toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Apple hearing against Mac websites set for Friday

updated 02:50 am EST, Fri March 4, 2005

Apple vs. Mac websites

Apple on Thursday won a tentative ruling against an order that would protect AppleInsider, PowerPage and other sources from . In its argument, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cited the First Amendment as well as both federal and California laws, which it said would prevent Apple from serving a subpoena to the PowerPage's internet service provider for information on confidential sources related to project "Asteriod," an internal company codename for Apple's yet unannounced audio device. Details of the preliminary ruling, awarded in state court in San Jose (CA), were not immediately available; however, a full hearing is scheduled for Friday morning. EFF said that if the Court upheld the ruling after oral arguments, it would seek a writ from the court of appeals that would protect the journalists from disclosing information about their sources.

by MacNN Staff

(15)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

zdezyne
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2001

0

03/04, 03:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Not about the 1st Amend.

Give me break. This kid knowingly took information from someone (probably a friend) that was propietary and obviosly confidential and posted it on the web for everyone to see. I think Apple has every right to find out who this kid's source is and take apporpriate action.

Oh yeah, and please don't consider him a journalist. If you do you're insulting the vast majority of real journalists out there in the field today.

colbol
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

03/04, 08:26am | report spam | close Reply |
Journalist? Where?

I don't see any journalist ... that is a term that once had some respect.

medmuse
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2002

0

03/04, 09:14am | report spam | close Reply |
Uhhuh

Well, you gotta admit his information was mostly correct. That's a whole lot better than about 75% of the entertainers....I mean "journalists" working today.

blidd
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2003

0

03/04, 09:59am | report spam | close Reply |
If the informations was

based on a NDA agreement then Apple will have to plug the source otherwise it Would not be of any protection to them would it. Some On did something the did not have the right to do. Think Secret published the informations. I am not sure that Think Secrets did something wrong publishing the Information, but the person providing it proberly did. Only by knowing who that person is makes it possible to verify if that the case

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/04, 12:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
judegement

Ars technica says the websites were ordered to 'give up the goods', so to speak.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/04, 12:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
what a dumbass

How did I miss the fact this happened yesterday. Man, can't even read a freakin' headline. I'm going back to bed...

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

03/04, 02:40pm | report spam | close Reply |
get a grip 'word' polic

Journalist: someone who keeps a journal.

Get a grip on yourself...these sites are journalist sites, and if you think the term ever meant something more...WRONG.

This is exactly what the framers (of the constitution) were trying to protect...the ability of regular citizens, that includes you, to report the news without fear of harassment from big interests.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

03/04, 04:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
journalists

by the way, don't let these anti-speech pro-big-government types fool you...real journalists are in no way offended or 'insulted' by those who favor the 1st amendment... no as you might guess, the world isn't upside down, and real journalists generally favor the 1st amendment.

you'd have to live in a communist country, to really understand why big government is wrong. the 1st amendment protects everyone...not just people with 'journalism licenses'...go to a communist country and figure out how rules that don't apply to everyone, end up protecting no one.

Thinksecret, and the others, are protected by the 1st amendment...(let's hope!)

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

03/04, 06:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
Again, you're fools

The first amendment has to do with preventing GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP - did you read that ok? ->GOVERNMENT

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

03/04, 06:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
Again, you're fools 1

Nothing, *NOTHING* in there says you can break the law (which is what StealSecrets did) by publishing such information.

yabooo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

03/04, 09:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
The first amendment

The last time I read The Bill of Rights it said, Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This could not be more clear. Congress cannot create a law that prohibits the free exercise or abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing in the this critical right states that it only applies to a certain group such as "jounalists". The fact that many individuals or this uneducated excuse for a judge does not understand this is truly sad.

Here's to hoping that Apple sees that its current case is truly wrong and withdraws it.

beeble
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

03/04, 09:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
1st amendment

The 1st amendment says that Congress can't make any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Supreme court has already ruled several times on what this means. At a glance, it appears that Congress can't make laws against slander, or even against revealing State secrets. At first glance, espionage is protected under the constitution because it says that Congress cannot restrict what you can say in anyway.

However, the Supreme Court has many rulings on what this means. You can't slander, you give out State secrets or corporate ones. These rumor sites solicited information they knew was protected by NDA and then published it. They are not protected by the constitution. If the NYT slanders me in tomorrows paper I can take them to court and win and many people have over the years because the 1st amendment doesn't cover these things.

For the good of all corporations in the US, big and small, Apple must, and given all past precedent, will win this case in time. I like to hear what might be coming down the pike as much as anyone, but there are ways to find out what Apple might be doing without actively conspiring to break the law (which is what these rumor sights do).

Read patent applications. When the supplier of iPod drives announces a new, larger model you know it's going to the iPod. If Apple execs start appearing in the lobby of certain companies, you know that something is up. That is what sparked the rumors in the weeks before the iTMS announcement. If you are going to call yourself a journalist, then at least do some real journalism. Gather the pieces of information that are out there and interpret them, dare I say CORRECTLY, for your readers. There's no need to engage in corporate espionage if you use the brains that God gave you.

Stegabot
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2001

0

03/04, 09:31pm | report spam | close Reply |
The First amendment

Is it my first amendment right to post your Social Security number,your bank account number as well as your health history over the internet because it is the Public's right to know? Guess what,this will be the case in the future when we let greedy men and women who pretends that they are bloggers or even citizen journalists win this case.This case was not,is not and never is a First Amendment Issue.This is a civil case to protect's Apple's trade secret and nothing more.This is about a contractual obligation that was betrayed by an employee that was supported and abetted by an outside agent who happens to own a rumors website.Apple has an obligation to itself ,it's employees and it's shareholders as well as it's consumers to protect itself from disgruntled or greedy employees and selfish website owners.If a company cannot protect it's own legal trade secrets from this kind of people,how long can we expect when people like this began to peddle private information about us over the Web just because f First Amendment grounds?Just a food for thought.
And if I were you,be concern about the McCain-Feingold Act.That is a First amendment violation.

yabooo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

03/04, 11:40pm | report spam | close Reply |
Corporate override?

In response to beeble's post

beeble states in the post, "For the good of all corporations in the US, big and small, Apple must, and given all past precedent, will win this case in time."

I certainly hope that the first amendment protection of freedom of speech and the press is not superceded "for the good of all CORPORATIONS in the US."

JEB
Junior Member

Joined: May 2001

0

03/05, 01:03am | report spam | close Reply |
WTF?

PowerPage rocks.

O'Grady's site . . . has been an awesome source since the mid-90's for understanding, supporting discussions of how our Powerbooks work, upgrading, purchasing decisions, and in general, how we helped keep Apple strong via user support and strong backing for the brand.

Let it go, Apple. Please. Do yourself a favor.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Apple hearing against Mac websites set for Friday

updated 02:50 am EST, Fri March 4, 2005

Apple vs. Mac websites

Not about the 1st Amend.

Journalist? Where?

Uhhuh

If the informations was

judegement

what a dumbass

get a grip 'word' polic

journalists

Again, you're fools

Again, you're fools 1

The first amendment

1st amendment

The First amendment

Corporate override?

WTF?

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Apple hearing against Mac websites set for Friday

updated 02:50 am EST, Fri March 4, 2005

Apple vs. Mac websites

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Not about the 1st Amend.

Journalist? Where?

Uhhuh

If the informations was

judegement

what a dumbass

get a grip 'word' polic

journalists

Again, you're fools

Again, you're fools 1

The first amendment

1st amendment

The First amendment

Corporate override?

WTF?

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace