Apple just became the bad guys.
Mar. 4th, 2005 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
A California judge has ruled that online publishers covering Apple Computer can be forced to divulge their sources.
Notable from the article:
Given its stance, Apple seems perfectly willing to eviscerate the First Amendment to keep people from publishing leaks. What Apple should be doing instead is internal counter-espionage to track those leaks, and punishing the employees who are talking too much. (Or I at least assume that Apple has a sufficiently stringent mandatory non-disclosure agreement to do this.) Sacrificing the First Amendment for corporate surprise is just plain wrong. I hope Apple ends up losing their shirt over this.
Notable from the article:
Apple maintains that California's Shield Law, which protects journalists from being forced to reveal sources, should not apply to Internet sites. In addition, the firm stated in court filings that free speech protections likewise should not apply to the three Internet sites.
Given its stance, Apple seems perfectly willing to eviscerate the First Amendment to keep people from publishing leaks. What Apple should be doing instead is internal counter-espionage to track those leaks, and punishing the employees who are talking too much. (Or I at least assume that Apple has a sufficiently stringent mandatory non-disclosure agreement to do this.) Sacrificing the First Amendment for corporate surprise is just plain wrong. I hope Apple ends up losing their shirt over this.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 10:26 pm (UTC)Apple, being a corporation, can do nothing other (or more precisely the people running it can do nothing other) than use any means available to increase profit and control their markets to make more money. To do otherwise would be negligent of the directors and managers, and that would see the directores and managers in court for not taking proper care of the company. I wouldn't blame Apple for this any more than I blame a starving violent dog for trying to bite at me. I blame the person who made the dog starving and violent.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 11:41 pm (UTC)Save those which are illegal or which will cost the company more money than they will gain. I think this particular bit of ugliness could qualify for long-term expensive. I also sincerely hope that Apple ends up not only losing, but eating the attorney's fees for both sides.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 12:07 am (UTC)I mainly take issue with the "waah, they shouldn't do this" comment at the end; corporations have no soul (due to "must shaft everyone you can" precedents, not least) and will obviously try something like this. The answer is "no, sod off, and pay the legal fees", but I can't say I'm very surprised.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 12:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 12:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-07 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-05 12:34 am (UTC)Apple is figuring that people will still want their stuff. Last time I checked, the only one holding out on Apple on principle sue to their patent mischief of yesteryear is RMS himself.
So, Apple gets the best of all worlds.
- They control the information flow by engaging in rent-seeking behavior which, by definition, has no cost to them.
- They make each rumor that does get out seem more precious, with even a bigger audience.
- They have a bigger jump on their competitors (see 'reduced information flow')
- People will still buy their stuff because people want Apple gear, and it's only a very small subset of people who care about this, regardless of how annoyed they may be.
In short, this is rent-seeking behavior with no significant downside for Apple. I'm not seeing the mistake.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-06 03:48 am (UTC)However, I think that behavior like this needs to be discouraged. Unfortunately, I am failing to come up with an effective, non-draconian means to do so.