Apple and the bloggers - outcome

Well, the judge mentioned in Sunday's posting has done his stuff. Wisely, he's avoided trying to define 'journalism'. Instead he has removed protection from writers who reveal information which has been  gained illegally. In this case, it seems the information was protected by non-disclosure agreements.

It reminds me of the time in 1991 that I went into Apple for eight mornings to write about the research being done in the Human Interface Group. I'd booked and paid for flights and hotel but, just before I flew over, Apple faxed me a non-disclosure agreement.

As a journalist, I thought this might somewhat cramp my style, so I said I'd bring it over with me. I did, but I didn't sign it, I just popped it into an envelope marked NDA. Fortunately no-one checked and the five articles were duly published (see links at the bottom of this post).

It seems to me that if we're to sensitive information from people, we'll need to ask for some kind of indemnification. Can't see it happening myself. So, assuming the bloggers' appeal fails, Apple (and anyone else hiding behind its skirts) will succeed in stifling all manner of unwelcome publicity.

Just what it/they wanted. Let's hope we're all so scared we stop writing about Apple. :-)

Here are the links to the articles which Apple was happy with even though the content was theoretically subject to non-disclosure.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

See also:

Dan Gillmor and Dave Pell