Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Apple v. Does

Apple v. Does [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 15:55

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

12/13/2004

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Quashed
Withdrawn

Location: 

California

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Trade Secrets
On December 13, 2004, Apple filed suit against unknown defendants for misappropriation and publication of trade secrets in connection with reports about its "Asteroid" product (a FireWire audio interface for Apple's GarageBand) that appeared on Apple-related news sites, PowerPage, AppleInsider, and ThinkSecret.... read full description
Parties

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Apple Computer, Inc.

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does

Type of Party: 

Large Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • California

Legal Counsel: 

David R. Eberhart, George a. Riley, Dhaivat H. Shah, James A. Bowman, Ian N. Ramage - O'Melveny & Myers

Legal Counsel: 

Kurt B. Opsahl, Kevin S. Bankston - Electronic Frontier Foundation, Thomas E. Moore III - Tomlinson Zisko LLP, Richard R. Wiebe - Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe
Description

On December 13, 2004, Apple filed suit against unknown defendants for misappropriation and publication of trade secrets in connection with reports about its "Asteroid" product (a FireWire audio interface for Apple's GarageBand) that appeared on Apple-related news sites, PowerPage, AppleInsider, and ThinkSecret. Apple sought and obtained permission to issue subpoenas to PowerPage, AppleInsider, ThinkSecret, and PowerPage's email service provider, Nfox.com and Karl Kraft, requesting documents relating to the identity of the news site's confidential sources.

On February 14, 2005, Jason O'Grady (from PowerPage), Monish Bhatia (hosting service provider for AppleInsider), and "Kasper Jade" (AppleInsider) moved for a protective order to prevent the discovery sought by Apple on grounds that their sources and unpublished information were protected under the reporter's shield embodied in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution and California Evidence Code 1070 and the reporter's privilege under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. they also argued that the subpoenas issued against Nfox and Kraft could not be enforced without violating the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. sec. 2702(a)(1)).

The state district court denied defendants' motion to quash the subpoenas. In O'Grady v. Superior Court [2], 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), the Court of Appeals quashed the subpoenas, holding that the federal Stored Communications Act barred enforcement of the subpoena served on PowerPage's email service provider, and that discovery of unpublished information or confidential sources from the news sites would violate California's reporter's shield provision and the First Amendment.

Apple announced that it would not appeal the ruling, and voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit in January 2007.

This case is related to Apple Computer, Inc. v. DePlume, No. 1-05-CV-33341 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 04, 2005). Please see CMLP's database entry [3] for more information on the status of that lawsuit.

Related Links: 

Electronic Fronteir Foundation's Page on Apple v. Does [4] (includes comprehensive archive of case documents)

MLRC's Legal Actions and Developments Involving Blogs [5]

CMLP's Database Entry on the Apple v. DePlume Lawsuit [3]

 

Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

AppleInsider [6]

PowerPage [7]

ThinkSecret [8]

[7]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Website

Subject Area: 

  • Shield Laws
  • Trade Secrets
  • Anonymity
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • California

Source of Law: 

  • United States
  • California

Court Name: 

California Superior Court, Santa Clara County

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

1-04-CV-032178

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2005-05-26-Appellate Decision.pdf [9]
PDF icon 2005-03-11-Decision on Motion for Protective Order.pdf [10]
PDF icon 2005-02-14-Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Protective Order.pdf [11]
PDF icon 2005-02-14-Declaration of Gillmor in Support of Protective Order.pdf [12]
PDF icon 2005-02-04-Subpoena to Email Provider.pdf [13]
PDF icon 2004-12-13-Complaint.pdf [14]
CMLP Information (Private)

CMLP Notes: 

from a review of the O'Grady opinion, it looks like there was a threatening letter or two sent by Apple in this case -- to-do: see if this is true and create entry(ies) for letter(s).

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:02pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/apple-v-does

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/apple-v-does
[2] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-05-26-Appellate%20Decision.pdf
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/apple-v-deplume
[4] http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/
[5] http://www.medialaw.org/bloggerlawsuits
[6] http://www.appleinsider.com
[7] http://www.powerpage.org
[8] http://www.thinksecret.com
[9] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-05-26-Appellate%20Decision.pdf
[10] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-03-11-Decision%20on%20Motion%20for%20Protective%20Order.pdf
[11] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-02-14-Memorandum%20of%20Points%20and%20Authorities%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20for%20Protective%20Order.pdf
[12] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-02-14-Declaration%20of%20Gillmor%20in%20Support%20of%20Protective%20Order.pdf
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-02-04-Subpoena%20to%20Email%20Provider.pdf
[14] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2004-12-13-Complaint.pdf