The company claimed the case is about theft and not protection under the First Amendment for journalists. But the court held that electronic “communicators” no different than print reporters.

In his blog covering law issues, Eugene Volokh stated simply, “It seems to me that the court got this absolutely right.”

Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney for the Electric Frontier Foundation, said on the group’s web site, “Today's decision is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large. The court has upheld the strong protections for the free flow of information to the press, and from the press to the public.”

The headline on AXcess News’ web site seemed to sum up the feeling of the blogosphere: “Internet Journalists Everywhere Win Victory in Apple Case.”

Bloggers have faced challenges seeking acceptance and credibility from mainstream media outlets. With the recent Apple ruling, the tables have turned for journalists of all outlets. As the judges themselves wrote, “We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."