Apple just became the bad guys.

[sauergeek]

A California judge has ruled that online publishers covering Apple Computer can be forced to divulge their sources.

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.

Comments

[mangosteen]

I don't think that Apple stepped in it, at all.

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.

[sauergeek.livejournal.com]

I fear that you are correct on this. My hope is, as above, that they end up losing the suit and eating the defendants' legal costs. I doubt that there's a good abuse of process or malicious prosecution countersuit to be had from this.

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.