Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
Then maybe you should bLame Apple for being so careless with such a valuable piece of equipment. Everyone is blaming Giz but I do not see many blaming Apple for being so careless.
Then maybe you should bLame Apple for being so careless with such a valuable piece of equipment. Everyone is blaming Giz but I do not see many blaming Apple for being so careless.
But this is not the point. Of course Apple is to be blamed for allowing the leak to happen. This is about Giz's complete lack of integrity and possibly criminal act. Just because Apple is responsible, it doesn't excuse or vindicate Gizcrapdo, which has always been and will always be pseudo journalism.
RWhat a bunch if wussies the lot of you are. Tell me your panty size and I'll send you some. Giz might be in trouble if they bought a stolen device but it was lost. Giz is protected under the freedom of the press to report anything newsworthy to its readers. We all love gossip,rumors and leaks, and they got story of the year. All they did was ruin the surprise. Big deal. Get over it and get a life. Btw speaking of stolen/lost iPhones wasn't it almost a year ago that Apple refused to return a stolen iPhone to its rightful owner. The thief took it in for service and even though the owner produced a police report plus proof of ownership/purchase Apple still refused to return it. You like Apple? How 'bout them Apples.
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
Yes, but California's law is clear. If you find lost property you can choose to leave it alone. If you choose to pick it up, you have a responsible to safe guard the property and make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If the property is worth over $100 and you can't locate the owner after a reasonable time, you are required to give the property to the police. If the owner fails to claim it after a period of time, you get to keep it.
Further, giving the property back to an employee of a corporation is the same as giving the property back to the owner.
The section of code quoted in this thread only mentions a reasonable attempt to return the property. Are there more directly applicable sections?
So the question really is, were the finder's multiple phone calls sufficient?
And if so, and mere possession was legal, what crime is it to transfer that property? (honest question) Theft wouldn't seem like the specific crime to discuss at that point.
But this is not the point. Of course Apple is to be blamed for allowing the leak to happen. This is about Giz's complete lack of integrity and possibly criminal act. Just because Apple is responsible, it doesn't excuse or vindicate Gizcrapdo, which has always been and will always be pseudo journalism.
If reporters had ethics there would be no news. Look at wikileaks. Every document there is stolen, wikileaks knows it, the readers know it and the people who they were stolen from know it yet wikileaks keeps chugging along. There are documents on there that are classified US property yet the US Government has no recourse other than tighten up their ship to ensure more are not lost. This is national security stuff, not some companies prototype phone everyone knows is due out this summer. If Uncle Sam cannot take down wikileaks how does Apple have any chance? Nothing is going to happen to Giz and the few fangirls who will never read their site again are completely over shadowed by the millions of users these stories brought.
I dont remember now but if the phone was remotely wiped when Gizmodo bought it wasnt that a pretty good indication that the phone in question was a real iphone? I mean is this a feature on any knock off you guys ever seen?
I mean how likely is it that some one who uses a cheap knock off fake phone have the need to remote wipe it if they loose it? At least here in sweden the only knock offs i've seen are owned by 12-15 year old kids and they dont remote wipe. but I dont know how it is with fake phones in the US though it might be a completely different market for those phones over there.
If reporters had ethics there would be no news. Look at wikileaks. Every document there is stolen, wikileaks knows it, the readers know it and the people who they were stolen from know it yet wikileaks keeps chugging along. There are documents on there that are classified US property yet the US Government has no recourse other than tighten up their ship to ensure more are not lost. This is national security stuff, not some companies prototype phone everyone knows is due out this summer. If Uncle Sam cannot take down wikileaks how does Apple have any chance? Nothing is going to happen to Giz and the few fangirls who will never read their site again are completely over shadowed by the millions of users these stories brought.
I've never heard of Wikileaks, but real journalists are bound by copyright protection laws that they do not trespass. When Denton was asked if a serious publication like the Times would have published the leak, he essentially said yes, but I doubt that even Engadget would have taken the prototype apart and then posted detailed pictures of it.
The phone was returned to the owner so there go all the theft BS allegations.
What, is it ILLEGAL to photograph a found object and write an article about it?! LOL! Of course this is covered by freedom of the press (and speech).
And what's with this gung-ho 'fire the kid' attitude. He lost a prototype. So what. It's not that this is a revolutionary device. If you aren't an iPhone aficionado you probably don't even recognize a difference from the 3G. I'm sure my mom wouldn't notice the "fancy" new aluminum frame.
Oh - it's now got a second camera. BFD. I don't think that anything mind blowing was revealed.
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
Speaking as an Apple stockholder, I want one of two things:
1. I want Apple to sue Gizmodo blue, or;
2. I want other Apple shareholders to join me in a class action suit against Gizmodo. And here's why
...
