Apple v. Does
| Apple v. Does (O'Grady v. Superior Court (Apple)) |
|
|---|---|
California Court of Appeal, 6th District
|
|
| Court | California Courts of Appeal |
| Full case name | O'Grady v. Superior Court (Apple) |
| Decided | May 26, 2006 |
| Citation(s) | O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Santa Clara County Superior Court, case CV032178; Hon. James P. Kleinberg |
| Subsequent action(s) | O'Grady v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App. 4th 675b, 2006. |
| Holding | |
| Trial court reversed; motion for a protective order must be granted | |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Rushing, P.J. |
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.
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 PowerPage's 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.
...
Wikipedia