11
April
2005
|
00:28 AM
America/Los_Angeles

Apple says it will go after websites in trade secrets theft case


Stop Leak.jpgApple will seek "full legal redress" against PowerPage and AppleInsider -- two of the websites that published purloined documents in the Apple v Does trade secret case -- the company insinuated in court documents filed last week.


"Apple seeks full legal redress against not only those persons who originally stole the trade secrets ... but against those individuals who wrongfully disseminated this information," the filing said.


At another point, the brief notes that the websites "have not yet

(italics added) been named as defendants." But they "may, in fact, be

one or more of the Doe Defendants named in the complaint."

In a separate case, Apple has filed suit against ThinkSmart for violating trade secret law. ThinkSmart filed an anti-SLAPP motion in that case.


ThinkSmart, PowerPage and AppleInsider posted technical drawings of an unreleased Apple product, code-named Asteroid, and Apple is seeking to discover the identities of whoever leaked the documents. Because they haven't yet been able to identify whom it should accuse of the theft, the defendants are simply identified as John Does.


Because the case is in the "discovery" phase, litigation has so far focused on whether Apple has the right to subpoena email information from the sites' service provider, or whether PowerPage and AppleInsider have the standing to claim the reporter's privilege to refuse to reveal confidential sources.


However, Apple's filing in the appeal clearly states that they consider the sites that published the documents also guilty of a crime. Thus, if the courts ultimately decide that Apple can't subpoena the email records from Nfox, it might not be the end of the road. If no other defendants can be identified, Apple might be willing to simply name the online journalists as the Does and proceed with prosecution of a trade secrets violation case.


This could be blustering on the part of Apple, however. The claim is made in a legal argument asserting that the websites shouldn't be able to claim the reporter's privilege. "Apple's brief is full of insinuations, but in the end it has no basis to hold the journalists liable for trade secret misappropriation," told SiliconValleyWatcher in an email. "Indeed, its opposition papers in the Superior Court, Apple conceded that it cannot establish a case against the journalists at this time."



The defendants will file a reponse to Apple's arguments on April 22.

cd1515