Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Blogging
Will Apple sue the WSJ?
Dan Gillmor has been asking an interesting question: will apple sue the Wall Street Journal over the Intel leak the way they sued the bloggers in Apple v. Does? The WSJ doesn't seem to think so; they're patting themselves on the back over Jobs' reference to them as the end of his keynote [link: paid site]. Gillmor doesn't seem to think so, either, and neither do I. Letting the WSJ off the hook is a way to reinforce the legitimacy of "old media" reporting over "new media" blogging. This is also probably the reason he singled out the WSJ in his talk, even though c|net also broke the story. For a company that wants to be your internet and digital hub, Apple can be pretty hidebound.From a business standpoint, of course, this makes sense. Leaks to newspapers have limited circulation and are easily quantifiable. Leaks to blogs, on the other hand, take on a life of their own. Most journalists will also give you a call and try to get a comment on a story before they break it. This gives you two important things: first, a chance to prepare, and second, the opportunity for the all-important sound bite, or at least the chance to get your "no comment" or craftily worded half denial on record. Bloggers, and even more traditional online publications, tend to post first and ask questions later, which complicates spin and damage control.
[via Dave Winer]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
joshxfoo said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
The Wall Street Journal has a "limited circulation" as compared to Mac rumor blogs? Ha!
Reply
Porchland said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
I assumed Apple leaked the news to the WSJ to soften the Intel news for the markets on the assumption that the markets love news but not necessarily surprises. If Apple leaked for this reason it apparently work, as there weren't any wild swings in the stock price after the announcement.
Reply
moonie said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
So what exactly is the intellectual property/trade secret leaked by WSJ or c|net?
Reply
Oliver said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
as Michael Gartenberg (sp) points out on the latest MAKE Mag podcast, reporting leaked information on an upcoming deal between two companies is pretty common practice. However, reporting specific details about a specific product that is only available to people under a NDA is not really common (or acceptable).
Reply
narco said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Plus a week isn't going to hit Apple financially. What Think Secret did was leak "secrets" for a whatever-that-thing-is that hasn't even been released yet.
Fishes,
narco.
Reply
Jay Savage said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
joshxfoo:
In the sense that the information comes form a distinct source and is transmitted to a distinct audience of paid subscibers--online or in print--and people who pick it up at the news stand in the morning, yes. It may be that more people actually read the WSJ than all the rumor blogs put together, but in theory a rumor that memes has unlimited distribution, as well as multiple sources.
Reply
igav said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
Maybe we know the real reason Apple pursued the bloggers so tenaciously. It seems to me it put up a huge smoke screen and put people with any information about the transition to Intel on the backfoot about whether they should reveal the information.
It will be interesting to see if Apple continues to pursue the courtcases now the the news about the Intel swithc is out
Reply
Small Paul said 4:20PM on 6-16-2005
It looks very much like Apple leaked this information intentionally, with senior (i.e. Steve Jobs) approval.
If Steve's decided he wants people to know, I don't think you could argue it's a trade secret any more. I don't see this as Apple not suing the WSJ because it prefers traditional media. I see it as Apple telling the WSJ about its stuff (and thus not being able to sue it), because it prefers traditional media.
As John Gruber pointed out, the Wall Street Journal is not likely to get itself into a position where it could be sued for illegally printing trade secret information.
Reply