Wow!!!
“12 of those people were arrested” … are you serious, arrested, so you can be arrested by law enforcement for divulging Apple secrets. This is scary, but I remember a few years ago when an Apple employee misplaced a beta-test iPhone (I think he left it in a bar) and Apple convinced local law enforcement to “raid” a home in Silicone Valley to recover the phone. If I misplace my iPhone, can I get police to raid someone’s home to retrieve it.
"These people not only lose their jobs, they can face extreme difficulty finding employment elsewhere” … seriously, so Apple seeks retribution against a former employees by making it difficult for them to seek subsequent employment. In today’s climate, you can’t even give references any more, all you can say is if a person worked for you or not, but I guess Apple has a full-time “revenge” department.
"The employee who leaked the meeting to a reporter later told Apple investigators” … “Apple investigators” sounds like the Nazi Gestapo, so does Apple force you into an interrogation room and “sweat you” until you talk.
Listen, of course Apple employees leaking information is wrong, Apple is the aggrieved party here, but Apple is also an arrogant, self-absorbed company that receives specialized treatment from law enforcement not afforded to the rest of us. That too is unfair.
One can indeed be arrested for misappropriation of trade secrets since it is crime under California law. This link will take you to a good overview of the pertinent law:
https://www.foley.com/files/uploads/AIPLA Spring 2016 Trade Secrets Presentation 4827-8788-1521 v1.pdf
There is nothing illegal about giving your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of a former employee exploring other opportunities. In fact, an honest and accurate appraisal of the employee coupled with an understanding of the role the employee would play may well help to place the applicant in a role where he can excel, and avoid failures which will only further depreciate the applicant's future prospects. Of course, making false derogatory statements about a former employee to a prospective employer may result in a civil lawsuit seeking damages for defamation. Giving a truthful negative opinion is not actionable, and while the timid will be with us always, serious companies that ask for references understand that they must also give them. In many cases it is not matter of undifferentiated competence, but a question of whether the applicant is likely to be a good fit for the particular responsibilities of the job. Certainly if an employee intentionally divulges company secrets without authorization he is highly unlikely to be hired by a company that has trade secrets, and most employers would rather hire someone with integrity than someone who has demonstrated an utter lack of it. In fact, Apple identifying those who have betrayed its trust will not make it difficult to successfully apply for a job at the same level, it will almost certainly make it impossible. I suspect that Bernie Madoff would find it difficult to be hired as an investment advisor, but whose fault is that?
It may not be surprising to you that theft is a crime even in California. Someone who finds an object of value must make a good faith effort to return the object to its rightful owner. The finder is not a keeper until he takes appropriate action to attempt to identify the true owner of the object or gives the object to the police or to the proprietor or other responsible party at the premises where the object was found. In the case you mention, the finder found an iPhone prototype which was being tested by an Apple employee in the wild who inadvertently left it at the bar. That patron of the bar who found the iPhone sold it to a blogger/quasi-journalist working for Gizmodo for $5,000 without ever making any attempt to return the phone to its rightful owner. This made the finder someone who misappropriated a lost object (a crime, but not the crime of theft) and the quasi-journalist a receiver of misappropriated goods. The police, pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate, went to the home of the quasi-journalist to search for the iPhone which they confiscated.
If you misplace your own $5,000 iPhone, and if you can give evidence to a magistrate that convinces him that it is more likely than not that there is probable cause to believe that the iPhone can be found at a specific private property, you can certainly have the police search for it, just like Apple did. Of course, if your iPhone was rejected by Gazelle the police may not be quite as anxious to conduct a search, but that would have more to do with the value of the object than with the identity of the complainant.
Investigators investigate. They may collect facts in a number of ways, only one of which is posing questions to a person suspected of having committed a crime or of inflicting damage on a person or entity in violation of civil laws. No person is required to respond to the inquiries of an investigator, whether private or an agent of law enforcement, nor may an employer or its agent use force or the threat of force to prevent an employee under suspicion from leaving the room or the building. So it may not precisely be the same routine as what Gestapo interrogators practiced. On the other hand, an employee who refuses to answer pertinent questions may very well find his employment terminated.
It also turns out that a victim of a crime who is found to be arrogant and self-absorbed does not thereby render the perpetrator immune from criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit. Go figure.
Snark aside, and I hope you take this in the spirit in which it's offered, you may want to take a general course in American law, civil as well as criminal. Those courses often correct widespread myths and misunderstandings of how laws are applied. Those who teach these courses understand that it isn't law school, so they often have a sense of humor, and explain matters in a way that makes them easy to recall. Community colleges often offer courses like that, and I am confident that you'd find it entertaining as well as informative.
There’s a big difference between 2 to 3 months ago and your exact statement: “last month.”
