Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe, No. 1-04-CV-032178, 20005 WL 578641, 33 Media L. Rep. 1449 (Cal. Super. Mar. 11, 2005) (granting discovery motion), rev’d sub. nom. O'Grady, et al. v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara County , 139 Cal.App.4th 1423, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 34 Media L. Rep. 208 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. May 26, 2006).
Status: Discovery motion denied; lawsuit against alleged leakers withdrawn

In Dec. 2004, Apple Computer, Inc., filed suit against numerous unknown entities in connection with the leak of confidential information prior to the release of an Apple product codenamed "Asteroid." The information, which Apple claims are trade secrets, was posted on a number of websites, including AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/) and PowerPage (http://www.powerpage.org/). Apple sued the unknown people who leaked the information. In an attempt to determine who these people were, Apple subpoenaed Nfox, the e-mail service provider for PowerPage, seeking e-mail messages that could identify the source(s) of the leaked information. The trial court ruled that Apple is entitled to subpoena an e-mail provider to try and identify the source(s), but declined to determine whether the bloggers qualified as journalists under the California shield law. But the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that bloggers and webmasters have the same protections against divulging confidential sources as traditional media. In July 2006, Apple announced that it would not appeal the ruling; in January 2007, Apple withdrew the case.

Links and Court Documents:
Docket available at: http://www.sccaseinfo.org/
Case information and updates: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/
Cal. App. decision at http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/H028579.pdf

Apple Computer, Inc. v. DePlume, No. 05-CV-33341 (Cal. Super. Santa Clara County filed Jan. 4, 2005).

Status: Non-monetary(?) settlement

In addition to the Doe case below, Apple brought a separate lawsuit in California against the 19-year-old operator of the Boston-based website "Think Secret" (www.thinksecret.com) and various anonymous entities for allegedly publishing trade secrets on that website. In December 2007, the parties announced a settlement in which the blog would stop publishing.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,66213,00.html

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/4970/Teen+Sued+For+Disclosing+Apple's+Secrets

http://www.rcfp.org/sidebar/index.php?i=149

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/settlement.html

Case docket: http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-05-CV-033341

Software Development and Investment of Nevada, d/b/a Traffic-Power.com v. Wall, Civil No. 05-1109 (D. Nev. dismissed Feb. 13, 2006).

Status: Dismissed

An Internet marketing company sued the owner of a blog on search engine optimization (www.seobook.com) for libel and publication of trade secrets. The suit, which also names several posters to the blog as defendants, was removed from state to federal court, then dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Links and Court Documents:

Grant of motion to dismiss: http://www.seobook.com/decision-on-motions.pdf

Complaint and commentary from plaintiff: http://www.seobook.com/archives/001130.shtml

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112541909221726743-Kl4kLxv0wSbjqrkXg_DieY3c8lg_20050930,00.html

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=13715&hed=Bloggers+Face+the+Law

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05277/582101.stm

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/46326.html

Quixtar, Inc. v. Does, No. 07-59739-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Ottawa County filed Oct. 8, 2007).
Status: Pending

Quixtar, formerly known as Amway, sued several “John Does” for postings and comments on a variety of blog websites, including freetheibo.com; forums.freetheibo.info; drinlors.biz (no longer operational); theiborebellion.blogspot.com; qreilly.blogspot.com; freetheiboblog.typepad.com; quixtarlostmycents.blogspot.com; saveusdickdevos.blogspot.com; teamfoundingfathers.blogspot.com; chrismcstu.blogspot.com; quixtartoday.blogspot.com; and integrityisteam.blogspot.com, as well as several videos posted on YouTube. The suit alleges that the unknown defendants are involved in a rival organization (unidentified in the complaint, but known as TEAM as led by Quixtar dissident Orrin Woodward), and that the comments that they posted interfered with Quixtar’s business relationships with their distributors, known as Independent Business Owners ("IBOs"). A Quixtar spokesman told reporters that the suit seeks to identify only former IBOs who the company alleges used proprietary information in their postings, and said that the company planned to reimburse the legal expenses incurred by any bloggers who do not turn out to be former IBOs.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/quixtar-inc-v-does-1-30
http://www.mlive.com/kalamazoo/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-26/119294051655220.xml&coll=7
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/business/main3364365.shtml
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20071014&ID=7625946
Complaint: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/quixtar-subpoena-2007-10-08.pdf