Apple decision put on hold

Lawyers for Apple and a trio of Mac enthusiast websites met in court in San Jose, California, on Friday in a case that could have wide-ranging implications for the future - and even the definition - of online journalism.

Apple is seeking the right to subpoena the email providers of three Mac-focused sites that published information documenting details of future Apple products. The company says that information was stolen, and is seeking legal action against employees who leaked the data. But it says it needs the websites' sources in order to identify the employees.

A California state judge issued a tentative ruling late on Thursday that would give Apple the go-ahead to pursue that information from the websites' internet service provider, but the judge did not issue a final decision at Friday's hearing.

Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing several of the Apple-themed websites, say allowing Apple to force the sites to divulge their sources, or forcing the sites' email providers to give up records of their emails, would be deeply destructive to journalists' ability to cover business.

EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl said: "Apple is saying that trade secrets are an exception to reporters' privileges. If trade secrets are an exception, then a business writer should be concerned every time he or she gets a tip in their email box."

Even apart from Apple's attempts to keep its own product releases under uniquely tight wraps, the case involves far-reaching issues over how much right journalists have to publish private information about businesses, and indeed what journalism itself is in the era of digital media.

EFF attorneys note that the publications in the case, PowerPage, Apple Insider and Think Secret, all have wide readership and have been given press credentials in the past. But Apple attorneys refer to the publications' editors as "so-called" journalists, and questioned whether the websites should be given traditional reporters' protections.

Apple attorney George Riley said in court: "There was no journalism here. They were simply fencing stolen information by publishing it verbatim."

Friday's hearing represented just a preliminary stage in the case. Apple is attempting to find the identity of the people who leaked the information originally and says subpoenaing the websites and their internet service providers is the only way to ascertain that information. To date, the publications themselves have not been sued.

Judge James Kleinberg said he would consider both sides' arguments and rule as soon as possible. Attorneys said they expected a ruling by early next week.

John Borland writes for CNET News.com.