I'm pretty sure I will be down voted, but still: 1) Everyone is too keen on saying that the iPhone was "stolen" based on the definition in the CA law. However,

I'm pretty sure I will be down voted, but still: 1) Everyone is too keen on saying that the iPhone was "stolen" based on the definition in the CA law. However, let's put the legal definition aside for a second and consider was the iPhone really "stolen". The Apple employee lost it in a bar, someone picked it up and "misused" it. Dictionary definition of "stolen" (from Apple's dashboard dictionary) is "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it " and I don't think that happened here and if it did, it remains to be proven. 2) I do agree that Gizmodo should not have paid for it, however, informants are almost always paid and IMNAL but it can be tricky to prove if Gizmodo knew how the iPhone was acquired before hand, and moreover if they knew if was an unreleased version if iPhone before they paid for it. Yes yes, common sense aside, where is the proof. People on eBay have paid a lot more then they're worth for a lot of things. 3) And regardless of whether Gizmodo is guilty or not, let's wait for the judge-jury to decide, it is unclear what the charges against Jason Chen are and why were those not disclosed before his house was raided. 4) I think the outcome of this this whole episode could have some really big ramifications, such as defining if professional Bloggers are journalists, or not.