Friday, April 22, 2005
Apple's "Trade Secrets"
Much ink has been spilled in the name of journalistic hand-wringing regarding Apple's legal efforts to find out who leaked information about a forthcoming product called "asteroid."
Nice provocative article in the LA Times. Hiltzik makes some interesting points in defending the online journalists in question and arguing that they and their sources deserve protection under the state's "shield law" and should not be forced to ID their sources for their stories.
While he, the judge, and Apple focused on the question of whether PowerPage's editors and reporters are journalists, I think the real issue is whether news/information about unreleased products is "in the public interest." (I oversimplify, but that's generally at the heart of these kinds of cases.)
Hiltzik argues that any information about any matter of interest to any sector of the "public," no matter how trivial, is in the public interest. He also argues that Apple's product plans and their release dates do not constitute "trade secrets." Neither Hiltzik nor I are lawyers (at least his bio in the LATimes does not indicate that he is an attorney), so I'd say it's rather specious for either one of us to make serious legal arguments.
As a matter of personal opinion, there is no public benefit for information about unreleased products save for those who would seek to gain unfair advantage by its release -- competitors, stock traders, for example. Exceptions: for information about products that might actually effect human health and safety e.g. genetically engineered crops etc.
Bravo for Hiltzik's defense of fellow journalists. (Disclosure: I was a daily reporter for 8 years and was threatened multiple times with being hauled into court to ID sources or turned over notes; and once I actually was hauled into court.)
In this instance, however, I can't buy his argument.
Much ink has been spilled in the name of journalistic hand-wringing regarding Apple's legal efforts to find out who leaked information about a forthcoming product called "asteroid."
Nice provocative article in the LA Times. Hiltzik makes some interesting points in defending the online journalists in question and arguing that they and their sources deserve protection under the state's "shield law" and should not be forced to ID their sources for their stories.
While he, the judge, and Apple focused on the question of whether PowerPage's editors and reporters are journalists, I think the real issue is whether news/information about unreleased products is "in the public interest." (I oversimplify, but that's generally at the heart of these kinds of cases.)
Hiltzik argues that any information about any matter of interest to any sector of the "public," no matter how trivial, is in the public interest. He also argues that Apple's product plans and their release dates do not constitute "trade secrets." Neither Hiltzik nor I are lawyers (at least his bio in the LATimes does not indicate that he is an attorney), so I'd say it's rather specious for either one of us to make serious legal arguments.
As a matter of personal opinion, there is no public benefit for information about unreleased products save for those who would seek to gain unfair advantage by its release -- competitors, stock traders, for example. Exceptions: for information about products that might actually effect human health and safety e.g. genetically engineered crops etc.
Bravo for Hiltzik's defense of fellow journalists. (Disclosure: I was a daily reporter for 8 years and was threatened multiple times with being hauled into court to ID sources or turned over notes; and once I actually was hauled into court.)
In this instance, however, I can't buy his argument.
Comments:
Post a Comment
