I think the distinction, from Gruber's point of view, is simply that Gruber is not violating any laws or contracts, while Gawker is. Presumably, Gruber has nev

I think the distinction, from Gruber's point of view, is simply that Gruber is not violating any laws or contracts, while Gawker is. Presumably, Gruber has never stolen any of Apple's property and is not under any contractual obligation to keep silent about Apple. His sources, on the other hand, are probably violating NDAs when they talk to him. Perhaps under your system of morality, Gruber is at fault here: if he receives information from someone who he knows is violating an NDA, then he should immediately cover his ears, avoid publishing what he learned, and report the person to Apple's legal department. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's the position of US and California law. Under them, Gruber's sources are being naughty, while Gruber himself is not.