|
''Apple v. Does'' (''O'Grady v. Superior Court'') was a high-profile legal proceeding in the USA notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter. The case began after several online news journals published articles concerning unreleased Apple products. Apple issued subpoenas seeking the identity of the source who leaked the information, information Apple considered a trade secret. The online news journals then sought judicial orders to protect their sources. The matter was heard by a trial judge who ruled in Apple's favor; that ruling was then appealed by the defendant online journalists. The appellate court held that trade secrets do not, by themselves, categorically transcend freedom of the press, that there is no relevant legal distinction between journalistic blogging online and traditional print journalism with regard to the shield law, and that Apple's attempt to subpoena the email service provider of one of the journals was a violation of the U.S. federal law known as the Stored Communications Act.〔Paul, Ryan, (Apple dealt loss in Apple v. Does trade secret case ), ArsTechnica, arstechnica.com via IP address, 2006-5-27. Accessed 2012-4-14.〕 ==Case facts== Apple Computer filed the case in December 2004 against unnamed individuals, "Does", in Santa Clara County, California, alleging the defendant Does leaked information about new Apple products to several online news sites, including ''AppleInsider'' and ''O'Grady's PowerPage''. The published articles at issue concerned a FireWire audio interface for GarageBand software which Apple had code-named ''Asteroid'', or ''Q7''. Seeking to determine the identities of the sites' information sources, Apple issued subpoenas to ''AppleInsider'''s and ''O'Grady's PowerPages publishers, the owner of ''Think Secret'', dePlume Organization LLC, as well as Nfox.com, and the email service provider for ''O'Grady's PowerPage'' for email messages that would identify the confidential source. Apple maintained in its filings that the information published by the defendants qualified as trade secrets under California statutes including the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA) and the California Penal Code.〔USTA codified in Cal. Civil Code §§ 3426 et. seq., (the "UTSA") and adopted in 1985; and Penal Code §499c.〕〔''Apple Computer, Inc., v. DOE 1 and DOES 2-25'', case 1-0-CV-032178, Superior Ct. (Santa Clara), 2005-3-11, pp. 11-12. (''Apple v. Does'')〕 The defendants publicly informed Apple they would not comply, and filed demands for protective orders with the court, attempting to block Apple's subpoenas. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Apple v. Does」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|