Image via Wikipedia
I've revised my assessment of guilt under CPC s. 485 after it was brought to my attention that both parties had knowledge of the original owner's identity as a result of viewing his Facebook account on the phone before it was bricked. Accordingly, the following is my revised assessment of criminal liability under that statute.
California Penal Code s. 485, “Appropriation of Lost Property by Finder," provides: One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Based upon what I’ve read, I think the original finder (OF) and Gizmodo are out of luck. Both Gizmodo and OF knew the name of the Apple engineer to whom the phone belonged--it was discovered by OF when he first found the phone in the bar and accessed the Apple engineer's Facebook account.
Pursuant to CPC s. 485, since they knew the identity of the original owner, both parties had an obligation to make reasonable attempts to locate him and return the phone. In fact, after the phone had been disassembled, Gizmodo located the engineer, posted photos of him and was able to reach him by phone.
Accordingly, both parties failed to make reasonable efforts to locate the original owner of the phone and appropriated it to their own use: OF sold it and Gizmodo disassembled it and blogged about it.
There are other criminal statutes that may apply as well, including CPC s. 496 and Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.