backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by AntDX316.. on May 21 at 4:13 AM


Jason Chen's sloppy iPhone breakdown damaged the prototype and may have added vandalism to the list of pending charges against him and other Gizmodo staffers.  (Source: Gawker Assets)
Vandalism and sale of trade secrets are two of the top charges that may be leveled against Gizmodo's staff

Gizmodo/Gawker employees Brian Lam and Jason Chen are embroiled in a mess over the fourth generation iPhone that they purchased and then tore apart.  Lam and Chen contend that the iPhone was merely lost and that they are innocent.  Apple, however reported the phone stolen.

Documents concerning the case and the search of Chen's house have been released in the form of an affidavit pertaining to the search of Chen's home.  The damning summary of the case comes on page 12, which reads:

Suspect Brian Hogan found or stole a prototype iPhone 4G that was accidentally left at a restaurant by Apple employee Robert "Gray" Powell. Hogan identified the owner of the phone as Apple Engineer Gray Powell through the contents of the phone and through Internet searches. Rather than return the prototype phone to Powell and/or Apple, Hogan subsequently sold the iPhone Jason Chen in Fremont for $5000. Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com.

It's will be mighty hard for Gizmodo to dispute that, except perhaps for the phone's status being stolen.  However, Apple had reported the lost phone prototype stolen before Gizmodo found it.

Gizmodo's writers appear to have not been truthful about at least one significant detail of the incident.  In their coverage they claimed they bought the prototype for $5,000.  According to multiple accounts the real total was close to $10,000.  Detective Matthew Broad describes in the affidavit an interview with Katherine Martinson, roommate of Brian Hogan, the man who found and sold the phone:

Martinson said Hogan later showed her a camera box that contained $5000.00 in $100 US Treasury Notes. Hogan told her that the money was a result of selling the phone to Jason Chen. Martinson said Hogan told her he has received a total of $8500.00 the sale of the phone, but she is not sure of the source of the additional $2500.00. Martinson said Hogan also told her that he will receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo.com in July if and when Apple makes an official product announcement regarding the new iPhone.

(Note: There seem to be some discrepancies in Detective Broad's numbers, he probably meant $5,000 and $7,500; not $5,000 and $8,500.  The take home message, though, appears to be that Gizmodo paid more than the $5,000 they claimed.)

The affidavit also reveals:

Martinson said she and other friends attempted to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone prototype on the basis that the sale would ruin the career of Robert "Gray" Powell (Apple engineer who lost the phone). Hogan's response to her was that it, "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

It also reveals that Hogan had an accomplice -- his roommate Thomas Warner.  Warner, who has a misdemeanor history, helped Hogan try to destroy evidence of the phone.  States the report:

Based upon the fact that Warner directly assisted Hogan with the removal and concealment of evidence directly related to this case, I believe it is highly likely that Warner was involved and or conspired with Hogan in the negotiation and subsequent sale of the prototype iPhone and that his efforts to conceal and or destroy the evidence as an indication of his consciousness of guilt. I also know that cellular devices like BlackBerries and iPhones function as small computing devices and that they maintain large quantities of data which include, but are not limited to call logs, email communications, system logs, GPS logs, text messages, applications, and Internet browsing history. Additionally, based upon my training and experience, I know that continued use of the devices can result in the deletion of data and or potential evidence on the phone.  Therefore, I seized the items as evidence.

Unfortunately, Warner and Hogan's attempts to hide or destroy the evidence were largely for naught, as the pair apparently had a change of heart and directed police to the evidence they had ditched.  The ditched items include stickers that identify the phone as an Apple prototype, a camera memory card, a USB memory stick, and a computer.

The affidavit also contains part of the email exchange between Brian Lam and Steve Jobs, in which Lam demands a letter of authenticity for the phone's safe return.  Jobs complied with the demand, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit indicates that Chen and/or others at 
Gizmodo will likely be charged with receiving stolen property, vandalizing private property, and sale of trade secrets.  Even if they can escape the claim that they bought stolen property, they will be particularly hard pressed to fight the vandalism charge, as it is obvious they damaged the expensive prototype.

The seller Hogan may be charged with felony theft and or sale of trade secrets as well.  And his friend Warner may be charged as an accomplice to these actions  They may find it hard to prove their innocence, given the fact that they tried to destroy evidence of their actions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Waste of Judicial Resources
By Ard on 5/14/2010 7:32:25 PM , Rating: 5
I can't see these charges standing. I've dealt with the stolen vs. lost argument ad nauseum so I won't go into again. As for sale of trade secrets, while Apple might be able to convince a court that undisclosed hardware specifications are enough to classify a prototype as a trade secret, they would still fall flat on their face for not taking reasonable efforts to safeguard that secret. Releasing phones into the wild, understanding that they could be lost, stolen, or observed by the public, does not satisfy the reasonable precautions requirement of the law.




RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By karkas on 5/14/2010 8:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It's not like someone broke into the engineer's apartment or apple and stole the phone. I think they will have a hard time proving that the phone was stolen and not lost. Just trying to get rid of evidence doesn't prove you stole it. They could easily argue that they simply got scared and wanted to distance themselves from the affair. It's not like they are attorneys and their liability.

This whole thing is BS imo. How are average citizens to be held accountable for trade secrets if they don't work for the company involved?

If I find the next blackberry on the street and give it away or sell it on E-bay, and it turns out to be some dropped prototype I may go to jail?? Seems dodgy to me...


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By whiskerwill on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By eskimospy on 5/15/2010 1:09:17 AM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point. In order to get someone for theft of trade secrets, you have to take reasonable precautions to protect your trade secrets to begin with. Having an engineer go out to the bar and knock back a few beers with your precious trade secret is unlikely to qualify as a 'reasonable precaution'.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By StevoLincolnite on 5/15/2010 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
To me it's just another "evolutionary" phone (Not revolutionary). - All these headlines, all these police raids over a simple phone.

What has the world come to!?


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By sigilscience on 5/15/2010 5:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's real simple.

Was the phone his? No.

Did he know who it belonged to? Yes.

Did he make money off selling someone else's property? Yes.

He just better hope for getting off with probation and a fine.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By lexluthermiester on 5/18/2010 4:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
It is not as simple as you think.

quote:
Was the phone his? No.


Did the person/company who owned the device report it stolen or lost? Not for 3 days. That, under certain legal statutes, is considered abandonment. It was left in a bar and the guy who left it there didn't own it.

quote:
Did he know who it belonged to? Yes.


This might be a valid legal point IF the phone had not been abandoned.

quote:
Did he make money off selling someone else's property? Yes.


This also might be a valid legal point IF the phone had not been abandoned.

Now do I think they needed to use better judgment? Sure. Does that bad judgment qualify as criminal behavior? Certainly not. People lose phones everyday. And while it sucks, it's life. A friend lost her iphone, twice. Once it was returned. The second time it was not. As it turns out the second time, the person who found it had called AT&T and reported it found and then held onto it. It took more than a month for them to contact my friend and let her know, by which time she had replaced it. She called the guy and thanked him for trying being honest and told him to keep it. Not everyone is that honest or can be. A few years ago, I found a Creative Zen mp3 player on the sidewalk with no one around to claim it. Local statutes for my city is to report anything of value over certain dollar amount. When I called the police to report it they literally told me it was not worth the effort and to keep it. Under those circumstances, it is legally abandoned, as was my friend's iphone.

There is a very serious difference between lost/abandoned and stolen. The folks at Gizmodo didn't use the greatest of thinking power when they made the choice to buy the phone, but no crime was committed.

This should also be an interesting read;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31376177/Gizmodo-iPhoneO...

Apple has manipulated law enforcement and the courts to see "their" point of view. Reality is something different.


By Mojo the Monkey on 5/19/2010 7:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think your argument about what abandonment is fallacious. Abandonment, in whatever jurisdiction or context you're talking about, has a lot to do with the mental state of the person doing the abandoning. If he did not intend to leave it out of his control, its not abandonment.

Not filing a police report may help you argue that abandonment occurred, but there is no way that its enough by itself. Lots of people lose things and dont report those items stolen. Those objects are not abandoned. That fact, alone, will make a simple lack of reporting insufficient to show abandonment and, therefore, not really a good argument for you to make here.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By inighthawki on 5/15/2010 1:51:29 AM , Rating: 4
If that were the case you could just give a bunch of employees new prototypes and "leave" them places, then sue dozens of people if they say anything about it.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By Solandri on 5/15/2010 3:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
We hashed over this last time. California law is quite clear about this. If you find lost property, you have to make a good faith effort to return it to the owner, or the establishment where you found it (so they can try to track down the owner). If you can't do that, you have to turn it over to the police (after some period of time, if it's unclaimed, it becomes yours). If you don't do these things, which appears to be what happened in this case, the item is considered stolen.

While it's in your possession, you'd be free to take pictures of it and (if you were really careful) probably disassemble it. If these guys get good lawyers, they might be able to get off arguing that Gizmodo simply paid for the rights to access, photograph, and handle the phone. But from everything I've read it sounds like they bought the phone, which makes it trafficking in stolen goods.

Mind you I'm not happy that Apple was able to use its legal clout to get a police raid of Gizmodo's office, when the police took over a day to send someone to investigate a burglary at my dad's office. But legally, Gizmodo is on very shaky ground.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 1
From another story on the subject:
quote:
Hogan reached out to several publications and websites “in an attempt to start bidding for the iPhone prototype,” according to Broad. “Martinson said Hogan understood that he possessed a valuable piece of technology and that people would be interested in buying it.”

