That depends on if Apple confirms that the phone is, in fact, theirs (which they did). At this point, I do see problems for Gizmodo possibly, given that once Apple did identify it as such, they should have taken said articles related to the phone itself, down.
With regards to "trade secrets", Wikipedia has this: "In the United States, trade secrets are not protected by law in the same manner as trademarks or patents."
Now, granted, Wikipedia can be freely-edited, so the accuracy of that statement can be disputed. There's also a reference to the two conditions under which someone can potentially be held criminally responsible for trade secret theft/revelation, with regards to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 "which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a), criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, 18 U.S.C. § 1832, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes."
However, I think the second law would more apply to the individual who found it and sold it to Gizmodo, since he received financial compensation for the device.
I guess someone could also try to make the argument that Gizmodo did it for financial purposes, given the publicity it brought in, but that seems like a stretch...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
