Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Daring Fireball: On the Discovery Ruling in 'Apple v. Does'
Daring Fireball: On the Discovery Ruling in 'Apple v. Does'
There is a big big big court case happening in California right now, in which Apple has taken some of the rumor site administrators to court, with the intention of forcing them to reveal who their sources are (by providing access to ISP IP records and website transaction times, etc), that Apple may discover who is stealing information from them.
It's a very interesting case, and one that could have far reaching effects with regards to the "blogger"'s right to publish, etc, etc.
John Gruber once again lays the subject out for us. I think he's spot on and you'll likely be fairly convinced when you're done too.
One thing I find interesting about this case, (and I didn't know this before) is that not only is it illegal for someone to coerce someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement (as in, a journalist who pays money or threatens someone who is "in the know" to reveal what they know), but it is ALSO illegal for someone to publish something that they should reasonably been able to determine was covered under a non-disclosure agreement.
So let's concoct a hypothetical situation here:
Let's say you are a journalist and I am some fancy pants developer who was able to view a new technology at a conference last weekend.
Afterwards, you and I meet up for a pop, and you ask me about what happened, and I tell you what I saw, never once mentioning the non-disclosure agreement I signed before I saw anything at the conference.
According to the law I was just describing, if it is considered reasonable that you should have been able to deduce that the information I gave you was covered under some type of non-disclosure agreement, it is illegal for you to publish it.
Crazy eh?
There is a big big big court case happening in California right now, in which Apple has taken some of the rumor site administrators to court, with the intention of forcing them to reveal who their sources are (by providing access to ISP IP records and website transaction times, etc), that Apple may discover who is stealing information from them.
It's a very interesting case, and one that could have far reaching effects with regards to the "blogger"'s right to publish, etc, etc.
John Gruber once again lays the subject out for us. I think he's spot on and you'll likely be fairly convinced when you're done too.
One thing I find interesting about this case, (and I didn't know this before) is that not only is it illegal for someone to coerce someone else to break a non-disclosure agreement (as in, a journalist who pays money or threatens someone who is "in the know" to reveal what they know), but it is ALSO illegal for someone to publish something that they should reasonably been able to determine was covered under a non-disclosure agreement.
So let's concoct a hypothetical situation here:
Let's say you are a journalist and I am some fancy pants developer who was able to view a new technology at a conference last weekend.
Afterwards, you and I meet up for a pop, and you ask me about what happened, and I tell you what I saw, never once mentioning the non-disclosure agreement I signed before I saw anything at the conference.
According to the law I was just describing, if it is considered reasonable that you should have been able to deduce that the information I gave you was covered under some type of non-disclosure agreement, it is illegal for you to publish it.
Crazy eh?
Comments:
<< Home
For sure, this case could reach very deep into the rest of the 'print' (electronic or otherwise) world.
One point I'm glad Gruber (and the authors of the link he was writing about) was willing to make was a simple one that I think the judge saw too - the sites in question are not blog sites.
Post a Comment
One point I'm glad Gruber (and the authors of the link he was writing about) was willing to make was a simple one that I think the judge saw too - the sites in question are not blog sites.
<< Home
