I'm beginning to see some misunderstanding here. In this case, it's about somebody revealing a company's trade secrets, which in my mind is a different thing than say, writing an expose of a political party, or government entity.
It doesn't really address the question of whether bloggers are journalists.
Kleinberg refused to say whether Bhatia, O'Grady and Jade were members of a protected class of journalists. He did not rule against the reporters because they wrote for relatively obscure Internet sites, he said, but because they violated trade secret laws. - Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Judge Kleinberg said the question of whether the bloggers were journalists or not did not apply because laws governing the right to keep trade secrets confidential covered journalists, too. - BBC
I think that particular issue is a red herring on the part of the blogger’s legal team, which, of course, is their job. That’s what lawyers do – work with the words and meanings to make them come out in their client’s favor.
Every now and again there will be a case where a journalist would/could go to jail for refusing to reveal a source. But these cases are about other things -- reporting on crimes, wrongdoing, manipulation of funds, etc.
This case is about corporate right to privacy, and the right of a business to own its property without interference. From anyone.
In this case, the bloggers revealed a corporation's trade secrets to the public. This was not information they had a right to have, it belonged to the corporation, and the bloggers used it for their own purposes, hence IMHO it was theft. A company should have the same right to own its information as an individual does. Just because it's a mega-corporation involved in this case doesn't mean it shouldn't have the right to keep its secrets. I think Apple is well within its rights to want to know where the initial theft occurred, so they can take steps to prevent it happening again.
For example, if it was Dave's Bakery involved and the Bigcakes Blog took Dave's secret recipe for the cake he sold all the over the world, and put it on the blog, Dave should be able to find out where Bigcakes got it, if the blogger wouldn't tell. Generally speaking, if anybody can make that special cake Dave sells, then it devalues the cakes from Dave's bakery.
This is a whole different kettle of fish than political commentary, or reporting news of the government’s budget. Those kinds of things are already public property, so to speak.
The business world has a different kind of situation, and a different set of rules. We still work under a capitalist system where people can own and control their property. As somebody engaged in small business, I would not want anybody taking something I’d worked hard to create giving it away to all and sundry just because they could. It doesn’t matter if the commodity is information or cakes. While I certainly think transparency is a good thing, it should be on my own terms, when it comes to my work or my property.
I know not everyone will agree with my point of view, but I bet if the bizbloggers think about it they probably will get what I’m saying here.