The UCL Practitioner has moved! Please visit the first and only weblog on California's Business & Professions Code section 17200 (otherwise known as the Unfair Competition Law or "UCL") at its new home, www.uclpractitioner.com.
Proposition 64:
Text of Proposition 64
Trial Court Orders
Appellate Opinions
Pending Appeals
Appellate Briefs
The CLRA:
Text of the CLRA
Class Actions:
Code Civ. Proc. §382
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
"Fairness" Act
Recent Posts:
List of Prop. 64 briefs updated
"Blogs: The Great Equalizer in Marketing Attorney ...
And then there were seven
"Call Them What You Will, Bloggers Won't Shut Up"
Looking for a Job? Prop. 64 forces AG to expand ...
UCL seminar materials available online
New Prop. 64 decision: Thornton v. Career Training...
The First District sticks to its guns on Prop. 64 ...
UCL statutory penalties as a cross-check for punit...
BREAKING NEWS: First District reaffirms Mervyn's
California Law Blogs:
Bag and Baggage
California Appellate Report
California Election Law
California Labor & Employment Law
California Wage Law
Class Action Spot
Criminal Appeal
Declarations and Exclusions
Alextronic Discovery
Employment Law Observer
Freespace
Gilbert Submits
Law Limits
Legal Commentary
The Legal Reader
May it Please the Court
Ninth Circuit Blog (criminal)
Public Defender Dude
Silicon Valley Media Law Blog
So Cal Law Blog
More Law Blogs:
Abstract Appeal
Appellate Law & Practice
Between Lawyers
Blawg Republic
Blawg Review
Blog 702
Closing Argument
The Common Scold
Connecticut Law Blog
Corp Law Blog
Delaware Law Office
Dennis Kennedy
eLawyer Blog
Election Law
Employee Relations Law and News
Employment Blawg
Ernie the Attorney
Groklaw
Have Opinion, Will Travel
How Appealing
InhouseBlog
Inter Alia
Internet Cases
IP Law Observer
LawMeme
LawSites
Legal Blog Watch
Legal Tags
Legal Underground
LibraryLaw Blog
My Shingle
netlawblog
the [non]billable hour
Out-of-the-Box Lawyering
Point of Law
Real Lawyers Have Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
TechnoLawyer Blog
UnivAtty
The Volokh Conspiracy
The UCL Practitioner
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Blogger amicus brief filed yesterday in Apple case
Yesterday, a group of blogger-journalists submitted an application for leave to file an amici curiae brief in O'Grady v. Apple Computer (Sixth Appellate District, case no. H028579). I decided to throw my hat in the ring, and signed on to the brief as an amicus. As I've explained in prior posts, I have very strong feelings about the free press implications of the trial court's order. I find myself in very good company, as a number of prominent blogger-journalists have also signed on. Please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website for more information on the case, including a list of the amici parties with links to their blogs.
UPDATE: Shall I compare myself to Julia Roberts, who forgot to thank Erin Brockovich? My sincere thanks to Lauren Gelman of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society, who worked very hard drafting the blogger brief and did an excellent job.
- posted by Kim Kralowec @ 9:26 AM
Comments:
Soooooo . . . if I convince someone who works for you to give me the goods on a case you're working, I can publish the scoop in my blog?
How do you defend what appears to me as industrial espionage? If I worked for a competitor of Apple's I'd be clapping my hands to have so many people like derailing this and making it an issue of protected speech. It's not. It's about failure to abide with a NDA, and, as a downsteam effect of this, using information obtained illegally to create business.
If police were doing this, I can only imagine the hue and cry.
What ever happened to private business being private? We're not talking about an issue of public safety here, we're talking IP.
I'm as adamant about free speech as any other Veteran, I think; I support the right to burn the flag, much as I don't like it, because knowing that people have the *right* to burn it means that some form of freedom still exists here.
But don't call stealing protected speech.
How do you defend what appears to me as industrial espionage? If I worked for a competitor of Apple's I'd be clapping my hands to have so many people like derailing this and making it an issue of protected speech. It's not. It's about failure to abide with a NDA, and, as a downsteam effect of this, using information obtained illegally to create business.
If police were doing this, I can only imagine the hue and cry.
What ever happened to private business being private? We're not talking about an issue of public safety here, we're talking IP.
I'm as adamant about free speech as any other Veteran, I think; I support the right to burn the flag, much as I don't like it, because knowing that people have the *right* to burn it means that some form of freedom still exists here.
But don't call stealing protected speech.
# posted by Anonymous : 7:55 PM
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The persons who stole information, and violated the non-disclosure agreement, are not the bloggers (who never signed any such agreement), but the insiders who work at Apple Computer. I do not condone what those insiders did. But if they had leaked their information to the New York Times, I seriously doubt that Apple would ever have tried to subpoena that newspaper's email provider to find out where the information came from, and I seriously doubt that any court would have issued an order compromising that paper's confidential sources. And the answer to your initial question is yes, if you were a reporter for the Daily Journal and someone in my firm leaked attorney-client privileged information to you, you could choose to publish it in your paper. If you were a blogger-journalist, the same thing would be true. The problem is with the internal controls at Apple, and with the Apple employees who elected to disclose secret information—not with the bloggers.
Post a Comment
# posted by Kim Kralowec : 12:01 AM