“At PowerPage.org, a Pennsylvania blogger offers up a daily menu of passionate online dish about all things Apple Computer. It looks like just another run-of-the-mill site in the vast and exploding blogosphere — advertisements, links and an introduction that says ‘Publishing since 1995.’ But bloggers like Jason O’Grady, who owns PowerPage, want to establish more than credibility with Apple aficionados. They see themselves as journalists, worthy of the same legal protections as Woodward and Bernstein, the New York Times or any other traditional form of media,” Howard Mintz reports for The San Jose Mercury News. “The blogging world may soon find out whether the highest courts in California agree.”
“In a possible test of what, exactly, is a journalist in a proliferating universe of bloggers and Web masters, a San Jose appeals court on Thursday will consider whether sites like PowerPage are entitled to the same protections against divulging confidential sources as established media organizations,” Mintz reports. “The 6th District Court of Appeal will hear arguments in a case triggered by Apple, which two years ago went to court to unearth the identities of individuals who leaked confidential information on a new product called “Asteroid” to three Web pages that specialize in Apple-related news. The closely watched legal spat appears headed for the California Supreme Court. Cupertino-based Apple views the case as a direct assault on its right to protect trade secrets against theft and distribution. Among other things, the plans for ‘Asteroid,’ including an exact drawing of the device, were posted on PowerPage. Asteroid, which has not yet been released, is a digital music device designed to work with Apple’s GarageBand music software.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Apple wins initial ruling in ‘Asteroid’ case, can pursue publishers’ confidential sources – March 04, 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
Good advertising for PowerPage.
I love Apple as much as the rest of you, but they sure are quick to pull the trigger on lawsuits; especially lawsuits against some of their most devoted users!
MDN Folks, Apple Computer has an iron-clad legal and fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to protect all trade secrets, product rollouts, and the like. They have absolutely no choice in this matter but to aggressively pursue the “Asteroid” leak and others like it. Pouncing on Jason may seem unusually harsh to anyone not in the high-stakes business community, but it beats the heck out of being sued by one’s own investors for lack of due diligence!
“I love Apple as much as the rest of you, but they are sure quick…” BLA-BLA-BLA….
Enough of this crap! Are you all going to cry for the PowerPage fellow?
When will all the whining stop?
What Apple is dealing with equals stalking of celebrities. When was the last time someone tried to uncover secrets about DELL and company?
So, some sick maniacs out there in their desperate quest of fame among fellow Macheads have decided to cross the line and give out all this detail.
I say: go get them Apple!
Don’t let idiots define the rules of the game!
MDN little: I could care little about the PowerPage looser
Apple’s most “devoted users” don’t post Apple trade secrets on the internet.
This reminds me of National Lampoon’s Vacation.
Rusty: “You got Asteroids?”
Dale: “No but my dad does. Can’t even sit on the toilet some days.”
What the hell’s an ‘Asteriod’?
Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else has the absolute right to protect their trade secrets, and to prosecute anyone who willfully violates confidentially agreements. This isn’t a consitutional issue of free speech, it’s a civil issue of contractual responsibility.
Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else has the absolute right to protect their trade secrets, and to prosecute anyone who willfully violates confidentially agreements. This isn’t a consitutional issue of free speech, it’s a civil issue of contractual responsibility.
Unfortunately for this point of view, PowerPage and the other defendants have no contract with Apple. What you seem to be saying is that the existence of a contract between Apple and someone else imposes obligations on EVERYONE, including those putatively of the press, to keep the information confidential.
Bovine excrement.
Apple doesn’t have a leg to stand on here, IMNTBHO. Trying to define “the press” is like trying to define “a religion.” It’s a very difficult proposition, and changes over time.
Asteriods. Best. Game. Ever.
ChooseApple-
Your comments only show that you either didn’t read the article or that you have no comprehension of the issue in question. The PowerPage guy has no agreement with Apple computers and is not bound by law to withhold information from the public that is given to him. That is a freedom of speech issue.
The problems Apple is facing is not online rumor sites. The problems they are facing are leaks from the inside of the company. You may be of the opinion that the PowerPage guy should have to give up his source so that Apple can plug the leaks, but I am confident that bloggers everywhere would whole-heartedly disagree with that opinion. Emmayche is correct when he says that defining the press is a difficult thing to do.
