There is a much bigger issue in this case, one that comes up surprisingly often: criminal prosecution for "exceeding authorized access." Should we prosecute people who use online services in violation of their Terms of Service? Of employees who, without installing malicious software, snoop around their networks for stuff they shouldn't be seeing? Is any of that worthy of criminal penalties?

Look at the prior art in the patent itself, e.g.:

US5844547 May 9, 1995 Dec 1, 1998 Fujitsu Limited Apparatus for manipulating an object displayed on a display device by using a touch screen

US6567102 Nov 25, 2001 May 20, 2003 Compal Electronics Inc. Touch screen using pressure to control the zoom ratio

US20050168488 Jan 31, 2005 Combination tool that zooms in, zooms out, pans, rotates, draws, or manipulates during a drag

All Apple did was jumble these same longstanding into some arguably-new form, and, viola, they had a patent for something everybody was doing.

I doubt you really contend that, in late 2007, Apple invented scrolling and zooming with your fingers, or that you contend that Apple's implementation was substantially different (and both novel and useful) from those prior forms. If you don't contend either of those, then why, exactly, should Apple have a patent over their implementation, which was at best modestly different from prior implementations?

I am contending that you can't patent a user interface you see in a sci-fi movie, which is what Apple did here. What they patented is no different from patenting the way the command module looks on the Enterprise. Do you think that Apple should be able to patent, say, the use of oval icons?

Disclaimer: I'm completely against patenting UI elements. I'm of the opinion that once they come into existence they're language and patenting language is anti-social behavior.

You disputed said references by claiming that other products copied Apple.

I pointed out that just because it was Apple who made these features popular, leading to other products copying them, doesn't mean that the features could not have been independently invented prior to Apple. I refer you to the original comment for the prior-art examples.

Since the patent itself cites prior art, obviously the patent isn't patenting the same thing as the prior art.

>All Apple did was jumble these same longstanding .... was at best modestly different from prior implementations

You have provided no evidence or reason to believe this. In fact, I've seen this claim hundreds of times, and never seen anyone even attempt to provide a defense for this assertion.

Yet the evidence at hand shows the opposite- the patent was reviewed for a significant period of time by the patent office. Further, this isn't Apple's rodeo. After the Microsoft loss, Apple has a great deal of incentive to make sure that their patents are solid.

So despite evidence to the contrary, you just repeatedly assert this position because it helps your ideological position. But we need more than mere assertion.

In fact, your assertion isn't really consistent with history. To make this obvious lets change the context. Imagine it is motorola being sued by Bell:

Graham demonstrated and patented the telephone, therefore phones are longstanding and the cellphone is just "modestly different from prior phones".

The iPhone doesn't have cameras three feet behind the screen taking photos of your fingers. But you would have us believe that a patent on using that method of touch interface means that apple didn't invent nothing for the iPhone.

You're relying on the ubiquity of copies of Apples devices to make an emotional appeal claiming these things were obvious.... yet this is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Before 2007, Android was working on a blackberry ripoff, not a touch UI.

And your argument fundamentally misrepresents what patents are.

I've seen you mention this a couple of times now. I know you mean it to be ridiculous, but it's actually a true statement: once you have a telephone, and a radio, then the concept of a cellphone in itself is an obvious step. There are scads of patentable details in the implementation, but nothing to say that the concept of a cellphone itself should be protected. Perhaps you should find an alternative example?

> The iPhone doesn't have cameras three feet behind the screen taking photos of your fingers. But you would have us believe that a patent on using that method of touch interface

None of the prior art listed above claims anything to do with cameras.

So the question is this: Do you think that for the next 20 years Apple should be the only company with large rectangular multi-touch phones with minimal buttons, grid based icons, and pinch-to-zoom?

It should be easy for you, if you are correct, to simply state what is new and novel and patentworthy that Apple did, that is not covered by the prior art mentioned.

Answer: not hard at all. In fact, it has been trivial for years. The hard part is implementing it in a cost-effective, reliable manner — something that Apple did with industry-leading industrial design/manufacturing efforts, not through patented technologies. But that's not what this case was about.

