March 13, 2005
Paul at Wizbang!
. . . discusses the recent ruling that suggests bloggers can't go around publishing the trade secrets of companies such as Apple with impunity.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
It seems like the common-sense decision to me, in the absence of some sort of overriding public concern in knowing these things—that is, whistle-blowers who expose corporate misconduct should fall into a different category from people who simply can't adhere to their employment contracts because they are blabbermouths.
Posted by: Attila at
01:30 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm with you. This doesn't seem so much about blogs but rather with people who violated their non-disclosures.
Posted by: JD at March 13, 2005 05:51 AM (J+Gcr)
2
Even more than that, it's about a blogger (at least one; I've only read one complaint) who broke the law by inducing Apple employees to break confidentiality.
My take on it is that it's not so much an issue of being able to print whatever we want as it is an issue of not being able to break any law we want in pursuit of a story.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at March 13, 2005 10:32 AM (KZlQC)
3
Hm. Is there a law against persuading others to break their agreements?
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 13, 2005 11:17 AM (R4CXG)
4
There is indeed. In California, and I'm pretty sure in most other states, it's against the law to offer somebody something as an incentive for breaking a contract or binding obligation. It's called tortious interference. The blogger in question, Nick Ciarelli of a site called Think Secret, offered a promise of anonymity for anybody who would reveal confidential information about upcoming Apple products.
It's up to a judge (or jury, or whatever) to decide whether Ciarelli actually broke the law, but Apple's case is pretty strong.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at March 13, 2005 11:29 AM (KZlQC)
5
Agreed.
Posted by: jeff at March 13, 2005 09:09 PM (QdQp0)
25kb generated in CPU 0.0406, elapsed 0.163 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1433 seconds, 462 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
209 queries taking 0.1433 seconds, 462 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