That damages Apple, consequently damaging Apple's stock, and consequently damaging me.
A lot of commenters have disagreed with you Joe, but I think they're mistaken and you're correct. As a stockholder myself, I also feel like an injured party. I think both the finder and Gizmodo are guilty of criminal acts because one sold property that didn't belong to him, and the other bought it. And of course, no one pays $5K for a normal iPhone; they paid $5K so that they could essentially sell the intellectual property for more than $5K. Apple spent a huge amount of R&D to develop that phone, and Apple had every legal right to present that information to its customers and competitors exactly when and how they saw fit. Gizmodo showed no respect for that right, committed a criminal act to obtain that IP, and then effectively sold that IP for its own profit. I want to see them punished.
Apple's young engineer was careless which most of us are guilty of at times. Gizmodo and the finder were criminal which most of us are not guilty of.
Sure, in the big scheme of things, the amount of harm is negligible. Last quarter's results are orders of magnitude more important than this thievery of IP. But you're still right: Gizmodo flagrantly broke the law in pursuit of its own financial gain and we, the shareholders of Apple are the injured party.
Count me in on your lawsuit.
P.S. Gizmodo is in some ways like the consumer of child pornography: The creators of the pornography directly exploit the children, but the consumers create the financial incentive for the exploitation. Our bar-fly thief chose not to return-to-the-bar that iPhone that he determined to be extremely valuable, but Gizmodo provided the financial incentive for this thievery.
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
What's "Top Secret" by law? That Apple is making a new iPhone? We all know that
Find me the law that states than nobody can divulge marginal corporate secrets.
I saw pics of the Nexus One months before it came out and not a whimper was said.
What's "Top Secret" by law? That Apple is making a new iPhone? We all know that
Find me the law that states than nobody can divulge marginal corporate secrets.
I saw pics of the Nexus One months before it came out and not a whimper was said.
You guys act like national security is at stake.
It's not accurate to call it "top secret" or "marginal corporate secret". These were "trade secrets" that the owner wanted to remain secret. We don't have to call them extra strong or extra weak trade secrets. Just call them what they are: Trade Secrets
Wow, such outright lies being told by those who held onto the new iPhone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
the person who found the device attempted to return it directly to Apple
Obviously didn't "try" very hard.
He: "Hey Apple, I found your new secret iPhone prototype. You want it back?"
Apple: "Nah"
As if.
Quote:
Gawker founder and owner Nick Denton responded by stating that his company was not sure the device was created by Apple until they opened it up and found the company's name on some of its internal parts
Because the big Apple logo on the back wasn't clear enough.
Wow, such outright lies being told by those who held onto the new iPhone:
Obviously didn't "try" very hard.
He: "Hey Apple, I found your new secret iPhone prototype. You want it back?"
Apple: "Nah"
As if.
Because the big Apple logo on the back wasn't clear enough.
Nobody here knows or has any evidence as to whether the finder is lying. Portraying a guess as fact does what to make your point?
As for trying "hard", that isn't required by law. The question is whether the alleged phone calls constituted the legally required, "reasonable" effort. Exactly how many phone calls are required? That's the actual question that would be the focus of any potential lawsuit.
And no, just having an apple logo isn't 100% conclusive. Did you not see the non-apple product posted earlier in this thread? It had an apple logo. Also, the phone in my pocket has an apple logo but is not apple's property.
Apple spent a huge amount of R&D to develop that phone, and Apple had every legal right to present that information to its customers and competitors exactly when and how they saw fit. Gizmodo showed no respect for that right, committed a criminal act to obtain that IP, and then effectively sold that IP for its own profit. I want to see them punished.
...
Count me in on your lawsuit.
P.S. Gizmodo is in some ways like the consumer of child pornography: The creators of the pornography directly exploit the children, but the consumers create the financial incentive for the exploitation. Our bar-fly thief chose not to return-to-the-bar that iPhone that he determined to be extremely valuable, but Gizmodo provided the financial incentive for this thievery.
How about the finder, would you be claiming criminal activity if he personally had posted the pictures? I'd say no, people are allowed to post pictures of what they find, trade secret or not.
Provided financial incentive for theft? First the would have to have been "theft". The possible criminal activity here is something other than theft.
As for making an analogy to child porn, that's rather callous to victimized children, quite insulting actually. They didn't have the ability to protect themselves from being a victim. That's what makes it so heinous. Apple did have the ability to protect itself but didn't. I'm no lawyer, but it seems they may have lost any recourse for considering it a trade secret.
Comments
This iPhone model looks "batmanish" to me
If only it had belonged to Batman. He would have taken justice into his own hands and made the thief and Gizcrapdo pay for their douchery.
