The "shield" laws in the US are pretty explicit, and are designed to protect "whistleblowers" who reveal information in the public interest. As an example, if the sources revealed that the heart of Apple's Cupertino empire were dumping toxic waste into the ocean, and Think Secret investigated these claims and wrote articles about them, then the law would be on the side of the journalists and the sources.

However, the information in this case is not likely to fall under protection for several reasons: the sources are under NDAs (the information is too detailed to have come from anywhere else), Think Secret is using Apple trade secrets to make money (from advertising), and the distribution of information has caused Apple material harm. The case of the iPod Mini is a good example; Think Secret published information in regards to a newer, smaller iPod before it came out. They also published its price as being $199; when the actual product was announced with a $249 price tag, Apple's stock price tanked. There are some who will argue that this is not material harm, but I am not one of them.

The judge had a marvelous quote where he stated that the public interest is not the same as an interested public. Remember that and you should be good. As a blogger, you don't want to libel someone— by saying thus-and-so is a pædophile, for example. This does not, however, cover trash talk, so feel free to call thus-and-so a wanker. :)

And yet Apple encourages blogs on .Mac and has previously only once or twice actually taken anyone to task on the issue of pre-released information, most noticeably the famous ATi incident which has resulted in Macs still being fitted with some of the most rubbish Nvidia graphics cards ever invented.

They certainly didn't take any action at all against the Teen Mac website (themacmind.com) over the early revelation of the iPod Shuffle, albeit they didn't stick a price label on the Shuffle. Also Apple's normal tactic seems to be to deny someone spreading rumours about their intended products any privileged or press access to MacWorld Expos, rather than take direct action against them, so I wonder what has provoked this change in attitude by Cupertino?

As for the NDA agreements, correct - but one hell of a lot of information gets bandied about by both Apple's main testers and by the children of Apple's testers, both in chat forums and on direct online chat clients like Gameranger, Gamesmith and the many others. Bad product security, unfortunately, always been a curse of the computer industry and will undoubtedly be for a long time to come.

I wonder what has provoked this change in attitude by Cupertino?

In Apple Insider's case, it might be the fact that they've already had their warning.

I seem to remember hearing about them getting a visit from Apple's lawyers a few years ago when the Cube was released.

There are two issues.

1. Should Apple go after fans who publish early inforamation or should they turn a blind eye to it?

2. Do they have a cause for legal action.

Arguably, there are good reasons to let the fan sites and Apple-watchers post whatever they can. Going after them generates bad publicity.

However, as was mentioned above, reporters do not reveal confidential sources who are blowing the whistle on illegal or otherwise bad behavior. Reports should generally reveal sources when they can to give credibility.

In this case, though, the "sources" are revealing trade secrets and are most likely violating NDAs. Apple can't enforce the NDAs that these people signed without knowing who they are. If corporate leaks are shielded even if they involve proprietary trade secrets and not covered up bad behavior, then NDAs become worthless.

I've never been a big fan of shield laws when used to keep sources from being revealed as part of a criminal or civil case.

Bolie IV