03-15-2005, 02:00 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Bloggers Must Reveal Sources to Apple in Info Leak Legal Case
"Apple has won its legal fight to make three bloggers reveal who told them about unreleased products. The bid to unmask the employees leaking information was launched in December 2004 following online articles about Apple's Asteroid product. Now Apple has won the right to see e-mail records from the three bloggers to root out the culprit. A lawyer for the three bloggers said the ruling set a dangerous precedent that could harm all news reporters."
Interesting, if slightly worrying news. Hopefully the flow of juicy product rumours will still continue, regardless of what happens in the Apple appeal. It's always good to know what manufactures have up thier sleeves. Isn't it?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 03:03 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 87
|
|
Another reason why apple sucks. Sure they make cute products....but how about hiring more trusting people and now
worms".... oooooh i made a funny.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,520
|
|
I don't think you can blame Apple.
Sure I don't subscribe to the cherum-like attributes that some fanatics apply to them.
But, bottomline, a company is going to try to protect their interests.
Its actually the judge that affirmed and sanctioned their actions.
I say appeal! :devilboy:
__________________
Phone: Nexus one Backup Phone: AT&T Samsung Jack; Future Phone: I'm Watching WP7; Media Player: Platinum Zune HD 32GB; Home Server: HP MediaSmart Server LX195 Console: XBox 360, PS3, Wii |
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23
|
|
The rumours that surround the release of a product are very much a double edge sword for the tech companies.
On one hand, if people know that a company is about to release a new and updated version of a product they aren't going to go out and buy the old stock (or even worse, wait until the new one is released and pick up the old stock at clearance prices). Either way, the company loses revenue and profits.
On the other hand, the only reason Dell got my money for a new PDA was that I knew that they would be releasing a the x50V soon after HP had released theirs, otherwise I wouldn't have waited and spent my cash on a 4700.
A further point, Apple really doesn't know how to endear themselves to the community that kept the company viable through the lean years do they? 'Yeah, thanks for continuing to buy our products when nobody else was. Oh, no go to prison for contempt of court for not giving up your sources.' Makes me happy I bought an iRiver! :lol:
G
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 04:19 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 28
|
|
Well, after being a god send for all artist, photographers, and journalist for it's publishing application, apple is now becoming the killer of press freedom. This little hitch is worst than it seems: it means that for a US court, a journalist on the web must reveal it's source (which is against the basis of journalism freedom over the world).
Giving insight is bad if the company doesn't want them, but this court case shapes internet to what music company and general company wants: a new comercial media, where freedom of speech is not wanted. Your emails are no more a private land since one year, you cannot make something free anymore because if a company put a copyright on your idea, it becomes the legal owner, you wil soon not be able to use your legally owned music files on anything else than one computer, as it's already the case on ebooks.
I'm sorry to say to apple fans that the nice '68 image apple want's to show is just a fake. It use the same policy than Microsoft or HP when it come to business.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 05:49 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 119
|
|
are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?
wow 8O
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 06:17 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3
|
|
Quote:
|
are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?
|
No we are against Apple violating a basis of free press to do it.
Apple can search all they want. But we fell a Blog reporter should be given the same consideration as a newspaper reporter. Newspapers do not have to reveal their sources and neither should blog reporters. Because on the basis it could be argued if a newspaper has a web page they would have to give up their sources too.
Think of it this way. What if this blog had reported that G.W. Bush had Murdered someone and had documented proof. As it stands they would have to give up their source which now makes it possible for Bush to have them rubbed out eliminating the threat to his position. Thus making it so that people would fear revealing this important fact.
Make sense now?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 07:11 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,520
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daeglan
Quote:
|
are you people really agreeing that Apple has no legal right to search for the person who violated a non-disclosure agreement?
|
No we are against Apple violating a basis of free press to do it.
Apple can search all they want. But we fell a Blog reporter should be given the same consideration as a newspaper reporter. Newspapers do not have to reveal their sources and neither should blog reporters. Because on the basis it could be argued if a newspaper has a web page they would have to give up their sources too.
Think of it this way. What if this blog had reported that G.W. Bush had Murdered someone and had documented proof. As it stands they would have to give up their source which now makes it possible for Bush to have them rubbed out eliminating the threat to his position. Thus making it so that people would fear revealing this important fact.
Make sense now? |
A bit of an extreme. But the premise is sound.
Cyberspace can't have it both way. On one hand, everyone cries "No Regulation". On the other hand, "We want to be treated like everyone else."
This is and the music fiasco (which has become law, loosely) is a symptom of adhoc decision making on the hand of judges. Who absent any printed legislation, have to go on their gut and common sense (or lack there of). Apparently this judge doesn't see bloggers as journalists. Another one may have. We are at the whim of a judge's perception of the matter at hand.
__________________
Phone: Nexus one Backup Phone: AT&T Samsung Jack; Future Phone: I'm Watching WP7; Media Player: Platinum Zune HD 32GB; Home Server: HP MediaSmart Server LX195 Console: XBox 360, PS3, Wii |
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7
|
|
This ruling doesn't have anything to do with whether or not bloggers are journalists, freedom of the press, or anything like that.
This has to do with laws being broken - specifically laws regarding trade secrets. Reporters are not allowed to protect sources who have broken laws, and trade secrets are protected by law.
You are welcome to agree or disagree with trade secrets being protected, but this is the way the laws are currently written, and is the basis for the ruling.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-15-2005, 11:11 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 177
|
|
Wasnt there a similar case involving one of the major auto makers in the recent past that dealt specifically with trade secrets? I had read that the attorney for the bloggers quoted this as a similar precedent that protected the journalist even if it was a trade secret issue.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
