Well, this should go over well.

Basically, Apple’s lawyers are arguing that unlike journalists or whistle-blowers, all online media does is "feed the public’s insaitable desire for information."

And that’s different from a journalist, how, exactly?

ZD writes it up this way:

Its lawyers say in court documents that Web scribes are not "legitimate members of the press" when they reveal details about forthcoming products that the company would prefer to keep confidential.

Do we agree? Disagree? If I break some news that Apple (or anyone, really) prefers to keep quiet, how is that different than if the Daily News or Times or BBC broke it? Just because I’m breaking it online, I’m "less" of a journalist?

I call BS. Apple is using a John Doe argument, threatening the web site host.

More from ZD:

In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed "John Doe" defendants. The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage’s e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted.

Even though the AppleInsider site also published information about the Asteroid device, it operated its own e-mail service and would have been able to raise a stronger First Amendment claim if it had been sent a subpoena. (In a separate case, Apple directly sued another enthusiast site, Think Secret, alleging that it infringed on Apple’s trade secret in soliciting inside information.)

Please. It’s no different than a print journalist having a good source, or "unnamed sources high in the white house administration said…"

Come on. Give me a break.