If this case involved Samsung bribing Apple employees to reveal the secrets at the Foxconn plants in China, then I would completely agree with you that that is wrong and that Samsung has broken the law by stealing a competitive technology. But that's not what's happening here; ironically, Apple is deriving part of its competitive advantage from using Samsung!

What's happening here is that Apple is suing Samsung over silly, trivial, and peripheral issues that played a modest (if any) role in the iPhone's success, silly, trivial, and peripheral matters that, unfortunately, have been granted the strongest property right in American law, which is a monopoly of their direct or indirect use by anybody.

So surely there were dozens of devices with these features (I assume you mean inertial scrolling) prior to the patents being granted?

This stuff is not trivial: Only a handful of multitouch devices even existed prior to the iPhone, and exploiting that technology, along with improvements in mobile hardware generally, was hard, or smartphones prior to 2007 wouldn't have sucked so very badly.

Read the file wrapper and the notice of allowability. Here is Apple's great triumph in claiming an invention as compared to prior art:

"The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: In regards to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20, the prior art found does not teach in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display: displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; and in response to detecting that the object is no longer detected on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion; in combination with all of the other claim limitations."

Do you consider that extremely narrow tweak to a user interface a novel and useful invention worthy of patent protection?

Unfortunately, that process has been turned on its head, so that patents are routinely granted for designs, devices, and methods that are already effectively commoditized or simply don't work patent protection. The iPhone's design is undeniably visually appealing and user-friendly, but it is by no means an "invention." It is a form of user interface, something that has already been held to not be patentable, and it is a form of branding, something that is protected, but through trademark law, not patent law.

I find this situation disturbing for the same reason I find it disturbing that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and the belt. Consumer electronics companies should not be investing the bulk of their resources playing legal games with one another over non-disruptive "inventions" like the idea to use asynchronous processing to make sure video and audio lines up. They should be using their resources making phones that are better and more alluring than one another.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this seem a bit strange?

Too often this is obscured, and/or all patents are lumped together as being generally awful. I personally do not ascribe to the notion that all patents should be outright abolished.

Design patents, however, should simply not exist. Rounded corners, rectangles and UI elements in rows of 4 are simply not inventions.

Software, being a fundamentally creative enterprise, should be included. It doesn't fit into the patent system for the same reason that granting a monopoly on a plot twist makes no sense.

You are confusing utility patents and design patents. They are very different things, and design patents are intended for "designs" and the designs of devices. This is not a perversion, this is just you not understanding what patents are!

Secondly you guys constantly claim that these things are not novel, yet you are never able to provide good prior art. Yes, here, 11 years later, this stuff is commoditized. Mostly because android ripped off the work Apple demoed in January 2007 and brought it to market.

That doesn't mean in January 2007 it wasn't novel. I have constantly seen you guys claim that other people did this before, but I've never seen a single instance of genuine prior art. You guys cite movies (not understanding what prior art is, or what patents are) and you cite demos of completely different technologies (like microsoft's surface which uses cameras.)

So, you're projecting a completely false characterization of the situation and then saying its "bad" or has been perverted.

This feels like political propaganda to me. I notice that the anti-Patent movement started with google's lawyers letter and in defense of android which is a blatent ripoff of Apple technology.

So, lets see google donate Pagerank to the public domain, eh? They only have 6 years or so left on it anyway.... why haven't they?

And don't give me that crap about "it's not about the idea, it's about the implementation". Apple's pinch to zoom patent, for example, covers implementations on ANY kind of touch surface. It claims are vague like "That gesture adjusts an image in some way", covering not just zoom, scale, and rotation, but any transform of the image.

When someone makes such an absolute claim, that they've never seen any genuine prior art, even though tens of thousands of engineers in forums are pointing to research and devices that are at least arguably prior art and cast Apple's patents in a grey area, to have such an absolutist assertion indicates to me that that person is not interested in fairness, or truth, but on banging the drums of tribalism.

There are for sure, people in the Android camp that are rooting for Android in this case because they like Android devices. I'm not one of them. For me, the issue is about software programming freedom.

Whether it is SOPA/PIPA, or patents being used against open source, attacks on computing freedom in general are more important than Samsung, Android, or Apple. We should not assign away the future of software or networking by granting monopoly power to the largest corporations in the world.

Not when the whole edifice was started by Homebrew hackers to begin with.

