backtop


Print 297 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on May 1 at 9:48 PM


California police raided Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's residence yesterday. The warrant indicates that the editor may face a felony charge for purchasing stolen property, referring to the infamous lost iPhone prototype.  (Source: NBC)
Will criminal charges be brought against the iPhone leakers?

The battle over the lost iPhone prototype is heating up.  After Gizmodo broke Apple's veil of secrecy, spilling the beans on their upcoming summer fourth-generation iPhone in a super-scoop, Apple demanded the iPhone be returned.  Gizmodo complied, but the case isn't over. 

On Monday 
Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's California residence was raided by Silicon Valley's computer crime force.  They executed a search warrant.  

Under Section 1524 (g) of the California penal code and Section 1070 of the California Evidence Code, journalists enjoy special protection against search and seizures.  While this was widely covered yesterday, what was not was why the police were able to override those provisions.

According to the warrant, the Californian court issuing the search warrant was well aware of the 1524 (g) protections, but executed the search because it believed that the property involved "was used as the means of committing a felony [and] it tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony."

So is Jason Chen, the purported buyer of the "lost" iPhone going to face felony charges?  No one knows for sure.  However, the Californian penal code Section 496 does indicate that buying a $5,000 stolen item would be a felony, so that remains a very real possibility.  In California, "[e]very person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained…" is eligible for conviction.

The felony charge can carry up to a year of prison time, if the defendant is found to be guilty.

In other news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet’s leading digital rights advocacy group, has attacked the raid saying that it violated state and federal laws.

EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick told the 
Business Insider, "There are both federal and state laws here in California that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure for their news gathering activities. The federal law is the Privacy Protection Act and the state law is a provision of the penal code and evidence code. It appears that both of those laws may be being violated by this search and seizure."

Granick indicates that the EFF believes that journalistic protections on the books override search mandates, even if the police suspected a crime was committed.

Was Apple truly hurt by the leak?  While the publicity can't hurt sales of its new phone, it likely will put a dent in sales of the current generation model as people may opt to wait until the better version lands this summer.  Additionally the leak gives Apple's competitors a couple extra months of knowing what they need to release in order to stay competitive.



Comments     Threshold


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

What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 10:43:52 AM , Rating: 5
This is what I got from it:

-Someone finds an iPhone prototype, contacts Apple
-Apple refuses it's theirs, does not accept return
-Engadget got some photos up on a supposed iPhone prototype
-Apple fans reject those photos to be an Apple design
-Owner of iPhone is thus still unknown
-Gizmodo out of interest of if it's genuine finds person, takes risk and pays major premium to obtain phone for review
-Gizmodo tries to return to Apple/contacts them about lost phone?
-Apple denies having lost an iPhone prototype?
-Gizmodo does the review
-Apple comes out and says they did lose phone, wants it back
-Gizmodo complies
-Apple gets their phone back, then calls police have Gizmodo editors house raided.
-And here we are

Not sure what's true and what's not since too many things happened during the timeline but if what I think above has any truth to it, Apple is a two-faced manipulative little bitch IMO.




RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not saying Gizmodo is completely in the right here but Apple was playing stupid games when those involved made a genuine attempt to return said device. Like I said, I don't know what the actual timeline is and only if what I think happened is true would Apple be two faced.

Apple wouldn't be wrong for seeking justice but I don't think Gizmodo is in anyway responsible for Apples blunder, if they are then Engadget is as much responsible for leaking pictures. So they lost the phone, they refused to take it back initially, anything that happened after that is their fault. Gizmodo *returned* it after they asked for it back later which was too little too late by then. But if they had any due diligence, they should have and would have gotten their phone back before all of this could have happened.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By semo on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
It's psycholoical..., you'd have to agree a lot if not most people are instintively greedy. If you find something, you might make a genuine attempt to find its owner, but if you can't, certainly it would be best if you get to keep it right? If you turn it over to the police, you pretty much lose your chance at that.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 3
Jeez, fine, don't trust the police. But at least check with the bartender to see if anyone tried to claim it. An honest person would do that.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 12:07:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The person playing stupid games here is you. A genuine attempt to return it would have been to mail it back to Apple. A semi-genuine attempt would have been to at least reach someone in the corporate office, rather than a random CS rep (if he even did that-- we only have his word for it at this point).
I would 100% agree with you if Apple did not deny that this was the next gen iPhone.

There is nothing genuine about this entire scenario. If Apple really wanted the phone back to begin with, they should have claimed the phone as theirs.

Why on earth you think it is the responsibility of the finder to prove to Apple that this is truly their device is beyond me. He made an attempt to convince Apple, they denied it.. nothing more to say here. If you really think this is the norm in this kind of scenario you are kidding yourself. They went over and beyond the norm.

Posting full blown articles online proving why this is a real iphone is what I call a genuine attempt, they did not conceal the fact that they had ownership, they were merely trying to invalidate Apples comments and show everyone that this was truly the next gen iPhone..

So the question remains, how are any of Apples actions in this case 'Genuine'?

If they truly were, they would have genuinely called up gizmodo and asked for the serial. Instead they decided to deny, deny ,deny..

Apple was playing games here, they obviously wanted to keep the new iPhone specs concealed. Heck perhaps they thought they were calling their bluff, either way, Apple was playing the games here. Gizmodo/Engaget have been upfront since the beginning and have not lied about anything either. They even stated the phone was found and that they had bought it from the finder for 5k


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By clovell on 4/27/2010 12:35:22 PM , Rating: 4
Why mail it back to someone who has said that it's not theirs? I understand calling someone at the company who knows more about wtf is going on, but - to use your analogy...

If you left your Rolex at a party and someone called your wife to ask if you lost your Rolex (which you never told her about), would you expect him to just mail it to you after that (even though your the only guy he knows who has a nice watch)?

Not so certain I'd trust the bartender all that much, either.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By SpaceJumper on 4/27/2010 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 5
It is Apple responsibility to keep it secret. Apple will have to suck it up.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 5
My initial reponse is not based on that. I'm just thinking if any of this would have happened if Apple were honest to begin with by admitting that they did lose a phone and wanted it back. The actions of Apple resulted in the actions of Gizmodo. I'm just trying to say both are at fault, that does not in anyway imply hate. I'm just being objective because this situation isn't cut and dry.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 12:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with much of what you said but I think of it this way. It's quite sad how in this country that you are burdened with so much responsibility for finding something on the street[that wasn't yours] and probably likely won't even be compensated for your efforts. What's worse, you could be legally liable and face prison time for it. It's kind of BS. So this is a bit off topic but why would anyone want to pick anything up if they find it on the floor when faced with so much negative possibilities? But if everyone did that[never pick up anything], no one would ever find what they lost. It's a bit of a paradox.

That said, I know Gizmodo screwed up too, obviously they were ahead of themselves. In their defense, it really is hard to pass up an opportunity like this when it presents itself. Much more if Apple denies having lost such a phone altogether that you'd almost certainly think you got the green light to do what you want. That's the basis for my argument. Gizmodo should not be hung out to dry because of Apples dishonesty with their inventory. Because it was Engadget who leaked the photos first, Apple had the opportunity to end it there but they chose to play games and as a result, Gizmodo ran with it. What's BS is when Apple finally admitted they lost it and asked for it back, Gizmodo did not object but not until after they handed it back did Apple call the police and had the guys house ransacked. It's hard for me not to feel a bit pity for Jason.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 12:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
"If you look at the Gizmodo article, they dissected that phone in as much detail as they could and made a very compelling case for why they thought it was real. If they were that sure it was real, they should have returned it, not exploited it."

That's the other part that's somewhat debatable. Some would say it wasn't until after they disected it that they were almost certain it was real but by then it's too late. And they still had the cloud of Apples "It isn't ours" statement hanging over their heads.

I'm not debating theft here, they clearly bought property that wasn't theirs. I'm not going to use the word steal because it's such a gray area based on the circumstances. The problem is that although they should be charged for whatever the case may be, it shouldn't have been through the request of Apple. It was Apple who initated the investigation but IMO they lost their privlege to do that when they lied about whether or not it was theirs initially.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Sylar on 4/27/2010 3:03:57 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not... as I've stated in my original post, I'm not entirely sure what is or isn't true but if what I've read is true then I have some sympathy for Gizmodo.

When Engadget first leaked photos saying it's of a lost iphone, didn't Apple release a statement stating that they didn't lose one? I'm not entirely sure what happened when Engadget first broke the story.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If they were that sure it was real, they should have returned it, not exploited it.


They did return it.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 4:03:15 PM , Rating: 1
After exploiting it.

They took a joy-ride in the stolen car first.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By 8meagain on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By ICBM on 4/27/2010 12:54:17 PM , Rating: 3
Someone please show me the dictionary definition or law that states you have to make a good faith effort to return a lost item.

It is Apple's fault because they knew this was a risk by letting a phone go out of their building. They knew something like this could have happened. It is time people/companies take responsibilities for their own actions and deal with the consequences.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 3:56:53 PM , Rating: 5
without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him (emphasis added ;) )

Not only did the finder attempt to call Apple, he even had a support ticket made, and also waited for the guy to return to get his phone. (in which he never did) i.e this law does not apply.

You are looking for section 2800 which is about returning lost items, but does not mention what happens if you don't comply.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Laura K - thank you for posting the law. However, not only did Gizmodo try to make a "good faith effort", they actually DID return the PHONE!

Now, if the police would have busted in and found them in possession of stolen property? That would be a little different don't you think? As far as we know, they did NOT find any stolen property.

Because ... Gizmodo ... actually ... returned ... the ... phone. Not just good faith effort, but actually delivered.

(they took it apart first)

My question is, should they have returned it to the Apple engineer or Apple directly, or given it to the bar owner? I would have taken pictures of it, and gave it to the bar owner, myself. I imagine the raid took place to identify the person who removed it from the bar. THAT apparently makes the raid illegal, because Gizmodo CAN protect that source. Its not a case of defending their action but protecting a source.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, no doubt, money exchanged hands. That does not bode well for Gizmodo. However, since they gave it back when asked, a prosecutor will have a lot of work in a criminal case.

For your b) part... a civil case is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Gizmodo stands to lose a lot in a civil case. (Just curious, can you post a law that says causing financial harm to a company is a felony? I mean, causing harm alone? Because media circuses often cause a lot of harm with editorials. And I really don't know anything about that.)

I would think, though that if the original guy who took the phone from the bar was prosecuted for theft, they couldn't use evidence obtained from the confiscated equipment or a mistrial due to illegal search and seizure would occur.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 3:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think whether or not you give back a stolen item has any bearing on the previous crime of knowingly purchasing stolen property. As others have said, it might convince a judge to go easy on your sentencing, but the original felony still stands. In this case, however, a judge would recognize that Jason Chen only gave back the phone after it was no longer valuable to him, so I doubt it would make Jason look like a good citizen at that point.

As for what kind of crime / tort it is to cause financial harm by exposing trade secrets / intellectual property, I don't know. I'm not an attorney, and I haven't yet read articles discussing this angle in any detail. My point was that Jason giving back the phone doesn't erase the other crimes / damages.

I don't know the rules about search and seizure very well either. If the police legally obtain a computer during a legal search and seizure, and on that computer they find evidence of another (distinct but related) crime, can they use that evidence in court? I would think that anything that was legally obtained could be used, even if it was obtained in the investigation of a different crime (for example, investigating a murder turns up DNA evidence of a different murder), but I don't know the law.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Azure Sky on 4/28/2010 12:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I would bet you that he could have turned around and sold it for more then giz paid to a competing company so the phone could have had value to him in that reguard.

I dont know about cali law but here if you buy "stolen goods" and return them either on your own or after a request the cops dont raid your house or arrest you for it, Infact I have done that exact thing, I bought a Zune30 from a friend of a friend, well after playing with it I found that it turned out it was likely stolen, I contacted the owner and was actually rewarded(paid back and then some) for returning the zune, mind you, I could have just wiped the zune and kept it or resold it, but I was honest and gave it back.

apple should have let it go at getting the device back, this really is a scare tactic more then anything else, they want to try and make sure that no other news organizations or blogers will get ahold of their beta devices and publish information on them.

Thing is, Had the author of this artical been 1/2 way smart he would have been FAR more careful about how he published, Had I done the artical, knowing how insain and fascist apple are(gestapo tactics against employees for starters), I would have for startes used a pen name and submitted/published the artical that way, Also would have asked giz not to give out my personal addy/contact info as they did(i read the orignal articals about this, giz gave apple full contact info for jason so he could setup a time to return the phone)

oh well, hope he had his porn collection encrypted :P


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By 8meagain on 4/27/2010 6:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, Suck it up Laura...


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By Exelius on 4/27/2010 5:45:17 PM , Rating: 3
IANAL, but:

1) It's not a trade secret. As soon as a "trade secret" leaves an organization, it's no longer a secret and no longer afforded protection as one.
2) Good faith is something that will be decided by the courts. The private e-mail logs will pretty much prove everything and I don't think Gizmodo is stupid enough to put anything down on paper that would implicate them.
3) There's a good chance this all gets overturned by journalist protection laws.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By radializer on 4/29/2010 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
Usually, the trade secret piece is accurate for the Uniform Trade Secrets Act enacted in the US, where companies are expected to protect their confidential information through non-compete and non-disclosure agreements.

However, there is a "misappropriation" clause that makes things a lot more grayscale.

I have a feeling that if there is a trade secret issue ... even this may have to be decided by the courts - if it ever gets to that, that is.


By inighthawki on 4/27/2010 6:33:55 PM , Rating: 5
When you deny that something is yours you immediately give up the rights to ownership of said product...


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By crystal clear on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the timeline on this?
By JimCouch on 4/28/2010 10:06:26 AM , Rating: 5
I agree 100% and I think Apple needs a smack upside the head but do you think it will happen? Hell no...
As nasty as Apple is to their customers and competitors not one person will boycott them. All the iPhone users will keep their little toys and scramble to buy this stupid thing as soon as it hits the street.
Personally I would never buy anything Apple and if you gave me one I would sell it as fast as I could and buy ANYTHING else.


RE: What's the timeline on this?
By mmatis on 4/30/2010 12:15:03 PM , Rating: 1
While Apple may indeed be "a two-faced manipulative little bitch". as a private entity they have the right to be. The REAL problem here is the pigs. They KNEW the phone had been returned. There was PLENTY of information out there saying Apple had been contacted in multiple attempts to return the device. There is something called "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment. But the filthy maggot pigs couldn't be bothered to honor their oath of office. Apple was evil, but the stench of the GD pig swill is overwhelming.


On the fence...
By Spivonious on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By samspqr on 4/27/2010 10:02:40 AM , Rating: 5
they did not purchase stolen property: they bought abandoned property

the phone was lost, then found, then the people who found it tried to give it back to apple, who refused (they said it probably was a chinese knock-off); and only then was the phone sold to gizmodo


RE: On the fence...
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: On the fence...
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 1:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
By your logic Smilin, if someone leaves their wallet on a bar, you notice and pick it up and look at it, you stole it.
You find no identification in it, but some personal items. You ask around if it belongs to anyone. If someone says, "Nah, thats not mine." you ask round some more.

