“It’s ironic that a company as innovative as Apple Computer could have such a regressive view of the changing world of American media,” Lisa DiCarlo writes for Forbes. The company, led by CEO Steve Jobs, won a round in its quest to force three Apple-enthusiast Web sites to disclose their sources on articles they published regarding unannounced Apple products. In court filings the company argued that the Web sites were not protected by free speech because they are not legitimate members of the press.”
“The ruling, if it stands, will have a chilling and potentially devastating effect not only on blogs, which are growing in stature and prominence, but online media in general,” DiCarlo writes. “This potential threat to first amendment rights and Apple’s crackdown on Web sites that, in general, love the company and its products, do nothing to bolster Apple’s image. In fact the company’s success of late as yielded accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics, not to mention complaints that songs purchased from its iTunes music service, the dominant digital music store, don’t work with any other music players than its own. To some, that might sound like its neighbor to the north.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple wins initial ruling in ‘Asteriod’ case, can pursue publishers’ confidential sources – March 03, 2005
Apple suspends legal action against three journalists – February 17, 2005
Stop the presses! Apple sues ThinkSecret over ‘Headless Mac,’ ‘iWork,’ and other rumors – January 05, 2005
Apple Computer sues three for posting Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ on Web – December 21, 2004
Apple sues anonymous people over leak of unreleased Apple product info on Web – December 17, 2004
RUMOR: Apple preps analog to FireWire audio device for GarageBand users – November 23, 2004
Never compare the two again!
Well, they have a long, long, long way to go before they approach the bully tactics of their neighbors to the north…
Oh, Please….The people who published this info about Apple’s unannounced products are modern day thieves, plain and simple. Apple invests a lot of time and money into its product line, and for someone to hide behind the veil of the 1st amendment in an attempt to pass on sensitive information (which was acquired by someone breaking their non-disclosure agreement) is a mockery of the US law system. These people knew they were playing with fire and now they’re going to get burned.
Apple = Big Brother
(It´s like, hey Apple get over it. Even if someone leaks info on your product – so what? You can never deliver it on time on in quantities anyway.)
By the time Apple gets mac mini up to snuff in the delivery dept. there will be 5 clones in the PC world out there…
Hey, Steve where´s the 3 gig Mac you promised 2 years ago????
How about those songs from the also-ran stores that don’t work on Mac? It’s okay to marginalize the Mac but not PC’s?
Personally, I love reading the rumor sites. But as a stockholder they can do more harm than good. Numerous times the hype becomes an expected announcement and if that announcement doesn’t become reality there is a sell off.
I think that Apple needs to go after the source, who most likely has signed a NDA. But the site should not be held accountable for relaying the information it has received.
Speculation and FUD
sg: “But as a stockholder they can do more harm than good.”
Can you give me an instance where this has happened with Apple???
What leaked rumor has effected Apple in anyway negatively- as in on cut into profits in a substantial way that lowered the stock price for a significant period of time???
I love Apple’s products but this move flat out sucks. If they want to keep secrets, they should control their employees, not other peoples’ rights. “Intellectual property” is becoming a means of intellectual control.
If the rumor sites want to protect themselves, then they should use anonymous donation to receive information.
If they don’t know who sent the info then they can’t tell Apple.
Apple do have a right to protect their intellectual property, but really the courts are going to have to decide whether this is protected under freedom of speech / press.
Apple is probably pissed because the Asteroid device wno’t be released for a while and so this gives competitors plenty of heads up about what they are developing.
hey guys, Apple is a relatively small company. When the basis of your whole appeal is innovation, style, difference, all you have is your secrecy. Doesn’t anyone here own a business? Imagine if Apple did not enforce its NDA’s. Well, what’s to keep secrets from coming out, then competitors like all the Korean variety releasing something quickly.
JUST THINK, YOU PEOPLE: you are making fun of Intel’s copying the Mac Mini. Well, what if its style was leaked and then Intel made even their awful mockup. Then, Apple releases their product. Is anyone going to be intruigued by an also-ran, a copy, a late effort?
