Update – iPhone 4gをサンフランシスコ近郊のバーで紛失したのは誰？ 本物なのか？ Gizmodoは盗難品を買ったのか？

Apple employee who lost iPhone 4G iden­ti­fied as Gray Powell

その後　この記事が大きく参照されているので 2010–04-21日、その後をこの記事に追加 Update 2010-04-21

Giz­modo この記事で5,000,000ヒットを達成した模様。

Apple社から電話返却の手紙が送られてきた。この電話は本物だった。

Grayが電話を紛失したバー Staadt

昨日GizmodoがばらしたiPhone

右は2月中国Honghai工場で消えた4G, 左が3月18日Grayが無くした4G、ネジが有るのと無い違いがある。どちらが新しいかは不明。

「Giz­modoはUni­form Trade Secrets ActでAppleから訴訟を受けるだろう」の記事が沢山出ている。機密製品を盗難品と知り買取一般に公開することをカリフォルニア州では「犯罪」と位置づけている。下記は英文はAppleInsiderの記事より：

Sec­tion 3425.1 defines “mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion of trade secrets” as a civil code vio­la­tion, with word­ing that makes it pretty clear that buy­ing a stolen pro­to­type, deter­min­ing it is authen­tic and includes valu­able infor­ma­tion in the form of trade secrets, and then pub­lish­ing the infor­ma­tion to earn money and noto­ri­ety for doing so is some­thing that will expose you to legal liability.

The code sec­tion defines these phrases:

(a) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, breach or induce­ment of a breach of a duty to main­tain secrecy, or espi­onage through elec­tronic or other means. Reverse engi­neer­ing or inde­pen­dent deriva­tion alone shall not be con­sid­ered improper means.

(b) “Mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion” means:(1) Acqui­si­tion of a secret of another by a per­son who knows or has rea­son to know that the secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Dis­clo­sure or use of a secret of another with­out express or implied con­sent by a per­son who:(A) Used improper means to acquire knowl­edge of the secret; or (B) At the time of dis­clo­sure or use, knew or had rea­son to know that his or her knowl­edge of the secret was: (i) Derived from or through a per­son who had uti­lized improper means to acquire it; (ii) Acquired under cir­cum­stances giv­ing rise to a duty to main­tain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a per­son who owed a duty to the per­son seek­ing relief to main­tain its secrecy or limit its use; or © Before a mate­r­ial change of his or her posi­tion, knew or had rea­son to know that it was a secret and that knowl­edge of it had been acquired by acci­dent or mistake.

© “Per­son” means a nat­ural per­son, cor­po­ra­tion, busi­ness trust, estate, trust, part­ner­ship, lim­ited lia­bil­ity com­pany, asso­ci­a­tion, joint ven­ture, gov­ern­ment, gov­ern­men­tal sub­di­vi­sion or agency, or any other legal or com­mer­cial entity.

(d) “Trade secret” means infor­ma­tion, includ­ing a for­mula, pat­tern, com­pi­la­tion, pro­gram, device, method, tech­nique, or process, that:(1) Derives inde­pen­dent eco­nomic value, actual or poten­tial, from not being gen­er­ally known to the pub­lic or to other per­sons who can obtain eco­nomic value from its dis­clo­sure or use; and (2) Is the sub­ject of efforts that are rea­son­able under the cir­cum­stances to main­tain its secrecy.

The reme­dies out­lined for “mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion of trade secrets” which “used improper means [includ­ing theft] to acquire knowl­edge of the secret” are described as follows:

§ 3426.3 (a) A com­plainant may recover dam­ages for the actual loss caused by mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion. A com­plainant also may recover for the unjust enrich­ment caused by mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion that is not taken into account in com­put­ing dam­ages for actual loss.

(b) If nei­ther dam­ages nor unjust enrich­ment caused by mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion are prov­able, the court may order pay­ment of a rea­son­able roy­alty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.

© If will­ful and mali­cious mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion exists, the court may award exem­plary dam­ages in an amount not exceed­ing twice any award made under sub­di­vi­sion (a) or (b).

A fol­low­ing sec­tion indi­cates Apple has three years to file suit against Giz­modo and or Gawker Media.

§ 3426.6. An action for mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion must be brought within three years after the mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion is dis­cov­ered or by the exer­cise of rea­son­able dili­gence should have been dis­cov­ered. For the pur­poses of this sec­tion, a con­tin­u­ing mis­ap­pro­pri­a­tion con­sti­tutes a sin­gle claim.