Then the guy says, "oh hey wait! That is mine!" and you give it to him.

Then the police come after you for stealing. You asked, you gave it back when it was identified. You didn't keep any of the contents. Is it STILL stolen? Was it STILL stealing because you picked it up?

Come on.


RE: On the fence...
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 3:22:07 PM , Rating: 3
Well, Gizmodo paid money for it. That's bad for them. But they didn't sell it to a competitor of Apple, they didn't keep it to themselves.

They exploited the situation. Much as Apple will exploit the press coverage and all. Reverse engineering is a common practice. Once you release a phone into the wild, people will take it apart, or put it in blenders.

I think personally that a criminal trial won't come to much. A civil suit will. I think Apple, Gizmodo and every news outlet covering it will profit from it. I think its illegal to purchase a stolen good. I think finding something, taking it apart and posting pictures of it online, then giving it back is unethical. I just don't think a criminal case will happen. I think it has too much publicity for Apple to try a strong arm tactic. I'm no expert. I'm just contributing to the really long forum here. :)


RE: On the fence...
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By pxavierperez on 4/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By Art123 on 4/29/2010 4:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
yes, technically, it is a crime...

should have called the cops in the first place and let them sort it out...


RE: On the fence...
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if it's not theirs then it's someone else. But who?
Gizmodo's?


RE: On the fence...
By SpaceJumper on 4/27/2010 11:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
Some of the Chinese smart phones are actually better than the iPhone. They have quad bands and dual SIM slots, and more. The phones don't even need jail breaking and no buggy iTunes software required. I believe that if Apple found a Chinese phone that is better than theirs, Apple will quietly buy the phone without any hesitation.


RE: On the fence...
By WW102 on 4/27/2010 3:21:12 PM , Rating: 1
Since it seems this whole thread is full of "silly" analogies to try to show moral and legal rights here is one.

When you see money left on a table at a resturant, was that money abandoned as well?


RE: On the fence...
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/27/2010 10:04:31 AM , Rating: 4
I'd be amazed if Apple doesn't press charges. Gizmodo was very very dumb to admit in writing, nonetheless, that they purchased the lost iPhone for $5,000 (bumping it to an automatic felony).

From what I've read, based on the Calif. legal code, the whole incident falls in somewhat of a gray area, as the property obviously DID belong to Apple, but Giz did try to return it. The point is you don't want to put yourself in a gray area, especially when it's against Apple, a company that has proven itself vindictive in the past.

Its hard to argue that Apple in the short term wasn't hurt by the incident. It gave its competitors a heads up about what's definitely incoming, and gave buyers a reason not to buy the iPhone for the next few months. Ultimately, that's a bad thing for Apple in the short term.

Personally I feel Gizmodo's staff don't deserve to face any criminal charges, but I can't help but also think they behaved rather stupidly in this case.

And the lengths they went to personally attack the employee who lost the phone was disgusting. They can claim all they want that they did it to "protect his job", but the fact of the matter is that his career is now tainted, and he will likely be blacklisted from other tech companies, whether he knows it or not. I'd be amazed if HE doesn't sue Giz for character defamation or slander, as their story on him was very speculative (inferring that he was drunk and lost the phone, rather than merely misplacing it) and uncalled for. If it wasn't for that personal attack, I suppose I'd be more sympathetic to Giz.


RE: On the fence...
By samspqr on 4/27/2010 10:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
it will all depend on how well gizmodo can prove that there was an adequate attempt at giving the phone back to apple


RE: On the fence...
By Spookster on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: On the fence...
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By Mitch101 on 4/27/2010 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 5
APPLES FAULT 1. Apple lost a phone in a bar. No one broke into Apple to obtain the phone. It was outside the place of work in a public facility.

APPLES FAULT 2. Apple tracking was broken due to a software bug. Apple could not locate the lost phone.

APPLES FAULT 3. Tech tried to return it to Apple and they told him he must have a Chinese knockoff. Apple should have a list of prototype serials so their techs can identify and give proper return instructions.

At this point the new owner is the person who found the device if he wants to sell it go ahead. He found a buyer.

But to re-enforce the point again an APPLE EMPLOYEE LOST A PHONE IN A BAR. NO ONE BROKE INTO APPLE SO THERE IS NO THEFT.


RE: On the fence...
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: On the fence...
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 11:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your ownership of property only ceases when you sell, give it away, or intentionally abandon all claim to it. It does not cease because you accidentally left it in a different location.
I'm sorry but thats not correct, your ownership 'temporarily' ceases when the product in question has been unintentionally removed from its owner's possession through his or her neglect or inadvertence..

In this case the device was not intentionally removed from the owners position, but was a result of his/her personal neglect. It was not intentionally left somewhere with the intension of picking it up later. This is more than enough to sufficiently establish that the device itself was lost and not in the owners possession and not mislaid.

I don't think thats the issue here though, the issue is that at some point Gizmodo became aware of the devices true owner. At that point the finders ownership may be forfeited.

The problem here is that Apple flat out denied that this was their device at first, so I don't see how the discovery of ownership is going to stick. You can't nail someone after he takes it apart to verify whether the device is truly real, and thus Apple property.


RE: On the fence...
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you go to a party at a friend's house and leave your $20,000 Rolex behind, it's still yours. And if someone picks it up and sells it, they've committed a felony.
FYI bad example.. A house is a private place. A bar (where this took place) is considered a public or semipublic place (where the public is invited or expected to be) and thus may be considered lost. As such the bar owner/manager does not automatically represent the owner.

A house is private property, the owner can fully represent the owner, not to mention you could easily make the case the the item was mislaid and not lost in the first place. The person could have knowingly left his watch with the owner, and was going to come back and get it.

In this case it would definitely be a felony, but it is not the same situation as the lost iPhone.


RE: On the fence...
By Flunk on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: On the fence...
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 11:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ownership of property doesn't transfer to people who pick up things that are lying around. Otherwise I could just walk up, break in to and drive away in any car on the street legally
Actually it does, assuming the item in question unintentionally removed from its owner's possession through his or her neglect or inadvertence..

What you discribe with the car would be considred mislaid property at best. You know you left your car and its contents at a certain spot and you intend to come back and get it. Thus it cannot be considered lost..
quote:
Legally the finder of lost items is required to either return them to the owner or if the owner cannot be found, the police.
Not really correct, you are not required to bring truly lost items to the police. With a lost item, you have the right to possess it over anyone but the true owner. If the owner can't be found, its yours. It just so happens that the easiest means of doing so its handing said item over to the police and waiting the required period to gain TRUE ownership. (i.e before the waiting period, the finder has the right to posses said item over everyone but the true owner.) Of course these laws vary from state to state, but the premise is similar.

Furthermore, Apple originally would not take ownership for the device, they claimed it was a fake. One could easily argue that at that point it became the property of the finder. (in which no true owner could be found)


RE: On the fence...
By Spivonious on 4/27/2010 12:47:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you are not required to bring truly lost items to the police


In most jurisdictions, the finder is required to bring it to police. Police will then attempt to find the owner. If after a certain waiting period (usually 30 days), the owner cannot be found, only then does it become property of the finder.


RE: On the fence...
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 3:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
That appears to be the case in the state of California.

Anything over 100 dollar value must be reported.

I still really wonder about this though, if you know who the owner is, but the owner wont take responsibility, would that not make it an abandoned item? (which is not covered under the cali loss of property statute)

Really makes me wonder, especially when you consider that Apple later filled the device as stolen even though it clearly was not. They guy who found it called all the numbers on it and even opened a ticket with Apple support (in which he got no response).