Nevertheless, I consider myself an injured party in this, along with all my fellow stockholders. So enough with the "Gizmodo did nothing wrong" baloney.
Then maybe you should bLame Apple for being so careless with such a valuable piece of equipment. Everyone is blaming Giz but I do not see many blaming Apple for being so careless.
Then maybe you should bLame Apple for being so careless with such a valuable piece of equipment. Everyone is blaming Giz but I do not see many blaming Apple for being so careless.
But this is not the point. Of course Apple is to be blamed for allowing the leak to happen. This is about Giz's complete lack of integrity and possibly criminal act. Just because Apple is responsible, it doesn't excuse or vindicate Gizcrapdo, which has always been and will always be pseudo journalism.
RWhat a bunch if wussies the lot of you are. Tell me your panty size and I'll send you some. Giz might be in trouble if they bought a stolen device but it was lost. Giz is protected under the freedom of the press to report anything newsworthy to its readers. We all love gossip,rumors and leaks, and they got story of the
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
Yes, but California's law is clear. If you find lost property you can choose to leave it alone. If you choose to pick it up, you have a responsible to safe guard the property and make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If the property is worth over $100 and you can't locate the owner after a reasonable time, you are required to give the property to the police. If the owner fails to claim it after a period of time, you get to keep it.
Further, giving the property back to an employee of a corporation is the same as giving the property back to the owner.
The section of code quoted in this thread only mentions a reasonable attempt to return the property. Are there more directly applicable sections?
So the question really is, were the finder's multiple phone calls sufficient?
And if so, and mere possession was legal, what crime is it to transfer that property? (honest question) Theft wouldn't seem like the specific crime to discuss at that point.
But this is not the point. Of course Apple is to be blamed for allowing the leak to happen. This is about Giz's complete lack of integrity and possibly criminal act. Just because Apple is responsible, it doesn't excuse or vindicate Gizcrapdo, which has always been and will always be pseudo journalism.
If reporters had ethics there would be no news. Look at wikileaks. Every document there is stolen, wikileaks knows it, the readers know it and the people who they were stolen from know it yet wikileaks keeps chugging along. There are documents on there that are classified US property yet the US Government has no recourse other than tighten up their ship to ensure more are not lost. This is national security stuff, not some companies prototype phone everyone knows is due out this summer. If Uncle Sam cannot take down wikileaks how does Apple have any chance? Nothing is going to happen to Giz and the few fangirls who will never read their site again are completely over shadowed by the millions of users these stories brought.
I mean how likely is it that some one who uses a cheap knock off fake phone have the need to remote wipe it if they loose it? At least here in sweden the only knock offs i've seen are owned by 12-15 year old kids and they dont remote wipe. but I dont know how it is with fake phones in the US though it might be a completely different market for those phones over there.
Well that was my 2 cents
See you all around and cheers
Righteous indignation only takes one so far.
It's really really simple. You don't take what isn't yours. I learned that in Kindergarden.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
We reported his post, and some of his immature comments have been edited
Anyway, great post by you. I think that it is well reasoned and accurate.
If reporters had ethics there would be no news. Look at wikileaks. Every document there is stolen, wikileaks knows it, the readers know it and the people who they were stolen from know it yet wikileaks keeps chugging along. There are documents on there that are classified US property yet the US Government has no recourse other than tighten up their ship to ensure more are not lost. This is national security stuff, not some companies prototype phone everyone knows is due out this summer. If Uncle Sam cannot take down wikileaks how does Apple have any chance? Nothing is going to happen to Giz and the few fangirls who will never read their site again are completely over shadowed by the millions of users these stories brought.
I've never heard of Wikileaks, but real journalists are bound by copyright protection laws that they do not trespass. When Denton was asked if a serious publication like the Times would have published the leak, he essentially said yes, but I doubt that even Engadget would have taken the prototype apart and then posted detailed pictures of it.
The phone was returned to the owner so there go all the theft BS allegations.
What, is it ILLEGAL to photograph a found object and write an article about it?! LOL! Of course this is covered by freedom of the press (and speech).
And what's with this gung-ho 'fire the kid' attitude. He lost a prototype. So what. It's not that this is a revolutionary device. If you aren't an iPhone aficionado you probably don't even recognize a difference from the 3G. I'm sure my mom wouldn't notice the "fancy" new aluminum frame.
Oh - it's now got a second camera. BFD. I don't think that anything mind blowing was revealed.
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
Nicely said.
It's really really simple. You don't take what isn't yours. I learned that in Kindergarden.
Perhaps your teacher might have covered the concept of lost and found. Most schools have them.
