Court Orders Apple To Pay Blogger Legal Fees

[jmiller]

In an important case both establishing the legitimacy of blogs as news sites and the protecting bloggers from being forced to disclose sources, Apple Inc. was ordered to reimburse defendants for their legal fees.

Apple tried to subpoena Nfox, and email service provider, for the private email records of the defendants in order to track down who leaked information about trade secrets.

The court decided the bloggers' private records, and also their sources, were protected under more than one federal law. Apple will have to go another route if it wants to find the mole.

Article here.

[tomarkllc]

Why does this not surprise me. The further left this country goes and the more we rely on activist judges the less likely business will be able to protect their trade secrets. A free press is fine in relation to protecting the public from GOVT. Not as a license to disclose trade secrets legitimately belonging to another entity. There should be limits on this aspect of blogging or the main stream media so that damage that cannot be undone to a company's product development can be adequately protected. It is NOT the duty of the press to divulge such secrets to the public. Short of the numerous instances where classified government documents have been splattered over the front page of the New York Times, this is the worst abuse of the press' freedom I have seen to date.

Additionally, since virtually anyone can set up a "blog", does this mean that eventually, all someone has to do is gert a friend to set up a blog and then sabotage his/her employer by emailing secrets to the friend, have the friend publish them and hide behind "freedom of the press" to protect the employee?? How simply incredible. Then where does one go to protect oneself and one's business from dishonesty and deceit. Everything should have some limits. Otherwise, we really have anarchy.

[Dinghus]

Yep. Bad news. Now anybody can set up a blog and put anything they want on it about anybody and say they are a journalist and thus don't have to reveal their *cough cough* sources.

What would happen if this had been top secret military information?

Privacy of sources is okay for most reporting but when the subject of the report breaks the law ....

[jawn_tech]

I say "yay". Good move.

How does the company protect itself? Well, how does a company figure out who's been scratching the CEO's home phone number on bathroom stalls, along with "for a good time...". Sure as heck not by setting up a hidden camera.

Yes blogs are legitimately legal news sources just as web stores are legitimately legal businesses.

Companies do have a right to protect themselves. Just do it legally.

The blogger wasn't the one breaking the law. Whoever coughed up privvy info may have been. They can and should be tracked down -- without stomping on the press' rights. Find another route.

[tomarkllc]

jawn-tech said:

"Yes blogs are legitimately legal news sources just as web stores are legitimately legal businesses.

Companies do have a right to protect themselves. Just do it legally.

The blogger wasn't the one breaking the law. Whoever coughed up privvy info may have been. They can and should be tracked down -- without stomping on the press' rights. Find another route."

OK. Just for the sake of argument...what distinguishes a "legitimate" blogger who deserves the protection of the press vs. a guy who sets up a web site, creates a blog and uses it to disseminate insider information just to stir up trouble (and don't be naive enough to believe it doesn't happen...look at the people that create viruses and worms because they can)?

Also, as I said earlier, the first amendment cannot be ripped from context in order to make the case here. It was, afterall, a protection for the people against government tyranny...not to allow theft of secrets without recourse.

Lastly, you are correct in stating that the party that first divulged the information is guilty of the intellectual property theft, but in most criminal situations, those who aid and abet the escape of that person would at least be guilty of being an accessory after the fact for not reporting the person for what they did.

The problem comes down to relative vs. absolute truth, right and wrong, and integrity. Apparently, journalists are being recruited on the basis of how quickly they check their integrity at the door before coming to work.

[jawn_tech]

imo, all blogs derserve protection of freedom of the press. Same thing with a kid and a photocopier starting his own newspaper. Just because he isn't USA Today doesn't mean he has fewer rights.

Of course there are abuses and whether it's mainstream press or a blogger, absolutely they all should be held to ethics standards. But that's a different arena than violating their rights.

As for stirring up trouble, mainstream press does it all the time as well.

To me it's not a matter of 'should they', (because then I would say they shouldn't). It's a matter of 'can they'.

It would be a conundrum to distinguish even the 'mainstream' press, questioning their validity when some perceive they have different biases. Perhaps one newspaper seems to only exist to bolster a political party, or malign another, for example. Or a magazine seems to favor a particular product / sponsor too frequently. There's all kinds of conflicts of interests and ethical issues to be accounted for, everywhere in the press (and they should be held to accountability). But to me that doesn't determine what is "press".

A school newspaper is press, the local Times is press, and a blog is press. What they do with those freedoms are up to ethical scrutiny. But it doesn't make them any less "press".

That also trails to another thread I started about the difference between legitimate news and businesses vs. "some guy at home in his underwear".

[tomarkllc]

OK. I will relent to a point on the issue of what constitutes legitimate press. I will buy the concept that just because someone is at home, in their underwear, that fact, alone does not reduce their credibility.

That having been said and acknowledged, there is still the issue of how far "freedom of the press" was intended to go and how much protection it should be given. We have laws to protect each other from physical, mental, and financial injury by others. Everyone is obligated to follow the law without exemptions being extended to the press or any "favored" class or person.

