Santa Clara County Superior Court Ruling: 2004-2005

  • Parties involved: Apple; fansites PowerPage.org, Apple Insider, Think Secret; users who divulged the information (likely Apple employees)
  • Source of conflict: Trade secrets being divulged on fan sites
  • Timeline: Incident happened in November 2004, subpoena filed December 2004, Court decision March 2005
  • Court’s decision: The Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled that Apple has the right to subpoena these sites, unless any parties file for an appeal
  • Impact on blogosphere: Many bloggers at this time identified as journalists, however blogs had yet to gain mainstream attention and acceptance. The court ruled that the underlying crime of the posting undermines journalistic protection.

In November 2004, reporters on these three Apple fansites published information on Asteroid, a breakout box for Apple’s GarageBand software that until this point had been kept secret. Apple sought to find out who among its employees may have leaked this information to the reporters and filed a subpoena to the fansites. The court case was known as Apple vs. Does, as the unnamed defendants who Apple is suing for the information were referred to as “John Does.”

The court decision was made in March 2005 in favor of Apple. The judges saw the situation as a clear violation of trade secret laws, and because of this intellectual property crime chose not to protect the sites. They noted that the documents leaked had been marked as confidential and likened the divulgence to gossip:

“Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the enthusiast sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public’s insatiable desire for information,” [Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge] Kleinberg wrote.

“Defining what is a “journalist” has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded,” [Kleinberg] said. “But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.”

In this case, the bloggers were not seen as journalists, perhaps because of the underlying crime of this conflict, and the lack of ethical necessity to share the information, as in the case of whistleblowing.

California Court of Appeal Re-ruling: 2006

  • Parties involved: Apple; fansites; unknown defendants; the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
  • Source of conflict: EFF appealed the 2005 ruling in favor of Apple
  • Timeline: Court decision reached May 2006
  • Court’s decision: California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the EFF, revoking Apple’s right to subpoena these sites
  • Impact on blogosphere: The judges protected the blogs for press freedom this time. The decision reflects a changed attitude towards bloggers, legitimizing them as online journalists.

PCPro reports on the EFF’s victory in the appeal:

[EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl:] “The court has upheld the strong protections for the free flow of information to the press, and from the press to the public.”

“In their decision the judges side-stepped the issue of whether the websites were respected sources of news information, such as traditional broadcast media.”

In other words, the judges didn’t know how or where to fairly draw the line between traditional and nontraditional journalists, so they decided that no such line should be considered.