-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
lesson/legalladby Adam Freedman
Today’s Topic: Raiders of the Lost iPhone – Part Two!
And now, your daily dose of legalese: This article does not create an attorney-client relationship with any listener. In other words, although I am a lawyer, I’m not your lawyer. In fact, we barely know each other. If you need personalized legal advice, contact an attorney in your community.
This is the second of two articles on the difference between lost and stolen property. In these articles I’m exploring the recent incident in which a prototype fourth-generation iPhone was lost by an Apple engineer and made its way into the hands of Tech blog Gizmodo. In the earlier article, I looked at whether the phone was technically1 “stolen” under the law.
Gizmodo Versus2 Apple
Today, I’ll look at a separate question: whether Gizmodo had the right to publish details about Apple’s top-secret phone. Reader Mike C. asks how do Gizmodo’s First Amendment3 rights play into this?
The quick answer is that Mike has put his finger on a cutting edge issue in the law. It’s true that the First Amendment, as well as journalist shield laws, protect journalists and bloggers. But experts disagree on whether the laws protect Gizmodo from charges that it disclosed trade secrets or received stolen property.
The podcast edition of this tip was sponsored by Go To Meeting. Save time and money by hosting your meetings online. Visit GoToMeeting.com/podcast and sign up for a free 45 day trial of their web conferencing solution.
Back to the issue.
The iPhone Saga4: a Recap
First, a quick recap of the iPhone saga. On March 18, 2010, Apple engineer Gray Powell went to a German-style beer garden in Redwood City, California and, after downing a few steins, exited the bar but without the next-generation iPhone he had been carrying. The phone was found by a college student named Brian Hogan who eventually sold it to Gizmodo, which proceeded to post a detailed5 review of the device, complete with photos and technical specifications6. Next thing you know, Silicon7 Valley cops launch an investigation8, including a search of the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen.
Are Bloggers Protected by The First Amendment?
Some commentators9 argue that Gizmodo could be liable for damages under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. That statute10 allows a company like Apple to sue any person who discloses its confidential11 trade secrets.
But, as Mike asks: what about the First Amendment? It’s true: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Although there has been some controversy12 about the status of bloggers, such as those who write for Gizmodo, they generally count as “the press.” That means Gizmodo’s editors can’t be thrown in jail for running the iPhone story. But it doesn’t mean that the press never faces legal consequences for its actions. For example, if a newspaper prints a damaging story about you, you can sue the newspaper for libel, notwithstanding “freedom of the press.”
If Apple decides to sue Gizmodo under the Trade Secrets Act, it will have to prove that the blog knew or had reason to know that Hogan had obtained the mystery iPhone “by improper13 means.” As we discussed in our previous article on the difference between lost and stolen property, it’s not clear that Hogan committed theft when he appropriated the iPhone; however, it is likely that he at least violated a California Civil Code provision that requires the finder of lost property to either return it to the owner or turn it into the police.
Did Apple Take Reasonable Steps to Protect the Phone?
Apple would also have to establish that the details of its next-gen iPhone are, in fact, “trade secrets.” You’d think that’s a no-brainer, but the law requires the owner of a trade secret to make “reasonable efforts” to maintain secrecy14. Gizmodo might argue that if Apple had really wanted to safeguard the phone, it would not have allowed its employees to tote it around to local watering holes. On the other hand, Apple can point to the fact that the phone was disguised to look like a regular 3G iPhone as proof that they thought their secret was safe, even in a Silicon Valley beer garden.
The First Amendment and Confidential Sources
A related controversy arose when San Mateo police officers showed up at the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, handed him a search warrant, and carried away his computer and other electronic gear. For those of you who’ve been waiting for a First Amendment issue, here’s your turn.
In fact, not only does the Constitution frown upon police interference with the press, but there are specific “journalist shield laws” at both the state and federal level. Those laws are designed to protect reporters against police searches aimed at uncovering confidential sources and other work product developed by journalists.
Media advocates argue that the search of Chen’s house violated such laws; after all, you don’t want journalists, bloggers--and even podcasters!--to stop investigating stories for fear that the police will raid their house. But the other side of the argument is that Gizmodo might have compromised its First Amendment rights by breaking the law.
The First Amendment and Reporters
As we discussed in the last article, it’s possible that Gizmodo committed a crime by paying for stolen property, and the First Amendment does not give journalists license15 to break the law in the name of newsgathering. If it did, the paparazzi wouldn’t bother with telephoto lenses, they’d just break into celebrities’ houses and snap away. Likewise, you can’t turn a newsroom (or a blogger’s home office) into a warehouse16 for stolen property, even if that property is useful for a story. At the end of the day, the First Amendment issue may turn on the question we asked in the last article: was the lost iPhone stolen, or merely “found”?
Perhaps the ultimate lesson here is not even a legal one: be careful of what you pick up in a bar, especially after you’ve had a few drinks.
Thank you for reading Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful17 Life. Thanks again to our sponsor this week, Go To Meeting. Visit Go To Meeting.com/podcast and sign up for a free 45 day trial of their online conferencing service. That’s Go To Meeting.com/podcast for a free 45 day trial.
And finally, this weeks marks the fifty second episode of the House Call Doctor's Quick and Dirty Tips for Taking Charge of Your Health podcast. Celebrate one year of good health advice from Dr. Rob Lamberts by checking out his latest special mystery diagnosis18 episode and learn how doctors solve and treat tough cases. You can congratulate Dr. Rob on the one year anniversary of his show over on his Facebook wall. Post a comment or question on his wall before the end of the month and be entered to win free books and audiobooks from Macmillan Publishers.
You can send questions and comments to。。。 Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this article only.
收听单词发音 |
1
technically
|
|
| adv.专门地，技术上地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
versus
|
|
| prep.以…为对手，对；与…相比之下 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
saga
|
|
| n.(尤指中世纪北欧海盗的)故事，英雄传奇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
specifications
|
|
| n.规格；载明；详述；（产品等的）说明书；说明书( specification的名词复数 )；详细的计划书；载明；详述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
silicon
|
|
| n.硅(旧名矽) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
commentators
|
|
| n.评论员( commentator的名词复数 )；时事评论员；注释者；实况广播员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
confidential
|
|
| adj.秘（机）密的，表示信任的，担任机密工作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
improper
|
|
| adj.不适当的，不合适的，不正确的，不合礼仪的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
secrecy
|
|
| n.秘密，保密，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
warehouse
|
|
| n.仓库；vt.存入仓库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
diagnosis
|
|
| n.诊断，诊断结果，调查分析，判断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索