|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apple Corporation has spent millions on its "think different" campaigns to sell it's merchandise. When it came to Internet journalism, however, Apple went to court in 2005 to track down people it believes are insiders spilling Apple's corporate secrets.(1) Apple's bottom-line message was to think only what print-journalism monopolies say to think.
On May 26th, an Appeals Court for California finally decided that Apple was wrong. Apple tried to subpoena Internet journalists for information. A judge had agreed that Apple could sue email providers for the information on Apple fan websites.(2)
As if cutting the rug out from underneath its own business, Apple wooed print journalism by saying Internet journalism is not legitimate. A court initially agreed that Apple's trade secrets are more important than freedom of speech--a typical Amerikkkan thing to think totally out of line with the Bill of Rights. These are the same kind of Amerikans born every ten seconds who think that pizzerias and American Express should have the right to hand out menus, coupons and ads, but political newspapers are "partisan" or "biased" and legally banned from colleges and other buildings where the public gathers. In actual fact, the opposite is the case: commercial speech is less protected under the law than political speech.
This should have been a slam-dunk case from the beginning. Apple has its capitalist right to fire any employees it wants. Courts also give Apple plenty of spying power on employees. That is enough. Apple crossed the line even by bourgeois standards when Apple said it had the right to subpoena non-Apple people. It's too bad the Electronic Frontier Foundation had to spend money on the obvious in court.
Apple could have fired all its employees and it would have been sure of being rid of its leakers. Instead it took out its anger on the public--i.e. its customers. To hell with you Apple, you are way behind the curve. By the way, supposedly wayward Dean-endorsing Democrat Al Gore is on the board of Apple.(3) He should have stopped the campaign against the First Amendment.
Notes:
1. http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=9734
2. http://news.com.com/Judge+Apple+can+pursue+fan+site+sources/2100-1047_3-5611285.html
3. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/14674268.htm