"In a decision that could set the tone for journalism in the digital age, a California appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers, like traditional reporters, have the right to keep their sources confidential. A panel of three judges said in a 69-page decision that a group of bloggers did not have to divulge their sources to Apple, contending that the same laws that protect traditional journalists, the First Amendment, and California's Shield Law, also apply to bloggers." My take: You already know how I feel about this, but I still need to say it, and I do not care if I get flamed for saying it: this is a clear-cut victory for the freedom of speech and press in the US (I live in The Netherlands, though), and you should all be happy Apple did not win this case. Update: Ars has an analysis and history of the case.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-08
Member since:2005-08-13
"destroying millions in R&D and perhaps billions in profit."
WHAT???
Apple may be profitable, but not that profitable. I haven't seen any evidence that they lost money. The absolute worst that these leaks could do(the big one being last year about the mini) would be to make someone wait a few days to get the mini instead of another Apple product. And that doesn't cause anyone to lose money. Also, that line of thinking doesn't account for those who were going to by a PC and decided to wait to get the mini, which obviously would increase profits.
However, I can see that it can be desirable not have leaks about upcoming products. However, that is a far cry from losing millions in r&d and billions in profit. I doubt they lost either. In fact they probably lost more money taking this to court than they did from any leak.
However, feel free to dissent.
-Mike
Member since:2006-01-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-08-01
This is one time I must agree with you Thom.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Member since:
2005-07-06
every journalest should be protected and they should have the right to keep their sources confidential if they feel so inclined. This is an excellent victory and i am happy the justice system worked for keeping freedom for a change instead of taking it away as is what typically seems to happen.
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:2005-08-01
no, its not ok if the person who leaked the information is caught, because that person is liable for breaking the NDA.
however, the journalist is allowed to report on that information if he happens to come across it and is not forced into revealing the source(s).
Edited 2006-05-28 01:07
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Indeed, just as these days, companies like Microsoft hide behind "software IP", and patents, two things that they can get away with in the US.
Luckily for our industries, the EU saw through this, (at the minute), and we have a free-er market over here.
If the US keeps up with this sue-you, re-sue me culture, they will be left years behind the rest of the world as far as software development goes.
Who is going to want to try to bring out a new app, which say, is a file manager, but gets sued for their house and car, just because someone has the patent for moving between directories ?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-03-23
Note that if this case was a federal one, the whole point would be moot. There is no federal shield law, as Judith Miller of the NYT found out (and went to jail for not revealing sources). So don't get too happy. But 49 states do have shield laws!
(The ruling here was just that existing shield laws extend to online reporters)
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:2005-10-13
Member since:2006-02-15
Privacy rights just took a major beating that day.
Corporations do not have privacy rights, even in California.
As it stands, corporations have far too many of the rights that belong to individuals without the indvidual accountability to go with them. This is why it is so easy to hide abuse of the law behind the shield of a corporation.
Member since:2005-06-29
@ Cloudy
Corporations do not have privacy rights, even in California.
Why wouldn't they? Corportions are made up of people with ambitions.
As it stands, corporations have far too many of the rights that belong to individuals without the indvidual accountability to go with them. This is why it is so easy to hide abuse of the law behind the shield of a corporation.
Then complain to your elected official if you think something is not "ok".
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-02-15
Corporations do not have privacy rights, even in California.
Why wouldn't they? Corportions are made up of people with ambitions.
corporation is a legal construct. It is governed by laws that precisely define what it is. It is a pseudo-person that has some of the rights of a person, but not all. Why not all? Because corporations are owned entities and as such must respect the rights of their owners, the stock holders.
Never confuse a corporation with the people it employs. Teh Steve is not Apple, he's "just" another employee. He did not sue the bloggers, Apple did.
Member since:2005-07-13
Never confuse a corporation with the people it employs. Teh Steve is not Apple, he's "just" another employee. He did not sue the bloggers, Apple did.
No, Steve is not just another employee. The officers of a corporation are responsible and liable for the actions of that corporation and can be held accountable under civil and criminal laws.
By inference, a corporation's actions reflect their officers. And moreso, in the post-Sarbanes business environment of the US, CEO's are no longer permitted plausible deniability, they are held directly responsible for their company's conduct.
But really, who cares? This had Jobs written all over it, hiding behind a corporate charter doesn't change that. He felt Apple was justified in pursuing the course it took, he directed his company to take actions it was entitled to. The only one he's accountable to for this mess are the shareholders and the court of public opinion.
Member since:2006-02-15
Never confuse a corporation with the people it employs. Teh Steve is not Apple, he's "just" another employee. He did not sue the bloggers, Apple did.
No, Steve is not just another employee. The officers of a corporation are responsible and liable for the actions of that corporation and can be held accountable under civil and criminal laws.
Yeah, that's why "just" was in quotes. I didn't want to go into the details about officers. Thanks for adding them.
However, as long as the topic is up, the officers have limited liability. Even under S-Ox, if another employee violates company process, then the officers aren't accountable, unless you can demonstrate complicity on their part.
Sarbanes demands that companies have more formal process and makes it harder for officers to avoid responsibility for persistent patterns of behavior by using ignorance as an excuse, which is a good thing; but it's not a complete solution to corporate accountability.
Member since:2006-03-23
> Corporations do not have privacy rights, even in California.
>
> Why wouldn't they? Corportions are made up of people with ambitions.
Religions are made up of people too, but that doen't mean that Zoroastrianism has "privacy rights."
Show me anyone whose personal privacy was violated by this leak. Show me one real individual, not an abstract entity but an actual person, whose constitutional rights were violated in any way.
