Apple lawsuit comes to the end of long, winding road

Apple's legal case against two web sites ends this week as the company says it …

It's over. Apple's long legal fight against websites AppleInsider and PowerPage came to an unceremonious end this week as the company announced in court filings that it has no plans to continue the battle.

The news comes after several years of legal action against the sites in which Apple attempted to uncover the identities of those responsible for leaking details of an audio breakout box dubbed "Asteroid." The move to sue the web sites for their sources was met with dismay from many in the online community who saw it as an attack on the rights of online journalists. Apple won the first round in the case, receiving a preliminary order that directed the sites to turn over their e-mail correspondence with the leakers.

During subsequent proceedings, the EFF presented clear evidence that Apple had failed to conduct a thorough internal investigation, implying that the subpoena was an attempt to extort the relevant information out of journalists in order to avoid the need for internal inquiry. It is also likely that the subpoena was an intimidation tactic, intended to make an example of the journalists in question with the hope that other journalists will avoid disclosing similar information about Apple in the future. Apple's lawyers audaciously claimed that Internet blogging doesn't constitute journalism and that the writers were engaged in nothing more than trade secret misappropriation. Apple also attempted to obscure the limited scope of its own internal investigation by claiming that the investigatory process was itself a trade secret.

That verdict was appealed and eventually overturned in May of this year. The court ruling provided those who publish material online with the same protections given to print journalists, though the judges in the case did note that someone, somewhere, had leaked corporate trade secrets and deserved punishment. Seeking the sources through legal action would set a dangerous precedent, however, that the court was unwilling to condone, since it would put the judiciary in charge of determining what counts as investigative journalism and what does not.

In the decision, the justices show themselves masters of such crucial topics as the difference between Arkanoid, Breakout, and Asteroids (see p.6). They also show themselves heavy users of Wikipedia (see p.3, p.6, etc.), which might not be the best source for making judicial decisions, but does help get the judges up to speed on the definition of "breakout box."

Ryan Paul contributed to this report.

Expand full story

You must to comment.