Martinson said she and other friends tried to talk Hogan out of selling the prototype, arguing it would ruin the career of the Apple engineer who lost it, Broad said in the affidavit. “Hogan’s response to her was that it ‘Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.’”

Gizmodo Bonus
Hogan was to receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo in July if and when Apple makes an official product announcement about the new iPhone, Martinson said, according to Broad’s affidavit.
I know the irrational hatred Apple engenders, but I really don't understand how anyone can condone this sort of behavior.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By InsaneGain on 5/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By Chaser on 5/17/2010 8:22:51 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that Apple has changed the entire playing field with the iPhone. But I think the resentment stems from a few reasons.

1. The Draconian controls that Apple bakes into its products.
2. The "Fischer Price" technology experience that attracts 14 y/o teenagers to buy an iPhone as a fashion, texting/phone device. Similar to a compact held in purse.
3. The Apple smug factor that draws it's lemmings to a product mostly due to campy ignorance rather than technological edge.

feel free to add on more folks.


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By wiz220 on 5/16/2010 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 3
Possession is nine-tenths of the law ;)


RE: Waste of Judicial Resources
By DM0407 on 5/16/2010 9:06:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Possession is nine-tenths of the law ;)


Glad someone said it! This is like the "But can it play Crysis?" of stolen goods.

I think all parties involved are in a tough position here, including the police who apparently care more about finding stolen property for Big Biz than keeping the community safe.

On a scale of 1 to 10. This should been a 1 for the police.


<no subject>
By Scabies on 5/14/2010 7:17:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video


...are you serious?




RE: <no subject>
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: <no subject>
By Scabies on 5/14/2010 10:50:52 PM , Rating: 5
forgive my ignorance, but the above quote leads me to believe that taking pictures of it is as bad as replicating it, which (again, forgive the ignorance) seems absurd to me.


RE: <no subject>
By chick0n on 5/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
RE: <no subject>
By InsaneGain on 5/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: <no subject>
By icanhascpu on 5/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: <no subject>
By atlmann10 on 5/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 1:37:08 PM , Rating: 1
"proprietary information" is not like a state secret. Information isn't protected just because it wouldn't suit a corporation for it to become public knowledge. A corporation can't declare something proprietary information and it gains a protected status as if it had been stamped with "top secret".

The term only has legal meaning if there is a contract (and this is a provision of said contract) or if it's a trade secret, and something doesn't become a trade secret just because you call it that, you have to take every reasonable step to keep it secret.

So, essentially, taking your point, if someone doesn't "work in the tech industry" (say for apple or for one of apples partners), they don't have to give a f-k about so-called "proprietary information".


RE: <no subject>
By porkpie on 5/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: <no subject>
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 2:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Reread what I said.

"The term only has legal meaning if there is a contract (and this is a provision of said contract) OR if it's a trade secret, and something doesn't become a trade secret just because you call it that, you have to take every reasonable step to keep it secret."


RE: <no subject>
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 2:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
And you are overstating your point with "such as" and "also".

Trade secrets did not have legal protection (and still don't in many other countries) until the law you mention (which was passed mid in the mid 90s).

They do now, but this protection is not gained because a corporation decrees something a trade secret or because they can make a case that are disadvantaged if it becomes public knowledge, they have to demonstrate they have taken every reasonable step to keep the information secret.


RE: <no subject>
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 3:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Trade secrets did not have legal protection (and still don't in many other countries) until the law you mention (which was passed mid in the mid 90s)."

Lol, what? Son, trade secrets have been protected for centuries. The law I referred to just updated and codified the standard. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act has been steadily adopted since the 1960s, and long before that, there was extensive case law and a varying pattern of differing state laws. Take a look at a case like Peabody v. Norfolk, which dates back to 1868:

http://www.jordasecrets.com/2007/10/jorda_on_trade...

The British protected trade secrets all the way back to Medieval times, and even the Roman Empire had laws protecting trade secrets.


RE: <no subject>
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, they haven't. Not in the sense you seem to believe; that they are protected because a corporation calls them trade secrets or would be disadvantaged if they became public knowledge.

Trade secrets are not a property right and do not have that kind of protection in Britain. So why you brought up the UK as an example, I don't know.

The united states is different (and pretty much unique among common law countries) in that it does recognise trade secrets as a property right. But this is still not an absolute right, corporations don't just de facto 'own' 'their' 'information'.


RE: <no subject>
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 5:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Although,

looking on wikipedia (I'm not a lawyer obviously).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets...

This 2007 law, which has been adopted in California, does exactly what you want.

It makes something a trade secret if it "derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known" and defines misappriation to include obtaining the trade secret "from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or by accident or mistake".

This has no basis in history though. Historically obtaining the information by illegal means did not protect a trade secret.


