Roundup: 'Apple v. Does' Ruling Recognizes Bloggers
While most were hightailing it for the holiday weekend, a California court on Friday was issuing a ruling in the closely watched Apple v. Does case.
In Apple v. Does, or O'Grady v. Superior Court, Justice Conrad Rushing of the 6th District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of bloggers, rejecting Apple's attempt to unmask sources of leaked product information that made its way to Web sites. The ruling grants online reporters and bloggers the same protections given to MSM (mainstream media) folks under California shield law.
"Today's decision is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large," EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl, who argued the case before the appeals court last month, said in a statement on EFF's site. "The court has upheld the strong protections for the free flow of information to the press, and from the press to the public."
Legal Blog Watch's Bob Ambrogi took note of the bloggers' victory on Friday. He writes:
"In a 69-page opinion in O'Grady v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal said that the trial court erred in refusing to grant an order protecting against disclosure of their identities."
Ambrogi points out Denise Howell's analysis over at Bag and Baggage for more on the decision.
Previous coverage at Law.com:
Apple Trade Secrets Case Under Close Examination in Court
Can You Keep a Secret?
Apple Wins Legal Dispute Over Published Trade Secrets
Apple Suit Pits Web Reporters Against Trade Secret Protections
Column of note from News.com:
Who's a journalist? Now we know, thanks to Apple
Posted by Laurel Newby on May 30, 2006 at 03:14 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)