I'd suggest one of the main reasons that Gizmodo published the guys name is that Gruber implied immediately that they stole the prototype
How is that a valid response? Leaving aside your mischaracterization of what Gruber actually wrote, what does publishing the guys name, not to speak of his picture and other information, get them that couldn't have been accomplished without the personal details, aside from a bunch of page views?
My point is not that Gizmodo did the right thing (far from it) but that Gruber is actively involved in hyping this thing up. I don't think its a mischaracterisation to say he implied it was stolen, it's right there in the text of the post.
He makes a living blogging about Apple. The fact that someone got their hands on an iPhone prototype and sold it to Gizmodo is a major story for his audience. I wouldn't call him commenting on the ethics and legality of it "hyping this thing up" and I have a hard time seeing how it makes him an active participant in the story or in any way responsible for Gizmodo's actions.
Gruber has every right to cover it, no question, but how he covers it is important. He started talking about theft before he had any evidence that this was anything other than the worst drunk phone loss in history. He raised the temperature of the story and he profits from it directly in page views.
So you think Gruber is guilty of uninformed speculation on the legality of Gizmodo's actions. I don't see how that makes him "just as much to blame as Gizmodo". You seem to agree that if the naming and shaming of the engineer was a response to Gruber, it wasn't a reasonable or even logical one, so how can you hold Gruber responsible for it?
Gruber's aggression toward Gizmodo fans the flames - he knows this, he's in the business of page views - and off the story shoots, racking up ad impressions for everyone. The only one to come out badly from this is the poor guy that got a little bit drunk and lost his phone.
Let's pretend that he wasn't trying to fan the flames, wasn't chasing increased page views and wasn't motivated by ad impressions, that he just wanted to share the information he got from his sources and his views on Gizmodo's actions with his readers. In what way could he have done that without giving you the wrong impression?
How is that a valid response? Leaving aside your mischaracterization of what Gruber actually wrote, what does publishing the guys name, not to speak of his picture and other information, get them that couldn't have been accomplished without the personal details, aside from a bunch of page views?