RE: <no subject>
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 6:27:04 PM , Rating: 3
You're as wrong about this as everything else you've posted:

quote:
The United Kingdom provides broad and effective protection for trade secrets. Search-and seizure orders may be issued to protect trade secrets and preserve evidence. There exists the full panoply of remedies for a "breach of confidence" including injunctive relief, damages and third-party liability.

Many aspects of the doctrinal development of the law of trade secrets in the United States came from England.
http://tradesecretshomepage.com/intern.html

Trade secrets are not protected as "property" in the UK ... but they are still very much protected. I'm not an IP attorney...but as a substantial amount of my income derives from IP, I have dealt with several dozen of them over my career, in both North America and Europe.


RE: <no subject>
By tmouse on 5/18/2010 7:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
If you read any of my posts in other articles it should be clear this is not a trade secret so the amount of legal protections trade secrets have is irrelevant here. A trade secret CANNOT be by legal definition be something the holder plans to reveal to the public at any time, so the specs of the phone cannot be considered a trade secret. In addition a trade secret CANNOT be something that can be readily discovered by cursory examination of the end product (this includes removing the outer covers to look inside). If someone was looking at this guy using the phone they would have seen several of these "trade secrets". Finally a company must PROVE that all reasonable measures are taken to protect a trade secret. Giving the guy a prototype to take outside of the building where he admits just placing in into his man purse at his feet in a public place and admitting to leaving it unattended really does not meet this burden of proof. Was it proprietary confidential information, absolutely, can the specs of a device be a trade secret, absolutely not.


Is this realy a crime?
By austinlvfr on 5/14/2010 8:50:49 PM , Rating: 1
I cannot believe this realy a crime givin similar situations...

The iPhone (& Jobs) is something of a celebrity, and therefor it is newsworthy. Although completely unrelated, when Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee's honeymoon tape was stolen from their house (by construction workers who found the safe while installing new flooring), the judge ruled it acceptable because their lives were newsworthy. The judge said they should not expect the same level of privacy as the general public (ultimately they got a cut of the profits according to wikipedia but were unable to prevent it's circulation).

I think the iPhone is newsworthy and it doesn't deserve the same level of privacy as the public. It's not like gizmodo is publishing detailed info they stole from Lockheed Martin and giving it to the Chinese! Finaly if my iPhone was stolen, would anyone care? No legitimate police department would send a minute of manpower investigating my loss. Whoever is investigating this loss is letting real criminals get away while they become Job's henchmen.




RE: Is this realy a crime?
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 9:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finaly if my iPhone was stolen, would anyone care? No legitimate police department would send a minute of manpower investigating my loss. Whoever is investigating this loss is letting real criminals get away while they become Job's henchmen.

Your iPhone is not a prototype containing proprietary information not yet released to the public.

Whether or not a real crime was committed -- well, let's just say that if the police didn't think there was a crime then they wouldn't be investigating. If it goes to court then it is very like that there was a crime. A judge and jury will make the final call.


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By intelpatriot on 5/15/2010 7:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
"Proprietary information" - This only applies between employer and employee or other contracted parties.

Trade secrets were made a special case and do now, as of the 1990s, have extra protection but only in the case (as has been pointed out) where every reasonable step to keep the information secret.

In this case it would hinge upon whether Apple telling an employee "remember not to drop a phone" counts as reasonble. I doubt that would hold water.


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By rtk on 5/15/2010 11:37:27 AM , Rating: 1
If it's unreleased, unannounced and Apple isn't admitting it's their prototype, it's not proprietary information. It's not even Apple's, it's Gray's.

If I mod my blackberry 8900 so that it's no longer recognizable as a blackberry 8900, when I lose it it should be returned to RIM?


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
f it's unreleased, unannounced and Apple isn't admitting it's their prototype, it's not proprietary information. It's not even Apple's
Huh? You have it entirely backwards. If the phone and everything about it were released public knowledge, it's not a trade secret.

Hint: see the word "secret" in the phrase trade secrets?


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By rtk on 5/15/2010 6:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Except of course, that doesn't make a lick of sense, common or legal.


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By jconan on 5/14/2010 10:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably also because of corporate influence. Steve may have more of an influence because of his attorneys where Pam and Tommy didn't have any knowledgeable in the realm.


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By sprockkets on 5/15/2010 10:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, they can afford attorneys.


RE: Is this realy a crime?
By icanhascpu on 5/15/2010 2:44:33 PM , Rating: 1
1. Do you see gizmodo shitting themselves over getting YOUR iphone. Retarded point.

2. Comparing this coverage to someone stealing national security secrets to give to the Chinese is even more fucking retarded. Stop going to tech news sites if you dont want to read about it.