Just get a clue already. When your whole business relies on being first and best, both demand secrecy until product release. So, if Apple doesn’t sue anyone to find out who leaked the info, what’s the point of having the NDA’s? I am surprised you’ve all been so taken in by the plight of “poor” reporters. Yes, they are just reporters, but the law suits deal with figuring out who broke the law, not the journalists themselves. Why are reports on the Plame case being jailed, but no word on the source of leaks?
I believe that out of all the people complaining about Apple (including all the “Journalists”, who quite clearly have a bit of a biased view of this whole mess) absolutely NONE of them must run or own a business.
I would (and have) sue employees whom I believed leaked or stole confidential company information (in all cases I have actually proven it). As a stockholder, I have no problem with Steve Jobs & Co. looking after the company’s interests. It is the Supreme Court’s job to look after the constitution and throw out the suit if they feel it doesn’t have merit.
One can argue, as the Forbes writer did, that the negatives in PR outweigh the benefits to Apple. However, I have a feeling that there is more to the story that is not out in the public, and it is possible that a lot more was leaked than just the Asteroid information. Apple mayy be trying to get to the bottom of something much bigger that may have the potential to cause damage to the company. Why everyone is willing to side with the “leaker” and not be willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt is beyond me.
In any case, I wonder how the journalists would feel if one of their coleagues went onto their computer, took a piece that they wrote, and than had it published under their own names. I don’t think you would hear any complaints about free speach if the offending party was punished.
critic sez “… took a piece that they wrote, and than had it published under their own names.”
Bad analogy.
What product/technology or rumor of a product/technology that has ever been leaked about Apple that somebody else ever made?
Steve gave the rumor of the 3Gig Mac nearly 2 years ago. That “Rumor” did more damage than any other. I still haven´t bought a Mac waiting for Steve´s rumor to materialize. (Oh and did somebody else bring out a 3Gig Mac based on Steve´s rumor?).
This is not about any leak of info, it is about going after somebody in Apple – Steve has a vendetta against some fomer employee and is trying to fry them.
Steve had better call off the dogs. This is seriously the uncoolest thing that corporation has ever done. There’s a LOT to criticise about America but the 1st amendment is something to be proud of. If they go through with this bullshit I swear I’ll turn over night from a Mac evangelist to one of its most active critics.
“I’ll turn over night from a Mac evangelist to one of its most active critics.” -Anthony.
Many of us do try to separate the Mac (the product) from the Company itself. Some of us really don’t like an actor or someone else personally, but really appreciate their performances or their abilities. What would you say when you began to criticize the Mac? That is is a terrible operating system? That it is plagued with viruses and security leaks? That it looks bad and its mother dresses it funny?
No, it is Apple the corporation that you are concerned about, not the Mac itself.
I am also VERY uncomfortable with Apple going after people who love and support its products, and who are people who I feel do meet the standard of being journalists in most (perhaps not all) cases.
But, I’m not giving up my Mac!
Sorry Hg, if you don’t give up on the product then you don’t give up on the corporation. They’re one in the same. You do not hurt the corporation by continuing to evangelise their products!
Anthony:
Perhaps before you undertake your quest to vilify Apple and it’s stance on this issue, you might take an opportunity to educate your self on the rights granted by the first amendment to the constitution.
The press is not afforded the right under the first amendment to aid and abet lawbreakers. They can and should be made to reveal, if they have the ability to, the identities of people who are knowingly and willingly breaking the law.
I wonder, do you know what a whistle blower law is? If you do (or even if you don’t, I’ll now explain) you would no doubt be aware that whistle blower laws exempt employees of companies from being subject to prosecution for violating their Non-Disclosure Agreement. Now why would that be a necessary provision of a whistle blower law I wonder? The answer: because in the absence of extreme circumstances it is against the law, and thus subject to prosecution, to violate your Non-Disclosure Agreement. Period. And to encourage people to do so is unethical and a further violation of the law.
I understand that quite of few of you MDNers disagree with this. That doesn’t make you right, ethically or legally.
Non-Disclosure Agreement? Where´s the proof that anybody did that?
Steve says somebody gave out info – but maybe it came from some other source – some spy from another company or whereever.
Steve seems to be using the NDA as a catch-all thing to snare anybody for anything – a big brother attempt to control workers perhaps?