Therefore, it could be argued that, had the blog not published the information, no harm would have been done (assuming he did not use the information in a manner harmful to the owners), but because he/she did communicate it, the injury was compounded. The communication of information to another party is one of the requisite elements in proving slander or libel cases. Until it is communicated, no hard has been done.

So, in reality, the blog furthered or compounded the injury by repeating information to others that would otherwise not have gained the information.

Now...how is the company supposed to prosecute the original offender if the blog cannot be forced to provide the identity? Based on the court's ruling, it appears that there is none since the blog can hide behind the first amendment and thumb his nose at the victim. It makes no sense and flies in the face of the basic doctrine of fair dealing and the intent of the amemdment which was to prevent government censorship/control of the media through direct intervention or intimidation. It was not intended to protect the press from divulging criminal identities. THAT was added by way of erroneous "interpretation" by liberal activist judges.

[LS1Smoker]

Why should I as a blog owner be forced to pay for apples sloppy housekeeping?

I see this way; apples secret and apples leak are where the problem began. A person with a secret and the desire to communicate that secret will find a place to tell it. That bring up 2 more points. Am I (blog owner) as the receiver of the secret capable of judging if its a secret or not, and is it my responsibility to make that decision. Most likely answer is no to both.

Now say your the blog operator and want action on your blog...to get good action posters need a level of confidence in the blog. They won't have those warm fuzzies knowing that you (the operator) will drop trow every time some company with 500 staff attorneys makes a demand. The ruling prevents you, the little blog owner and others like you from being driven to bankruptcy defending against deep pockets, ultimately protecting right wing values like personal freedoms.

I say good for the blog and it's good to see a judge get it right on occasion, as personally I grow weary of increasing government and big company intrusions into my personal history.

[jawn_tech]

The part about sloppy housekeeping was another area I was thinking, in terms of responsibility.

I don't agree with the idea that 'now they'll never know who dunnit' just because they can't take the easy route and force the blogger (aka 'news source') out of his constitutional rights.

Treat it like any other case of espionage, and don't throw up hands just because one avenue has a brick wall which is someone else's first amendment rights. There are always other avenues.

[Peter (IMC)]

It's easy. If the bloggers stole the information from Apple, or paid somebody to get it for them, then they would indeed be criminals. However, if somebody inside Apple leaks this stuff to the bloggers, then it´s the people inside Apple that are to blame.

In any way, Apple has no right to play the police and should have gone to the police to report the theft. Since they tried to take the law into their own hands, they now have to pay. Logical conclusion and the only correct conclusion.

Apple by the way, is always this agressive... I guess they´re still upset... :)

www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060511AppleComputersTakeaBiteOutofApplePie.html

[jawn_tech]

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't realize that protecting trademarks and patents is a two-way street. Arguably they're as big a thief as any.

They've been getting a taste of their own medicine with a lawsuit from Cisco, who trademarked "iPhone" way back in 2000. However the timetable for Apple to go back to playing nice is being extended. (which begs the question, why?!)

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/...ne_tradem.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16931987/

Then there's also the fact that Microsoft patented the MP3 player before Apple did, but I digress.

[tomarkllc]

Truth, Right/Wrong, Integrity are absolutes. They are not relative. This is where the world, both business and personal have disintegrated into one that says that a blogger, who KNOWS what he is getting is proprietary information (probably by the person who leaked it to make himself feel more important) but publishes it anyway (probably to make himself feel more important). This whole issue is about egos and has little to do with what is right or wrong. Sure, the leaker is guilty. Sure, Apple may have done things that are wrong. It doesn't change the standard (unless one adheres to the concept of relative truth, relative integrity, or "relatively right/wrong" in which case anything goes and one can rationalize the blogger into total innocence....at least by comparison). And the argument that it serves "big business" right because they are all corrupt is simply the winings of someone who wishes he were Bill Gates or someone like him but just hasn't had "the breaks." Businesses are created to make money for their owners. There is nothing dirty about the word "profit". It's the reward for risk. No risk, no reward. Some do it with integrity, some don't. Shame on the latter, but to paint all large firms with the same brush is either sour grapes or total ignorance.

But enough about this. My arguments are likely falling on deaf ears and closed minds anyway.

[jawn_tech]

Originally Posted by tomarkllc

But enough about this. My arguments are likely falling on deaf ears and closed minds anyway.

Care to expound on that part? Are you insinuating those you are talking to in this thread are 'stick it to all big corps' kind of folks?

"Closed minds".... come on. Just a discussion here.

[LS1Smoker]

tomarkllc wrote:
But enough about this. My arguments are likely falling on deaf ears and closed minds anyway.

Hmmm...silence, could be one of two things

1)That was a somewhat childish statement that one typically expects from a person believing some else is always responsible

Or
2) they woke up and realized that his beloved big company was trying to get him to do their job without sending a check along with it and to top it off... the big company attorney sent a letter demanding payment for the privilege of doing their job for them.

Closed Minds? I agree, it's a discussion not a sand kicking contest