3. Youre really reaching far to attempt to downplay what happens and the effects of it to a large company it can have. Thus the court system, where people a hell of a lot more reasonable than you are "realy" going to decide.


I'm sick of this...
By CZroe on 5/15/2010 1:31:22 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, people keep reporting that they paid $5,000 "for" the iPhone but, in fact, they paid $5,000 for access to it with every intention to return it to Apple as soon as they requested it, which they did.

These Anandtech/DailyTech articles keep saying that they indisputably purchased stolen property, which is FALSE.




RE: I'm sick of this...
By Xavi3n on 5/15/2010 5:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, in their original article they said they brought the phone, only after the cops came calling did they backpeddle and say the brought access to it.


RE: I'm sick of this...
By CZroe on 5/16/2010 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
No. Look it up. They said they paid $5K "for" it. What they had was an "hands on exclusive." What they paid for WAS the hands on exclusive. Other people interpreted it differently: What they had was [presumably, posession of] the 4th gen iPhone. What they paid for was[, assumedly, ownership of] the 4th gen iPhone. None of those assumptions will hold up in court.

Their exact wording was that they "got it for $5,000 in cash." Yes, they paid $5K for it to be overnighted to them for a hands-on exclusive and disassembly before handing it over to Apple at their request. They may have tried to buy a bit more time by asking for confirmation from Apple but, if you remember, that was over on Day 2... the phone was sent right back to Apple. It's not like they cared to keep it after that when their preview is over and they'll be able to buy it for $200 is a couple months.


RE: I'm sick of this...
By porkpie on 5/16/2010 4:56:03 PM , Rating: 1
I really don't understand why logical thinking is so difficult for some people. Regardless of semantic games with whether they paid to "own" it versus simply "hold it", the fact remains that, as California Law is written, they "stole" it.

It wasn't their property, and they took action with that property rather than immediately returning it to the owner. Worse, those actions netted them financial gain (which isn't a requirement for theft, but will certainly become an aggravating factor.)

Play sophist all you wish, but a more productive attitude might be to attack the California law itself as unfair, rather than blindly pretending they haven't broken it.


RE: I'm sick of this...
By Integral9 on 5/17/2010 10:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Gizmodo article claims they contacted Apple before the story to get confirmation on the phone and Apple said it wasn't their phone and denied it's existence. It wasn't until after Gizmodo published the article that Jobs got his panties in twist. If true, I think that pretty much absolves Gizmodo of any wrong doing.

I think what's going on here is a PR smear campaign by Apple against Gizmodo trying to discredit them as a news source.


RE: I'm sick of this...
By bruce24 on 5/17/2010 11:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
yes they 'claim' the guy that was shopping the phone around before getting Gizmodo to pay him $5K, tried to return it. His roommate is saying something different:


Apple discovered that Hogan was the person who found the iPhone the day Gizmodo’s story broke, after Rick Orloff, director of information security at the company, received a phone call from one of Hogan’s two roommates, Katherine Martinson. She told Apple that Hogan had found the phone and had been offering it to news outlets in exchange for a payment, despite having identified Powell as the rightful owner from a Facebook page visible on the phone’s display when he found it.

“Sucks for him,” Hogan allegedly told Martinson about Powell. “He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.”

Martinson turned Hogan in, because Hogan had plugged the phone into her laptop in an attempt to get it working again after Apple remotely disabled it. She was convinced that Apple would be able to trace her Internet IP address as a result. “Therefore she contacted Apple in order to absolve herself of criminal responsibility,” according to the detective who wrote the affidavit.


from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/roommate-...


RE: I'm sick of this...
By tmouse on 5/18/2010 8:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
You are the one who should really read up on the law. First the despite Jason's usual accuracy <sarcasm> (did you even read the warrant Jason?) the police were called into Apples offices on 4/20/2010, the item was missing on 3/25/2010 almost a month after the "theft". It wasn't until Jobs was asked to own up to the phone on the 19th that the police were called (coincidence, I think not, I think this should be looked into given Apples role on the REACT steering committee). So there was ABSOULTLY NO WAY for ANYONE outside of Apple to know the device was missing. Gizmodo got an offer to get a hold of a device that someone CLAIMS to be a prototype. It's a story either way it went. If it was a prototype why didn't Apple report it stolen (which would have successfully prevented examination of the device since anyone who got a hold of it would have known it was stolen property, it is NOT necessary to buy it just receive stolen property). If it was a fake it could be a story about Chinese knockoffs or Apple releasing dis-information. $8000 is chump change for any of these exclusive stories. To convict Gizmodo on this charge they will have to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, Gizmodo either knew it was stolen before they bought or paid the guy to get it, AND intended to deprive Apple from the device (you can buy as much stolen stuff as you want if you return it to its owners). EVERY communication I have seen mentions Gizmodo contacting Apple (whether they looked inside or not is irrelevant see my post above on the bogus trade secret claim). There is a VERY weak case at best against Gizmodo, the other jokers are justifiably fried.