All Apple does by suing people who are not directly in charge of information flow from the company is make themselves look bad.
emachye:
Jason O’Grady did not receive his information by telepathy. He was a partner in the distribution of confidential information. The fact he himself did not sign a letter of confidentiality is immaterial. Apple has every right to require him to disclose how he recieved this information.
Consider this, I recieve “stolen” property that was taken from you. Would you want me to reveal to the local constabulary who actually stole your property? I though so.
maczealot –
We aren’t dealing with “stolen property” here. We’re dealing with information, and there’s a big difference. If I steal your stereo, you no longer have a stereo. If I learn a bit of info about you, then we both have that info about you. You aren’t “out” anything, and I have no obligation to magically forget it or keep it secret on your behalf.
Trying to kludge a physical property metaphor onto a free-speech debate is like trying to bolt wheels to a fish. It’s this type of thinking that has made a mess of everything from the first amendment to patent and trademark law.
moog the moron:
If someone steals your access codes to all your financial accounts, would you be worried?
I you had someone take some proprietary data that could be worth millions of dollars, would you care?
If you had a secret and someone told it, would you mind?
It is very likely that someone signed a non-disclosure agreement and then broke their word. Undoubtably, the nondisclosure agreement clearly stipulated the specific penalty/ies for revealing certain information. Therefore, the person who willingly and intentionally signed the non-disclosure agreement, and also releases the information, accepts full responsibility for his/her action and all the penalties described in the agreement. That is, whatever rights they may have had to “speak” freely they knowingly relinquished upon signing the agreement. For this person to attempt to avoid punishment indicates that they are both irresponsible and stupid. Irresponsibility and stupidity are not protected by the constitution.
If you think that “free speech” means not having to be resposible for what you say perhaps you never heard of perjury, libel, or slander; or understand what is meant by being truthful or honest. You see, material things as well as words have real value.
1. A crime is any prohibited act defined by law be it civil, commercial, competitive practices, corporate, intellectual property, business, and/or technology law.
2. Withholding evidence or information about a crime is also a criminal act.
Really don’t see how Jason can weasel outta this one, boys. Looks like the young lad is in a deep pile of shit.
Actually, it’s not illegal to withhold information about a crime. And breaking civil law is not necessarily a crime.
It seems to me Apple has very little to stand on in this case, and i expect they will lose this one. O’Grady broke no laws nor contracts with Apple.
In short, Apple should have guarded their trade secrets better. They should not have allowed confidential information to fall into the wrong hands.
maczealot –
Ouch. Watch the name-calling.
>>>If someone steals your access codes to all your financial accounts, would you be worried?
Yes. What’s your point? At the supermarket last week, I saw a woman key in her PIN at the checkout. She may be “worried” about that, but that doesn’t mean I broke a law. It’s illegal for me to use that info to access her bank account. That would be fraud. If I were to actually take money from her account, that would be theft.
SEEING her type in her PIN isn’t illegal, anymore than HEARING about some sooper-seekrit Apple product is illegal.
I you had someone take some proprietary data that could be worth millions of dollars, would you care?
Yes. But just because I’d CARE, doesn’t mean that the law’s been broken.
If you had a secret and someone told it, would you mind?
Yes. Again, so what?
If somebody broke a confidentiality agreement, and Apple figures out who it is, there’ll be big trouble for that person, no doubt. But PowerPage didn’t break any agreements.
Jason O’Grady is a journalist. It’s not even a question. He’s been reporting on tech issues involving the Mac for years. There’s also no question that a journalist has a right to publish a story like this. Apple may hate it, but as I’ve noted before, so what?
Good Lord, the government couldn’t stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers. We’re talking about a music gizmo here!
meatofmoose –
Has Jason O’Grady committed perjury, libel or slander? Has he been untruthful or dishonest? I don’t see your point.
“Actually, it’s not illegal to withhold information about a crime.”
The court has decided that no one is immunized from withholding evidence or providing testimony in the search for the truth. In fact, the failure to provide complete and truthful testimony in a court of law, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation is a punishable offense. Jason may not be the accused, but, as a witness, he is not excused either. Failure to provide required testimony is not considered an excusable offense by any court, proceeding, or boards of inquiry or investigation.