The light bulb was invented over 120 years ago and they still hand out patents for light bulbs, imagine that.

Look at it this way, there were definitely people doing pinch-to-zoom that looks absolutely identical to the way Apple is doing it from the user's point of view. Jeff Han's demo is a perfect example of it. For years, many people have been doing demos like this, but they've been doing it on big bulky setups like projected-desks, or in Han's example, using total internal reflection.

Apple just made a different implementation, using the same interaction gestures, on a capacitive screen. From a software point of view, the implementations are rather trivial and don't differ much except via how you obtain the input (e.g. capacitive, FTIR, cameras, etc) The main difference is shrinking down the whole thing so it fits on a phone.

The reason why this was possible in 2007 had nothing to do with Apple's software and everything to do with the ability to manufacture a capacitive screen that has the right sensitivity, accuracy, cost, weight, and power to fit into a phone.

Apple deserves engineering props for this. But they do not get credit for inventing pinch-to-zoom nor the capacitive screen. Both of these inventions came prior.

If Apple invents an entirely new kind of touch screen and an entirely new way of manufacturing it, you could argue they deserve a patent.

But taking what existed before, pinch-to-zoom on projection displays, and implementing it on a different screen does not deserve patent protection, anymore than taking an existing business method (e.g. 'selling flower bouquets by phone', adding the text 'via web site' or 'via mobile app') and slightly tweaking the medium in which the business is done to obtain another monopoly.

Should 'internet shopping cart' be allowed a patent when real world shopping carts already existed? It's crazy absurd.

If Apple's patent had even been more specific like "pinch to zoom, but on this particular kind of screen" I'd even have more sympathy for the argument, because at least other people could do the same thing Apple did: copy an existing idea and apply it to a new circumstance. Samsung and others could innovate by creating new types of displays, maybe using microscopic cameras to track your hands like minority report or something.

But granting a patent to Apple for pinch to zoom on any kind of screen? Sorry, it goes too far.

Even in the worst case, they hint at the possibility of independent invention; imagine that.

The simple workaround to apple's patent: allow two-finger drag. One or Two fingers close together (or moving in parallelt) is a drag. Two or more fingers far apart is a zoom. As long as there's no line of code that goes "if one finger down then it's a drag else if two fingers down it's a zoom" then the code doesn't infringe the apple patent. Easy peasy.

Pagerank is a great example of something that's not supposed to be patentable. It's an algorithm. The claims are "computer implemented method of (description of some algorithm)" and "computer-readable medium that stores instructions (that implement some algorithm)". Absurd. I'd be in favor of someone trying to invalidate that patent. Google's algorithm incorporates so many more signals now than what is identified in the pagerank patent (#6285999). Putting that patent into the public domain wouldn't have any direct impact on Google's market share.

I'd like to know how duckduckgo or any other smaller search engine avoids getting sued. Is it possible to be in the search engine space and avoid infringing on any of the [invalid but granted anyway] patents in that space? The pagerank patent has a massive list of newer, mostly search related, patents in its "referenced by" list (which takes up the vast majority of the page). [1]

I think a lot of people most infuriated by Apple's patent suit against Samsung also think the Pagerank patent is not valid. If you're looking for bias, good luck with your search. I'm against all horrible patents even if they're owned by patent non-aggressors, and even if they're owned by companies I depend on for technology.

[1] http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6285999

China is one of those places where you can't patent design, and I suppose it kind of works in a strange free-market-way. The winners are those who can copy the fastest, and have enough money to bribe politicians to shutdown the competition.

What people object to is Apple asserting dubious patents with broad claims to block competition. Mating a general purpose computer and an algorithm to produce a "new" "machine" is a stupid loophole. Patents are supposed to be an exchange where an inventor gets a temporary monopoly while the public gets instructions for implementing a new and non-obvious "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter". You can't seriously argue that the world needed the bounce-back, data detector, or universal search patents to figure out how to accomplish those things. Patents shouldn't cover things that are, at best, features!

You might respond by pointing to Windows Phone as an example of a mobile OS that's different and NOT getting litigated over, but that's because Apple and Microsoft have cross-licensing agreements that have been in place since the last time Apple tried to pull this look-and-feel bullshit and lost.

