Mac websites ruling delay

Apple and a few Mac websites will have to wait until next week for ruling on whether the court will uphold with its tentative ruling, made on Thursday, against a protective order to prevent Apple from gaining access to information on the journalists' and bloggers' confidential sources. In a preliminary decision based on the filed documents by both parties, the Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled that it would allow Apple to seek information about the leaked unannounced "Asteriod" project from PowerPage's internet service provider. Ater oral arguments this morning, the judge declined to issue a ruling from the bench and said that he would deliver an opinion on the case sometime next week. As noted earlier today, if the Court upheld its tentative ruling, lawyers for the Mac websites said they file an appeal, which would delay Apple's subpoena to the ISP even further.

In Court documents obtained by MacNN, Apple said that it had interviewed nearly 30 employees and that despite an "exhaustive, but unsuccessful" investigation it was unable to determine the source of the "Asteriod" leak. In its filed brief, Apple said that it was using "civil discovery" (i.e., the subpoena to PowerPage's ISP) as a means to indentify the defendents in its December 2004 lawsuit against several John Does over the misappropriation of trade secrets. In its argumment, Apple said that O'Grady did not qualify as a journalist because of his verbatim posting of a confidential document as well as that the First Amendent does not prevent a plaintiff from obtaining discovery regarding tortious conduct by the journalist or his source.




The Electronic Frontier Foundation, providing pro bono legal counsel to the Mac websites involved, claimed that a protective order is "appropriate to safeguard the important interests of reporters and the public in preserving the confidentiality of journalists' sources," saying that the journalists were protected under both federal (i.e., The First Amendment) and the California Shield laws and that the ISP was protected under Federal Privilege as well as The Stored Communications Act, passed as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Though Apple has not served a subpoena on AppleInsider, it did obtain the right to track down information about AppleInsider's confidential sources. The EFF also asked for a protective for previously open, but undelivered subpoenas, for information on AppleInsider's report.

by MacNN Staff