBand. the device was supposed to be released at MacWorld SanFran and that's when Apple traditionally updates the iLife suite (which includes GarageBand).

      Apple has had products incredibly close to production and scrapped them. Steve Jobs did acknowledge a year or two ago that Apple almost released a pda-like device again but scrapped it along the way. the super secret R+D lab must have tons of devices that have never seen the light of day (at least not yet).

      i do agree that Apple seems REALLY REALLY hellbent on finding this specific leak. nobody but Apple insiders would know why. maybe that pool of people have possible access to other upcoming products that are a lot more important. maybe it was all a ruse to flush out a leak, maybe they are just pushing it on principle. it seems weird though. it will be interesting how it shakes out. i can see how leaking company design secrets is not seen the same as letting a reporter know that Company ABC is dumping toxic waste into a stream or leaking info about Enron's shadiness.
    • "You can't tell me that Apple suddenly decided to cancel this product just because news of it got leaked to the web."

      Steve Jobs can be amazingly petty and vindictive. This sounds exactly like something he would do, to avoid giving the Mac rumor community the satisfaction of being right.

      "There is something more to this that Apple doesn't want us to know. I just can't quite pinpoint what is going on..."

      That's because most of the time, Apple's pretty good at keeping secrets. As are most companies.

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Friday April 21, 2006 @05:59AM (#15171611) Homepage
    ...the San Jose Quicksilver reports that according to court filings, "Segway" Delmonte Jr. said that an Apple director, former vice president Al Gorithm, told him to leak the information, saying that he had direct authorization from Steve Jobs to do so. Under Apple law, Jobs has the legal right to declassify documents, but Delmonte said this was the only time he recalled in his experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the CEO's authorization that it be disclosed.
  • by pelorus (463100) on Friday April 21, 2006 @06:17AM (#15171650)
    Journalists should receive protections for when the information is in the public interest, which is different to whether certain (fanatic) members of the public are interested.

    Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech. If the general public are protected by leakage, then yes. But if the only people this serves are self-interested, then should the laws designed to protect the public apply?
    • *DING*DING*DING*DING*

      This gets right to the heart of the matter. So many of you seem to be saying that even if you've signed an NDA, you should be able to tell people about those trade secrets, so long as they promise to write about them. The point is that the entity writing about it needs to have a legitimate reason to be doing so. Informing a concerned public is a far cry from satiating rabid fanboys. And it seems that where exactly that line falls will be decided by the court.
    • Journalists should receive protections for when the information is in the public interest, which is different to whether certain (fanatic) members of the public are interested.

      Why just "journalists"? Why not extend that protection to anyone who might have some information that is in the public interest?

      Hint: Whistleblower laws

      Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech. If the general public are protected by leakage, then yes. But if the only people this serves are s
      • Granting non-living entities rights&priviledges that superceed my rights is a bad&dangerous thing to do.

        Who said anything about a non-living entity? NDAs can be between two people. A trade secret can be owned by an individual as well. The same trade secret laws would still apply.

        As for superceeding your rights. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and it's implicit granting of privacy doesn't superseed your right to free speech. You can still
    • Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech.

      You have to come up with a good reason before you take away my ability to tell my neighbor something that might amuse them. Your financial losses don't really sway me, nor do arguments about your ideas being property in some way. I might respect your patent or your trade mark, but I'm not getting anything from you to keep my mouth shut.

      Trade Secrets should remain part of civil law. They are typically enforced through a

      • First of all, without the ability to track down the source of a trade secret leak, trade secret law has exactly zero teeth. Anyone can violate it with impunity simply by anonymously releasing the information to a third party for publication instead of putting it on their own website. (The "journalist/citizen blogger" distinction is a red herring, utterly irrelevant.) If you want to argue that there should be no such thing as trade secret protection, go ahead and argue that, but this position that "trade
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday April 21, 2006 @06:32AM (#15171684)
    Ok, hear me out on this. While I'm certianly one of the first to laugh at bloggers that seem to think they are real journalists and are the same as newspaper reporters, I do think they should be afforded the same protection. Why? Because we don't want the government deciding who is and isn't a member of the press. Press protections should be a function of what you are doing, not who you are. If you are reporting news (even if it's trivial news) you should be protected, even if you don't work for a paper. If you aren't, you shouldn't, even if you do.

    Take two cases:

    1) What we have here. A source leaks information from a company to a website (blog), who then publishes it. The website operator (blogger) did nothing wrong, they violated no law. The person leaking it broke an NDA, but that's not their concern. They should then be allowed to pretect their source because they are acting as a journalist, they are reporting the news to the public. Doesn't matter that their day job is clerk at Walmart, they are acting as a journalist in this case, thus should be protected.

    2) A person decides to leak some major secrets to a journalist for a major newspaper. However that journalist decides they don't want to publish them, but would rather to go a competitor and sell those secrets. It all gets found out and goes to court. Here, the journalist shoudl not be able to shield their source. Doesn't matter that they work as a journalist, they weren't acting as one. They were not reporting the information to the public, thus no protections.

    The protection should be in the act, not in who you are. Otherwise we are down a dangerous road to the government being able to decide who is a member of the press and who isn't. Publish something they (or their big donors) don't like? Oh look, all of a sudden your journalist license is revoked. You aren't allowed to protect your sources anymore and oh look, here's a subpoena for their names as well.

    We should give anyone who acts as a journalist the same protections as it relates to the reporting of informaton to the public.
    • The website operator (blogger) did nothing wrong, they violated no law. The person leaking it broke an NDA, but that's not their concern.

