News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

January 29, 2007

legal

Apple pays $700,000 to bloggers for legal fees

Posted Jan. 29, ’07, 4:12 PM PT by Aaron Freedman
Category | Legal

Applegavel After losing a lawsuit against several Apple bloggers, Apple now has to cough up $700,000 to compensate for the legal fees of the bloggers . The case, which involved Apple suing several online Apple rumors bloggers for revealing “top-secret” information on an unreleased product, resulted in a big victory for the blogosphere and a significant loss for Apple. While $700,000 isn’t much for a company worth billions of dollars, this case does leave an impression that Apple can’t just boss around Apple rumor bloggers. So, in the end, I’m happy for the bloggers who won, as they do deserve their First Amendment rights, and Apple really should think twice next time they decide to make a case against bloggers.

[via MacSurfer]


7 Comments

Tom H. said:

With all due respect, broken non-disclosure agreements are not covered by the first amendment.

By breaking those agreements and/or helping others to do so is a dishonorable practice. The unscrupulous rumor mills will lose sooner or later and that's when I'll applaud.

Apple is within its rights to go after those that disclose confidential information and outlets that knowingly disclose confidential information.

Additionally, these rumor mills only contribute to companies becoming increasingly secretive. It's one thing to speculate, but disclosing confidential information does a disservice to us all.

January 29, 2007 7:01 PM
Matt M said:

I agree with Tom that Apple's suit was seemingly within their rights (although a court obviously disagrees).

However, attacking fans and/or "the little guy" is always a dangerous PR move for a corporation. I assume that the blogs were written and read by Apple fans, and the suit puts a divide between them. In this case, Apple would have been wise to merely crack down on employees (to the extent that they could), and left the blogs alone, however culpable they might have been.

January 29, 2007 9:40 PM
Maddles said:

@ Tom H.

I don't think these bloggers broke any agreements because they didn't sign any. If they did get the info from someone who did they might not have known.

January 29, 2007 11:06 PM
Tom H. said:

Matt, I agree with you that Apple's suit is dangerous from a PR standpoint. Might be better to find another, more effective method of curtailing the leaks.

January 30, 2007 9:02 AM
E.T.Cook Author Profile Page said:

@Tom

What NDAs did the bloggers break?

January 30, 2007 10:06 AM
Tom H. said:

That's a fine line you're walking there E.T.. It's also the very weak thread this decision is hanging on... and probably the reason Apple dismissed without prejudice.

The bloggers didn't break an NDA but they sure has heck helped facilitate the break for those that were under the NDA... and they knew it.

I guess the most simple way I know how to explain it is this: If I want something from a store but I'm not wiling to pay for it, I can get someone to steal if for me. However, if I get caught with the stolen goods I'm still guilty even though I didn't technically steal if from the source.

The difference here is that the theives are hiding behind the 1st amendment even though they know they're stealing information. Heck, the names of these rumor mills says as much.

There's no way around it, it's theft of information facilitated by morally challenged bloggers.

Apple didn't just decide to be mean to bloggers. Someone went into their store and took information. They should be upset that the bloggers are knowingly helping the information thieves just as you would want someone prosecuted if your private infomration was passed onto a third party.

January 30, 2007 11:10 AM
E.T.Cook Author Profile Page said:

@Tom

There is no fine line that I am walking.

It isn't a crime to "facilitate the breaking of an NDA".

You could VENTURE to say it is unethical, although that would be a matter of debate...much of our news is based on the proliferation of information that wasn't supposed to be released...but yet we should be up in arms because the items are trade secrets?

I just personally consider fidelity and security of your trade secrets part of the game...sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.

You compare the act to stealing. Breaking an NDA is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Big difference. You need to make that distinction.

January 31, 2007 8:05 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: