News Intelligence Analysis
From the New York Times
March 5, 2005
Apple Asks Judge to Order Web
Sites to Name Sources
By LAURIE J. FLYNN
SAN FRANCISCO, March 4 - A state judge in California heard arguments
on Friday in a lawsuit brought by Apple Computer to force three
Web site publishers to reveal the names of confidential sources
who disclosed to them Apple's plans for future products.
The outcome of the lawsuit, which was filed in December, could have far-reaching ramifications for the ability of bloggers to maintain the confidentiality of unnamed sources, which news gatherers often depend on for information.
Judge James Kleinberg of the Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, Calif., told the lawyers in the case late Thursday that he was leaning toward permitting Apple to issue subpoenas to the three publishers, Powerpage.org, Apple Insider and Think Secret. He is expected to issue a formal ruling as early as next week.
In the case, Apple Computer v. Doe 1, Apple wants to force the sites to turn over documents related to an unreleased Apple product called Asteroid and certain other Apple technology under development.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that filed a motion last month to block the subpoenas, argued in court on Friday that online publishers have the same legal protections as traditional journalists, who are shielded under state law from being forced to divulge the names of confidential sources.
"If this ruling goes in favor of Apple, it will have a chilling effect on the use of confidential sources," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff lawyer with the foundation, which is based in San Francisco. Once the judge rules, the defendants will have five days to decide whether to appeal. After that period, Apple can issue the subpoenas.
In a separate case, the publisher of Think Secret, a Web site for Macintosh enthusiasts, asked on Friday that Judge Jamie Jacobs-May, also of Santa Clara County Superior Court, dismiss a lawsuit Apple had brought against him.
In that case, which was filed in January, Apple accuses Nick DePlume, the operator of Think Secret, of trying to induce Apple employees to divulge the company's trade secrets. In December, Think Secret published a description of a low-cost Macintosh computer under development, confidential information that was apparently acquired from people close to Apple. The company is seeking unspecified damages for the disclosure.
Mr. DePlume, whose real name is Nicholas Ciarelli and who is a student at Harvard University, asserts that Apple is using its financial power to intimidate small journalists.
Apple declined to comment on the developments in the two cases, saying it does not discuss pending litigation. At the time it filed the lawsuits, Apple issued a statement defending its right to protect its trade secrets.
Though separate cases, the two lawsuits deal with similar issues. "The Think Secret case takes things a step further, because it is not just accusing unnamed sources of divulging trade secrets, but also accusing the Web sites that print it," Mr. Opsahl said.
Mr. DePlume's lawyer, Terry Gross of the San Francisco firm of Gross & Belsky, said the issue was whether writers published on small Web sites and in blogs should be afforded the same protections given to professional journalists with major news operations.
Had such an article about Apple appeared in a major newspaper, he said, "it would have been called good journalism; Apple never would have considered filing a lawsuit."
Furthermore, Mr. Gross said, the material Mr. DePlume published did not involve trade secrets but was information that had already been made public, and that Mr. DePlume did not break any laws when he obtained the information.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.