The "Apple vs. Bloggers" rhubarb is one of the most astounding tech legal cases I've ever seen. When Apple lost the case (which they initally won) in an appeal last month, most people saw it as a big win for bloggers' rights as journalists. What most people don't realize, unfortunately, is that it actually legalized stealing confidential documents and posting them on the Internet.

The documents in question described a type of FireWire-based 'breakout box', called Asteroid, to be used with Apple's Garage Band music authoring software. Despite being marked 'Confidential', copies of the these documents were given to people outside Apple and wound up on Apple rumor sites like Jason O'Grady's PowerPage. Apple sued to find out who sent the emails; Apple lost. Bloggers everywhere felt empowered.

Being the smug Apple weenie that I am, I'm ashamed to admit that I'd never actually read the decision in the case before this morning. Get a load of Judge Conrad Rushing's rationale for his decision:

"While it may be tempting to think of Asteroid as a mere gizmo for nerds," [Judge Rushing] writes, "such a device may also be the means by which the next Bob Dylan, Julia Ward Howe, or Chuck D conveys his or her message to the larger world. Music is of course a form of speech, from the stirring hymns of Charles Wesley to the soaring meditations of John Coltrane. Who knows what latter day Woody Guthries may be lifted from obscurity by this new technology, in defiance of the considered judgment of recording executives that once might have condemned them to obscurity?"

Is that really a court document? It sounds more like a Billy Bragg song.

I admit, I was on the side of the bloggers when the story first exploded. Silencing rumor mills is nothing short of insane, if you're Apple. The company receives more exposure through speculative press than any other tech firm, with the possible exception of Microsoft. Once I found out what the story was really about, the photocopying and subsequent publishing of confidential documents, I realized that this had nothing to do with the First Amendment, and everything to do with industrial espionage.

At the time, it wasn't hard to imagine the documents being a sting operation to find out who had been leaking in Cupertino. I mean, what is a FireWire breakout box, and why in the world would Apple be making one? And now, two years after the story first broke, the fact that there still isn't an Asteroid or anything resembling it, that speculation is starting to look a whole lot more realistic:

The company has transitioned its Macs to Intel CPUs, introduced a plethora of new iPods, and even created a speaker system for the iPod, yet they haven't released Asteroid.

Sound suspicious? It should. If this was an important project, you'd think Apple would have gone ahead with it even after the "trade secret" of its existence was made known. You'd think they would have rushed to market to take advantage of the buzz.

Apple was the victim in this case, even if it was a set-up. It proved that someone in their midst is feeding the press, and in effect Apple's competitors, with confidential information about upcoming products. The bloggers involved complained they were being targetted by Apple, when in reality it was the sources who would've been in trouble. The bloggers themselves were already protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects one's right to free speech. It doesn't grant one carte blanche to engage in or profit from industrial espionage.

For O'Grady's counterpoint, read this article on ZDNet.