|
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A California judge ruled that a Web site's Internet service provider must reveal the identities of sources that fed the site confidential information about Apple Computer, court documents showed Friday.
The ruling made by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg is part of a lawsuit filed by the computer maker against the unknown sources.
It denies attempts made by reporters who write for PowerPage.com, an Apple enthusiast Web site, to block Apple's subpoena request from the Internet service provider Nfox for all e-mail messages and documents relating to the identity of any person who supplied information and images about an unreleased product code-named "Asteroid" to PowerPage.
Nfox has not objected to the subpoenas on any grounds, according to the court.
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety, or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, the (Apple enthusiast's Web sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," said the court ruling.
"The Court makes no finding as to the ultimate merits of Apple's claims, or any defenses to those claims," said the court order. "Those issues remain for another day."
An Apple spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
Free speech debate
The ruling has rankled free speech advocates who say that the people who write for Apple enthusiast sites should enjoy the same legal protections as reporters for mainstream publications.
The writers who requested the protective order -- Monish Bhatia, Jason O'Grady and a person who writes under the name Kasper Jade -- said that as journalists they are eligible for protection under California's "shield" law, which encourages the publication of information in the public's interest by allowing journalists to keep sources confidential.
But Judge Kleinberg said the "shield" law does not apply to parties divulging information that could only have been provided by breaking the law.
"The rumor and opinion mills (about Apple) may continue to run at full speed," Kleinberg wrote in the ruling. "What underlies this decision is the publishing of information that at this early stage of the litigation fits squarely within the definition of trade secret.
Apple had earlier demanded that Bhatia, O'Grady and Kasper Jade reveal their sources, but they refused to cooperate, saying that identifying their sources could harm the media's ability to report in the public's interest.
Other trade publications wrote about the music technology after the reporters broke the story online.
Lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation representing the writers said that the "broad-brush" ruling threatens journalists of all stripes.
"This landmark case was the first in which a court heard arguments that online reporter's confidential sources and unpublished materials are protected by both the reporters' shield in the California constitution and the reporter's privilege under the federal First Amendment," the EFF said in a statement.
"But the court did not restrict its ruling to online journalists, instead deciding that all journalists could be required to reveal confidential sources when a claim of trade secret is raised," the civil liberties legal organization said.
|