“And breaking civil law is not necessarily a crime.”
Yes, there is civil and criminal law, and in the strictest sense, one cannot commit a “crime” if the law violated was civil law. However, one cannot reasonably argue that failure to abide by the statutes of civil law is without penalty or punitive damages. The purpose of law (civil or criminal) is not just to define undesirable behavior, but also define the penalties for violating the law. If Jason knew or had reasonable suspicion that the information he obtained was given to him in violation of a civil law and he participated in promulgating this original offense he can be held culpable or responsible for gross negligence, malicious intent, or willful disregard for the rights of others.
In any event, Jason is a tainted man. As much as he may tout his “rights”, he has demonstrated that he was self-serving and arrogant, He wanted attention and he got it. Now he will transfer his hard earned dollars to his lawyer. I guess that makes him ultimately stupid, too, huh? Fortunately for Jason, being stupid is not necessarily a crime.
Why Jason is not like Ellsberg:
Ellsberg was charged with several felonies. Jason is not charged in a criminal court.
The federal government was embarrassed for the lies contained in the “Pentagon Papers”. Apple was not embarrassed for any lies it hid from the public, but disturbed that security had been breached for a product under development. Liars are scorned by society. People who have been the victims of theft generally receive pity and compassion by society.
An appellate court prohibited and Supreme Court permitted the publication of the “Pentagon Papers”. Further publication of Jason’s “revelation” was and is still prohibited.
Ellsberg was a controversial figure during an unpopular war. Jason is an obscure figure who stepped in a big pile of dung.
Some shady characters within the government attempted to inflict serious harm to Ellsberg’s person and reputation, thus gaining him the moral advantage. Jason is in cahoots with a shady character to advance his own notoriety, thus negating any moral advantage.
Ellsberg was a Marine Corps veteran. Jason probably never was a boy scout.
“In short, Apple should have guarded their trade secrets better. They should not have allowed confidential information to fall into the wrong hands.”
In short, she should have protected her virginity better. She shouldn’t have allowed the 6 foot 3 inch, 280-pound rapist to penetrate her body.
In short, he should have protected his wallet better. He shouldn’t have allowed the heavily armed muggers to knock him unconscious and steal his money.
Moron.
Moog:
Since when it is justifiable to cause harm or damages just because you can reveal private, sensitive, or confidential information? Does the freedom of the press give license to inflict pain or damages to person not guilty of crimes, acts of malfeasance, or acts of nonfeasance? Are we as human being so callous as to defend self-serving behavior as a legitimate right irrespective of the injury it may cause another? How can you validate behavior that promotes theft and dishonesty, and rewards greed?
The person who revealed the information probably thought that he/she could use freedom of the press to violate his/her previous agreement with Apple without penalty or consequence. They probably thought that their illegal and infamous activity was “protected” by the constitution and the law. Not so.
Jason will likely tell all to avoid further pain and misery on his part, and our soon to be revealed “Mystery Villain” will be found out and punished. In retaliation, “Mystery Villain” will likely attempt to make Jason’s involvement seem more conspiratorial and malevolent, and less socially responsible and munificent. What they had both hoped would be permanently clouded in secrecy they will soon be desperately revealing in all the gory details in an attempt to smear and defame the other as the greater evil. In the end, each will be digging huge holes for themselves while gathering little sympathy and respect.
And to think, all this personal expense and public exposure could have been avoided if someone simply abided by his/her prior commitments, and someone else was more concerned with and respectful of the rights of others and less concerned with his own petty celebrity.
For those who would justify or mitigate their behavior, ask each of these persons two questions: “What is worth it? “Would you do it all over again?”
Those who contend that “information” and “intellectual property” have no real value are incredibly naive and devoid of intellect themselves. The obvious fact that trade secrets (and other private information) are kept and protected by law is proof enough that knowledge and data have tangible influence and ultimate worth.
The intent of the constitution is to protect the individual from the excesses of government. It is a specious argument to infer that the rights guarded by the constitution to expose governmental wrongs also give individuals the excuse to distribute illegally obtained material from another private citizen.