Apple dealt loss in Apple v. Does trade secret case

[sandbox]

Apple dealt loss in Apple v. Does trade secret case

QUOTE

A California appeals court judge has ruled in favor of a petition filed by the EFF that frustrates Apple's attempt to force rumor sites AppleInsider and Powerpage to reveal their sources. In 2004, web site AppleInsider published an "exclusive" account of a new Apple product alleged to be in development, a breakout box for GarageBand dubbed Asteroid (presumably because it allowed you to rock. Rimshot!).

The ruling concludes that trade secrets do not categorically transcend freedom of the press, that there is no relevant legal distinction between journalistic blogging and journalism with regards to the shield law, and that Apple's attempt to subpoena the e-mail service provider of one of the sites was a violation of the federal Stored Communications Act.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060527-6933.html

[antony]

That's a very bad news in my opinion.

It means those b*st*rds can now ruin surprises at WWDC, WMSF etc. And it also means Apple will need increase the measure to safeguard their trade secret. => the increased cost will pass to consumers.

[swhitset]

Sorry but as much as I like Apple, I find it to be good news.   It seems to me that the nondisclosure agreements that people sign with a company are binding on those who sign them.  If a member of the press is able to gain that information, it seems to me that the First ammendment should protect the press ....

Steve

[Epaminondas]

Sandbox,


Thanks for the heads-up.


The appellate justices nailed it.

A wonderful decision with wide ramifications.


Kudos to the EFF - and to the editor of AppleInsider for not folding to Apple's bullying tactics.


Regards,

Epaminondas

[sandbox]

QUOTE(antony @ May 29 2006, 02:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a very bad news in my opinion.

It means those b*st*rds can now ruin surprises at WWDC, WMSF etc. And it also means Apple will need increase the measure to safeguard their trade secret. => the increased cost will pass to consumers.

I have to agree with swhitset and E on this one Antony, it's Apple's burden to protect their info in-house.

Industrial espionage is built into the fabric of capital enterprise and it's media's job to report what they learn, as it is Apple's responsibility to protect it. The Surprise Factor that Steve Jobs so likes to employ will have to suffer a bit I suspect.

[danf63]

I also think it's a healthy decision!

Dan