Appellate arguments heard in Apple v. Does subpoena dispute

This is screwy. Apple's trying to use the court system (at taxpayer expense) to find out which one of their employees leaked the info. They haven't done due diligence on their end though. There were about twenty-five people in Apple who were working on Asteroid. Prior to filing this, you'd think Apple would have taken their depositions, right? THEY DID NOT. A deposition is an interview taken where the interviewee is sworn to tell the truth. If you lie in a depo it's the same as lying in court: you can be charged with perjury.

Apple is trying to strongarm O'Grady rather than take the time to conduct their own internal investigation properly. They probably think this will be faster and less costly.

Meanwhile everyone and his uncle knows about Asteroid now, plus as PXLated says they're getting a tarnished image as opponents of free speech. Not Apple's smoothest move.

>> But there must be better ways to keep the surprises up his sleeve than give the company the tag of "enemy of free speech" whether justified or not.

Right or wrong, it seems to me Apple was very stupid in making such a big deal of this issue.

Yes, the leaks in general can be considered damaging (although the free publicity the rumor sites generate is enormous and could even be said to be a net positive), and yes, Apple should be entitled to keep its trade secrets secret.

However, the enmity they have generated for themselves in the blogging world, as well as getting on the EFF's "they do evil" list, is far more damaging than a minor leak about a product which customers will either buy or not buy, and competitors will either copy or not copy.

I doubt any employee would leak something that could be considered disastrous for the company, it simply doesn't make sense for their personal self-interest if their company is harmed by pre-announcements (which in any case rarely amount to anything more than "source say, and they may be wrong").

Instead of paying their lawyers to tear into journalists - O'Grady works for ZDNet, he is more than a blogger, and he has already penned some damaging columns as a result of his legal encounter - Apple should instead look at increasing employee loyalty to an extent that such leaks become rare.

Perhaps an options issue, or bonuses for products hitting a set goal. Maybe a "loose lips sink ships" motivational talk.

I know Steve likes surprises, and it steals his thunder when they are spoilt. But there must be better ways to keep the surprises up his sleeve than give the company the tag of "enemy of free speech" whether justified or not.

Agreed Steve M. This isn't about 'journalistic integrity' or any such issue-- it's about the fact that the bloggers in question- who are not real journalists- posted trade secrets for the general public, and Apple's competitors, to make use of.

Buying/stealing trade secrets and putting them on a website has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And it certainly lacks 'integrity'.

I do not believe that it will get to the broader issue of what constitutes a Journalist. The fact of the matter is that it appears that someone within Apple leaked proprietary information about a product the company was working on. Whether or not the bloggers are considered journalists is immaterial to the fact that releasing trade secrets is illegal. A Newspaper at least would have known better than to do what these bloggers did.

The first ammendment right to freedom of press does not give any journalist the right to reveal illegal information, no matter how it was obtained. The right to protect their sources does not protect the source if what they were doing was illegal, as it appears is the case in this instance.