Speaking as an Apple stockholder, I want one of two things:
1. I want Apple to sue Gizmodo blue, or;
2. I want other Apple shareholders to join me in a class action suit against Gizmodo. And here's why
...
That damages Apple, consequently damaging Apple's stock, and consequently damaging me.
A lot of commenters have disagreed with you Joe, but I think they're mistaken and you're correct. As a stockholder myself, I also feel like an injured party. I think both the finder and Gizmodo are guilty of criminal acts because one sold property that didn't belong to him, and the other bought it. And of course, no one pays $5K for a normal iPhone; they paid $5K so that they could essentially sell the intellectual property for more than $5K. Apple spent a huge amount of R&D to develop that phone, and Apple had every legal right to present that information to its customers and competitors exactly when and how they saw fit. Gizmodo showed no respect for that right, committed a criminal act to obtain that IP, and then effectively sold that IP for its own profit. I want to see them punished.
Apple's young engineer was careless which most of us are guilty of at times. Gizmodo and the finder were criminal which most of us are not guilty of.
Sure, in the big scheme of things, the amount of harm is negligible. Last quarter's results are orders of magnitude more important than this thievery of IP. But you're still right: Gizmodo flagrantly broke the law in pursuit of its own financial gain and we, the shareholders of Apple are the injured party.
Count me in on your lawsuit.
P.S. Gizmodo is in some ways like the consumer of child pornography: The creators of the pornography directly exploit the children, but the consumers create the financial incentive for the exploitation. Our bar-fly thief chose not to return-to-the-bar that iPhone that he determined to be extremely valuable, but Gizmodo provided the financial incentive for this thievery.
Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.
This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.
How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.
Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.
How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?
What's "Top Secret" by law? That Apple is making a new iPhone? We all know that
Find me the law that states than nobody can divulge marginal corporate secrets.
I saw pics of the Nexus One months before it came out and not a whimper was said.
You guys act like national security is at stake.
What's "Top Secret" by law? That Apple is making a new iPhone? We all know that
Find me the law that states than nobody can divulge marginal corporate secrets.
I saw pics of the Nexus One months before it came out and not a whimper was said.
You guys act like national security is at stake.
It's not accurate to call it "top secret" or "marginal corporate secret". These were "trade secrets" that the owner wanted to remain secret. We don't have to call them extra strong or extra weak trade secrets. Just call them what they are: Trade Secrets
the person who found the device attempted to return it directly to Apple
Obviously didn't "try" very hard.
He: "Hey Apple, I found your new secret iPhone prototype. You want it back?"
Apple: "Nah"
As if.
Gawker founder and owner Nick Denton responded by stating that his company was not sure the device was created by Apple until they opened it up and found the company's name on some of its internal parts
Because the big Apple logo on the back wasn't clear enough.
Wow, such outright lies being told by those who held onto the new iPhone:
Obviously didn't "try" very hard.
He: "Hey Apple, I found your new secret iPhone prototype. You want it back?"
Apple: "Nah"
As if.
Because the big Apple logo on the back wasn't clear enough.
Nobody here knows or has any evidence as to whether the finder is lying. Portraying a guess as fact does what to make your point?
As for trying "hard", that isn't required by law. The question is whether the alleged phone calls constituted the legally required, "reasonable" effort. Exactly how many phone calls are required? That's the actual question that would be the focus of any potential lawsuit.
And no, just having an apple logo isn't 100% conclusive. Did you not see the non-apple product posted earlier in this thread? It had an apple logo. Also, the phone in my pocket has an apple logo but is not apple's property.
Apple spent a huge amount of R&D to develop that phone, and Apple had every legal right to present that information to its customers and competitors exactly when and how they saw fit. Gizmodo showed no respect for that right, committed a criminal act to obtain that IP, and then effectively sold that IP for its own profit. I want to see them punished.
...
Count me in on your lawsuit.
P.S. Gizmodo is in some ways like the consumer of child pornography: The creators of the pornography directly exploit the children, but the consumers create the financial incentive for the exploitation. Our bar-fly thief chose not to return-to-the-bar that iPhone that he determined to be extremely valuable, but Gizmodo provided the financial incentive for this thievery.
How about the finder, would you be claiming criminal activity if he personally had posted the pictures? I'd say no, people are allowed to post pictures of what they find, trade secret or not.
Provided financial incentive for theft? First the would have to have been "theft". The possible criminal activity here is something other than theft.
As for making an analogy to child porn, that's rather callous to victimized children, quite insulting actually. They didn't have the ability to protect themselves from being a victim. That's what makes it so heinous. Apple did have the ability to protect itself but didn't. I'm no lawyer, but it seems they may have lost any recourse for considering it a trade secret.