Trade Secrets vs. the First Amendment
(Page 1 of 4 )
A recent court ruling that forces three online journalists to reveal their sources may have implications far beyond the matter of someone leaking Apple's trade secrets. It may end up affecting what kind of news every journalist can write about -- and what kinds of sources they can safely use.
In mid-March, the Honorable Judge James Kleinberg issued a ruling in a Santa Clara county courtroom that has implications for bloggers and online reporters everywhere – and could have even wider ramifications for journalists regardless of their chosen medium. The court case involves the clash of technology and traditional freedoms. On one side, represented by Apple, we have the need to protect technological progress; on the other side, represented by three independent online reporters, we have the need to protect freedom of the press. While this particular ruling will be appealed, Apple seems to have won this round – a victory that should send a chill down the spine of everyone who cares about what kind of news they will be allowed to read or write.
First, let me provide a little background on the case. Three bloggers – or online journalists, depending on which source you quote – published Apple-related stories late in November of 2004. That by itself is not unusual; indeed, one of the journalists, the pseudonymous Kaspar Jade, has been covering Apple for the past eight years. No, what was unusual was the content of the pieces. All three discussed a rumored product from Apple, codenamed “Asteroid.”
Many rumors are based in fact. If you read Kaspar Jade’s take on the device (http://www.appleinsider.com/print.php?id=756), published on Apple Insider, it’s abundantly clear that he isn’t just guessing. He states the purpose of the device, gives specifications, system requirements, the name of the company to which Apple was expected to outsource the manufacturing of the device, its estimated retail price, the size of the initial production run, the approximate date of its release to the general public – even how much money sales of the device were expected to add to Apple’s quarterly bottom line. About the only item he doesn’t mention is the exact name under which the device will be released.
When Apple saw this story, along with the story written by Jason O’Grady of O’Grady’s PowerPage, they believed what they had on their hands was not a rumor gone wild – it was a leak. Someone at the company had violated his or her nondisclosure agreement – possibly several employees, in fact. On December 13, 2004, Apple’s lawyers took action, filing a suit against these unknown employees that charged them with trade secret misappropriation. The problem is, it’s a little difficult (to say the least) to pursue a case against someone whose identity you do not know…and that is where things got hairy for Jason O’Grady, Kaspar Jade, and Monish Bhatia of Mac News Network.
Next: Show us Your Sources >>
More Opinions Articles
More By Terri Wells
