What Apple and the Nixon White House have in common

What Apple and the Nixon White House have in common

Summary: Coop comments on the ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
5

Coop comments on the ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg that

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

5 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Ridiculous

    Shield laws for journalists were created to allow the media to expose wrong-doing without repurcussions. Exposing a company's trade secrets hardly falls in the same category. What's the overriding public interest in exposing Apple's trade secrets?

    Carl Rapson
    rapson
    • Not ridiculous

      Shield laws were created to allow the media to investigate
      stories, not just to expose wrong-doing. If a government official
      were seeing someone on the side, it would not be illegal, but
      certainly would be news-worthy. Information about a new
      product falls into this category; people want to know what new
      products are coming out, and bloggers provide this information.
      They should be shielded because of the service they provide.
      scott229
    • I see three problems here

      Now, these points are not about Apple, but the problem in general:

      First, calling it a trade secret may not equal one: whithout knowing the sources, how can you know it was obtained illegally? Although likely in the Apple case, it has happened before that companies have tried to cap information they have previously released by calling it a trade secret.
      Second, there are outer countries than the US. Some of these have different legislation, which means that publishing the information abroad might be legal. Should it be illegal to republish this information?
      Third, and this is the main problem as I see it, how and whem can it be decided if a wrongdoing has occured or not? How ethical is it to push the old stuff the day before a launch when the customer may be better served by the new stuff? How about it if the launch reveales that the old stuff was a dead end? And if the trade secret was that the new stuff doesn't work the way the company have hinted, for example a company with a vapor product.

      I think that journalists in general should refrain from forwarding information from companies that uses legal means to control what journalists could write about them, as controlled by one side precludes independance.
      Impossible
  • freedon of the press?

    Reporters are a naive lot indeed. Whether you are a "real"
    reporter, or just someone who logs his opinions on a site, you
    don't have unfettered access to confidential information.

    The law says that if you have a reason to SUSPECT that
    information was illegally obtained, then in order to publish it
    without an expectation of being sued or charged with
    CRIMINALLY reveiving stolen goods (information is classified as
    goods), you must find the same information by legal means. If
    you don't (or can't). then you can be busted.

    It would be good if all those who regard themselves as part of
    the press learn the relevent laws before they whine about their
    "special" freedom.
    melgross
  • Speakers from the Back of a Van

    I hope legal action is pursued against Think Secret, but I would
    also hope penalties are not harsh. Whoever broke the NDA
    however, is, and should be, up the creek. Apple has a right to
    pursue theives and those who traffic in their stolen property.
    They have a right to discern the degree of malicious intent and
    seek penalties that prevent this from happening again.

    The "public has a right to know" argument doesn't wash and
    ignorance of the law is never an excuse for breaking it. The on-
    line community should thank Apple for more clearly defining the
    boundaries in which it operates. The fluididty of digital
    communication can't be seen to circumvent our larger social
    structures. This is why Microsoft desrved a leash for antritrust
    behavior. It's also why Apple must start charging sales tax for
    iTunes downloads?in a nation built on the rule of law, everyone
    pushes their luck, always with the knowledge that there are
    penalties for going too far.

    Everyone creeps over the speed limit, but the fact you regularly
    get away with it is not an argument for an invalidating law.

    regards
    Harry Bardal