posted
Still, it's an important case. Are we going to extend protections to "regular" journalists that we won't extend to others? If so, why?
(This is assuming the article is at all accurate that regular journalists would be exempt from disclosure in this situation, something I'm not sure of at all.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm quite dubious of that assertion as well, though there are some states that provide some degree of source protection. However, the general rule is that the courts can force journalists (just like anyone else) to divulge sources in legal proceedings whenever the heck they want.
Responding to something I'm seeing in various articles, its important to remember that trade secret isn't all that vague a term. Companies don't just get to "slap" the label on anything if this case is upheld.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here we go, the only thing they have any real hope of being protected under seems to be California's shield law, and there's little hope there, since it only prevents people from being subject to contempt when withholding sources or unpublished information that were part of a process of newsgathering.
Apple's legal proceedings aren't blocked at all by that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but apple's not just trying to get them to disclose their sources in order to sue those, apple is suing them directly for violating the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (which defending against, coincidentally, would involve them disclosing their sources).
Also, the court can still demand a journalist turn over his or her sources/unpublished information, they just can't use contempt as a tool to enforce the order.
Its a fairly limited shield law.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the court can still demand a journalist turn over his or her sources/unpublished information, they just can't use contempt as a tool to enforce the order.
OK, then they can win the order, the guy can refuse, and Apple is pretty much stuck, aren't they?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Specifically, it seems there's enough already known for Apple to nail the site with the UTSA violation, which Apple is using to leverage the site for the source.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also seems the law spells out who a journalist is (though there's some uncertainty there), and that its likely sites such as those listed do not fall under the stated definition.
I think that's unfortunate, personally. I think the best way to protect press liberties is to phrase protections functionally rather than occupationally/organizationally. This helps prevent tyrannies of definition, where journalists enjoy great protection but the state gets to decide what constitutes a journalist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the best way to protect press liberties is to phrase protections functionally rather than occupationally/organizationally. This helps prevent tyrannies of definition, where journalists enjoy great protection but the state gets to decide what constitutes a journalist.
That's basically my only interest in the whole thing. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
However, its clearly incumbent on those passing the laws (in this case, both the legislature and the public through referendum) to take this step. Having not done so, the courts would be reaching to expand the protection to people fairly clearly not covered (the definition is pretty extensive and explicit).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's it. It has nothing to do with protecting illegal violations of their trade secrets.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This all started with that kid running thinksecret who was paying Apple employees to tell him secrets and violating their NDA's or whatever employees sign. All Apple developer members sign NDA's also when they accept pre-release software/hardware. I've signed many.
I have no remorse for the people being sued. They knew they were breaking the law. And what is worse, everyone knew Apple was cracking down on it too.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was that Apple didn't have to go after the dude for being a blogger instead of a journalist as is Apple's contention. But they chose to attack him as a blogger anyway.
And what is a news source other than a trade secret??? Apple's client, supplier, and customer lists certainly are.
How does a corporation (dubiously) granted personhood under the "Equal Protection under the Law" Amendment merit the protection of its trade secrets, while the person of a blogger does not?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They attack him as a blogger because it makes their lawsuit more likely to succeed. Also because under California's shield law definition of journalist, he most definitely isn't. You expect them to make up new definitions that are detrimental to their case?
Also, here's the definition of trade secret under the UTSA:
quote:information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Source doesn't fall under that very clearly, though there's a mild argument to be made. It doesn't much matter though.
You have a weird idea that being a trade secret makes it protected from civil proceedings. Trade secrets come out in court all the time. They are sometimes treated specially, but they appear all the time.
The corporation isn't granted any more protection than the blogger. The corporation's secret was completely legal. The blogger's secret involved a likely violation of the UTSA, which lets the corporation sue. So the corporation is doing so. Nothing unfair about it.
Very strangely, the law has mechanisms to enforce protection of the law. How odd.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Asteroid was a trick intended on finding the leak in Apple. Notice there are very few leaks now?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