The scenario…
Steve: You´re fired!
You: Why?!? Oh!? What??? Then I am suing for wrongful firing.
Steve: One of my spies heard you talking/send email about one of my new (fill in the blank).
You: Everybody talks about that, I never said anything that others haven´t said.
Steve: You sue me for wrongful firing, I sue you for a NDA violation.
NDA trumps all. Big brother smashes all with the Catch 22-type scam. No matter what one does they are wrong.
What a joke. Apple will never match up to Microsoft in any capacity. Microsoft is the only real innovator left in the computing world – just as they were the originators of the gui OS.
Apple are big enough to bully. They will monopolize as much as they can get away with. Apple do a better job at making products than most companies, but that doesn’t mean they are above the law or common decency.
If you leave your door open and the newspaper reports a theft at your house, why should you go after the newspaper for reporting it. What kind a sense does that make. Lock your doors and keep your personal stuff secure Stevo- No sympathy her for Apple
Sometimes happy Apple user since 98
Hazard,
What if in fact there is someone who unlawfully violated their NDA in leaking the information? Why should they be “above the law”?
As the court has come down in Apple’s favor on this one, Apple is in fact NOT above the law in any case.
Although you may not like a particular law, it is what it is. THat should be especially clear given that this judgement was passed in a state with extremely liberal justices.
critic
There is always more than one way to look at something but sir you are looking into the barrel on this one
I have and still do run a company where intellectual property is traded. If I lose track of some of it and appears in the news I have house cleaning to do, not newspaper bashing.
If you leave your door open and the newspaper reports a theft at your house, why should you go after the newspaper for reporting it. What kind a sense does that make. Lock your doors and keep your personal stuff secure Stevo- No sympathy her for Apple
Okay. But how about this:
You lock your doors. Your house gets robbed anyway. The robber emails your local newspaper and reports everything he stole to them. Your newspaper reports on the theft, citing ther informant as an “iside source.” Then your local newspaper refuses to reveal the identity of the person that robbed you, citing their assumed first amendment rights to protect their sources.
Sounds pretty fucking stupid, doesn’t it?
Calvin: what you obviously don’t understand about Apple, and many many other companies, is that they have any outside sources involved on unreleased projects also sign NDAs. These companies are charged with keeping their employees in compliance.
You don’t have to be a paid employee of Apple Computer to be subject of their NDA.
Apple obviously has reason to believe, no doubt based upon evidence you and I do not have access to, that the offender in question was someone that was indeed subject to some sort of NDA. If that weren’t the case, Apple would have already had it’s case tossed out of court.
However, given the fact that that Apple has been cleared to pursue this case further (as MDN reported here), it is obvious to anyone with any sort of comprhension skills that Apple has evidence that their argument is legitimate and a court agrees with them, at least in part.
Cpt Oblivion
The Apple disclosure took place in the US.
In the US a burglar gets injured while robbing your house has the right to sue your for leaving your skate board in the hallway in the dark.
If you don’t like the first amendment change it first and then go after the newspapers. But as long as the press is free to print. courts should follow the law.
– watch out for that slippery wet puddle on your way out.
not sg, there are lots. When the iPod mini was introduced, the rumor sites said flash at $99. When it was HD at $249, the stock price fell.
Then there was the spymac ‘inside info’ on the iWalk. When it didn’t materialize at MacWorld, stock went down, even though Apple had other strong announcements and beat Wallstreet earnings estimates.
Of course, wallstreet and the analysts are to blame. Not only do they base their estimates on crap published on Rumor Sites, they publish opinion articles, than penalize Apple when their wishlists / predictions don’t come true. The latest rumors the analists have been floating is that Apple would have a satellite radio connection, and that they were getting ready to buy TiVO.
And we trust these same morons to advise us on stocks, and manage our accounts? Kinda scary. When they base their so-called research and analysis on stuff published by teenagers on a website, I fear for our economy. They should be held accountable somehow.
Anyway, yes, rumors do hurt Apple stock value.
Marcie:
Precedence in law shows that the press does not have the right protect the identity of law breakers. Ultimately nobody can force a reporter to verbally disclose a source. You can’t torture them until they talk. But if the source communicated electronically via email, Apple may very well have the right to subpoena those email records to get the information that may otherwise be withheld.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to do whatever the hell you personally think is okay in spite of laws stating otherwise.