RE: On the fence...
By pxavierperez on 4/28/2010 6:52:11 AM , Rating: 1
idiot, read all the sources/facts first before you blabber on.

owner frantically called the bar owner numerous times for his lost iPhone.

apple never released a statement denying claim to the product. finder called Apple tech support who put him on hold.


RE: On the fence...
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and don't try to tell me that "lost" items aren't stolen
lost items aren't stolen


That's the ticket
By MrBlastman on 4/27/2010 10:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Intimidate, harass and threaten the public. Way to go Apple!

Apple needs to face the facts: One of _their_ employees took the phone out with them and lost it. Do I blame the guy in the bar for selling it to Gizmodo? No. Did he contact Apple first to try and give back? Who knows--he probably made that part up. Did Gizmodo do something wrong by paying for the phone?

That is debateable. They knew the phone was lost, well, they knew that something was lost. They also, under all of their knowledge, knew that the phone was not stolen. A lost phone is not a stolen phone.

At the worst, the Apple employee should be disciplined (and not by FoxConn ;) ) and I think they have a case to force Gizmodo to give the phone back--wait, they already did! Beyond that, I don't think Apple can sue them, nor can they press criminal charges on them either. Apple screwed up, they should suck it up and accept that they did and try to keep their secrets more "secret" next time.

This raid on the journalists home--that is deplorable. Given Apple's latest history, I'm suprised he is still alive, actually (well, their employee at least). Just because they are Apple does not mean that they _are_ the law though.




RE: That's the ticket
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 10:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
California law is clear about "found" property. You cannot buy it or sell it without making reasonable attempts to find the owner and give it back.

I don't think any attorney would have much trouble proving that the owner could have been easily found, if Gizmodo or the guy who sold the phone had actually wanted to find him.

The law was broken, whether the Apple-haters like it or not. And all companies have a right to protect their trade secrets. Gizmodo knew it was a huge coup, and their lawyers are idiots for letting them go public with their article.


RE: That's the ticket
By MrBlastman on 4/27/2010 11:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Define reasonable attempts? Supposedly Apple was repeatedly contacted about the phone and instead of accepting the phone in return, Apple sluffed it off as some cheap Chinese knockoff or something completely insignificant. Now, is this documented in a way that can be admitted as evidence? Probably not--it is just heresay, but, from what I have read, attempts were made.

If Apple did not accept those attempts and instead as has been reported blow those attempts off, then they are the only ones negligent here, negligent to themselves.


RE: That's the ticket
By porkpie on 4/27/2010 11:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
"Define reasonable attempts?"

Turn the property over to the police. End of discussion.

"from what I have read, attempts were made."

You mean, you believe the guy who stole the phone, right? And he has no reason to lie, now does he?


RE: That's the ticket
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 11:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
I've posted about this elsewhere in the comments, as have others. But ask yourself what a reasonable person would do if they found a phone in a bar and they actually wanted to return it to the person who lost it. Go ahead, ask yourself. Then see if that guy did it.

Answer: Honesty FAIL.


RE: That's the ticket
By MrBlastman on 4/27/2010 12:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they did make a very good effort of posting up:

Found--lost iPhone, here are pictures of it so you can see what we have!

... on the internet. They did a very good job with it too. :) Kind of like finding a cat on the street and then putting posters up to find the original owner.

Okay, maybe it wasn't that honest, they did pay 5k for it. I also doubt the original guy honestly made an attempt to return it to Apple. But, in the end, Gizmodo didn't keep the phone, they did return it to Apple after they confirmed it was real--and published pictures of it.

Gizmodo wasn't under NDA. They just took pictures and put them online.

I've seen leaks on new cars in the past and the photographers were never sued or thrown in jail over it. People aren't jailed for a long period of time for photographing Area 51 either--just look at google maps. Apple screwed up here and at the least you should be able to agree that they need to reassess their internal checks and balances on keeping IP wrapped up tight before they are ready to release it to the public.


RE: That's the ticket
By Xavi3n on 4/27/2010 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I'm aware no-one took the Cars and then sold them to a journalist several times higher than their retail price?

An equivalent would be, Prototype Car has been left unlocked, with keys in ignition on the road, someone gets in it, takes it. Then sells it to a Car Journalist for $200,000 after making a call to his local dealership, which wouldn't know anything about the Prototype.


RE: That's the ticket
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But ask yourself what a reasonable person would do if they found a phone in a bar and they actually wanted to return it to the person who lost it.
Are you seriously trying to imply that calling a company numerous times, trying to make a support call and waiting at the bar for him to return is not sufficient?

Whether or not the guy would to the edge of the world to try and return it is completely irreverent and for all intents and purposes just flat out unrealistic.

The phone was bricked too, are you seriously saying you would go find the owner of what seemed to be a broken iPhone? If he had brought into the police, it would have been his in 90 days.. Apple never reported it as lost or stolen, and made no attempt to get it back.

I guarantee you this will not go to court.. unless the state/city wants a major lawsuit on their hands.


RE: That's the ticket
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 5:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm seriously saying that.

Case 1: Let's assume they really weren't sure it was a real Apple prototype, as they have said. If that's true, then explain to me how trying to return it to Apple is a genuine attempt to return the phone to its owner? And if they really were trying to return it to the guy who left it in the bar, then no, waiting one or two hours is not sufficient. You would at minimum call back the next day to see if anyone had reported a lost phone, which the finder did not do.

Case 2: Let's assume they are sure it's an Apple prototype. Explain to me how calling a low-level tech support representative with a vague verbal description of a top secret product is sufficient? Here's a quote from Gizmodo's own website: "There is no way — not a chance — that a middle-level customer service rep would have known anything about the next iPhone."

http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-t...


RE: That's the ticket
By MrBlastman on 4/28/2010 9:26:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"There is no way — not a chance — that a middle-level customer service rep would have known anything about the next iPhone."


Guess what? It is not up to the finder to know that. How on earth is everyone on earth supposed to know all about everything? They can't.

They made a reasonable attempt to return the phone. It is Apple's fault for hiring tech support workers that don't care enough about their company to not have the pride to go ask one of their managers about the possibility of the story being true.

The attempt was made. Apple failed to reciprocate. Apple must blame themselves and institute better quality control when hiring applicants to service their front lines.


RE: That's the ticket
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
all companies have a right to protect their trade secrets

Correction as follows:
"...all companies have a responsibility to protect their trade secrets".

The obligation was Apple's to protect from being lost, not to destroy all those who decided to look at the opened Arc.
<Shameless reference to the movie, "Raiders of the Lost Arc">

"I could tell you about the new iPhone but I'd have to kill you, cut off your head and store it in a safe."


RE: That's the ticket
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:03:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"I could tell you about the new iPhone but I'd have to kill you, cut off your head and store it in a safe."
.....Unverified quote by Apple CEO Steve Jobs


RE: That's the ticket
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
That is correct!

And now a bonus round.

Who said, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you, cut off your head and store it in a bitlocker"?

Also, who said, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you, cut off your head and store it in a lock-box"?

Answers to follow.


RE: That's the ticket
By pxavierperez on 4/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: That's the ticket
By MrBlastman on 4/28/2010 8:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
You know what is even better?

An i-Zombie that can't even spell "Loser" correctly calling other people idiots.

One "o," not two please.

As for the rest of your post,

quote:
gizmodo illegaly bought a iphone then exploited financially to gain page views not too mention run the risk of disseminating trade secrets


Trade secrets? Why should Gizmodo care about trade secrets? They are not under NDA from Apple. They are a news website that reports about news and facts. They did not speculate about the new i-Phone, instead, they procured a real item and reported about it.

Exploiting this phone that they came across is called Capitalism. They saw an opportunity and they pounced on it.

