I think you missed the point. Once Apple lets the device out into the public, it gives up any claim to trade secrets. It doesn't meet the requirements, and so misappropriation of trade secrets is a non-starter because it wasn't a trade secret to begin with.
If you were right, then every new product leak that Gizmodo, Engadget, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times report on would be a violation, which clearly isn't the case. As would every teardown article that's published by iFixit and the like.
Apple may have a case for theft against the "finder", and they may have a case for purchase of stolen goods against Gizmodo, but they don't have a trade secrets case against either.
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.
If you were right, then every new product leak that Gizmodo, Engadget, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times report on would be a violation, which clearly isn't the case. As would every teardown article that's published by iFixit and the like.
Apple may have a case for theft against the "finder", and they may have a case for purchase of stolen goods against Gizmodo, but they don't have a trade secrets case against either.