For the tl;dr crowd:

The opening:

I am not a lawyer and I do not have all the facts about the stolen iPhone, but I'm not going to let that stop me from passing judgement on this case.

The end:

In summary:

a) Gawker/Nick Denton = guilty b) Jason Chen = guilty (of being gullible) c) iPhone seller = guilty d) Using Shield Law defense = lame e) Gestapo Cops = very lame

Everyone is entitled to their opinion... and to having it slaughtered on HN!

Others (e.g., techcrunch.com) have said that they would have published about the iPhone prototype but not have paid for it. This wouldn't make any difference. The California statute includes buying, acquiring, POSSESSING, or Concealing stolen property a crime. Money need not have changed hands, at all.

There's a little room for flexibility here. Engadget published the finder's photos of it on 4-17 - apparently he sent photos to several media outlets in hope that one would reward him for it. Although it would have been more appropriate to forward any such communication to the police, if Gizmodo had got it, taken some pics or video that did not go any farther that what was already published, and then sent or brought it over to Apple HQ - the same county Jason Chen lives in - they could legitimately argue the $5000 was for the story of how the guy got it, the legal doctrine of prior restraint gave them the right to publish, and they had carried out their duty to reunite Apple with their property. And I think they'd have been legally and ethically OK.

It's the dissection, its publication, and the withholding of the device from its owners - even after they called to request its return - that has gotten them into real trouble.

How is finding something that someone lost make it "stolen property?" If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, am I stealing it if I pick it up?

Isn't a "leak" technically also stolen information? Someone decides to give out information that is meant to be private.

And Jason, you would have really turned down this opportunity if it knocked on your door while you were running Weblogs?

Legally this is covered by "trade secret" law, not theft. (IANAL)

Official?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Yes. This random email from some list, which was reposted to a blog, carries more weight than any judge's opinion ever will. It is sad, but such is the state of affairs in our world.

Well, there isn't an actual 'Jason Nation' either, so I can forgive a little tongue-in-cheek pomposity by its leader :)