It’s the Content, Not the Source
The Apple lawsuit really boils down to the definition of a trade secret, not the definition of a journalist. Commentary by Adam L. Penenberg.
via Wired News
No. “Trade Secrets” or “Journalism” are just words being thrown around to defend each position on a legal standpoint. The Apple lawsuit(s) really boils down to a company willing to crucify its very own supporters.
Boooooo!
It seems that Apple has been granted the right to search and destroy the sources of ThinkSecret’s information… and correct me if I’m wrong, but the case against ThinkSecret itself is different – Apple filed a separate suit against ThinkSecret alleging that they induced Apple employees to steal trade secrets. Dunno about you, but to me, thats just a convenient, valid legal excuse to sue the publisher.
Two of my favorite “read lines” with regards to the whole Apple charade.
There’s another old saying in my profession: The mission of journalists is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
A letter to Steve Jobs by Mike Langberg of San Jose Mercury News.
and…
Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law, judge James Kleinberg ruled that online reporters for Apple Insider and PowerPage must reveal their sources.
via Linuxwrangler Read More
If The New York Times Jumped Off a Bridge
On the fallacious argument that Apple wouldn’t be suing The New York Times if they had published what ThinkSecret did.
via Daring Fireball
A excellent read, but still not convincing enough – though I must admit, he makes a lot of sense. I especially agree about the New York Times analogy being moot, as there was no actual experience to base anything on.
But on the contrary, how is he so sure that Apple will sue said NY Times if it should publish? I mean since he already went hypothetical in the first place that Apple would have more reason to sue. Notice that even that hypothetical situation should also be moot – since, as he himself said, the NY Times isn’t that sort of publication. I guess my point is never try to disprove anything hypothetical with anything similarly hypothetical.
Anyways, that’s all I have to say about that article… end train of thought… period.
But since I’ve gone this far… might as well speak my mind about the issue.
