Apple v. Does (O'Grady v. Superior Court) was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets.

The appellate court held that trade secrets do not, by themselves, categorically transcend freedom of the press, that there is no relevant legal distinction between journalistic blogging online and traditional print journalism with regard to the shield law, and that Apple's attempt to subpoena the email service provider of one of the journals was a violation of the U.S. federal law known as the Stored Communications Act.

On March 4, 2005, the dePlume Organization filed a responsive motion in the same court as the Does case, demanding dismissal of Apple's suit under the California Anti-SLAPP Statute.

[6] On March 11, 2005, the Santa Clara County Superior Court trial judge declined to grant the defendants a protective order prohibiting discovery of their email.

An employer pursuing such an objective might prefer not to join any defendants lest it expose itself to negative consequences up to and including a countersuit for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

Critics accused Apple of using the lawsuit not only to protect its trade secrets, but to frighten its employees in order to prevent future leaking.

[19] The Personal Technology editor of the San Jose Mercury News wrote an open letter to Steve Jobs warning that "The lawsuits pose an imminent threat to Apple's most precious asset: the company's reputation as a hip underdog, a cool alternative to bigger and blander competitors such as Microsoft, Dell and Hewlett-Packard.