I do get your point, but really can't agree that just having the device outside their perimeter is equivalent to 'letting it out in public'. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the device was disguised as something else argues for the company's intent to keep its provenance secret.
Rather than attempting to bulldoze you, since we disagree about this fundamental distinction and have no judge handy to rule on it, here's some extra information which I feel underscores my view of things, and which you might find interesting:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9175839/Apple_demands... about the Gizmodo incident in particular, with some commentary by an IP lawyer. FWIW, Mr Church seems to agree with the basic argument I've been making, although obviously we're all limited by our awareness of the actual facts.
Rather than attempting to bulldoze you, since we disagree about this fundamental distinction and have no judge handy to rule on it, here's some extra information which I feel underscores my view of things, and which you might find interesting:
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/TradeSecrets/Not... Washington U. Law quarterly, particularly pp945-950;
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/conten... a more general article (but a little out of date, from 1999);
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9175839/Apple_demands... about the Gizmodo incident in particular, with some commentary by an IP lawyer. FWIW, Mr Church seems to agree with the basic argument I've been making, although obviously we're all limited by our awareness of the actual facts.