X
Member since:2005-07-06
So many problems with what you've said I'm not even sure WHERE I'm supposed to begin.
As it stands, corporations have far too many of the rights that belong to individuals without the indvidual accountability to go with them. This is why it is so easy to hide abuse of the law behind the shield of a corporation.
Then complain to your elected official if you think something is not "ok".
Ok. First. Judges in some places and positions ARE elected positions. Filing suit etc is just another form of complaint.
Second, basic US Civics from middle school teaches the basics of a checks and balances system as spelled out in our constitution.
Three Branches of Government: Judicial (Courts) Legislative (Congress) Executive (President).
The Legislative writes the laws. Executive charged with enforcing them. Judicial interprets them.
If something's not ok, asking the court for a clarification/decision is a tried and true way of challenging something you think is not 'ok'. See: Supreme Court.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06
... God knows I have no problem with this decision (regarding this particular case). But I still do have a problem calling bloggers "Internet Journalists". A very big problem, to say the least. While I really think Journalists (internet or not) should have these protective rights, nothing unknown from paper journalism, I absolutely do _not_ think sixpack bloggers should have them also. No way.
Member since:2005-10-12
You (and the other posters who write about the iniquity of leaking trade secrets) may not be familiar enough with the judgment.
One important point made by the judgment was that there is a difference between a trade secret and a plan. The analogy given was of recipes. My recipe for cheese cake may be a trade secret. The public interest in having it is low, the value high, the damage by its ceasing to be secret could be high also.
My plans to sell cheesecake from Fannie Farmer's classic recipe in my shop next week is a plan. The value is low, and the public interest higher, the potential losses from revealing it negligible.
What the blogger revealed were not trade secrets but plans. Not that Apple would necessarily have won had they been trade secrets. But the case might not have been dismissed out of hand.
Second, the post to which this replies says that 'sixpack bloggers' are not journalists deserving of protection. This is a fundamental misunderstanding, apparently shared by Apple, of the nature of free speech. You either protect journalism without defining it other than in the most general terms as publicly available writing, or you lose all protection. You may not like some bloggers. But you cannot exempt just some of them from protection, its either all or none. Now, bloggers are in the Constitutional sense clearly part of the press.
Constituionally there is no such thing as the 'legitimate press'. All of the press is equally legitimate. Nor are there any such people as 'legitimate members' of it. Everyone writing for publication is equally legitimate.
This is what Apple sought to overturn, in the interests of keeping the details of a trivial product launch secret for two weeks. Its a history going back 200 years to a milestone event in the development of Western Democracy. The fact that they did so should give its apologists real pause for thought about the nature of the animal they are supporting.
As to whether this will have bad effects on Apple and make them still more obsessive and secretive, who cares? Apple and its trivial little doings in some provincial meeting hall were never the issue here.
Member since:2006-02-15
Exactly. What is "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"? These are very closely intertwined and related, but they are not the_same_thing. Mailing out newsletters ala Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory is a labor of love and personal responsibility AND an exercise of the "freedom of speech", but the author would not expect to enjoy the protections associated with "freedom of the press". He is an individual, acting as such, and therefore has no claim to press status, thank you very much. Blogs are wonderful, but I would be less inclined to trust their contents than something I got from established press sources(not that I have much faith in them, either). Like free medical advice online.
Member since:
2005-07-28
Seriously. Do people even take the time to read?
I read the article and agree with the courts decision. I even read the legal decision in pdf.
I like Apple and I like their equipment as long as it runs YDL.
Basically, the company attempted to pull a `MicroScr@p` and it backfired.
One small victory for our embatled Constitutional rights and for an individual's Freedom and Liberty.
Edited 2006-05-28 06:00
Member since:
2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
I was quite peeved at Apple when they barked at SomethingAwful.com. This decision goes in the right direction, and might, one day, prevent corporations from bullying like Apple did to somethingawful, for explaining how to fix the poor heat dissipation problem in some of their iMacs.
Edited 2006-05-28 08:58
Member since:
2005-07-02
Why wouldn't they? Corportions are made up of people with ambitions.
Being composed of something is not the same as being that thing.
I agree with Cloudy that corporations already have too many of the rights of individuals without the accountability.
Of course, someone at the extreme right of the political spectrum would probably disagree, but that opinion wouldn't be based on any logical premises.
Member since:
2006-01-07
I can see that it can be desirable not have leaks about upcoming products. However, that is a far cry from losing millions in r&d and billions in profit. I doubt they lost either. In fact they probably lost more money taking this to court than they did from any leak.
I can tell you unequivocally that Apple has lost my business thanks to these lawsuits. I won't even buy an iPod.
Member since:
2005-07-05
Member since:
2005-10-02
Since Thom is allergic to PJ, I'll just post a link here to an analyze levels better than the one on Ars.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526160008282
Member since:
2006-05-02
Member since:2006-02-20
Member since:2006-03-23
> Now, IF bloggers were licensed journalists, then of course they should have the same benefits.
"Licensed" journalists? Do you need a license to be a reporter? Where do I apply to be allowed to report news?
There is no such thing: anyone who reports the news is a journalist. There is no official press which is protected while the rest of us are not.
X
Member since:2005-07-06
O...K....Let's try to reason this out here.
Licensed Journalist.
Who issues the licenses/determines if they are legal etc?
The government.
Duh.
This is the stupidest concept I've ever heard of. Fox News would be getting all the licenses gratis in this administration while, say, BBC journalists in the US/Covering the US would be having a very big problem (As would many Muslim journalists etc).
The point is to have facts presented. Any sort of licensing will destroy further the concept of jounalism. Period.
...Jeeze