Pirks is a woman?
By taber on 5/16/2010 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Detective Matthew Broad describes in the affidavit an interview with Katherine Martinson , roommate of Brian Hogan, the man who found and sold the phone:


And here I thought Pirks was a guy.




By PAPutzback on 5/17/2010 9:18:01 AM , Rating: 1
Who pays 10G for a phone. I'll tell you someone who knew the phones value to Apple and had blackmail on the mind. Then they got scared and pointed the police to the evidence and thought they would buy some leniency. Too late for that idiots, you posted the pics online. China will have a working unit for sale before Apple's phone gets to the AT&T outlets.




By tmouse on 5/18/2010 8:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course looking at some chips is all you need to make a knockoff. So far the only crime that has been committed has been Hogan's selling the phone and trying to destroy evidence with his friend. Technically when they sold it they stole the device but NOT until then. You clearly have no idea how the press works hundreds of dollars can be given for even a sniff of an exclusive, a few grand will be more than made on the hits from a story of a real prototype, a knockoff before the release of the real thing or Apple being caught leaking the device. Remember the device went missing a month before the police were called in, that's how valuable the device appears to be. They bricked it the next day so it appears the software was more important. They only called the police when the HTC phone was being released a month later to steal some headlines and quite possible to harass Gizmodo.


'Ratted Out"?
By CalWorthing on 5/14/2010 7:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
The 'roommate' apparently did the right thing, probably in an effort to defer complicity, as the thief 'allegedly' used her computer to try and reactivate the stolen phone.

Sleezy folks being elevated by scuzzy media.




I really....
By chagrinnin on 5/15/2010 12:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
...can't imagine what the context was for that picture.

Chen: Heh heh,...they didn't confiscate everything! Wheeeeeeweeeeeee,...that's ripe!.




Stop calling it a damn 4G
By spathotan on 5/16/2010 12:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Its not a damn 4G phone, AT&T isnt even near rolling out 4G service. At least call it "4th G" or some other lazy acronym.




Umm....
By adiposity on 5/17/2010 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Where are the multiple accounts putting it close to $10,000, Jason?

I see one account that says $8500, but that appears to be inaccurate (as you stated) and really means $7500.

Bottom line, it may be more than $5000, but not exactly close to $10000.




By tmouse on 5/18/2010 8:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
You are really crossing the line with this story. Did you read the warrant? You state:

quote:
However, Apple had reported the lost phone prototype stolen before Gizmodo found it.


The affidavit clearly states the detective meet with Apple on 4/20/2010 isn't that AFTER the Gizmodo story? The device was lost on 3/25/2010 BUT Apple did not report until a month later.

You go on to say:

quote:
Gizmodo's writers appear to have not been truthful about at least one significant detail of the incident. In their coverage they claimed they bought the prototype for $5,000.


Again the affidavid says:

quote:
Martinson said Hogan told her he has received a total of $8500.00 the sale of the phone, but she is not sure of the source of the additional $2500.00.


You even quote this, do you even read what you write. You are so clearly prejudiced against Gizmodo here you are automatically assume they were lying. Maybe Engadget paid him $2500 for the story they published? Gizmodo did say additional money would come later but they could have only paid him 5K thus far. If you cannot divorce yourself from your personal feelings in this story perhaps you should at least have someone else edit it for you so you biased slant is not so obvious, or at least keep it to your blogs which is the proper place for opinions, those were NOT facts.




bikini
By xinxiong on 5/18/2010 11:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Show your style and charm,The popular is what you want, right?

girl , Juniors , Accessories ,
Style Expert: ===== www. ongoin. com =====

We’re always mindful of fashion that’s in it for the long haul – those pieces you grab and go without fail every time, that, like a good friend, just couldn’t be more reliable.

Though a trendy handbag is a fun choice for, say, an evening out, an everyday bag that meets your everyday needs is a wardrobe must.

We’re eyeing neutral bags that move from month to month with ease, that suit every possibility with style and that make your life much easier with a host of functional details.

Check them out:===== www. ongoin. com =====

“ Echocardiography action ” FREE sHIPPING!!!(^.^)

,”’?????.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
??¦¦?”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
|?|??¦ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
++++++++++++++++++
>>>——I love you! —->





sandvich
By cerx on 5/20/2010 4:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Let her out of the kitchen and she outs you to the interwebs.




By AntDX316 on 5/21/2010 4:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
Just detail about vandalism and sale of trade secrets but it does not say what the maximum penalty and fine is.




So much for that
By whiskerwill on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: So much for that
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 9:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.

To all you users who sided with Gizmodo and the seller in past articles, claimed this was Apple's fault, or claimed that the phone was not really stolen, I have one question:
What now?


