Wow, this is one of the worst threads I've ever tried to read on this site, possibly on any site. I had to stop even skimming through messages about page 8. Unbelievable how ignorant and mean spirited the fanbois can get. Most of the comments here are more worthy of a Gawker comment thread than MacRumors.
It's pretty obvious that most of the people with an opinion of the law here got their legal education watching Law & Order or from some cheesy John Grisham novel. What a joke.
I hope you're not referring to me. I got my legal opinion spending years studying business law, copyright law, and understanding contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code, among other aspects of business and journalism.
Also, I happen to be what some people like to refer to as a professional blogger... though I don't write about daily goings on and I'm not regurgitating research that some real journalist actually beat the pavement to get.
Also, I'm not defending Apple... my comments have zilch to do with Apple's side of this. They have everything to do with Gizmodo being a disreputable bunch of amateurs who got popular the way many things get popular... because the masses are not too intellectually demanding.
If the buyer had any knowledge that the product was stolen, the contract is void, the sale is illegal, and the buyer can be held liable just as much as the seller... though the remedy is usually nullification of the contract, meaning the buyer has to return the stolen property. Case closed. However, technically speaking the buyer was engaged in an illegal act... and in this case there's a very great chance Gizmodo knew that what they were doing was illegal.
In fact, there's a good chance given all the facts that Gizmodo knew what they were buying even though the seller may have not... As long as the seller isn't the one who asked for $5000. Something tells me Gizmodo wasn't dumb enough to just come right out and offer them $5000, though, if the seller had no idea what they had on their hands... they could have sent an anonymous guy and offered a couple hundred bucks. But no, the transaction suggests both parties knew what was being exchanged.
Apple's interest here is to avoid amplifying the situation by pursuing legal remedy before Gizmodo willingly turns over the phone... because it would engage their lawyers for far more money than they have to gain. Again, if the stolen property is returned to Apple, the tort law issue is remedied. The criminal law issue involves penalties against buyer and/or seller that have nothing to do with restitution to the owner. Apple has an interest in keeping this as low-key as possible, to avoid wasting their money and to avoid drawing further attention to what may likely be a close-to-final prototype.
That's not fanboy-speak... that's just objective fact. They're entitled to protect their intellectual property, as is Microsoft, as is Tom Dick and Harry Record Company... or any mom and pop operation.