The rest of your argument is moot. They tried to return the phone. The original finder tried to return the phone. Apple refused to accept the phone. They did their diligence, so at that point, you can't really blame them.

If I found your car, went to your house, knocked on your door and said: "Sir, I found your car, would you like it back?" and you said: "No." Then tough, you should have kept your car when I offered to give it back. From what we can tell so far in the news, this is what happened. Don't try to make up analogies that do not fit the facts that have been reported here.


By Laura K on 4/27/2010 10:15:00 AM , Rating: 1
They broke the law by not making reasonable efforts to locate the owner of the phone. What would you do if you found a lost phone in the bar?

Would you give it to the staff at the bar, or at least notify them and give them your contact info? Yup, you would, because you'd figure the person who lost the phone would look for it there (which he did, frantically).

Would you look in the phone for personal information, like an ICE number, or call a number listed in the phone to see if they'd know who owned it? How about calling the phone's own voicemail and leaving a message that the owner might be able to remotely retrieve? All good second choices.

How about notifying the police? Good third choice.

None of which were done by the guy who found the phone.

Instead, he made a perfunctory call and left a message on the Apple switchboard, then turned around and immediately sold it to a journalist. Why? Because he wanted to make money off it. Anyone can see that. And that is illegal.

This article has a good analysis of the legal situation: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-apple-could-...




By daniyarm on 4/27/2010 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
It's not his job to go around looking for the owner of the phone and spend his valuable time trying every single option. The law does not state what reasonable attempt is, but calling the company that owns the phone is probably a very good option. I don't see how that attempt won't hold in court, especially when Apple didn't even report it stolen. The guy called Apple, they said it's not theirs. Gizmodo did not buy a "stolen" phone, they bought a phone that was rejected by Apple. As soon as they verified that it's genuine they returned it to Apple.
And by the way, that article is pure Apple fanboyism at it's best. Rolex analogy is laughable, they overpaid for an item, not underpaid.


By porkpie on 4/27/2010 11:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
"It's not his job to go around looking for the owner of the phone"

Which is why he should have just given it to the manager at the bar, or turned it over to the police. Or best of all -- just left it where he found it in the first place.

He knew it wasn't his phone. Why pick it up and put it in his pocket?

"The law does not state what reasonable attempt is"

It most certainly does. Found property should be turned over to the police.


By Laura K on 4/27/2010 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. It is his responsibility to make a good faith effort to find the phone's owner, and if he didn't want to spend his precious time then he should have given the phone to the bartender or turned it in to the police. Any reasonable and honest person would do that...unless they were tempted by the idea of making money.

Ask yourself what this guy would have done if the phone had been some piece of crap 5 year old Motorola.


By bfdd on 4/27/2010 6:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
A customer service REPRESENTATIVE, you know someone who REPRESENTS the company, told him it wasn't theirs. It doesn't matter if they didn't know, they should of known, if they didn't then that's Apples fault. The guy contacted them more than once and they told him it wasn't theirs. So yeah, it's not stealing. He went to the owner(apple), not the guy who lost the phone, they claimed it's not theirs even though pictures had already been leaked in which apple claimed wasn't real. So yeah no theft sorry. If you don't want your company to have prototypes go missing don't let prototypes leave your building, if they do you better make damn sure EVERYONE knows that they're out there.


By Laura K on 4/27/2010 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just on the question of ownership, this logic fails. The finder and Gizmodo said they weren't sure it was an Apple phone. Then if they called Apple and Apple said it wasn't theirs, the obligation remains to find the OWNER. Who can be reasonably assumed to be THE GUY WHO LEFT IT IN THE BAR. Tell me with a straight face that the finder made a reasonable and just attempt to get the phone back to the guy who left it in the bar before deciding to sell it.


By 8meagain on 4/27/2010 6:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nice line of thinking, but the only problem with that is you can't return the phone to the engineer, because he has already been put in an ice locker buried a thousand feet deep in Siberia by his employer.


By Laura K on 4/27/2010 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
And anyway, if I'm reading the Gizmodo article correctly, the guy who found the phone checked it and found the FACEBOOK PROFILE of the owner. Now, how hard would it be to find the owner after that? Yes, the phone was bricked the next morning, but why didn't the finder try to contact the owner that night? Why didn't he send it to Apple so they could unbrick it and get it to the owner, especially if he thought it was a valuable prototype?


By Keeir on 4/27/2010 6:01:25 PM , Rating: 3
Laura K

Thats Hilarous.

Find for me Gregory Peterson. He has a facebook profile. Of course, which city he is in, what he does, how old he is, what he even looks like (profile pictures change and don't reflect real people often), and maybe his profile is hidden from public searching, or maybe not.

And comon, the guy who found the phone might have been completely drunk at that time period. It was after all- at a bar.

But this

quote:
Why didn't he send it to Apple so they could unbrick it and get it to the owner, especially if he thought it was a valuable prototype?


Where? What Mail Address? On Apple's site, there is no mailing address listed for "If you found a prototype device, please forward to this address".

The guy called Apple, asked for the address to send it to... no address? can't mail it to "APPLE PROTOTYPE DEPARTMENT" can you...


By Laura K on 4/27/2010 6:17:25 PM , Rating: 1
lol. Actually, I'm sure if you addressed a package simply "To Apple in Cupertino, CA" it would get to Apple. I'm pretty sure the mail carrier knows how to get a package there. But I'm not saying that's what he should have done. I don't see anything suggesting that the finder even asked for an address to send the phone. He had no intention of returning the phone. He had a chat with phone support and called it good.

As for the Facebook profile, the guy was looking at the name, photo, and city when he saw the profile. Hell, from what I can tell, he was logged in to the guy's Facebook profile...he could have sent the guy a message then and there. Written on his wall. Posted a note. Whatever.

As for the finder possibly being drunk, fair point. But that doesn't excuse him from never contacting the bar after he left that night to see if the phone's owner had come back for it. If you found a lost item in a store / restaurant / bar, wouldn't you at least check, at least once, with that establishment?


not accurate
By Art123 on 4/27/2010 10:25:59 AM , Rating: 3
it is illegal to buy or sell property not lawfully owned by you...whether it was found or stolen

if you find a lost item, it does not belong to you until a certain process has been followed, surrender, advertise, waiting period, etc.

paying $5000 for a $300 item indicates criminal intent and knowledge that it was not what it appeared to be

there's something else going on: we haven't hear from apple or the guy who 'lost' the phone...perhaps it was stolen? or abscounded with?

think about it: you find what appears to be a normal iphone and decide to call gizidmo to sell it, all within a very short period of time? this would imply you knew what you were looking for and had, and may not have been an 'accident'...

you do not enjoy journelistic immunity if you are part of the crime or conspiricy...only if you are reporting on such and not involved...otherwise a blogger could do a crime and hide the evidence in his home without fear of a seach...that's ridiculous




RE: not accurate
By SpaceJumper on 4/27/2010 11:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
Finder is the keeper. It is Apple responsibility to keep the phone secret.


RE: not accurate
By Xavi3n on 4/27/2010 12:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
Finders Keepers? what are you in a schoolyard? There are laws that need to be followed, you can't just go "Ha, i found a nice found on the table, i think I'll keep it!", the law clearly states you must give property that could be lost to the Police. The Police will make efforts to find the owner, if the owner is not found after a certain time, it is THEN yours, not before.

The guy had no right selling it to Gizmondo for $5k because the phone was not his and it would not be his until he followed the due process set out by the law.


RE: not accurate
By Xavi3n on 4/27/2010 12:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
second found = item.


