Online journalists don't count says Apple

Apple contends that online journalists should not have the same rights when it comes to defending their sources

Apple has testified that online journalists should not have the same rights of confidentiality as their print brethren when it comes to defending their sources.

The company filed a lawsuit in December 2004 against unnamed individuals who allegedly leaked information about new Apple products to several online news sites, including AppleInsider and PowerPage.

The articles concerned a FireWire audio interface for Apple's GarageBand, codenamed 'Asteroid' or 'Q7'.

In addition, Apple filed a separate trade secret suit against Think Secret on 4 January 2004.

Apple is seeking information from these news sites regarding the identities of the sites' sources, and has subpoenaed Nfox.com, the email service provider for PowerPage, for email messages that may identify the confidential source.

The first hearing found that Apple could request the incriminating files but the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is appealing the case, holding that established laws on journalistic confidentiality must not be overturned.

"The California courts have a long history of supporting and protecting freedom of the press," said EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl.

"We are looking forward to the opportunity to ask the Court of Appeal to correct a ruling that endangers all journalists."

The EFF has been backed by news organisations like Associated Press, which have filed motions of support.

Several technology companies, including Intel and the Business Software Alliance it helps fund, have filed motions (PDF) supporting Apple's position.

"The types of trade secrets at issue here [information about unannounced future products] are among the most valuable and closely guarded of all," the motion of support reads.

"There is no public interest in having such trade secrets stolen and plastered all over the internet for competitors and others to see.

"If that occurs, victims must be entitled to use the courts for redress, starting with discovery to find out who committed the theft."