The last few years I have turned into an Apple fan. Not that I have bought any Apple gear (I simply think they are way overpriced), but I do use their products (Powerbook G4) and I do like(d) the way they conduct business and how innovative they are when it comes to marketing their products. So when I read about the darker sides of Apple’s business ethics I was actualy a bit upset. ZDnet reports about this case where Apple is sueing the proprietor of an online Blog for exposing ‘trade secrets’. Blog owner Jason D. O’Grady posted a series of stories in October 2004 about an upcoming Apple product in development: a FireWire breakout box for GarageBand, code-named “Asteroid.” Apparantly this struck a nerve at Apple and they decided to sue the messenger and demand he reveals his sources as well. Now here is the bottomline: Apple feels that independent online journalists are not protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that a journalists confidential communications and sources should be exposed to them. Lucky for O’Grady, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stepped in and has been defending him pro bono, arguing that the anonymity of his sources are protected by the same laws that protect sources who leak information to journalists.
However, A Santa Clara County judge decided that journalists and their sources lose constitutional protection when they publish information that a business classifies as a “trade secret.” Off course the EFF filed a petition to have that decision overturned. This petition will be heard on April 20, 2006 by the California Court of Appeal. The purpose of the hearing is, that a judge can decide whether the Santa Clara County court made a mistake when it refused to protect O’Grady’s rights under the First Amendment.
Now, the reason that I am blogging about this is, that we have various discussions here in Holland as well about the (legal) status of bloggers. The question boils down to this: are bloggers journalists? If so, are they protected in the same way journalists are? And if not, what is their legal status then? An interesting discussion – especially since I happen to have a degree in journalism myself.
Traditionally, excercising the freedom of press or speech involved a rather cumbersome process: one had to find a newspaper or – literally – a press to print and distribute ones thoughts and or opinions.
The Internet however, enabled people to publish their thoughts and opinions in a very simple manner and enabled them also to reach (potentially) millions of people. In fact: the Internet has revolutionised publishing in the broadest sense possible. Thus changing the way information is being spread.
‘Being digital’ has already become a way of life for many people (including myself).
For the purpose of argument, let’s define ‘journalism’. According to Wikipedia:
“Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people. Those who practice journalism are known as journalists.
Notice that this definition does not call for someone to be paid for his reporting nor does he have to be full-time employed, nor does he have to have a degree. In fact: journalism in most western countries is not a protected profession – unlike, for instance being a brain surgeon. The reason for this is simple: in most (civilized) countries journalism is part of something called “freedom of speech” and “freedom of press” (yeah, I know: a hard concept to grasp by many governments). In other words: anyone can exercise his/her rights by reporting on whatever he/she thinks is important.
So what is a ‘blog’? Well according to Wikipedia:
A blog (or weblog) is a website in which messages are posted and displayed with the newest at the top. Like other media, blogs often focus on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news. Some blogs function as online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. Since its appearance in 1995, blogging has emerged as a popular means of communication, affecting public opinion and mass media around the world.
So, is there a difference between ‘blogging’ and ‘journalism’? Well, here is one difference I see:
Wikipedia: (…) Generally, publishers and consumers of journalism draw a distinction between reporting — “just the facts” — and opinions (such as editorials, the official opinions of the paper, and op-ed columns, “opposite the editorial page” commentary)
With blogs I think we see a mixture of those two things and sometimes it is hard for a person to distinguish between the facts and the opinions.
Another difference is that journalists (feel they) have an obligation to check information (if they do not want to be libel to slander.) That in my book definately distinguishes a journalist from the average blogger. Bloggers tend to write easier about rumours without checking their sources. I mean: when I was a journalist I did call people and did background checks, but when publishing in my blog I never have done this so far – other than comparing sources using Google. Why? Because blogging has a bigger personal aspect to it – and as such opinions tend to dominate over facts.
Back to the case. As blogging gains popularity, many politicians, private people and even companies have started blogging. And not to forget: even main stream press and newspapers have started to do this.
Off course the question is: where do we draw the line between ‘freedom of speech’ and revealing information that could be deemed as ‘trade secrets’ or ‘harmfull’? Or what about ‘rumours’ ?
Well, in my humble opinion I feel that this has to be decided in a case by case comparision. Does, whatever information was ‘leaked’, outweigh the right of people to be informed versus the right of companies (or governments) to defend their ‘trade secrets’? In other words: when does the public interest become a factor?
I am sure that if some blog exposed Apple as exploiting illegal aliens to work for them under horrible circumstances, the right to publicize this information outweighs Apple’s right to keep that a secret. But what about the right to know about a new and secret upcoming product? When knowlegde or leaking information would hurt the company by letting competitors in on secrets?
In other words: what about those countless websites that expose new gadgets and technology (for instance Engadget) way before they are available to the general public? And let’s not forget: companies actually do benefit sometimes from the ‘buzz’ rumours generate. Apple surely is one of those. No one can deny they are one of the most hyped companies around.
Well, at this point I believe there is another important concept involved: the freedom of information. I strongly believe that information in general almost acts like an organism. Inherently information wants to be free (we all know how hard it is to keep a secret).
In that sense I do agree with John Perry Barlow, one of the co-founders of the EFF (I interviewed him back in 1996). He wrote a essay that was published in Wired magazine in 1994 called: The Economy of Ideas, A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age. (Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong.)
Basically, information is like Pandora’s Box. Once it’s out there you can not ‘undo’ it.
So my argument would be, do not fight information. Even if it is not in your interest. It is a useless as trying to stop the sun from coming up in the morning and setting in the evening. It is a fact of life. Get over it.
The more companies or governments try to protect information, the harder it will become. Especially in this day and age. My advice: just learn to deal with it and handle it.
So in conclusion: Dear Apple – Steve, please stop this lawsuit and go on with your business.
