Free speech? Company rights? Who wins?
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
Apr 12, 2005 at 12:10am
On Jan. 21, I opined that Apple wasn’t a “bully” for its suing of Mac enthusiastic sites if, indeed, those sites did participate with individuals who stole the company’s trade secrets. I’ve come under some criticism for my comments, including being accused of “kissing up” to Apple. Not true.
Apple and I have a great relationship. They try to ignore me, and I write what I want.
Anyway, I thought it time to revisit the issue since a dozen news organizations, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and associations of Internet Service Provides (ISPs) have entered the fray, filing papers supporting the online publishers’ request that a California judge reconsider his refusal to shield the publishers from Apple’s inquiries. I won’t reiterate the details of the lawsuits again, but you can find ‘em in yesterday’s news article.
An amicus brief filed by associations of Internet service providers and signed by various news agencies argues that “the First Amendment protects journalists from liability for publishing even illegally obtained information on matters of public interest and importance where the journalists did not participate in the illegality, and … allegations of illegality do not permit a court to ignore the protections …”
The filing states that the Superior Court judge inappropriately decided that trade law trumps journalists’ protections under the First Amendment and the California Shield law. It argues that publication of trade secrets by journalists who didn’t violate the law in obtaining them is protected by the First Amendment and that the mere allegation of illegality is insufficient to breach the reporter’s privilege.
I won’t play lawyer and argue the fine points of laws protecting trade secrets verses laws protecting journalists and freedom of speech. My two cents is this:
If the Web sites involved got their info through digging and investigating, then they’re free to publish the info they’ve found. In other words, if they dug through Apple’s dumpsters, found info on Asteroids and iMac G5s, then they’re (IMHO) home free to tell the world.
However, if the folks at the sites in question dealt with Apple employees, ex-employees or others who were violating non-disclosure agreements and illegally spilling the beans on Apple’s trade secrets, then that’s wrong.
I don’t know how the sites got their info. I’ll leave that up to the courts to decide. And I’m not going to jump into the fray on what constitutes a true “news site.” That’s a topic for another column.
But when it comes down to the Mac sites vs. Apple, it ultimately seems simple to me: IF employees leaked info, violating non-disclosure agreements and possibly California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, all parties who knowingly participated were wrong. IF no info was illegally obtained by the three Web sites, then they’ve done nothing illegal.
That’s my two cents’ worth. Yours? Write me at dsellers@macsimumnews.com
Also, there’s a new Macsimum poll and it continues a recent trend in our polls. Recently, Business Week 2.0 ran an issue with the cover story, “What’s next for Apple?,” which speculates on future Apple products. One of those is the wireless iPod, which would use Bluetooth to sync with your computer without a docking station. Also, per Business Week 2.0, the wireless iPod would let you tap into the iTunes Music Store from a public network (your local Starbucks, for example) and more.
Leave a comment ⇒
Please post the article topic & comment in our forums. No registration required.
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
