Comments on: Whether Nick was paid isn’t the point http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:55:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Daniel http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341919 Daniel Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:55:02 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341919 While it is undeniable that Apple legal is sometimes overly litigious I think they did the right thing in this instance and used the legal system properly. Someone revealed a trade secret , probably while under an NDA and they went to court to find out who it was. Fair enough.<br>The imbalance between the legal resources of large corporations and 18 year old students is definitely an issue with the American legal system but I think by settling Apple avoided going too far. This time. While it is undeniable that Apple legal is sometimes overly litigious I think they did the right thing in this instance and used the legal system properly. Someone revealed a trade secret , probably while under an NDA and they went to court to find out who it was. Fair enough.
The imbalance between the legal resources of large corporations and 18 year old students is definitely an issue with the American legal system but I think by settling Apple avoided going too far. This time.

]]> By: Think Secret Shutdown. Big Deal. « The Small Wave. http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-336322 Think Secret Shutdown. Big Deal. « The Small Wave. Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:50:01 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-336322 [...] Some Apple bloggers also upset by this, as well as somewhat more neutral bloggers (heck, poor Mathew Ingram is nearly flipping out). [...] [...] Some Apple bloggers also upset by this, as well as somewhat more neutral bloggers (heck, poor Mathew Ingram is nearly flipping out). [...]

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341918 mathewi Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:17:02 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341918 It's a fact that journalists use information from insiders within<br>technology companies all the time -- maybe not Walt, but plenty of<br>others. Obviously, the trade secrets law and the first amendment are<br>in conflict. I for one would rather side with journalism and free<br>speech than a company's interpretation of what a "trade secret" is,<br>and its right to prosecute those who reveal them. It's a fact that journalists use information from insiders within
technology companies all the time — maybe not Walt, but plenty of
others. Obviously, the trade secrets law and the first amendment are
in conflict. I for one would rather side with journalism and free
speech than a company's interpretation of what a “trade secret” is,
and its right to prosecute those who reveal them.

]]> By: PXLated http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341917 PXLated Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:26:21 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341917 -- I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. --<br>I think that's where you're getting derailed. He may not have had the right depending on what he knew about the source or the information. I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, the Apple employees broke the law because of their NDAs. If Nick knew they were Apple sources and under NDA, then he broke the law also. What exactly did Nick know, we don't know.<br>Your Walt Mossberg thing is just ridiculous. If Walt broke the law, the WSJ would fight, loose, and probably just pay the fines. In Nicks case, we know no details, we don't even know if he really got paid off, it could just as easily be that he's happy with the settlement because he's not going to jail.<br>Need facts man and there are none. – I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. –
I think that's where you're getting derailed. He may not have had the right depending on what he knew about the source or the information. I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, the Apple employees broke the law because of their NDAs. If Nick knew they were Apple sources and under NDA, then he broke the law also. What exactly did Nick know, we don't know.
Your Walt Mossberg thing is just ridiculous. If Walt broke the law, the WSJ would fight, loose, and probably just pay the fines. In Nicks case, we know no details, we don't even know if he really got paid off, it could just as easily be that he's happy with the settlement because he's not going to jail.
Need facts man and there are none.

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341916 mathewi Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:03:03 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/12/21/whether-nick-was-paid-isnt-the-point/#comment-341916 If Apple wants to go after people who break its NDAs, then it should<br>do so -- but using journalists (and I include Nick in that group) to<br>do an end run around the legal system is an infringement of free<br>speech, regardless of what he is writing about or whether you think<br>it's important.<br><br>I never said the public had a right to know about Apple's products --<br>I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. That's a<br>completely different question. Freedom of speech doesn't only refer<br>to speech that is considered important or useful. If Apple wants to go after people who break its NDAs, then it should
do so — but using journalists (and I include Nick in that group) to
do an end run around the legal system is an infringement of free
speech, regardless of what he is writing about or whether you think
it's important.

I never said the public had a right to know about Apple's products –
I said Nick had a right to publish information about them. That's a
completely different question. Freedom of speech doesn't only refer
to speech that is considered important or useful.

]]>