too many internet / google prosecution lawyers quoting pure rubbish here.
Again, I cringe every time I read "buying stolen goods", it needs "allegedly" in there, every time. And nobody is "guilty" of anything until it's proven in a court of law.
Anything Gizmodo posted on their website about the phone is not an admission, anyone and everyone has to be cautioned before you can use it as an admission, otherwise it's just "hear-say" - which is where that term comes from.
And all Gizmodo have to say is that they paid nothing for the phone. The $5,000 was for the unverified story - a fair sum that jounalists pay all the time for a leading story.
Let's drop all talk of Apple suing for millions just now, this is a criminal investigation. Once it's complete, whatever the outcome, Apple may pursue some civil action. And although the burden of proof required is completely different - another fact missed by all the internet prosecution lawyers here - they will have to show a financial loss due to the Gizmodo posts if they go for damages. And they will have to be able to show every cent as a loss, not just pick some obscene number of millions of dollars.
What is more likely, is that Apple wants to ensure that none of the technical details or data of the phone has been leaked to rivals. What Gizmodo (and this site) posted on the iPhone was pretty bland, it's not going to give any competitors an edge before this model is released. In fact compared to the iPhone 3GS, the most exciting thing was the new shape (flat rear).
Brace yourself for cringing. If the finder/seller actually told Gizmodo the tale it reported on its website, and if the seller told Gizmodo the truth, then the seller is guilty of theft, pure and simple. There is no requirement to say "allegedly" outside of Mrs. Murphy's journalism class. You will never hear a prosecuting attorney ask for the death penalty by saying that the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant is allegedly guilty. People are guilty of things all the time that are never taken to court, and other people are free to say so.
So let's move on now to the rules of evidence. An admission is admissible in evidence against a criminal defendant; of course it is hearsay, but it is one of the many exceptions to the general hearsay rule. It is trustworthy because people don't often say things that are against their own interest unless they are true. We sorted this out a few hundred years ago, by the way; you'll want to keep up. Okay, and this requirement that someone admitting facts that evidence his guilt of a crime? Turns out that only applies to a custodial admission, and the rule was adopted to protect people in police custody from having a confession coerced from them. Since presumably there was no policeman holding reporters captive in Gizmodo's offices when they wrote the story that appeared on their website, there was no one there to caution them, nor was there any need to. As a matter of fact, when you read their account, it may sound a bit like gloating.
And the difference in burden of proof between a criminal and civil trial did not escape notice; no more than anyone neglected to mention that judges often seem to wear black robes. These are things that are widely known, apparently even to people who know little else about the legal system.
And yes, Apple and its engineer, if they pursue their civil remedies, may be required to prove their damages, but the award need not be limited to their actual loss. They may be awarded punitive or exemplary damages which are intended to punish the defendant, and not to make the injured party whole. Moreover, Apple will be entitled to a multiple of the value of the stolen test iPhone, not just its proven value. And if Gizmodo is found to have defamed the Apple engineer who lost the phone, it may be deemed to be libel per se, and damages will be presumed even without proof of specific dollar loss. So there is no equivalence between the proven direct loss and the verdict, let alone to the cent.
I'll leave it to those more aware than I am of the value to a competitor of seeing the images of the test phone to determine the likely damage to Apple of having information divulged. Nonetheless, common sense would dictate that a competitor knowing that the next iPhone will contain a forward-facing camera will be better able to avoid making the wrong decision about whether or not to include that feature in his new models. Knowing that the new phone will have a battery with significantly more running time may cause a competitor to incorporate similar technology in his devices to avoid being placed at a competitive disadvantage. I would not be as insouciant as you regarding the damages that Apple may be able to prove it suffered as a result of the premature disclosure of its trade secrets.
So when you get ready to discard the pure rubbish you say you've found on this thread, I've got a few more things for you to add to the pile.
