<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple 1, bloggers 0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/03/07/apple-1-bloggers-0/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/03/07/apple-1-bloggers-0/</link>
	<description>Make Money Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:13:17 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Yocutus</title>
		<link>http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/03/07/apple-1-bloggers-0/comment-page-1/#comment-1602</link>
		<dc:creator>Yocutus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/03/07/apple-1-bloggers-0/#comment-1602</guid>
		<description>Apple is on the right side of the law on this one. This case is not really about blogging or even the First Amendment. It&#039;s about whether Apple personnel and vendors who have access to the company&#039;s secret documentation can steal it and give it to others, regardless of who the recipients may be or what they do with the information. The article that you link to presents an incomplete picture, as Apple argued that the shield law does not prevent legal discovery for a variety of reasons, not just because the law doesn&#039;t cover blogs.

EFF is a great organization but I&#039;m really sorry that they are fighting this case. It could be argued that bloggers will lose if Apple loses. If the company can&#039;t conduct normal business -- which includes protecting its property -- its business will suffer, we&#039;ll have fewer great Apple tools, which many bloggers use -- and taken to its natural end we would all have to go back to using Windows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apple is on the right side of the law on this one. This case is not really about blogging or even the First Amendment. It&#8217;s about whether Apple personnel and vendors who have access to the company&#8217;s secret documentation can steal it and give it to others, regardless of who the recipients may be or what they do with the information. The article that you link to presents an incomplete picture, as Apple argued that the shield law does not prevent legal discovery for a variety of reasons, not just because the law doesn&#8217;t cover blogs.</p>
<p>EFF is a great organization but I&#8217;m really sorry that they are fighting this case. It could be argued that bloggers will lose if Apple loses. If the company can&#8217;t conduct normal business &#8212; which includes protecting its property &#8212; its business will suffer, we&#8217;ll have fewer great Apple tools, which many bloggers use &#8212; and taken to its natural end we would all have to go back to using Windows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