RE: not accurate
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm unclear if finding something in a public gathering place like a pub constitutes theft as it could indicate that the original owner made little effort to keep it and his/her negligence constituted forfeiture. In addition one could conceivably argue the owner may have left it there intentionally to not be disturbed by some harassment as in boss, wife, husband, etc. Proof? Did the negligent person contact the owner of the establishment of his loss?

I would think though if found in a street the finder is under no obligation to return it to anyone. Finding is not stealing and shouldn't obligate a person to expend energy and time to find what may be an uninterested or even nonexistent owner.


RE: not accurate
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 2:19:11 PM , Rating: 1
Once again:

California penal code section 485

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 . (emphasis added)

The guy who lost the phone did call the bar to see if anyone had turned in his phone. Many times. Frantically. The guy who found the phone never bothered to check back with the bar, in the several weeks he kept the phone. He also had seen the Facebook profile of the guy who lost the phone, but never tried to contact him.


RE: not accurate
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 1:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
paying $5000 for a $300 item indicates criminal intent and knowledge that it was not what it appeared to be

If overpaying is a crime most of our girlfriends, wives and even Google, Inc. would be doing time.


Catch up to what?
By Gungel on 4/27/2010 10:01:12 AM , Rating: 1
Quote "Additionally the leak gives Apple's competitors a couple extra months of knowing what they need to release in order to stay competitive." What? the leaked unit did not reveal anything that isn't already available from HTC, Motorola or other manufacturers.




RE: Catch up to what?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/27/2010 10:07:35 AM , Rating: 3
What? You didn't see all of the "magic" and "awesomeness" along with multiple "BOOMS" emanating from the prototype iPhone?

If the competitors could just find a few ounces of BOOM, the iPhone is going down! :-)


RE: Catch up to what?
By AssBall on 4/27/2010 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
yeah wtf, this dude just went and left that magic boom and awesome all over that damned bar. what a silly ho. you can't just run around leaving god's gift to the world anywhere you want.


RE: Catch up to what?
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 10:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Keep your feelings to yourself if you don't know what you are talking about. You are kidding yourself if you don't think other manufacturers won't use this data to their advantage.

Nobody knew what the next iPhone would contain, now we know it most likely will contain a similar A4 chip (which is supposively just an Cortex A8) as the iPad with the screen resolution most likely matching it also.

Furthermore, none of this information was available, nor are many of the components available to other manufacturers, that was the entire point of Gizmodo buying the stolen iPhone.. and why Apple was so concerned about getting it back.


RE: Catch up to what?
By Bateluer on 4/27/2010 7:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
I said the same thing after the initial Gizmodo tear down. Everything in the prototype, hardware-wise, is already available, or will be available shortly, from competitors. Software-wise, thats all up in the air since the phone was bricked and the software is still baking. But fast SoC, high res screen, oodles of storage, etc, all done. And usually the competitors one up the iPhone by having removable batteries and upgradeable storage.


This is a waste
By F41TH00 on 4/27/2010 12:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is silly and out of proportion.

Apple has Mobile Me to track down the phone, did they track down the phone? Nope. They wiped the phone clean, but they didn't track it down?

When someone called Apple to return it, no one took it seriously. Apple think it's a hoax.

Now this? This is a waste of tax payer's money imo.




RE: This is a waste
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 2:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple has Mobile Me to track down the phone, did they track down the phone? Nope. They wiped the phone clean, but they didn't track it down?


There is reason to believe that the guy who found the phone didn't want it found again by the owner. AFAIK, Mobile Me will only track the phone while it is on. The guy who found it could have simply turned it off, or drove all around town, or lived in a large apartment complex, etc.


RE: This is a waste
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 3
BTW- I just remembered something funny. Years ago I found a cellphone sitting outside in a public place. Obviously somebody set it down and forgot about it. It was starting to rain which obviously wasn't good for the phone, so I picked it up. You know what happened later? IT RANG! Ha, duh, of course the person who lost it dialed the # and we returned the phone to her.

In the case of the Apple phone, if the guy was trying to call the bar where he lost it to see if it turned up, he surely was trying to also call the phone its self. It seems to further imply that the guy who had it didn't want it found. Particularly when he's approaching others trying to sell it for a mint.


RE: This is a waste
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently the phone was deactivated (bricked) the next morning. At least that's what Gizmodo said, and it's possible the guy didn't realize his phone was gone until morning. But someone had to file the "lost or stolen" report to get the phone bricked, and you'd think that person would have tried calling the phone itself first.

But I haven't seen any kind of statement from the developer who lost the phone (or Apple) giving his side of the story.


Uhhh
By AssBall on 4/27/2010 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
WTF, Jayson... your caption makes no sense. Isn't that the little porto rican dude that got deported? Seems like a stretch.




RE: Uhhh
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/27/2010 9:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
That was my fault, I didn't remove the caption.


RE: Uhhh
By AssBall on 4/27/2010 9:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
okay then, no worries... keep at it.


RE: Uhhh
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/27/2010 10:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
little porto rican dude

Cuban


5000
By adiposity on 4/27/2010 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 4
Well, IMO the 5000 was not paid for the phone, but for access to the phone. Gizmodo did not even want the phone but the exclusive.

You could argue they paid $5000 for the right to help return the phone (and in the process prove it was an Apple prototype).

Just saying, maybe not a felony.




RE: 5000
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
On Gizmodo's website, they say they "got" the phone for $5K and they refer to having acquired the phone. That doesn't sound like paying for rights to view the phone or "access" it or help return it.

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next...


RE: 5000
By adiposity on 4/27/2010 6:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
In the same way, Anand says he "received" samples, which he often has to return to after reviewing...

Point being, they "got" the phone could very easily mean they "got access."

If you are trying to imply the value of the phone was in using a bricked phone as a smartphone, you are seriously deluded. The value was in the exclusive access to the story.

Knowing that they suspected that it was a lost prototype, and that they planned to report on it, it is clear that their intention was never to keep it. Once the story broke, any hope they had of maintaining possession was virtually zero.

I'm not saying they didn't break the law. However, valuing the hardware itself as $5000, for the purpose of charging them with a felony, is a stretch.

The unusable prototype phone is not worth $5K. The story is.


I should go to jail too!
By oobflyer on 4/27/2010 10:13:16 AM , Rating: 4
I found a cell phone that someone lost too! I confess!




RE: I should go to jail too!
By SpaceJumper on 4/27/2010 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 3
Only if it is an Apple phone.


So screwed up
By mackintire on 4/27/2010 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 5
This isn't a completely cut and dry issue, but I will break it down for you all.

Employee assumed to be under NDA lost next gen iPhone.
"probably not a crime"

Someone finds iphone and offers to sell it to Gizmodo.
"This was a unlawful action"

Gizmodo purchases suspected phone for $5000.
"Gizmodo is not 100% positive that the phone is authentic, so they have plausible deniability. If they knew the phone was stolen THEN there may be some legality issues, but the issue itself is gray since it is an unreleased undocumented product"

Gizmodo contacts Apple to tell them they believe they have a next gen iphone.
"Completely legal and legit. Of course Apple doesn't choose to respond. At this point Gizmodo has product with an unverified owner. NOTE: Apple does not claim ownership"

Gizmodo posts article on line
"Apple gets pissed off and finally asks for the unit back, which verifies to Gizmodo that they have private product that belongs to Apple"

Gizmodo returns iphone to Apple.
"Apple's lawyers go ape looking to punish Gizmodo for publishing the article."

Gizmodo editor has property searched and seized.
"Apple looking to make an example of the journalism"




RE: So screwed up
By sigilscience on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: So screwed up
By icanhascpu on 4/27/2010 6:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that Giz published that article is damming for them. There was no plausible deniability for that, only for the initial purchase where they were unsure. After they dismantled it and studied the device they even said they were 99% sure it was authentic and STILL went ahead and published that story. They shot themselves in the foot there by greed.