Since you insist on using loaded language like "Android ripped off ... Apple", what evidence do you have to back that up? Also, what makes you say that the "anti-patent movement started with [Google]"? You're aware that people have had concerns about software patents long before this, right? Take Amazon's one-click patent as an example of something that stirred up a similar amount of nerd rage. It's not propaganda, just other people arriving at a pretty reasonable conclusion and stating it.

The critical part there is how, as you noted, "most troll patents come from small entities." Raising the cost and time of obtaining a patent will have only a modest effect in stopping people from attempting to file for these weak patents, but will have a major effect in compelling them to assign the patents to larger, better-capitalized entities with greater capabilities in pushing the patents through the process, like IV.

It is counterintuitive. I wouldn't have thought this would be the result had I not seen the same thing happen in securities litigation: Congress attacked the nuisance suits and ended up making the biggest securities law firms far stronger and more profitable. Counterintuitive, but demonstrated empirically in another field.

The interesting question is if he ended up with roughly the same share he would have if Facebook had simply taken on the new investors and not tried any "dirty tricks."

IANYL, but I'd say this: if you're at the point where you have more than a basic agreement with co-founders, you want a thorough, diligent lawyer working with you on these issues.

Correspondingly, clients should understand that lawyers are there to give advice. They are not there to give direction; they are there to give advice. It's always better if the client and lawyer both understand the clients strategic goals, so that they can have, as described above, an intelligent discussion about weighing the risks and benefits of a given course of action, but the overall purpose of the lawyer is merely to give advice.

Similarly, there are times you may decide to take an action that will risk a lawsuit, but you can do so in an informed way by consulting a good lawyer. Paul Graham makes the point in http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html that most startups should simply not worry about infringing patents. This is a calculated risk, but one they should know they are taking if they do so.

Similarly, there is a calculus of negligence (brief laymen's overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence ) that essentially says that if the probability of hurting someone else's property multiplied by the most likely damage is less than the cost to remove that risk, you simply accept the risk and be prepared to pay out the damage if it happens and do nothing to reduce that risk. This is a very calculated risk since if something happens you will be required to pay for it and the other party will rightly sue you if you do not. Yet the rational thing is still to just accept that risk, but you can only make that risk rationally if you have calculated that risk (perhaps with advie of a lawyer).

The post has been updated to incorporate your comment.

It's still just a single phone, a phone that's been returned to its owner. Maybe Apple was damaged by the loss in a way the law recognizes. If so, then they can file a civil lawsuit just like everyone else with a grievance against someone else.

The part that's troubling here is how, if anyone else reading this post reported to the police that an employee had lost a ready-for-market prototype and that a blog had published pictures of it and then returned it, the police would politely file the report at the bottom of the pile and then get back to pursuing real crimes. Apple, however, gets an unannounced seizure of a journalist's home and work computers.

Such preferential treatment demands an explanation.

So, buying stolen merchandise or trafficking in trade secrets is fine as long as you write a story about it?

-- http://twitter.com/TheMacalope/status/12917912411

Quoting Gruber:

Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-...

Btw, quoting Gawker:

"We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."

The most Gawker revealed was (1) features readily observable on the outside and (2) information printed on the components when the device was opened. Obviously, none that would be considered a "trade secret" once the iPhone was up for sale on the market.

Can a feature list be considered a trade secretly few months before the items released? That's a tough one, particularly because Apple itself released this iPhone into the wild, where it was found by a third party. It's not like Gawker snuck into Apple's campus and found some research for products contemplated way in the future, product so far off that Apple had not yet filed a patent on the technology. (By way of background, the whole purpose of trade secret law is to protect things that a person doesn't want to disclose publicly by patenting. Almost by definition, a trade secret has to be something that was patentable, and so far nothing on the prototype iPhone looks like it was patentable.)

All of which brings us back to the central point: it's debatable if Apple even suffered a legally-cognizable injury by virtue of someone bringing publicity to a device Apple, through its employee, left out in the wild. In light of that, and in light of the serious concerns about journalistic shield, REACT should have shown caution. Instead, they took the most aggressive approach they could have.

For example, if Apple is negotiating pricing for current models and other party was willing to pay more pre-leak because the did not think the next gen would be as large of an upgrade.

