This falls under the old "receiving stolen goods" clause. If you knew it was stolen and excepted it, you are liable.

The ruling was right on. Those websites knew that information was obtained inappropriately - without the consent of Apple - therefore they can be held liable. All Apple is asking is they give up their sources, Apple could really be evil and shut the sites down.

"No laws were broken, just a contract."

Who told you that contracts are not legal documents?

This situation is not without precendent. In 1999 Ford brought a Federal suit again Blue Oval News about a similar situation. (Using confidential internal memos and interfering with Ford Employees.) Ford lost.

More Information here:

http://www.blueovalnews.com/lawsuit_ford/index.htm

the crux, is that the judge didn't want to wade into the blogger vs journalist quagmire. That steps around the shield laws and defines disclosure as protected if profitable but not protected if "bad" for the Public. I don't know if that will really work legally. While the decision is extremely sensible he ambiguously left the door wide open for a very different point of view on appeal. It really depends on who it gets sent to I guess. Wish it would be settled one way or the other for good.
I, for one, welcome our new internet Overlords.

Did not involve the publication of any trade secrets but it did lead to the recall of the '99 Cobra Mustang. So in essence Blue Oval helped the consumer and thus the reasoning and purpose behind the publication of the internal documents from Ford. The websites involved in the Apple case are not doing the consumer any benefit by publishing what they did. They did it merely just to do it and could have potentially harmed the product and delayed its release indefinitely. Thus the reasoning that Think Secret, Apple Insider, etc. basically took the stolen information (it was stolen once it left the possession of Apple or any employees) and published it. You could even argue that the sites made money by increasing the number of visitors who view the ads on their sites. In the end I hope that Apple will succeed and find the perps that leaked the info. There is are probably some Apple employee(s) that are sweating bullets.

"No laws were broken, just a contract."

And what do you make of contract law then? (DUH!!!)

"This situation is not without precendent. In 1999 Ford brought a Federal suit again Blue Oval News about a similar situation. (Using confidential internal memos and interfering with Ford Employees.) Ford lost."

That had to do with something which eventually exposed a risk to the public, hence FOR the *public good*, and not just the public's interest.

how the zealot free-speech advocates (which this case was never about to begin with anyways) are silent now....

Getting people to your webpage to make money... from information obtained improperly...... is wrong in so many ways. *ethically speaking* making it even easier for the person to give up the info easier, come on now, just proves you know it's wrong... anonymous email and phone number to call... if you call yourself a journalist, I call you scum. you are profiting off of Apple products before Apple even gets to.... wrong in so many ways.

This case has nothing to do with free speech or the First Amendment is has to do with breaking non-disclosure contracts and publishing trade secrets.

I like reading about speculative products, but I also support Apple (not blindly), which is arguably the only true innovator left among computer makers. Box stuffers like Dell or eMachines don't count.

Apple NEEDS and RELIES upon the buzz generated when new products are announced. Just think of all the free publicity Apple gets when yet another new product dazzles the public and the press. Apple seems to avoid advertising, so protecting their secrets and upcoming products is part of that strategy.

"Besides, what harm is there to Apple that the products were released."

You are confusing this case with another case, apple4ever. This was specifically about the "Asteroid" device which has not yet been released.

P.S. You're a moron. How can I say that? "It's called free speech."

This really baffles me about my fellow Americans.

If some sicko goes marching down Main Street with a Hitler salute, screaming 'burn the jews' and claiming Auschwitz never happened, people will just sigh and say, 'well, it's his right to do so, theire's the first amendment, we're a free country after all'.

If some kid on the web manages to get some private corporate secret out onto them web, the same people who tolerate the n*** will ask for the web publisher's crucifixion.

Now, my fellow US citizens, who should the constitution protect? The people or companies? What's worse, applauding mass-murder or spilling Apple's secrets over the net?

This stinks. The US really needs to get its priorities right.

Thanks for the false dilemma. You may not like the ruling, you may have your opinion, and you have a right to it. Your problem here is lumping all of us into the same pile you've just invented of people who you claim are tougher on bloggers than n****. And that's just not true.

I can speak from experience, having to put up with an uninvited neo-n*** in a local town - he had lots to say - he was opposed - and he's now in jail (you likely saw him on the news this past week) on actual charges (well, 4 out of 5 anyway) for soliciting the murder of a federal judge - a crime far above and beyond the speech afforded him by the US Bill of Rights.

The neo-n***, just like you and I, has a right to think what he thinks, and a right to say it.
Letting him say it is not the same as applauding it - you already know that.
If he uses "fighting words" - still on the books - incites riot - or commits libel or slander - we can and should and will charge him or sue him.
If he carries out any of his wishes, breaks the law, commits 'hate crimes' he can and should and will be prosecuted.

Likewise, these rumor sites have a right to say what they want.
When they violate a contract, they'll get sued.
When they commit a violation of (tort) law, they'll get charged.
Not crucified. The rumor sites were tolerated up to the point it was obvious they had broken contracts and seemingly violated a statute.

They they were challenged just like anyone else, neo-n**** included.

I wanted to comment on the poster who mentioned "it's Apples responsibility to find out who broke the contract not some third party". I would say yes, but this is not the first time Apple has had to deal with this. I think Apple is perusing this to set an example of how far they (Apple) are willing to go protect their product secrets. If Apple employees adhered to their contracts, then this wouldn't have been an issue. I bet the person/persons who leaked information are sweating right now and I bet anyone who ever thought about doing it isn't thinking about it anymore. This is Apple's problem, but this is what it's come to to fix it. Lets not forget, these folks at Apple broke their agreement.

" screaming 'burn the jews' and claiming Auschwitz never happened,"

That's called a hate crime.

Again, irrelevant to this story.

I mean, geez people, can't you make the &%@#%$ difference?!?

Amazing country we live in where a "journalist" who publishes the name of a secret service agent doesn't have to reveal his sources but the kid who publishes some corporate "trade secret" does.

It would be most interesting if it turns out the employee/leaker used an anon email sent from a Starbucks or other public wifi node or can't be traced for some proxy reason.
Wonder if the websites will stay up now? Their whole purpose has been rumor and inside news.

need to know and want to know are two different things.

If your trade secrets are leaked too early, and a knock-off hits the market before you can release your uber-cool product, you have been irreparably harmed.

As you can see from the "Super Shuffle" anyone can throw together a similar machine with a general idea of what your product does and looks like.

Obviously the knock-off won't be as good, elegant or tightly integrated with the software and the software won't be nearly as elegant and stable, but even a month headstart can be too long.

Some of the more alarmist among the commenters would do well to actually read the lawsuit -- Apple ISN'T going after the sites in any way at all. They are trying to get the information on the LEAKERS, and to do that they have been forced to sue the sites.

The judge's ruling is absolutely 100% correct and as another person in the legal professional, I have to say that uqotabkdin is talking out of an alternative o****** on this one.

While I fully agree with the judge's ruling in THIS case, I just wanted to mention that LJW is soooooo right about US traitor Robert Novak and his politically-motivated leaking of a CIA agent.

He -- along with the person at the White House who leaked -- should be IN JAIL NOW, if not actually executed by the state. Treason is -- or should be -- a serious crime.

"The worst sort of traitor" -- George HW Bush, on people who reveal CIA operatives' names for political gain.

Interestingly, the NYT had two reporters that had the same information but did not publish. The court went after them to reveal their source and they have fought tooth and nail to keep that info protected. At this point no one knows who the source was. Their (NYT) latest ED Op review of the situation has them contending that no law was broken in the original leak and therefore no court has power to order sources revealed---a complete 180 on their earlier position.

I can speak from experience, having to put up with an uninvited neo-n*** in a local town - he had lots to say - he was opposed - and he's now in jail (you likely saw him on the news this past week) on actual charges (well, 4 out of 5 anyway) for soliciting the murder of a federal judge - a crime far above and beyond the speech afforded him by the US Bill of Rights.


Wait, soliciting murder is against the law? I thought that would be covered under free speech. h***, its not like he even killed someone, he was just talking to someone about killing someone.

Like Sideshow bob said, " 'Attempted murder?' Honestly! Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"

And really, how can exposing CIA agents be against the law. Its more just free speech, isn't it. Even if they aren't. I mean, slander. That's just a law to keep me from saying what I want to say.

Can't write more now. Must get back to my manifesto.

...you're confused. Soliciting murder is not protected speech/expression and is against the law, because it reveals the will and intent to do harm to another. If you make a habit looking to Sideshow Bob for guidance on jurisprudence, well, there's not much I can do for you, buddy.

You also seem a little confused on exposing CIA agents. When you're talking about matters of national security, you can't do much worse than outting an active CIA operative. This act could have resulted not only in the death of the operative in question, but also in the operative being forced to reveal sensitive information, were she captured. In many cases, treason (and this IS treason) is punishable by death.

These are examples of speech impacting the public good. Revealing corporate trade secrets has no bearing at all on the public good, and can cause harm to that company. As said before, Apple has every right to gather information on the folks who violated their contract.

"Apple has every right to gather information on the folks who violated their contract."

But the web site operators have every right to fight against Apple's info gathering techniques.

Too many people are willing to just roll over and say "Whatever you want, big corporation. Whatever you want, government." without ever thinking of the impact their actions could have.

This case will help to establish a precedent so that all of us can more easily recognize when speech is protected and when it isn't. If the sites hadn't fought the subpoenas, there would be no gain in case law.

Sorry Mr. O'Grady and Mr. dePlume, but if I saw that you had published my name, home address and phone number on your website (even though they may be freely available in the white pages), you can damned well bet I'd give you a call and ask you where you got and why you decided to publish it. If we're talking about a secret recipe (the actual line-for-line recipe, not some blind knockoff attempt) that my restaurant has made it reputation on and would substantially reduce my business now that folks can just make it at home, you can damned well bet I'm calling you to find out where you got it from.

This case will help to establish a precedent so that all of us can more easily recognize when speech is protected and when it isn't. If the sites hadn't fought the subpoenas, there would be no gain in case law.

Thank goodness for Apple again. Pehaps this can then be cited to slam Novak's a** in jail where it should have landed eons ago.

Apparently someone needs to turn on their sarcasm meter. Geesh, you'd think quoting Sideshow Bob would've been a tip-off.

I'm sorry i didn't have time to read every comment, but I read the first ten....it makes me wonder if anyone spent the 5 minutes to read the ruling, where the judge said that he had not ruled on the merits of the case, and furthermore, gave 7 days before enforcement to allow for appeal...plus this is about powerpage specifically and not thinksecret.

add to that the highly likely chance that this may be appealed. I don't know if EFF is representing powerpage...maybe thats the issue, they are the weakest link....

in any event, this isn't much of a ruling...I wouldn't get too excited, just yet. Lots more to come...

The judge took the words right out of my ... er, typing fingers!

That said, I'm probably a hypocrite as I'm a regular visitor to Think Secret, Apple Insider etc etc

I think Apple is quite lucky to have such a loyal group of followers who "care" about their products. When was that last time you heard anyone give a dam about the next Dell laptop? I'm not sure if Apple realized the amount of exposure they get from rumor sites or from people who are actually interested in their products maybe they are taking it for granted?