May 30 2006

US court backs online reporters

  • Written by northwest stew
  • 1 Comment

The decision was made in a case brought by Apple against a number of reporters who published information online about a future Apple product launch

Related Posts

  1. Supreme Court backs off DVD case
  2. Apple Wins Trade Secrets Legal Dispute
  3. Reporters Engage in Heated Debate Over Campus File-Sharing Tax
  4. Apples slavish devotion
  5. German court rules used software licenses illegal
Zeropaid on Facebook

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments

  1. soulxtc

    Very cool development indeed. Always seemed odd that online speech woukld be treated any differently.

    Heres another article on the story to check out.

    “Apple loses case against bloggers”
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/14682069.htm

Trackbacks url:

Leave a Comment...

Giganews Newsgroups


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars Loading ... Loading ...

  • john o: would appreciate an invite to iptorrents as demonoid is still down. if i am lucky then Thank U. ...
  • Lethal: 1337x.org is owned by a two faced, retarded, 55 year old child molester named "Mustangx". He will promise you ...
  • malcolm hume: The times are getting shorter though, used to be forever before a video release and now it's a couple of months. So...
  • malcolm hume: The whole release schedule thing is annoying, but it helps them pay for the movies and minimize the risk. Most of the m...
  • malcolm hume: They're not trying to stop piracy altogether. They know there's a few people who will go to the trouble to do ...
  • malcolm hume: The other thing is, the basic system we have is Capitalist. Trying to change that by making artists conform to a seperat...
  • malcolm hume: Well, the first one is mob rule and I think if we go down that road we'll have a lot more probelms than not being a...
  • malcolm hume: Ummm, no? ...
  • sdsd