Apple was foolish to discount calls claiming to have their sh!t with zero investigation on their part and whomever was handling those calls should be fired on the spot.

I would not be surprised if Giz gets their ass handed to them for publishing that story after they understood what they had their hands on. That is damaging to any company and Apple is within their rights to.

TLDR:
Apple discounting calls of lost products = BAD!
Giz publishing story when they KNEW what they had = BAD!


Welcome to the police state
By UnitedStatesOfAuthority on 4/27/2010 10:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
Quality of life is going to get worse and worse as law enforcement chooses to interpret laws in a ways that benefit the government. It's also disheartening to see corporations receiving more protection and rights than citizens. Welcome to the beginning of the police state.




RE: Welcome to the police state
By SpaceJumper on 4/27/2010 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
I am wondering, will the engineer who lost the iPhony going to get beat up, and then take his own life.


RE: Welcome to the police state
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Some 10 or 15 years ago I met a Russian family at our Synagogue who had just moved to Arizona. He had engaged the services of a Russian moving agency in New York. They, however, refused to deliver his belongings until he paid additional monies. I contacted the FBI and was told by a nice female agent that there was nothing they could do to help since Reagan had deregulated that industry. Interstate theft did not apply.
She did disclose that if the property belonged to a corporation it would fall under FBI jurisdiction.

Sorry to say, but most law enforcement is in place to protect our commercial, financial and governmental institutions, not the public. We just vote, that is all we do, and then again, not very often. (50%? maybe?)


Could he have borrowed?
By putergeek00 on 4/27/2010 11:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't Jason have just paid the $5K for exclusive rights to view the phone?

Make the guy sign a contract stating that he cannot let any other company review it. Jason could have had the guy bring it to him, check it out, and take pictures in his office. That way he doesn't own the phone, only some time with it. I don't think he would have to give up his source and he would still have the scoop.




RE: Could he have borrowed?
By Aeonic on 4/27/2010 2:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering this too. Sounds like it would have been safer, although these days it seems if a large company wants to basically ruin you, they can.


RE: Could he have borrowed?
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 3:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Unlikely. It would be like my neighbor offering to let somebody borrow my car and look under the hood for $5k. He doesn't have the legal right to do so, and if the person who paid $5k also knew he didn't have the right, then it really doesn't matter what sorts of silly contracts and things are drawn up. They both would have committed a crime I would think, but IANAL.


Stolen?
By mdg1019 on 4/27/2010 11:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the cops really need to look in a dictionary under the word stolen. I never knew it was equivalent to lost. All of the news reports that I've read state that the Apple employee forgot his phone at the bar. This seems to me that it was lost, not stolen. I have not read anything that would indicate that the phone was stolen.

Once again, cops investigating BS when they should be investigating real crimes.




RE: Stolen?
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 1
If you put something down, and I pick it up and don't make much of an effort to return it to you, then I have stolen it. Simple as that. Scroll up for the several postings quoting the exact legal language, but really it's just common sense and basic morality.

Surely, the guy who lost the phone was ringing it up every 10 minutes and scouring the bar for it. If the phone was never picked up by anybody, it would be likely that the owner of it would have found it again. Meanwhile the guy who had it was looking for the highest bidder.


RE: Stolen?
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 4:10:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I guess the cops really need to look in a dictionary under the word stolen.


No they don't need to look in the dictionary. They need to look in California Penal Code 485.

quote:
I have not read anything that would indicate that the phone was stolen.


Probably because you think the dictionary is a book of law.


Fact from fiction...
By smblkc on 4/27/2010 1:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, before anyone can judge whether a crime was committed, the actions taken were appropriate, and who is right or wrong, we need to look at a few things first:

1. Who is telling the truth? Do we really know that someone made a good faith effort to locate the owner?

2. What constitutes good faith? Does calling a support number and asking the rep constitute good faith? Or should other actions have been taken by the person finding the item?

3. Culpability: What were the intentions of the seller and/or buyer of the phone. Was it bought and sold knowing that it wasn't theirs to do so (goes back to #1 and #2).

4. Is Gizmodo required by some form of due diligence to ensure that the phone was in fact legally transferable to them.

Was it ethical? Not in my opinion. Were laws broken? Probably.... Time will tell.

Did the police act legally and ethically? Assuming that they did not falsify information on the affidavit, then yes. The court will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to issue the warrant. Now, it is true that an error on the part of the bench could invalidate the warrant....

Is the search warrant truly applicable given the freedoms afforded to the press? Well, is there any precedent for it? And is there any precedent that defines exactly what a member of the press is? Unfortunately, in this day and age, anyone who blogs can try to hide behind that banner. So, what exactly constitutes a journalist from a blogger? What makes a site a journalistic venue as opposed to just another informational site? These are all factors to consider.




RE: Fact from fiction...
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 3:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice analysis!


What I learned from Doug on Nickelodeon
By Unfixedyouth on 4/27/2010 7:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure there is an episode of Doug where he finds some money - He takes the money to the police, and they tell him that if the money is not claimed within a certain amount of time, the person that recovered the lost property gets to keep it by law. - it was either money, or a dog, and he was given some gum by an elder lady for returning it.

Btw - Giz new the phone was real... There is no doubt about it... They're a friggen tech review site for crying out loud - Enough with the "oh I didn't know" b.s.

That's like telling a cop that you didn’t know that you were supposed to not be in a carpool lane between a certain time frame and getting caught. Doesn't matter. It's your responsibility to ensure that you are 100% not breaking the law if you want to be completely safe and not rely on someone going easy on you because you "kinda" broke the law."

Last but not least - They get to search all the computers etc eh? How many illegal torrent downloads do you think are going to be found?

I’m guessing that at least one has some kinda weird porn on it or something...

It sounds to me like they thought they were some kinda Oceans 11 or something - trying to hide behind the law to protect the source that sold it to them... Well - it seems it may have backfired... They bought something from someone that they knew was not the owner. End of story. Miss K will agree with me here.

Lastly

If they truly believed that it was a knockoff just because the seller said apple said it was they wouldn't have paid 5k for it.

The law is the law eh? Or something.

Or something.

(for all of you that want to pick this apart, have fun, i did this for you)




By Unfixedyouth on 4/27/2010 7:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
Lastly -
Doesn't Giz remember the guy that "commited suicide" when the an apple product was lost? Or have we all forgotten that incident over seas?


By Leslie on 4/27/2010 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 1
The point here is that there is no litigation by Microsoft but rather a police search and seizure of a reporter's home for evidence of the basic crime of receiving stolen property. That is where the larger issues arise. We would expect Microsoft to sue for publication of the trade secret information perhaps - where the balancing test would be used relating to protection of propriety interests through the assertion of recognizable claims based on alleged actionable conduct of the editor. But that is not what is happening here. This reporter's important first amendment privilege has been demolished by the state's police power to search and seize items from his home. Reporters pay people to view secret documents in order to expose a government coverup. The fact that this issue might not seem earthshaking needs to be taken in context because, in the high tech world, this device is major worldwide news event. There is no evidence of breaking and entering or master-minding such an event and national security is not at risk by the reporter's actions, so a reporter's receipt of property even believing it to be stolen in order to be able to conduct a news story investigation and report, clearly has first amendment protections.




By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 3:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so a reporter's receipt of property even believing it to be stolen in order to be able to conduct a news story investigation and report, clearly has first amendment protections.


It's not so clear that the reporter has protections in this case. The reporter may have committed a crime first, and then published a related story later. Because he published the story doesn't necessarily retroactively make the evidence of his crime off-limits to authorities.

