Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

Apple to Pay Bloggers' Legal Fees

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

January 30, 2007, 12:44 PM

Apple was ordered to pay the legal fees in a case involving two Apple enthusiast sites, seven months after a judgment in its favor was overturned, essentially giving bloggers the same protection as traditional journalists in the state of California.

The case involved Apple rumor sites AppleInsider and PowerPage.org. At issue was the disclosure on both sides of a confidential product code named "Asteroid." The device was never released, but the Cupertino company sued anyway.

In the initial case, a lower court ruled in favor of Apple, saying that the two sites had no right to disclose the information, and an "interested public" was not the same as "public interest," which would be protected speech under the law.

However, a state appeals court disagreed with that ruling in May of last year, saying that bloggers should be afforded the same protections under the Constitution and state law as traditional journalists. Apple later dropped the case.

A total of $700,000 in fees is owed to the defendants, of which $425,000 would go to the EFF, which primarily represented the two sites. The remaining funds would be split between co-counsels Richard Wiebe and Tom Moore, who also provided assistance to the defense.

The EFF says it would use the money received to continue defending the rights of bloggers and online journalists.

The figure is the actual legal cost to defend the case, plus a 2.2 times multiplier as ordered by the court. The order comes after Apple declined its right to appeal and dismissed the case, although "without prejudice," meaning it would have the opportunity to re-file if it chooses to.

One of the sites, AppleInsider, told MacNN that it was satisfied with the ruling. "Hopefully, Apple will think twice the next time it considers a campaign to bully the little guy into submission," editor Kasper Jade told the site.

Add a Comment (7 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jan 30, 2007 - 1:53 PM

Look behind the lies people--this was never about the rights of bloggers, but the rights of the mainstream media. Give me a chance to explain here. Listen to this section:

"However, a state appeals court disagreed with that ruling in May of last year, saying that bloggers should be afforded the same protections under the Constitution and state law as traditional journalists."

If you still don't see the problem, I will spell it out for you: Journalists have rights to expose that type of information WITHOUT sources, but not individuals--however, now through blogging, individuals have those rights bestowed upon them. This is a catastrophe for America! You just thought the news media were full of #$%^ before, now they are full of it and lie to our faces and we can't hold them accountable for squat. The 9th Circuit Court is destroying this country little by little, and I'm tired of watching it happen in front of millions of Americans' noses when they don't have any clue what's going on.

This is incredible--now the mainstream media can basically tell any story that Joe Blogger writes in his "Howu I H8 Amerika" blog and report it as fact--and legally be untouchable for reporting false news. Shouldn't surprise me really, due to the geographical location. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals strikes again.

Before dismissing my arguments with "what the @#$% are you talking about?", it's a 2+2 thing here. 9th circus is not quite as 'stupid' as they appear to be sometimes--they are very clever in hiding behind ignorance as an excuse for treason.

Harsh words, I know, and perhaps I'm even 'radical', but the truth is that at least half of the judges in that circuit want American government to collapse. Why? I cannot for the life of me figure it out, but their obviously not in this for the people.

Score: 0

By flake

edited Jan 30, 2007 - 5:00 PM

Your commentary and opinion are so far off base I actually and literally just laughed out loud at my desk reading it.

As you state, journalists have, do, and will write inaccurate articles. What is so funny is that, professional or not, or if there is some entirely unrelated legal precedent surrounding "sources" this fact is completely beside the point.

This case was all about defining rights for protecting journalistic sources, perhaps most importantly in a "whistle blowing" position. This is a fundamental and foundational concept in American constitutional rights.

If you want to talk about the legalities or more accurately liabilities of reporting inaccurate information then perhaps you will want to familiarize yourself with civil defamation suits first.

Also, please do leave the oh so obviously biased conservative vomitus at home.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jan 30, 2007 - 6:36 PM

"This case was all about defining rights for protecting journalistic sources, perhaps most importantly in a "whistle blowing" position. This is a fundamental and foundational concept in American constitutional rights."

Okay--you lost me. You say you laughed at your desk, explain the laws we are dealing with as fundamental concepts, and yet you are okay with the fact that 5 people are changing over 65 years of legal precedence?

My point is that it was never ever established for anyone but "the press", and clearly Joe Blogger does not fit in that category.

Perfect example--your favorite news network starts reporting that George W. Bush destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. They get in trouble for reporting it, but then the arguments are dismissed when they claim they had "unreliable anonymous sources." Turns out their source was Ayme A. Bushater, a blogger from houseofliars.com. Obviously this is an extremely overexaggerated example to show my point, but do you see the problem with it?

It is a subtle way of creating legal loopholes, thereby leaving more control to the government. Rather than acting as the Judicial Branch, the judges are taking extremely far-fetched exaggeration of the constitution and interpreting it to say what it never said. Internet bloggers are not members of the press, and any 3rd grader could tell you that--but some people are "too intelligent" to accept that at face value.

"If you want to talk about the legalities or more accurately liabilities of reporting inaccurate information then perhaps you will want to familiarize yourself with civil defamation suits first."

RIGHT! That's where I'm coming from, sir. In case you haven't noticed, the bloggers are immune, for the most part, from defamation suits (Zeran vs. American Online, Blumenthal vs. Drudge, more recently, Barrett vs. Rosenthal...). Alright, the lower courts ruled in favor of Apple because "the two sites had no right to disclose the information, and an "interested public" was not the same as "public interest," which would be protected speech under the law.

Still with me? Okay, now the state appeals court disagreed with the lower court, "saying that bloggers should be afforded the same protections under the Constitution and state law as traditional journalists." Therefore, bloggers are immune from defamation because they are afforded the rights of journalists, but THE SAME COURT has ruled even as recently as this past November in Barrett vs. Rosenthal they specifically ruled that "the immunity {aka "Qualified privilege"} has been widely and consistently interpreted [by courts] to confer broad immunity against defamation for those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another source." So basically what this means is that bloggers can say what they want to and not be held liable for defamation, yet they have the same immunity that the press has!

With all due respect, sir, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to familiarise yourself with defamation law.

Score: 0

By oufc_gav

posted Jan 31, 2007 - 2:58 AM

"So basically what this means is that bloggers can say what they want to and not be held liable for defamation, yet they have the same immunity that the press has!"

No it doesn't, they are still legally accountable for their words, just as journalists are - the press do not have any immunity from prosecution or legal action as a result of what they publish. They just do not have to name their source. If their source is wrong, but they don't want to name them, then they face the full consequence of their words.