RE: So much for that
By chick0n on 5/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: So much for that
By tmouse on 5/18/2010 8:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
Alright please explain why the device was "stolen" a month before the police were called in? Don't get me wrong the 2 jokers involved deserved to get fried but I believe it was found. If they were smart they should have taken a lot of pictures and then "worked with" Gizmodo to find the owner. The story still could have been released and they could have been paid for the story. Now Gizmodo is probably in the clear and I for one would like an Investigation into why the REACT team was brought in to illegally confiscate a journalists computer (under California and Federal statutes even if a journalist is accused of a crime their computers CANNOT be seized under a search warrant, the SPECIFIC data must be subpoenaed from their main offices). This smells like pure intimidation from Apple to the press as a warning " release things we do not want released and we will use our police influence to make your life hard". On top of this the warrant was executed at night which the warrant explicitly forbid. This "evidence" will NEVER see the light of day and I will be surprised if charges are ever even filed against Gizmodo. I hope Gizmodo sues the pants off that department. The other guys are pretty much toast.


RE: So much for that
By Makaveli on 5/14/2010 9:53:11 PM , Rating: 5
As soon as I saw this part

"Hogan's response to her was that it, "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

Fuck both of these douche bags. I don't know about the rest of you but I was raised not to fuck someones else life just to make money.

I hope they both go to jail.


RE: So much for that
By kmmatney on 5/16/2010 11:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. If I lost my phone and found out that someone had it and sold it to make a quick buck, I'd be pretty pissed off at them. I've found a lost phone twice, and both times was able to call the owner and get the phone returned within a day (to the great relief of the owners).


RE: So much for that
By hr824 on 5/14/2010 9:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Martinson said she and other friends attempted to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone prototype on the basis that the sale would ruin the career of Robert "Gray" Powell


Hey throwing people under the bus for cash is the American way. I think goldman sachs will snap hip up after his 6 months.


RE: So much for that
By Looey on 5/15/2010 11:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
"Hey throwing people under the bus for cash is the American way."

No it's not. This is a result of bad people and is not the American way. Get it anyway you can is instilled by the liberal education system in America.

The attack on Goldman Sachs by Obama is a power grab. Go see who he was partying with during a fund raiser in NY on 5/14/2010.


RE: So much for that
By hr824 on 5/15/2010 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 3
Ha ha liberal education system?...My wife's a teacher so excuse me if I don't believe your nut ball conspiracy that's based on absolutely nothing but the voices in your head

How is this political, corruption isn't limited to one party, those that think one is better then the other are deluding themselves.



RE: So much for that
By rtk on 5/15/2010 11:56:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote:
However, Apple had reported the lost phone prototype stolen before Gizmodo found it.

That destroys one objection the Apple haters kept trying to toss out there.

Even if it could possibly be construed as stolen before or after Gizmodo posted it, Apple could only report it as lost before it was published.

Otherwise, everyone that's ever lost a cellphone should be reporting it as stolen.

quote:
quote:
Hogan's response to her was that it, "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

And that destroys another.

When asked, Hogan said Martinson told him that if he didn't sleep with her, she'd make up allegations about what he said to her about the lost phone.

Funny the things people can say other people said to them.

quote:
quote:
The ditched items include stickers that identify the phone as an Apple prototype

Most damning of all.

If it had a sticker with a nuclear symbol, should they have assumed it wasn't a phone at all but a dirty bomb?


RE: So much for that
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 12:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
With logic like this, I sincerely hope you're never called to serve on a jury.

"Apple could only report it as lost before it was published."

If you leave your car in a parking spot, and return to find it missing, you report it stolen. Same thing with a phone or any other piece of property. If you know definitely where you left it, and its no longer there, someone took it.

" Hogan said Martinson told him that if he didn't sleep with her..."

Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself with this? One person here has substantial motive to lie, the other not only has no motive, but her story is corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

"If it had a sticker with a nuclear symbol, should they have assumed it wasn't a phone at all but a dirty bomb?"

This is the most ludicrous bit yet. There's no doubt whatsoever he assumed the sticker was accurate, because (a) he attempted to hide it, and (b) he began auctioning the phone on the basis of the information on the sticker.

Are you seriously still trying to suggest he didn't know it was Apple property? I suggest you return to your CounterStrike game, and leave the thinking to people with practice in it.


RE: So much for that
By rtk on 5/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: So much for that
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 2:27:19 PM , Rating: 1
"After a night of drinking and forgetting where someone left their car"

Powell did not forget where he left the phone. He returned to retrieve it -- just as one would retrieve a parked car -- only to find it had been taken.

"Circumstantial evidence backing up hearsay..."

No. Circumstantial evidence backing up direct testimony. "Hearsay" is a different concept altogether.

"...sounds like you can slam the door on that cell without even a trial."

