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

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

So, your Honour, does this or does this not apply to the San Francisco Chronicle which has a print and internet edition?

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.

[sauergeek.livejournal.com]

any means available to increase profit

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.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Well, yes, it does seem likely they will fail in this. It's clearly bogus to claim a law protecting journalists depends on the medium in which they publish.
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.

[sauergeek.livejournal.com]

I think that publicly saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to bloggers Apple doesn't like has the potential to cost them a lot more business than they will gain in keeping their surprises. Why their lawyers did not also think so is beyond me.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

That does rather seem like their paranoia ate their brain and they lost their mind on this one.

[andrewfeland.livejournal.com]

Simple, their lawyers get paid not to think so. Cynical, I know, but if Apple says "sue", well, they do sign the checks.

[sauergeek.livejournal.com]

Apple may sign the checks, but lawyers have a formal, codified code of ethics to obey. I hope that they are demonstrated to be in violation with a countersuit claiming malicious prosecution (filing a suit with no merit, just to harass) or abuse of process (using the courts to harass -- different from malicious prosecution in that abuse of process can show up in an otherwise meritorious lawsuit).