Why? Your explanation might be perfectly valid, but it's not the explanation REACT has given. They haven't explained anything at all.

I was working on an idea of "size of the crime multiplied by the number of people impacted" might define where the threshold lies. So murdering one person is significant in that it affects one person ultimately, and a good chunk of other people in the second order. Losing one's own phone affects a single person only, and not very significantly at that. Apple's losing their prototype is analogous in the actual act, but the effect on Apple's marketing multiplies it out big-time.

Other test cases for the thought experiment: bank robbery; simple assault; rape; creating a public nuisance. I think the idea can be applied successfully across all of these.

I don't know anything specific about the stolen iPhone case. I find the whole "zOMG I saw a picture of the new iPhone!!!1!!" thing to be ridiculous. So I can't address anyone's behavior in this instance.

No one seriously believes that Gawker Media poses a continuing threat to anyone, including Apple. There's also no question about the disposition of the property; it's in Apple's hands. Further, the damage done is questionable. (I don't mean "frivolous." By "questionable," I mean that there's a legitimate dispute as to whether or not anyone suffered legally-recognized damages from the leak, as compared to, say, someone running a counterfeit-iPhone operation.)

In such a situation, most cops and DAs would put the investigation at the bottom of their pile, tell the victim to file a civil lawsuit, and then focus their resources at on-going criminal activity or crimes with substantial damages to the public.

Here, however, REACT raced into action with a particularly aggressive maneuver: a subpoena and unannounced seizure of a journalist's property. That's among the most aggressive actions they could have taken, and the decision-making behind it deserves an explanation.

Now, if I may paraphrase, you're saying 'all this for a single phone that is going to be sold to millions anyway? pfff.' But you know it's a prototype, if you've followed the story closely, you know that Gawker did publish "more than information the appearance of the phone": http://gizmodo.com/5520876/the-next-iphone-dissected - such things are not readily ascertainable by proper means, so I don't think IDX v Epic systems is a good comparison.

You say there are 'thousands of businesses [that have been wronged] and yet Apple [...] gets preferential treatment.' I can't agree. A quick search of justice.gov for the terms ''economic espionage' arrested' - a different jurisdiction, to be sure, but a similar kind of enforcement - yields over 100 cases of the police power being used on behalf of companies' intellectual property - and as we both know, a comprehensive search through legal databases would turn up many more. We both know that IP theft or misappropriation isn't about the physical devices, DVDs or sheets of paper which may go missing, but about the large sums of money and time that go into their development: which money and time represent the assets and jobs of a good many people, and may have a large bearing on their economic security.

I don't know about Philadelphia, but here on the west coast US customs regularly find shipments of counterfeit devices; here's a recent (pre-Gizmodo) story about a batch of 2000 such units: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsul... The numbers seized here are trivial in comparison to those sold abroad. Although black markets are notoriously hard to estimate, extrapolating from recent assessments by Nokia suggest that annual production of counterfeit iPhones might amount to ~2.5 million units (http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/03/revised...). Obviously not every purchaser of a fake would or could buy a real device, but even if we assume the number of actual lost sales is only 20% of fake sales, based on the typical price differential of fake and real units, we're still looking at something in the region of a quarter-billion dollars a year in lost revenue.

Now, while this is not Gizmodo's fault - and like other gadget blogs, they frequently 'out' fake devices as fake - showcasing the interior construction of the new iPhone several months ahead of release is surely a significant, if incidental, assist to black market manufacturers. What engineer wouldn't be delighted to get a head start on their design cycle? I'd wager that a fake iPhone v4 appears for sale in China before the release of the genuine device by Apple, anticipated in June.

I mean, suppose this happened to you - a few months out from important litigation, a draft of your brief is accidentally exposed - perhaps a paralegal briefly mis-configures the wi-fi settings on a laptop, allowing a 'guest' to access it and open a file. I've seen it happen. Some freewheeling industry blog buys the document, disseminates it widely, and gleefully mocks your staffer's preference for triple-cream lattes and weak understanding of wireless networking for added yuks. Your case is strong enough on its merit to litigate successfully, but the incident would still be a nightmare for your firm, would it not?

