Ford Is Denied Injunction to Stop Web Publication of Internal Data DETROIT -- In a ruling expected to set a precedent for First Amendment protections of Internet publications, a U.S. District Court judge denied
Ford Motor Co. a preliminary injunction to stop a Web site from publishing its internal documents.
Federal District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds
ruled that Robert Lane, the operator of
blueovalnews.com (www.blueovalnews.com),
was protected by the free-speech rights of the
First Amendment when he published internal
Ford documents he received anonymously.
Ford is continuing an internal investigation to determine how the documents
were leaked to Mr. Lane and who leaked them, a company spokesman
said.
Despite what Judge Edmunds called Ford's substantial evidence that Mr.
Lane had violated the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, she ruled that
the First Amendment trumped the trade-secrets law, no matter what
medium was used to publish the information.
Legal scholars say Judge Edmunds's order
should be considered a precedent that
underscores the fact that the First
Amendment, which protects traditional media
like print and television, also covers speech in
cyberspace.
"What she's done is harmonize laws governing
print with this new digital medium," said
Robert O'Neil, a law professor at the
University of Virginia who teaches courses on
cyberspace and the First Amendment. "I hope
that's the message people take away from
this."
Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment
lawyer, said he didn't know of a previous ruling that said "in such clear and
definitive terms that the same First Amendment rules apply to Web sites as
they do newspapers."
Unique Territory
Judge Edmunds also recognized the unique territory she was treading in
when she ruled on the case.
"In the realm of law, we are only beginning to grapple with the impact of
the communications revolution [brought about by the invention of the
Internet 30 years ago] and this case represents just one part of one
skirmish -- a clash between our commitment to the freedom of speech and
the press, and our dedication to the protection of commercial innovation
and intellectual property. In this case, the battle is won by the First
Amendment," she wrote.
Although Ford's request for a
preliminary injunction was
denied, the company said in a
statement that it was pleased
with the order because it
"prohibits ... Mr. Lane from
copying Ford's internal
documents in violation of
copyright laws... ." Ford said it
would not appeal the ruling.
Mr. Lane's attorney, Mark Pickrell, said he didn't object to that prohibition
when it was first raised in Ford's complaint against Mr. Lane, at the time
that it requested and was granted a temporary restraining order Aug. 25.
Mr. Lane maintained that he never violated Ford's copyright, since the
documents he posted were not stamped with a copyright or "property of
Ford Motor Co."
"He can quote from and provide details" about the information he receives,
Mr. Pickrell said, under the fair-use standard that is used by all journalists.
The legal battle started when Ford sought a preliminary injunction against
Mr. Lane after he published proprietary internal documents on his site.
Ford officials were especially concerned about plans Mr. Lane obtained
and posted regarding Ford's plans to meet future government emissions
and fuel-economy regulations.
In addition to ruling that Mr. Lane couldn't infringe on Ford's copyrights,
Judge Edmunds ruled that he is precluded from interfering with "Ford's
contractual relationship with its employees by soliciting Ford employees to
provide Ford trade secrets or other confidential information."
Identification Statement
She ordered Mr. Lane to comply with other portions of the temporary
restraining order. Under the order, Mr. Lane must file with the court and
Ford a statement identifying the Ford documents he has, identify his
sources for the documents and provide details on how he acquired the
documents.
Mr. Lane said he will abide by those orders, although he has said
repeatedly that he received the documents from anonymous sources. He
also said he didn't keep detailed records of when and how he received the
documents.
Mr. Lane, however, may still be liable for damages caused by the
publication of the documents, an issue Ford raised in its complaint against
him. A Ford spokesman said the company hasn't decided what its next
steps might be on the issue of possible damages
|