      Ummm... so if somebody from the nsa or cia, or whatever that you might happen to know would come to you and tell you internal secrets and you would tell what you heard to everybody else and dog, nothing should happen to you ? You didn't sign nda with them, the guy did, but you knew the information was a secret and willingly and knowingly made it public. Still you would
      • Sigh. I do so wish people would do the slightest bit of research on the law before firing off dumb responses like this:

        Classified information is different than confidential information from a company. Classified information is a legal secret, the government has declared that the information is not to be distributed, and those that do can be punished. That includes third parties. IF someone gives you classified info, you legally can't give it to anyone else.

        NDAs are different, NDAs are a contract between two
    • Not exactly. What's missing from your first scenario is the fact that the blogger actively solicits people to break trade secret law. That makes him a participant, not just a reporter.

      -jcr
    • Because we don't want the government deciding who is and isn't a member of the press.

      Bingo! Exactly! Yes! You took the words right our of my ...er fingers.

      THANK YOU!
    • by dangermouse (2242) on Friday April 21, 2006 @08:51AM (#15172161) Homepage
      1) What we have here. A source leaks information from a company to a website (blog), who then publishes it. The website operator (blogger) did nothing wrong, they violated no law. The person leaking it broke an NDA, but that's not their concern.

      Yeah, maybe that's what you want the law to be. Here's what the law [gpo.gov] actually says:

      Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly-- ... (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; ...

      In other words, if you receive what you know to be stolen trade secrets, you're in violation of the law. There's nothing in the law that I can find that exempts some special "journalist" class.

    • Ok, hear me out on this. While I'm certianly[sic] one of the first to laugh at bloggers that seem to think they are real journalists and are the same as newspaper reporters, I do think they should be afforded the same protection.

      Well, you're in luck. The law clearly defines anyone who writes for a public audience as a member of the press with the same protections as a writer for the NY Times. In fact, I suspect this whole article is a rather sensationalist spin. The actual arguments are never given, only

  • Legally permitted?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by StringBlade (557322) on Friday April 21, 2006 @06:37AM (#15171695) Journal
    The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage's e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted.

    Was that supposed to be legally compelled or is the email provider anxious to give up their information?

    • Maybe Nfox aspires to be the next Yahoo.
    • by smart2000 (28662)
      I am the person who has the subpoena and the information covered in that subponea. The judge doesn't "permit" me to hand it over, I am compelled to hand it over. It isn't my choice, if I don't obey, I go to jail. The subpoena also covers my personal e-mail as well.
      Cnet never called me to discuss the article they wrote, but that is no surprise as they are sloppy in their understanding of the law as well.
      P.S. At the very end of their article you will find a disclaimer that O'Grady now writes for them
  • I have a method, not exactly scientific, but very practica, to tell whether someone is a journalist or not.

    If someone is able to obtain a press pass to an event by company A, company A considers them a journalist.

    Further, if a blogger can get a press pass at MacWorld or WWDC, more power to them- they are journalists.

    Otherwise, they are not, and they don't have a company behind them to protect them from lawsuits.


    $0.02

  • A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.

    Reporters are one type of journalist. They create reports as a profession for broadcast or publication in mass media such as newspapers, television, radio, magazines, documentary film, and the Internet. Reporters find the sources for their work, their reports can be either spoken or written, and they are generally expected to report in the most objective and un
  • So in your world, "traditional journalists" - let's say the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post - would just as readily publish what they reasonably expected was a trade secret covered in an NDA so they can scoop some blogger? They wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole. They'll report on your reports and let you dance.

    And let's stop arguing over the "chilling effect" this case could have on people who are already bound by contract to shut the hell up about whatever it is they're keen to
  • Sounds like apple is going to have to clean house to find the leak. If Press is protecting their sources and competitors are gaining an edge, and someone in your company is leaking the info how do you find them without some kind of draconian tactics inside the company itself?

    Who wants to go live at Apple Compound, CA where you can't leave? Great! Everyone else, you're fired!

    It only takes one person to ruin it for everybody. The press should reveal their sources with some kind of deal to protect themselves(t
    • No, you don't HAVE to reveal your sources, however if you do you're no longer trusted by any potential source. It's a tough balance to strike, because it's through those sources that you get your best stories which gains you noteriety and attention. If you're no longer a trusted reporter, no one will talk to you.
  • From their actions during the Iraq fiasco and many other defenses of corruption in the establishment, it is clear that the media does not deserve more rights than the citizens and clearly an establishment press should have no more rights than a citizen press.

    How about rights for everyone to security against Apple enforcers who would like to bust down the doors. Just because they have a signed agreement that the info would not be disclosed does not mean that everyones' rights should be trampled because the

  • Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?

    That's easy. Journalists should receive no special rights at all that other people don't have. There should be no statutory distinction at all between a journalist and a person. And then it becomes clear that bloggers are just people, with the same rights as everyone.

    And what rights does a person have in this kind of case? Well, unless you and I have some kind of agreement to the contrary, I don't owe you anything other tha

  • I don't think blogging should count as journalism. Though it most definately is free speech and should be protected as such. I don't think they should have the same types of protection as recognized journalists.
    If a person writes in a diary does that make them a reporter? Does that put them on the same level as Melville, or Hemmingway?

    I don't think it does. It's an online journal. Now if you want protections for the same things as journalism then

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire

Working...