|
| Thursday, March 17, 2005 |
|
US COURT RULES:
Apple's trade secrets cannot be bared online
GOSSIP about new gadgets may make for great reading on a geek website, but it has now landed the grapevine in hot water.
Last Friday, a US judge ordered three independent online reporters to divulge their confidential sources following a lawsuit by Apple.
The judge ruled the three were not protected by the US First Amendment because they published trade secrets.
The ruling alarmed US speech advocates, who saw the case as a test of whether people who write for web publications enjoy the same legal protections as reporters for mainstream publications.
Among those are protections afforded under California's 'shield' law, meant to encourage the publication of information in the public's interest.
The reporters allegedly published product descriptions that Apple said employees had leaked in violation of non-disclosure agreements and possibly the US Trade Secrets Act.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law.
'The rumor and opinion mills may continue to run at full speed,' Mr Kleinberg wrote.
'What underlies this decision is the publishing of information that at this early stage of the litigation fits squarely within the definition of trade secret.
'The right to keep and maintain proprietary information as such is a right which the California Legislature and courts have long affirmed and which is essential to the future of technology and innovation generally.'
Last December, Apple sued several unnamed individuals, called Does, who leaked specifications about a pending music software - code-named Asteroid - to Mr Monish Bhatia, Mr Jason O'Grady and a person who writes under the pseudonym Kasper Jade.
Their articles appeared in the online publications Apple Insider and PowerPage.
Apple demanded that Bhatia, O'Grady and Jade divulge their sources.
The reporters refused, saying that identifying their sources would create a 'chilling effect' that could erode the media's ability to report in the public's interest.
APPEAL
The online reporters have said they would consider appealing against the decision favouring Apple.
They claim Apple is trying to curtail their First Amendment rights because they lack the legal and financial resources that mainstream publications have to fight such information requests.
Other trade publications wrote about the music technology after the reporters broke the story.
'Apple is using this case as a desperate attempt to silence the masses of bloggers and online journalists it cannot control but feels it can intimidate,' said Jade, who has been writing about Apple for more than eight years.
'Online publications are typically not backed by commercially-funded organisations - a weak spot Apple most certainly recognised prior to filing its suits. The company hopes that it can stop or chill the Apple-news industry with its threats.' - AP. |
| posted by Perimbean @ 8:00 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
