It is not like a whistle blower revealed that the material used in the iPod casing was a powerful metal poison or some other product hazard. They leaked industrial secrets, do it to the critics and see how they respond.

I have a problem with this "journalist" not getting the fact that this information was stolen, leaked, and Jason O'Grady basically fenced the information. It wasn't sensitive government secrets or a health hazard that caused him to be a whistleblower or a conduit for one, it was a purely self-interested act of beating everybody else to the punch using stolen information. He's got the identity of the thief. He should be forced to reveal it, or pay the consequences as an accomplice!

Because we all know that all journalists are fine upstanding citizens and respectful of the law at all times.

Just ask the NY Times.

The press are doing themselves no favours in this matter. They are embracing the "letter" of the freedoms granted to them, and totally disregarding the spirit of the same. And why? Apparently it's so that they may pursue legally questionable activities without consequence.
If this is what "freedom of the press" has come to, then perhaps it is time to balance that freedom with a corresponding "responsibility of the press". Let the freedom be limited to the pursuit of the responsibility.
Does anybody out there actually respect the press anymore?

Quote

Mr. Beyers wrote:
"So what this all really means is that reporters can't publish leaks that aren't first approved by the subject of the story. There's a phrase for that, Fool: spin control."

What does getting "approved" have to do with this? This means that you're free to publish what you want and Apple is free to sue who they want. You can do whatever YOU want to do. Just because someone sues you doesn't mean you can't do it.

I can write whatever I want about Tom Cruise in a newspaper. I don't need his permission. But if he sues me that's his right too. It doesn't mean I can't write it. Where is THAT idea coming from? This guy thinks that this case might accidentally repeal the 1st Amendment or something?

O'Grady and whoever can continue to publish rumors. They just have to do it without using words taken verbatim from stolen documents.

Would Beyers himself print information directly from a stolen financial document labeled company proprietary/ confidential? I don't think he would. He's a hypocrite.

Sadly enough part of the problem is that a large percentage of the press has become incredibly lazy. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) The overriding desire to get the story "first"
2) The standards for publishing have gone downhill (lack of multiple sources, using unnamed sources, no independent research to confirm information, etc.).

Now I will admit that the second is heavily influenced by the first, but if the standards would have been maintained the first one would have less of an impact.

Basically O'Grady was given an illegally obtained document and instead of doing his due dillegence and digging through the Apple trash, contacting other sources, etc. and then publishing a story that did not include the actual stolen documents (which is now and has always been illegal), he just went ahead and published illegally obtained information without a second thought. Apple is trying to determine who the industrial spy is that STOLE thier proprietary information and O'Grady refused to assist. O'Grady doesn't have a leg to stand and should lose this case.

The whole distraction about the First Admendent and extending traditional press protections to the internet is completely unfounded. You don't see the traditional press write up these types of articles because they would get SUED and they would LOSE! That is why the rumor sites exist because they pushed the envelop but were pretty much under the radar. Now the internet has developed into a influencial source for information and companies are starting to enforce their rights that the rest of the media already follows. Since they are now getting punished for doing thing they should have never done in the first place the response is to whine. This is the same approach taken by a 3 year old when he is punished for something that he was previously able to get away with. I expect that from a 3 year old, but for an adult to take the same approach is very disappointing.

Apple's position is mistated. Apple's position is that no members of the media, including traditional journalists, are protected in this situation under California's journalist source protection law. Accordingly, Apple is not singling out Bloggers. It simply thinks no journalist, traditional or otherwise, is protected under the law.

In this situation, I, for one, agree with Apple. Journalist's sources are protected for one reason. To protect whistle blowers. The thinking is that whistle blowers are less likely to come forward if their identities are not protected. Accordingly, it is society's best interest to protect their identity. Otherwise, companies and politicians might be able to inflict harm upon society which otherwise would not be reported.

One who divulges a company's trade secret is not a whistle blower and there is no legitimate justification for protecting the source. Someone here broke the law. Namely, breached a contract. Apple should be able to discover this persons name. Since, the bloggers published the information, and know the name, they should have to divulge it.

As much respect as I might've had for TMF at one time, it's heading south, along with all the others that advocate breaking NDAs for the purpose of making a fast handfull of cash.

Seriously, what kind of journalist -- of any medium -- would support someone's right to practice industrial espionage by stealing information about new product lines and selling it? This guy should be screaming his fool head off about killing the incentive for innovation rather than whinging about free speech.

These bloggers aren't whistleblowers, they're info-pimps; selling hot pieces of illegally-obtained information to anyone they can.

Since what they're doing is illegal, why aren't they being arrested? This isn't about free speech, and the first amendment isn't under attack here, so all you self-proclaimed patriots can unwrap the flags from around your shoulders and turn off the cameras.

Apple not only has a right to defend itself from spying, but because they're publicly traded, they have a responsibility to their shareholders. Odd that this fool couldn't get that into his head.