Apple wins first stage of legal fight

A controversial court ruling that could force online journalists to reveal the identity of confidential sources to Apple is drawing both cheers and jeers in legal circles.

Issued Friday, the ruling states that a website that published confidential Apple documents could not protect its sources from an Apple inquiry. In this case, the criminal activity of leaking private corporate data trumped reporters' traditional right to protect their confidential sources, the judge said.

Dan Westman, an attorney specialising in trade secrets law, applauded the decision.

"I think it will be extremely persuasive to any other judge in any other court who reads it," said Westman, a partner at Shaw Pittman in Northern Virginia. "I do believe if it goes up on appeal it would be upheld."

But media attorney Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the ruling could be destructive to the operation of an effective media.

"It's a thoughtful but seriously wrong decision," Scheer said. "Under this logic, if the Wall Street Journal ran a story about these documents, it could be prosecuted criminally. That's an absurd result."

The decision comes as part of a broader case in which Apple is seeking the identity of unknown people who leaked confidential prerelease product data that was subsequently published on three separate enthusiast websites, including Think Secret, PowerPage and AppleInsider.

The sites themselves are not being sued directly in this case. But Apple has issued a subpoena to PowerPage's internet service provider, Nfox, asking for email and other records that might be relevant to the case. A separate subpoena has been approved by the court that would force AppleInsider to give up any of its own documents that might relate to the identity of the person who leaked the information.

The websites, which are being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say they are covered by the laws that often protect journalists from having to divulge the identity of their sources. Apple argues that the sites are simply publishing stolen information, and should not benefit from those protections. In a separate case, Apple is suing another enthusiast site - Think Secret - directly for trade secret violations.

In his decision on Friday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg avoided the question of whether the enthusiast sites qualified for the same legal protections as traditional journalists, saying that Apple's right to protect its secrets trumped any legal protections afforded reporters under state or federal law.

The information about Apple's unreleased products "is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be", the judge wrote. "The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists - however defined - or anyone else."

John Borland writes for CNET News.com. News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report.