Sunday, March 20, 2005

1 article with 2 bad examples

...

Apple ruling puts all of us in danger

This was an editorial written for the the San Jose Mercury News. It is one of the most ill informed and poorly researched articles on this topic that I have read yet.

First ... the article starts out with this scenario...

Consider the following scenario. A drug company's research determines that one of its drugs already on the market is dangerous. The company decides the research results are proprietary trade secrets and bottles them up.

Errrr ...... ummmm ... what is in the public health interest of knowing an Apple product?

Second ... the article makes this preposterous assertion ...

... the media have long been protected when releasing leaked trade secrets, such as internal tobacco company documents.

Again, where is the health risk in released information that COMPETITORS can use against Apple? There's no government investigation of Apple. There's no organization out there saying Apple computers are a health risk and backing it up with solid factual evidence. Apple computers don't cause birth defects and impair driving.

I do understand that the article is trying to make the jump to precedent here ... but in my opinion ... the only precedent is the Uniform Trade Secret Act and the pawn shop example I pointed out previously.

Let me go out on a limb here and say ... that these anonymous editorials that pop up around the internet about this topic are becoming VERY suspicious to me ... it's almost as if they are being written by Nick Ciarelli, Jason O' Grady, their sleezy EFF attorney ... or gasp ... the two kids parents!

None of them have any new examples and legal justification argument ... they are simply a scratched record .... that keeps ... skip [crackle] skip [crackle] skipping [crackle]

...

No comments: