Indeed there is:
Ford Motor Company v. Robert Lane
You can follow the link to download a pdf of the full decision. There are a number or precedent cases within that document you can exlore. Her Honor Judge Edmunds of the U.S. District Court in MI determined that Robert Lane, a student who ran an internet web site focus on the design of Ford automobiles. Ford took exception to Lane’s use of “ford” in his domain name, and retaliated against him in a limited fashion. Lane fired back he had “sensitive” documents. Turns out they were photos of unreleased Ford designs, i.e. “trade secrets”. Despite Ford’s attempts to persuade, Lane published the info. on his web site. Lane claimed the source of the info. was anonymous. He knew full well it was proprietary, but had done nothing illegal himself in obtaining the info. Ford sued, claiming Lane had violated the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which, in fact, he had, and got a restraint. The restraint was overturned because the MI act violates the prior restraint doctrine of the First Amendment. Ford attempted to argue Lane’s site wasn’t “media”. The court did not find that argument persuasive.
What do you think the chances are things will go similarly in the case I’m complaining about? And what are the legal precedents your pal was referring to? Could you please provide at least one cite to back up your assertions? Just one?
What are the facts? Has anyone charged the bloggers with a crime? No. Is Apple suing them for punitive damages? No. Did the bloggers break the law? For the last time, NO! The relevant issue here is whether or not the bloggers have rights to FA protections that allow them to not surrender their sources. That’s it! I don’t care what your friend thinks about it if he can’t give me any relevant information.
Well, that’s good, because you’ve displayed absolutely zero effort in trying. And I certainly have not backed up my assertions with the barest oppinions. Some of the documents I’ve cited in past posts, as well as this one, contain actual rulings on court cases germane to this discussion. Are you going to argue none of those are valid because the containe other judge’s and lawyers oppinion? And before you accuse me of the fallacy of arguing from authority, in the amicus I cited was plenty of substantive discussion of matters of constitutional law. Not hypotheticals, and whatever logical conclusion you choose to draw from said hypotheticals. On the one hand, we’ve got Loopy, who has offered the “oppinions”, if you will, of notable civil libertarians, 8 major newspapers, the Associated Press, every media commentator I’ve been able to find who has written on the subject, a veteran trade journalist, now a Federal Judge ruling on a case that you cannot argue is dissimilar to this, all appear to support Loopy’s assertion that the bloggers should get FA protection, and that if they do not, it means dire consequences for the press.
On the other side we’ve got…Sol. And some guy he asked, who appears to know about “precedents”.
Oh, but hey, it’s all just oppinions, right?
Would you mind telling me when and how the NYT and CBS got called, what they got called on, why they were getting called on it, what the decision was, etc.? Could you tell me how that is relevant to this case, how it might imply something about the current decision and the appeal?
Tell you what. Here’s another case: Sports Management News v. Nachtigal. I can’t find a direct link, but many other cases and documents cite it. The case didn’t go to Federal court, but it was pretty much a similar deal. The S.M. Network is a “legitimate” news source. In this case Adidas attempted to prevent SMN from publishing a report about a shoe design, a design disclosed to only a few employees of the company. One of them obviously leaked the design to SMN, in violation of his or her NDA. The Oregon Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s order to restrain, and allowed SMN to publish, again citing “prior restraint” in their interpretation of the Oregon State Constitution, in an analagous manner to Ford v. Lane cited above.
Now that I think about it, not only have you told me “legitimate” news sources do not do such “unethical” things, you now are telling me they have done it, and gotten “called” on it. You are wrong by my example and your own tacit admission on the former, though I might cut you some slack on that, as you’ve offered nothing to give me a clue what you’re talking about in the latter?
Well, what about Apple’s right to privacy? If they even have it in this case (and I’m not sure they do, being a publically traded company), it’s not the bloggers who violated it in any actionable way. I happen to be an Apple stockholder, and frankly I’m a lot more concerned about Jobs’ assholery affecting my investment than bloggers leaking a few details of interest only to people who will know about it soon and buy the product anyway? What did the bloggers collectively do? They publshed leaks about the mini, iWork, and something called “Asteroid”, apparently a breakout box to be used with GarageBand. The release of the mini and iWork was imminent. Apple itself accidentally leaked a clue about Asteroid, and it the scuttlebut is they dumped the project due to “poor initial implementation”. One of the ways a company can trump a FA claim is if they can prove they’ve been harmed. Apple claims these leaks hurt their “buzz”, that air of Prometheus granting fire to Mac faithful I guess Jobs loves so much at MacWorld. They also claimed these leaks hurt the trade media, and other such nonsense.
Now I watched the webcast from that announcement of the mini and iWork. I’ll be damned if I could see any evidence whatsoever that the “buzz” was any less than at any other MWSF, where half the audience creams themselves over the next Insanely Greatly Big Thing. Have sales of the mini suffered? Is iWork rusting on the Apple Tree? Fuck no. And what of the “harm” to the media? Well, they all seem to think that Apple is harming them, not the bloggers. So why do you think Apple isn’t suing for damages or claiming the bloggers broke the law? I’m guessing because they wouldn’t have a snowballs’ chance in Hell of demonstrating any malice on the part of the bloggers, nor any kind of harm done to their business, “buzz”, or anything else. Instead they take the cheap shot of trying to argue the bloggers don’t deserve FA protections. What a bullshit tactic. I sure as fucking hope they lose, because it’ll suck for all of us if they don’t. Apple is not suing because somebody revealed their secret recipe. They’re not suing the bloggers because they disseminated schematics. They’re not claiming the bloggers stole their source code. They’re claiming the bloggers took their “buzz”. And they want to fuck with civil liberties to get it back. That’s just swell.
No, I will not. I’m tired of the bullshit questions that have no relevance to anything I’m talking about. As soon as the bloggers start plastering something that could remotely resemble any reasonable definition of “Intellectual Property”, I’ll be the first to jump to Apple’s defense. The bloggers are reporting details about products that anyone could gather in an instant if the box were sitting on the shelf in front of us, and in no way compromises Apple’s IP. Basically, all they’re sharing is information. That’s it. It’s not diagrams, schematics, formulas, code, secret potions, molds, forms, whatever sort of thing that would give anybody a competative advantage against them. Apple has admitted as much by doing nothing more than demanding the identities of the informants. And only those leakers did anything actionable. Period. Soon as the bloggers commit a real crime, then I’ll bother with somethign “extreme”. There are already legal ways to protect Apple’s rights to IP. Apple wants to claim any and all information having anyting to do with their business that they choose to call “secret” a secret. You’re good at hypotheticals. Consider the ramifications of that.
So I retract my retraction: Thanks for fucking nothing. Tell your pal the same. Gimme something that would indicate you have the remotest idea of what the fuck you’re talking about, and I’ll consider it. Like a cite; just one fucking cite that sheds some new light on all of this, besides blasting me with more of your oppinionated hyperbolic flatulence, which you apparently can’t be bothered to back up with one single fucking example from the goddamn real world. Hell, I’d fall out of my chair. I’d be overjoyed. But no! I can see it now: You don’t take “kindly” to my use of facts. You object to my “ethics” (without even attempting to make a good-faith rebuttal of the facts that back them), which are such a matter of “oppinion” I suppose it’s im-fucking-possible to refute you on anything. Maybe you’ll sod off and pout now, or spew more bullshit at me. That’s great Sol! Bravo! It’s been so edifying! With that, I’ll just go home and hit myself over the head with a brick, to round off a perfect evening.