Now, to address your headline question of whether the police should be equally or more assiduous where missing children are concerned - undoubtedly. But the contrast you draw is a poor match in time, scope, and geography, and borders on saying that one enforcement action is unjustified because an unrelated police department once failed to serve the public effectively, with a horrible outcome.

I'm glad to have found your blog, which has many interesting and thought-provoking articles. But I really feel your approach to this episode has been somewhat one-sided. True, there are issues of press freedom at stake whenever police find cause to investigate members of the media. But there are also issues of wilful misappropriation of private IP, publication resulting in private harm but no obvious public benefit, and a management team carelessly exposing junior employees to civil and criminal liability.

Disclaimers: I'm not an attorney, have never owned any Apple hardware, software, or stock, have no connection with anyone even remotely close to this case. I admit having a bee in my bonnet about this; in a past life I was a tech journalist at PC Magazine (UK) and feel personally offended by Gawker Media's cavalier ethical outlook.

The analogy you give about my firm is close, but let's make it exactly on point. Let's presume I have some major class action against Apple and, weeks before a major brief is due, I leave a copy of it on the train and some intrepid blogger posts the whole thing, thereby giving Apple a window into my strategy.

Would this be embarrassing? Of course. Would it prejudice my clients? It could.

Would the police care? Of course not.

The police would tell me that, if I had a problem with it, I should sue the guy. End of story. And, indeed, as I wrote before, if Apple wants to sort out its legal remedies, there is a civil justice system ready and waiting for it.

What's so disturbing here is the aggressive response by criminal law enforcement authorities. If you or me or thousands of other technology companies had complained to the police about an identical incident, we would've been told to seek remedies elsewhere. Apple, however, got the full lawful power of the state and then some in the form of an overly broad and potentially illegal seizure of a journalists' computers.

That's a problem, and its one that deserves some degree of explanation from REACT.

Woah, there - let's trace that chain of events a little more closely. The 'intrepid blogger' has publicly offered a reward for any inside information about your suit - and your clients have already demanded that he cease and desist from doing so, because such a reward suborns a breach of confidentiality. Your loss is careless, but the blogger pays someone for your briefcase, unlocks it, and makes public about half the contents, while publicly bragging about the manner in which he obtained it and incidentally mocking you for using public transport. Finally, he demands that your inaugural client in the suit publicly beg for its retrieval, even though he knows where to find you, and also the identity and location of your client.

If you or me or thousands of other technology companies had complained to the police about an identical incident, we would've been told to seek remedies elsewhere.

How can you say that? There are abundant examples of law enforcement assisting in the recovery or investigation of misappropriated IP resulting in custodial sentences.

I mean, take a look at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipnews.html - There are over 100 trade secret related cases here, from companies both large and small, and many of them concern opportunistic rather than premeditated misappropriation. If I had a Westlaw or L/N account at home I'm sure I could quickly pinpoint many at the state level too.

First, you presume there's a trade secret. There's no indication that is correct; all I see is a new soon-to-be-sold product that Apple intentionally let off of its campus and into the wild.

Second, you presume Gawker criminally misappropriated or otherwise misused the trade secret. Gawker bought a lost phone. Did they have a duty under California law to seek out its owner? Possibly -- but that's an entirely different question from if they criminally violated trade secrets laws. There's no indication that Gawker had any duty at all to protect Apple's secrets; it's not like Gawker is an employee at Apple. You can't just say that, because a person committed a lesser crime, they necessarily committed all greater conceivable crimes. Same goes for the person who found and sold the phone.

Third, you presume the government had probable cause to believe that each of the items seized from Chen had information relating to a crime. Two problems with that: (a) as noted above, it's unclear a crime even was committed and (b) the warrant was patently overbroad, and its doubtful the government had more in mind than a fishing expedition. That's a plain violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth, where's the fire? There's no on-going crime here. There's no criminal enterprise. There's an isolated, public incident. So why the high priority? Why the extremely aggressive measures of seizing all of a journalists' computers?

