a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers O'Grady's PowerPage, AppleInsider, and Think Secret over leaks of information concerning an unreleased product code named "Asteroid" and "Q97," which has been described as a FireWire audio interface for use with GarageBand. The subpoenas are related to a lawsuit against an unnamed individual who leaked the information to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. (As reported on cNET.) The San Jose news piece has the most detail on the ruling while Mac Daily News has some background on the case, and Gizmodo vociferously expresses an opinion on the lawsuit. The BBC is carrying a story on the legal battle between Apple and free press advocates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has joined in the fight to protect journalists from revealing their sources. Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?
More news on this at The Electronic Frontier Foundations Website.
There is clear damage to Apple in alerting competitors to confidential product plans. There is no public interest defence - the fact that the public is interested doesn't mean that disclosure is in the public interest.
Posted by Superpat on May 28, 2005 at 12:46 AM EDT #
I agree with you TOTALLY !!!. What is considered IP/confidential should stay behind corporate walls. Just because organizations choose to allow their employees to blog, it is NOT an indication that they could use that medium for publishing propreitory information especially when it's classified and considered to be a secret (until released through appropriate channels)
It's like saying I have been given an email address; so I shall email out anything and everything.. - thats low !!
I am with you on this one Pat. no two ways about it.
Posted by Rohan Pinto on May 29, 2005 at 11:38 AM EDT #