Surely the issue here is that the iPhone was lost property, and knowing full-well who the owners were (and who to give it back to) both parties - the guy in the

Surely the issue here is that the iPhone was lost property, and knowing full-well who the owners were (and who to give it back to) both parties - the guy in the bar and the Gizmondo editor - struck a deal for someone's lost phone. Here in the UK, at least, it's an offense to knowingly sell-on lost property. Arrington seems to gloss over this and is only looking at it for scoop value. Details of an iPhone 4G prototype isn't information that could be argued needs to be exposed to the public. That's not journalism.