Chalk up one for the blogosphere....

[Dr Mordrid]

http://news.com.com/Apple+thwarted+in+bid+to+unmask+leaker/2100-1047_3-6077547.html?tag=nefd.top

update: Apple Computer suffered a setback in its effort to plug an internal leak, after a state appeals court ruled that the computer maker can't immediately get its hands on records of who may have contacted an Apple enthusiast site with details on an unreleased product.

Dr. Mordrid

[Marshmallowman]

Well its hardly a "freedom of the press" issue, its more like someone disregarding a NDA. What if it was an employee, I don't blame apple for being pissed...not that I really care anyway

[Dr Mordrid]

The is a freedom of the press issue. Digital media, even blogs, have been under fire from companies and individuals trying to say that cyberspace doesn't have the same freedom of speech that print and broadcast media do.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

The is a freedom of the press issue. Digital media, even blogs, have been under fire from companies and individuals trying to say that cyberspace doesn't have the same freedom of speech that print and broadcast media do.

Dr. Mordrid

What twisted up logic can they possibly use to argue this? Only that individuals are "less equal" than corporations!! Watch out..

[Marshmallowman]

The is a freedom of the press issue. Digital media, even blogs, have been under fire from companies and individuals trying to say that cyberspace doesn't have the same freedom of speech that print and broadcast media do.

Dr. Mordrid

Is this about free speech or is about an employee or similar giving away trade secrets, or simply disregarding an NDA.

Have you agreed to an NDA?, or been offered money to disclose that NDA'd information?. Have you ever broken an NDA?

People using the "freedom of speech" argument in a spurious way dilutes an important tenant of a "free society"

Mind you I don't think apple should have any right to get the information from the sites owner, I just think the person divulging the information should have had a bit of integrity..LOL as outdated as that concept seems to be these days.

Making them out to be upholders of "free speech" is just a bit much for me.

[Jessterw]

The issue at hand was that Apple was attempting to extract the source of information these sites were displaying as news. It's unknown if the sources ever agreed to NDA's or not, and it's unlikey that we will ever know now.

It's within the realm of possibility that the sources were simply told by others the information they then shared. So you end up with a source of a source situation.

I do believe that this ruling has to be applied carefully in the future, in the regard that this looking upon bloggers as journalists should only apply to those that actively act in a journalistic manner. In other words, someone who usually posts personal information should not be viewed as a journalist upon a single news post of the nature we are discussing.

[Wombat]

Marshmallowman, you should read the ruling. You're guessing about the issue, and you're wrong about its subject matter.

[Marshmallowman]

Marshmallowman, you should read the ruling. You're guessing about the issue, and you're wrong about its subject matter.

Actually after reading it again and a few other of the links, I seem to have even less idea what the real issue is about.

Was apple being less than subtle in its approach to the website?

[Wombat]

Here's a few snippets (emphasis mine)

Apple alludes repeatedly to the notion that the publication of trade secrets cannot be found to serve the public interest because of the policy embodied in trade secret law itself, which presupposes that trade secrets possess social utility justifying special protections against wrongful disclosure. This is, of course, a false dichotomy. It is true that trade secrets law reflects a judgment that providing legal protections for commercial secrets may provide a net public benefit. But the Legislature’s general recognition of a property-like right in such information cannot blind courts to the more fundamental judgment, embodied in the state and federal guarantees of expressional freedom, that free and open disclosure of ideas and information serves the public good. When two public interests collide, it is no answer to simply point to one and ignore the other. This case involves not a purely private theft of secrets for venal advantage, but a journalistic disclosure to, in the trial court’s words, “an interested public.” In such a setting, whatever is given to trade secrets law is taken away from the freedom of speech. In the abstract, at least, it seems plain that where both cannot be accommodated, it is the statutory quasi-property right that must give way, not the deeply rooted constitutional right to share and acquire information....

The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish “legitimate” from “illegitimate” news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace.... Apple has failed to establish that there is any information that it cannot obtain by means other than the present discovery....

More coverage over at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526160008282