It seems like Gizmodo could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had acted in a somewhat professional manner. They could have easily examined the device, take

It seems like Gizmodo could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had acted in a somewhat professional manner. They could have easily examined the device, taken it apart and re-assembled it, and returned it to Apple, and then published the story without revealing that they had paid $5k for it and without revealing the identity of the guy who lost it (the justification of which still mystifies me, at least in the manner in which they did it). At any rate, I wonder if the shield law coming into play now is more related to weather or not they feel they can legally extract information from the equipment rather than weather or not it was legal for Gizmodo to purchase the device, or for the "finder" to sell it. IANAL, of course.