In the Apple vs rumor sites case, the press has built it up as a question of whether or not bloggers deserve the same protections as journalists (which many have extended to mean "are bloggers journalists?" -- which is a silly question, when you think about it). However, in the decision concerning subpoenas, the judge clearly avoided the issue for a good reason. It really had little to do with the case at hand. Instead, the question is what's the definition of a trade secret? The judge made it clear that if this was a trade secret violation, then any journalist would be just as guilty -- since this isn't so much about "whistle-blowing" as it is about revealing product data before it was to officially be released. Of course, that complicates matters. What if the process of whistle blowing also involves revealing trade secrets? In most cases, it does. It seems like, for now, the test being used is whether or not it's a public safety or health issue, in which case it becomes protected whistle-blowing. If it's just product data, then it might not be protected.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops
- Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
- Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
- German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community