Considering their recent press coverage, I don't see why that would stop them. They probably wouldn't want it to interfere with the press coverage of the new phone launch, but after that is over I think they would be willing to take some bad press in order to make sure that there are repercussions to doing something like this.

The other possibility is that Gizmodo & Gawker would never receive invitations to future Apple product unveilings/announcements. I'm sure they got a decent bit of traffic during the iPhone OS 4.0 live blogging feed. Jobs likes to hold grudges and if you get on his bad side, you'll probably be blacklisted for a few years at least.

I don't think it's going to happen, but if they wanted to hurt Gizmodo without going to court they could add Engadget to the short list of media outlets that get early review units.

I bet this will happen. Apple are known for alienating companies that go against the wall of silence. There are more than enough people who 'live blog' every Apple announcement. Cutting them out will make a point and not harm Apple.

For this situation, I would hold a grudge too.

Remind me: Was it a PR nightmare when they sued various rumours sites for offering a bounty to anyone who would break their confidentiality agreements?

Right, they were pretty effective at ending ThinkSecret. No reason to believe that they wouldn't be just as happy to end Gizmodo too.

They settled with ThinkSecret, probably paying a ton of cash to Ciarelli, to shut it down. Don't think that's going to happen with Gizmodo...

Apple is one big PR nightmare. That company is so evil I wouldn't touch one of their products except to stick a defectivebydesign.org sticker on one.

That said, did Apple even win these lawsuits, or were they just a baseless threat?

The ones I recall were not baseless. The problem wasn't publishing trade secrets, it was offering a bounty for trade secrets.

So... If an employee wants to spill the beans, that's fine. But bribing an employee to spill the beans is not fine. I think that's relevant to the flap about the iPhone given that Gizmodo paid $5,000 for the phone, giving the so-called finder of the phone a tremendous incentive to turn it over to them instead of returning it as seems to be their obligation under California law.

Sure, they violated the law. Now what?

(People ignore the law all the time. They eat plants that are illegal to eat. They cross the street against the light. They steal their work contacts for their next job. They post the internal documents about their employer's plan to kill small children to wikileaks.

Selling a phone you found in a bar doesn't seem like much of a risk in this context -- best case, you get $10,000 and to stick it to Apple. Worst case, you get $10,000 and 20 hours of community service.

If Gizmodo gets in legal trouble, the solution is simple -- next time, we'll just see this story in a non-US media outlet. People want interesting reading more than they want to follow the law.)

A guy breaking the law is one thing. Maybe he found it and did what he could then was tempted by money, Maybe he actually stole it from the engineer and then did the very the least he possibly could to try to cover his ass before selling it. Draw your own conclusions about his motives and what outcome is appropriate for him.

But we have an entirely different situation with Gizmodo, and they may face an entirely different outcome.

The possibility that crime will get outsourced because you enforce your laws should be irrelevant. You do what you can to enforce your laws in your jurisdiction. Here in Canada we happily arrest Canadian citizens who travel overseas to abuse under-aged sex workers.

Right. Because taking pictures of a phone is exactly like raping children.

I don't know about you, but just about everyone I know who knows about this deeply dislikes Gizmodo right now. I would be happy if Apple sued Giz, and if criminal charges were brought - and I won't be the only one by a long shot.