Critic, I don’t think people in this forum are siding with the people/ person who broke Apples NDA. What we (I, sorry, don’t have the right to speak for anyone else) don’t like to see is Apple crushing 1st ammendment rights to find out who the person is. The fine line on who is a journalist may not be distinct in the case of website owners and bloggers. That DOES NOT MATTER. If Think Secret is ruled against, the president will be used and applied to any news outlet that is legit.
This is a matter of protecting the rights granted by the Constitution. Too many people (you seem to be included) think ‘as long as my money is OK, dealing with the constitutional and legislative consequences isn’t my problem.
Just worrying about the money has led to the current crappy state of our eroding rights. After DMCA and the Patriot ACt, our rights have been undermined daily. The RIAA has even been able to mobilze the FBI and Justice dept as their own personal task force. They have persuaded the FBI to put ‘piracy’ above TERRORISM in a list of FBI priorities. Piracy rates #3, terrorism #4. (as of a couple of months ago) check boycott-riaa.com for more and current details. I for one am sick of seeing my rights evaporate. Forget Apple secrecy and your stock prices. Apple should fire the guy, but compromising the rights of free press and hampering their ability to gather information shouldn’t be happening. Looks like 2005 will be a whole lot like 1984. Ironic eh?
The mistake being made here is the assumption that anyone with a website and a full spleen to vent is automatically considered a ‘journalist’. OF COURSE the guy from Forbes is going to side with the bloggers; after all, he’s covering his own ass, in the off chance that HE ‘accidentally’ publishes a trade secret! [Don’t worry, Forbes guy, that’s why REAL news reporting organizations have legal departments vetting your columns!]
This is not an issue of ‘freedom of the press’. If the judge didn’t see compelling enough evidence to continue on with these trials, we wouldn’t be discussing this. Someone is breaking the law by divulging Apple’s trade secrets, not because it’s in the public’s best interest to know (like Jeffery Wigand and the cigarette industry), but for their own personal gain. These sites sell advertisements on the assumption that the reporting of trade secrets will bring eyes (and therefore greater revenue) to their sites. They are profiting from Apple’s loss. They made the choice to solicit and publish information provided by criminals out for personal gain, not in the public interest but to increase ad revenue. They are being arrogant in the face of mounting evidence against them, and should be appropriately sanctioned and compelled to divulge their sources.
And I’m not being an Apple apologist; any individual or corporation that gets their property stolen and used against them for another’s personal gain would get the same backing from me, even Micro$oft… were they to ever actually invent something!
darknite “Anyway, yes, rumors do hurt Apple stock value.”
Yeah, sure, that´s why Apple stock has gone down so much in the last year…
Remember the Wall Street adage: Buy on rumor sell on fact.
So Apple´s success must be all rumor.
Cpt. Obvious you corporate lackey, maybe you’d like to check out declarations by prominent journalism experts Professor Thomas Goldstein and Dan Gillmor, demonstrating how Apple’s lawsuit violates the First Amendment:
http://www.thinksecret.com/filings/goldsteindeclaration.pdf
http://www.thinksecret.com/filings/gillmordeclaration.pdf
darklord: the examples that darknite gave were more than a year ago and are correct. Apple’s stock has only done well this past year and a half. I seem to remember TechTv televises a Jobs keynote a few years back and how disappointed they were that the rumors never became a fact. I blame the analysts more then the rumor sites.
And thanks for the investment advise, but if you bought on rumor about the Bluetooth iPod and Color iPod mini and then sold on the factual announcement and subsequent run up in price you’d have missed out.
It’s obvious (pun intended) that a lot of “experts” here, don’t understand the difference between civil and criminal law.
An NDA is just a contract. Contracts are covered by civil law. You can’t become a crimnal for breaking an NDA. You can’t go to jail for breaking an NDA. Nor should it be allowed.
Despite the fact that there have been and are attempts being made to grant more legal protection to trade secrets, it would be a mistake to do so. Trade secrets tend to be, by their very nature, something that cannot be patented or copyrighted.