Compare and contrast that situation to one of the cases listed on the DOJ website you linked to:

"In support of his plea, Mitchell acknowledged that on September 5, 2007, he emailed much of the contents of a DuPont proprietary spreadsheet document entitled “Denier Economics” to an official with Kolon. “Denier” is a term used to describe the weight per unit length (linear density) of a continuous filament or yarn. The Denier Economics spreadsheet contained highly sensitive business trade secret information related to DuPont’s production capacity for Kevlar® yarn in a variety of denier types. Included in the information for each denier type were specific figures relating to annual production, unit capacity, spin speeds, and several factors relating to line efficiency (such as percentage yield and percentage up time). The Denier Economics spreadsheet was closely held and distributed to a small number of DuPont personnel on a need-to-know basis only."

Now that's a trade secret, and it's a clear misappropriation of it by someone with a duty to keep it secret.

And what did the DOJ do there? Did they start seizing the property of third parties covered by shield laws?

No. They slowly started building a case.

The exact opposite of what REACT did here.

Shoot first, ask later, for high profile crimes is not just the wrong approach, it's unconstitutional and inappropriate. And it demands an explanation.

1. I agree the trade secret is questionable. But an employee having it off-campus isn't a release into the wild. Gizmodo even wrote an article about how well it was disguised, calling it '[a] very ingenious solution to protect future designs from lookeyloos'. It's hard to argue Apple intentionally abandoned their IP; and although the exterior shell was removable, the finder did not disassemble the device within. So when Gizmodo got it, the only information 'in the wild' - which was published by Engadget, who were also offered the device - was its external appearance.

2. Gawker paid $5000, by their own admission. Clearly they considered the likely provenance of the phone to have commercial value, and I think that part is legitimate - the loss of a prototype by a famously secretive firm is newsworthy for both consumers and stockholders, who have an interest in the integrity of the firm's IP. Gawker certainly has no obligation to help Apple keep their reputation for security intact.

Arguably it was stolen under CA law, arguably that put Gawker in a position of receiving, knowing that it could not be legally saleable under the circumstances. And arguably they took the phone with the intent of returning it to Apple, and what they paid for was the story of how it was lost and found, making it newsworthy as above.

Where I part ways with Gawker is in what occurred next. Believing it was likely a prototype they could easily infer that it belonged to Apple; and being experienced tech journalists, they certainly knew how to get of hold of someone senior there, describe the device and its attached ID labels, and confirm its authenticity. A quick look at California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act would have apprised them that a prototype device is itself a trade secret, and that they did have a duty of care, under subparagraph (b)(2)(C) of the UTSA: ['Misappropriation' means .. disclosure or use .. by someone who] Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

So - loss of protoype phone, not a secret. External appearance of same - also not a secret, Engadget has republished the finder's own photos. Acquisition of device - defensible, even with money involved. So far, so good. Take all the pictures you want, call Apple, confirm and return, publish and be damned. Prior restraint is a barrier to any injunctions from Apple, as shown by Ford Motor Co. v Lane.

But this is not what happened. Instead, Gawker, acting as Chen's employers, 'dissected' (their word) the device, up to the point of Chen losing confidence in his ability to reassemble it, and published the results.

Now this seems to me like a clear violation of not only the UTSA (creating civil liability) but the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, specifically title 18, § 1832. I suggest that Gawker converted possession of a prototype device, destined for an existing global market, into advertising revenue based on readership, knowing that publication of the device's internal construction would injure Apple by benefiting competitors and counterfeiters.

I think they have violated this law in multiple ways, and possibly violated laws against receiving and fraud (for misrepresentation of fact to the finder/seller and employees about their liability under civil and criminal law).

3. Yes, I think Gawker's published version of events is prima facie evidence of a crime and that the federal statute cited provides for a very broad search. To my mind the only question is how far up Gawker's chain of command the responsibility goes.

4. How do we know? Gawker parlays its audience into sometimes exclusive access to products, services and information in the various industries it covers. They have actively solicited confidential commercial information for cash, relying on their journalistic privilege to protect them. Is it not possible that they, or one of their staff, would share a trade secret for some quid pro quo, given their professed lack of ethical inhibitions?

Yes, it is indeed an aggressive approach by the police. But skilled technologists have been known to destroy digital evidence, and Gawker blogs have published a articles on topics like concealment or permanent deletion of digital information...as recently as last month. And no, I'm not sure I would trust a promise to voluntarily abstain from doing so.