I think that alot of people here are trying to mix 3 possible cases together...as i see it they are:
1) Recieving Stolen Goods by Gizmondo
2) Libel of Gray
3) Exposing Trade Secrets
a few pages back someone asked if Gizmondo would be in less trouble if they did not post photos of the phone..my thoughts are that if they would have only posted photos of exterior of the phone they may have had some wiggle room in the Exposing Trade Secrets case ..when they disassembled the phone and posted photos of the disassembled phone (even photos of the screws?) they crossed the line...not doing this would not have helped them in cases 1 and 2 though..
as far as i understand things the 3 cases will be treated seperatly ...
Also i have to believe Apple's competitors took a very close look at those photos..
Feel free to correct any of my assumptions...
This only my opinion...
True. The theft and trade secret cases go together though. Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Improper means includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
In other words, its pretty much a given that the original finder didn't do due diligence in returning the phone. Raiding Chen's apartment is to secure corroborating evidence that Chen knew that the item was stolen because Gizmodo posting that they knew it was a prototype and could have been stolen might not be enough. (Do any Lawyers on here know?)
I'm curious to see if the limit of scope of this case is just Chen. The police may raid more Gizmodo employees or their offices if they can prove that multiple employees knew they were breaking trade secret law. "Gawker start your paper shredders!"
http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpres...§§-3426-et-seq-the-uniform-trade-secrets-act/