William Tell Takes One In The Dome

I like the law. I like the deliberative, bureaucratic nature of it. It's comforting. Whatever else occurs, as long as the legal framework underpinning our society is strong we will always have recourse to justice. In theory. And that, folks [slams fist into table], is why articles like this (by Tom McNichol in Wired) fill me with such disgust. Here's the gist:

Steve Jobs will do anything to protect his precious secrets. So he's suing Apple's biggest fans.

[…] The suit alleges that [Nick] Ciarelli violated the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by soliciting information from sources inside Apple and posting it on his site. Apple demanded that Ciarelli pay damages and hand over his profits.

The company has also hit Think Secret and two other enthusiast sites, PowerPage.org and AppleInsider, with a separate suit, filed to obtain the identities of the people who were leaking product information. In March, a California Superior Court judge ruled that the sites had no right to protect their sources or withhold unpublished material.

[…] "I've done nothing but create community for Apple, and this is what I get," laments Jason O'Grady, who has run PowerPage.org since 1995. "The shine has come off Apple for me."

Running a tightly controlled company has worked well for Jobs. But being a little out of control can pay dividends, too - by fostering creative freedom, not to mention goodwill. Jobs need only look at his own slogans. Life Is Random. Enjoy Uncertainty. At Apple, this is marketing, not a way of life.

Let's start at the top. "Steve Jobs will do anything to protect his precious secrets". That is just a pure motherfucking lie. Is there evidence that he would slit someone's throat? Teabag a goat? No. Mr. McNichol writes, "Apple has turned to its last resort - the courts". Here's the thing: the courts are not a last resort. They are not some terrible, sinister force that only people with black hearts call upon to enforce their macabre designs. The courts are where people and corporations go for their defense, for fairness, for justice. If their grievance is frivolous or unfounded, their litigiousness will backfire. The law is not a spooky bugbear, yet McNichol insists on framing the whole issue of Apple's lawsuits as if it were.

I'll repeat a portion of the above quote: "…a California Superior Court judge ruled that the sites had no right to protect their sources or withhold unpublished material". See that? The court ruled that these sites are not entitled to the same protection as, say, some forms of journistic practice which depend upon confidential sources. Why did the judge rule this way? McNichol doesn’t seem interested in finding out. Instead, he'd like to preserve the sexy narrative of a 19 year old kid being maliciously sued by a big, bad bajillionaire. What a douche bag.

As for the sniveling Jason O'Grady, it's high time that he realize that Apple didn't ask him to "create community", has no obligation to him personally, and is not in the business of making people who profit at it's expense (and then whinge about their supposed altruism) feel accepted and loved. Apple has always had the right to certain legal protections. That it has chosen in the past not to enforce those rights is passing irrelevant with respect to it's decision to have them enforced now.

Indeed, the Apple slogans are "marketing"; if this is a personal affront to Mr. McNichol, he should take a minute or two and figure out how he can cease to be such an enormous douche bag. People who aren't douche bags don't fetishize marketing campaigns.