First off, I want to make it clear that I really enjoyed Gizmodo’s coverage of the next Apple iPhone. For those of you not familiar with how it went down, the site acquired an iPhone prototype that was lost at a Bay Area bar. It pounced on the opportunity to write a story and produce videos on the biggest Apple scoop of the year. That all seems normal, right? Where it gets murky is the fact that Gizmodo paid money for the iPhone prototype.
According to Edible Apple:
Gawker editor Nick Denton said that the company paid $5,000 for the device, with some reports claiming that additional fees were to be paid if certain traffic goals were met.

That’s a pretty hefty sum, but considering the tremendous amount of traffic the story has generated, it’s probably worth it…until California law is considered. The Guardian noted this tidbit of California civil code that can be applied to the situation (the iPhone situation, not Jersey Shore‘s The Situation):
Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property.
Obviously the person that “found” the iPhone prototype is in the wrong, but is Gizmodo also in the wrong for buying the device? The Guardian cited California Penal Code 496 PC:
This means that even if you weren’t aware at the time that you received the property that it was stolen (but later learned or suspected that fact), you must immediately contact the owner of the property or the police to avoid prosecution.
The bad news (for Gizmodo) is that the law seems to be against them. The good news is that Apple has had a tough time suing bloggers in the past.
I want to know what you think about the whole deal. Was Gizmodo merely doing its job? Or did the site cross a line?
Source