Oh, there will be a trial in this case, unless Hogan plea bargains...which he would be wise to do, given the enormity of the evidence against him.

"I encourage you, the next time you lose a phone, keys, wallet, etc to call your local police station and report the theft. Post back your experience."

Considering I once did report a stolen wallet, and the police did file a report, I don't think this makes the point you want it to. Had the thief been unwise enough to post details of this theft online, I'm sure they would have raided his home as well....in fact, I would have insisted upon it. You would do the same, yourself...but in your blind hatred for Apple, you're allowing hypocrisy to cloud your judgement. A very poor show, indeed.


RE: So much for that
By rtk on 5/15/2010 2:56:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Powell did not forget where he left the phone.
He forgot it in the first place, and the phone was eventually returned to the proper owners without police involvement, there was no theft.

quote:
He returned to retrieve it -- just as one would retrieve a parked car -- only to find it had been taken.
To start with, consciously parking a car and forgetting/dropping a phone are not analogous.

quote:
Oh, there will be a trial in this case, unless Hogan plea bargains...which he would be wise to do, given the enormity of the evidence against him.
Might want to save the predictions until someone is actually charged with a crime here.

quote:
Had the thief been unwise enough to post details of this theft online, I'm sure they would have raided his home as well....in fact, I would have insisted upon it.
"Wallet found in the area of <whatever location>, if you can confirm it's yours, come and get it."

The fact you think you can "insist" on a raid of a home shows just how little you understand about law.


RE: So much for that
By porkpie on 5/15/2010 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
"He forgot it in the first place,"

So? If you believe that changes anything, I suggest you visit your local law library.

" the phone was eventually returned to the proper owners without police involvement"

It was returned intentionally damaged, and with its most valuable component -- the trade secrets -- removed. If you think Gizmodo returning an empty shell changes anything, I again refer you to the law.

You can whine and cry about this situation all you wish, but the fact remains that more than one law was broken. Apple may have billions of dollars, but they're still entitled to the same protection of personal property that you and I are.

"The fact you think you can "insist" on a raid of a home"

If you're ever involved in such a situation, you'll find you most certainly can. While no amount of insisting will induce the police to seek a warrant without proper evidence, if that evidence exists, and a lazy investigator doesn't take action, citizen involvement been known to swing the pendulum.

Luckily that wasn't necessary here. Apple didn't need to insist; the police came on their own, invited by the suspect's own roommate.


RE: So much for that
By rtk on 5/15/2010 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So? If you believe that changes anything, I suggest you visit your local law library.
So, feel free to show me anywhere where there's a law that gives you the right to set an object down anywhere, leave and return at any point in the future to find the object exactly where you left it. The device was returned to it's owner.

quote:
It was returned intentionally damaged
Damage to what, the finish on the screws? If I find a wallet, I open it to determine who owns it. It was returned in the same condition it was found.

quote:
and with its most valuable component -- the trade secrets -- removed.
Nothing was removed, all internal components were in place, and the only empty shell here is your logic.

quote:
the fact remains that more than one law was broken.
Yet weeks later, not a single charge has been laid. Whatchya think they're waiting for?

quote:
Apple may have billions of dollars, but they're still entitled to the same protection of personal property that you and I are.
You've got it exactly backwards. Increasingly, it's looking like because of Apple's billions of dollars, they were awarded powers and protection completely out of line with what any other entity would have been given.


RE: So much for that
By bobny1 on 5/15/2010 8:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
What is wrong with the legal system?. If there is anyone to blame it should be Apple. How can anyone in their right mind can explain the fact that such a top secret device that can potentially generate billions of dollars for Apple can end up in a bathroom floor of a local bar. I believe there is much more to the story that they are trying to coverup. I won't be surprise they want to blame the Taliban..LOL


RE: So much for that
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/16/2010 11:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
Congratulations, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You've yet to make a single sensible post on this article. Just thought I'd let you know, since I certainly am not going to waste my time rebutting your posts.


RE: So much for that
By sigilscience on 5/17/2010 8:15:30 AM , Rating: 1
You have to remember these are the same idiots who honestly believed this guy made an honest attempt to return the phone to Apple


RE: So much for that
By beerhound on 5/16/2010 12:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
rtk: "He forgot it in the first place, and the phone was eventually returned to the proper owners without police involvement, there was no theft.

California penal code:

"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."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s4...

The guy found a phone and sold it rather than return it. I'd say that fits the above description.

Forget Apple's initial denial of ownership. Based on the $5000 deal they struck, the guy and Gizmodo obviously knew what they had. If you don't believe Apple when they say it isn't theirs, then you knowingly sold Apple's property. If you do take them at their word, then all you have done is determine who it doesn't belong to. You still haven't met the requirements of the California law.


RE: So much for that
By beerhound on 5/16/2010 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
To add a bit more info:

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki