John C. Dvorak says "In a or the public's right to know what's going on ... So, in California at least, Apple has destroyed journalism by undermining the most vital tool of our trade: the ability to receive information without having to shop the person who told you. This is a simply insane piece of PR by the computer company."
Comments
It's not about sources it's about Apple's trade secrets.
Product security for any company is priority one. Any company would do exactly like Apple if there were specific trade secrets being leaked to the media. I am all for Apple going after whoever does this kind of thing.
I am so not clicking on the link, I don't want to give this guy any more hits than he needs. He purposly jabs the mac community because that causes more visits to his site.
I for one will not read his articles or be bart of his flamebate.
...to know what's going on
Let's put a camera in front of his bedroom window and record what he does. Or let's tap his phone line or install spyware on his computer, etc. Then post all that information on the internet so every one can see what this person is up to in their own home! After all isn't it the public's right to know what is going on everywhere at any given moment? Dumbass.
>Scotsman.comattempts to tackle the issue: "In the end, the judge ... ruled that Apple's trade secrets were more important than a journalist's right to protect their sources or the public's right to know what's going on ... So, in California at least, Apple has destroyed journalism by undermining the most vital tool of our trade: the ability to receive information without having to shop the person who told you. This is a simply insane piece of PR by the computer company."
That's not a vital tool for journalism. Journalism relies on having good reliable sources. If I used every single source without shopping around for the best source, I'd have myself another tabloid. Verifiable sources, which you shop around for are the best ones of all. If they suggest doing journalism without shopping around for good sources, they are no better than the tabloids on the grocery store aisles.
First off, Apple didn't destroy journalism. The courts did that by the ruling. I get the feeling everyone thinks Apple shouldn't be allowed to sue because it might undermine free speech. But, then, this is America. Isn't everyone allowed to sue anyone over anything? Why should Apple be held up to a higher standard (and don't give me that c*** like "Its apple, they should be better than that", that's not a real answer, just a step above "well, because")?
And everyone believes Apple is in the wrong to sue, but if they win, isn't it really the courts (we'll use that wonderfully Republican term and call them the 'activist judges', you know, the ones that rule differently than how you think they should) that are the problem, or, in a bigger sense, the laws that allowed to case to go in Apple's favor?
And having journalists saying Apple shouldn't be suing to get sources is kind of self-centered. I mean, if Apple were to win, it affects them directly.
Secondly, I just wanted to point out that, if you look at the constitution of the US, there isn't a single word in there that says freedom of speech means you can protect your sources. That was a ruling made later (by the supreme court, I believe) interpreting the constitution. If the courts can giveth, can't they also take away? Isn't that why the conservatives are hoping the chief justice quits, so they can get another conservative on the bench and overturn roe v wade?
dvorak? consider the source
scotsman: apple has not destroyed journalism. journalism is fine. there is no protection of sources or right to anonymity in law.
Could this be the end of most bloggers?
Let's hope so...
No explanation needed.
blogging amount to legitimate journalism anyway?
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker
iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...
Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover
One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...
Logitech UE Air Speaker
If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1999
Dvorak doesn't know fact
The problem here is, the court did not rule what Dvorak is complaining about. The court said it didn't matter whether the defendants were journalists or not, the law does not protect anyone from subpoena when they have information about potential misappropriation of trade secrets. The court said specifically in the ruling that it had no stance on whether any target of Apple's litigation was a legitimate journalist.
Also, the court did not rule that trade secrets are more important than a journalist's right to protect sources, as scotsman.com erroneously asserts. There is no protection under the law for a journalist's sources if information concerning a crime is involved, as is also spelled out in the ruling.
Apple hasn't "destroyed journalism", as scotsman.com puts it. Apple is merely asserting their rights under existing law. Every journalist should know what their right are according to current law, and if they dislike what's afforded to them, they need to convince the state legislature to change such.
These are a lot of hysterics about nothing. These laws and lack of protections are not new, they've been in effect for a long, long time. It's not Apple's fault that some alleged journalists don't understand the law, and Apple is not the bad guy for acting within existing legalities.