If Gizmodo received the phone anonymously for free and then later returned it to Apple when Apple asked for it back, it might be a different story. But in this case, they paid a substantial amount of money for something they believed was an Apple prototype that had gotten lose and likely stolen. They then became criminals first and reporters second.

BTW- I think you mean Apple and not Microsoft in your post.


Jobs
By btc909 on 4/27/2010 2:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
This is all about Steve Jobs pulling strings. Jobs wants to get back at Gizmodo for publishing photos & technical info about "HIS" new iPhone.

Jobs little piss ant behavior will eventually be the ending of Apple.




RE: Jobs
By icanhascpu on 5/1/10, Rating: 0
LOL. Great choice of pictures
By mattclary on 4/27/2010 9:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure about putting a caption under it though, seems to indicate it's really a pic of what went down. Some of the younger crowd might not get it.




PR Disaster
By Mitch101 on 4/27/2010 9:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
However this turns out this is a PR disaster for Apple.




By Sylar on 4/27/2010 11:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Then brought back to the states for review and then returned to Apple. Would it still be a felony then? I'm just curious.




Another point to consider
By tomboi1978 on 4/27/2010 11:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
The guy who got the phone in the first place tried to give it back to Apple but was ignored. Apple, after being contacted about their missing phone, still didn't report it stolen. Gizmodo buys the thing from the guy not knowing if it's real/fake or what and upon determining that it is real contacted Apple. Apple sends a formal request for it back and Gizmodo complies. I don't see any scenario where a conviction is remotely possible.




By nichow on 4/27/2010 12:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit I'm pretty shocked that people think that the finder made a good faith effort to return the phone... In Jason Chen's post he describes the finder looking through the phone before it was wiped and finding the apple engineer's flickr account... He clearly knew exactly who had lost the phone, he had made a note of the name and flickr account so he could give it to gizmodo later, but did not attempt to actually contact the guy...

Instead he calls the apple support number which nobody would reasonably expect anyone answering that call to know which apple employee owns a prototype iphone...

I don't know much about the legalities of the search of Jason's home, but it seems pretty clear the finder did everything he could not to have the phone claimed before he could sell it, but still giving him enough wiggle room to claim he 'tried' to return it...




By bupkus on 4/27/2010 12:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
My take on the subject--

For theft, industrial espionage... whatever, mustn't a sequence of events be proven?

Before one can be charged with receiving stolen merchandise mustn't a theft be proven? I know the state of CA believes a theft has occurred since they took Gizmodo's property to support that a theft occurred.? What did I just say? Did law enforcement take the computers to discover who stole the phone or to prove a theft occurred? Is this a big fishing expedition?

Are they only looking to find evidence against the person who "found" the phone? If so shouldn't Gizmodo be protected under journalist protections? At the least shouldn't Gizmodo have been notified with subpoena to hand over evidence instead of kicking their doors down?

Oh, you say Gizmodo violated a NDA? To what agreement did Gizmodo commit?

No, Gizmodo committed industrial espionage! Really? Did they sell the phone to one of Apple's competitors or a go-between and done so for profit? No, they promptly handed it back to Apple when notified by Apple the phone was Apple's property. Posting on the web, Gizmodo knew there would be a prompt response from Apple so obviously Gizmodo did nothing to conceal their actions.

Oh, but Gizmodo did display the phone on their website. But then again, the lose of the phone was news and news worthy and after all Gizmodo is a news providing website.

Doesn't the fact that Gizmodo paid $5000 prove something?
I don't know, you tell me.

Possibly Apple hinted that if the state of CA cannot protect Apple's interests Apple could remove itself wholly or in part from CA and take its revenues elsewhere. How much does Apple contribute to CA in wages, taxes, campaign donations... Would Steve Jobs engage in such heavy handed actions? Once again, you tell me.




Protection of journalists
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
laws ... that protect reporters and journalists from search and seizure


There would have been no story without the crime happening in the first place. He broke the law first, and then became a journalist second. It doesn't matter if the intent of the crime was to later publish a story, he became a criminal first and then a journalist later.

It would be like a journalist knowing that bank robberies make good stories, so he goes and robs a bank and then writes a story about it. The fact that he wrote a story about it later (even with prior intent) shouldn't make the evidence be out of bounds after the fact.

But, IANAL. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.




RE: Protection of journalists
By edelbrp on 4/27/2010 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, CNET has an article up detailing how Gizmodo and its employees almost certainly don't have protections in this case. Protections go out the window when the journalist is suspected of participating or witnessing a crime.

They also point out that Gizmodo has put up bounties for unreleased Apple products in the past. So, they not only likely knew they committed a crime, but actually sought it out.

Oopsies! Sorry, Chen and Gizmodo. It doesn't look good for you.


Hope it was worth it
By esoteric01 on 4/27/2010 3:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Completely aside from the legal dispute I wonder if the hits/pub that Giz got over this coverage was worth getting stonewalled on all future Apple coverage. I would think the smart thing to do would have been to discretly return the phone to get into Apple's good graces and try to parlay that into some sort of sanctioned exclusive.




theft? or not, DOB determines
By Quasidiver on 4/27/2010 3:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
HA! LOL I needed to kill some time and perused some posts which I found highly entertaining. Equally interesting, from a psych viewpoint which I'd like to study at some point in the future is the age of those that feel a crime was commited and many bloggers need to visit the univ bookstore and brush up on their literary skills. Based solely upon grammar and syntax I'd seperate those who feel a crime was Commited and those who feel one wasn't by their DOB, OVER 40, A CRIME OCCURRED, UNDER 40, NO CRIME OCCURRED. I'll blame the societal breakdowns of accepted values and mores upon Tee Vee and the rabid liberal media. Laughing my arse off as I read posts written hunt n peck by a 10 yr old who so desperately needs Validation and those by the armchair eng 101 prof whose head thrown back howls at those raping what should be an eloquent dialogue but instead reminds me of bevis and arse head. All y'all get over yourselves and stop the personal attacks. Didn't yer momma skoul ya better'n dat? Dang. Peace out my brother!




Was it on purpose?
By ZachDontScare on 4/27/2010 4:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
If I were gizmodo, and the police were *really* trying to push it, they might argue that they truly believed this was a PR stunt by Apple that specifically was meant to get word of the prototype out there.

Its not like these companies dont do that sort of thing. Really, are we honestly supposed to believe Apple trusted such a valuable prototype to some punk kid who just 'happened' to leave it at a popular bar? PUH-LEASE. It was a PR stunt gone bad... possibly done without Saint Steve's blessing... which would explain why no one at Apple is admiting to it. I would supeona ever last f'ing email at Apple corporate to prove this.




By jconan on 4/27/2010 9:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Then why did Apple at first claim it was a Japanese fake? Then this clearly showed that Apple disavowed that this was theirs. Later on after Gizmodo or whoever did a little further digging on a bricked phone then did they provoke Apple claim that it was indeed there. So the basis is that Apple claimed that this was not theirs in the first place. So how is it stolen?




By iFX on 4/27/2010 9:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Old but true.




Apple hurt themselves
By toyotabedzrock on 4/27/2010 11:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
The only loss Apple might incur is there own doing by pushing the police into the illegal raid.




Apple News Update
By iWozafan on 4/28/2010 1:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
High-tech task force that receives Apple's assistance fielded DA referral in Gizmodo case

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/yn...

Apple Inc. has provided "advice, recommendations, strategic input, and direction" to the high-tech task force that raided Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home last week in the course of a criminal investigation into how the gadget website obtained a prototype of Apple's unreleased G4 iPhone, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office tells Yahoo! News.........

...........The San Mateo County DA has come under criticism for the raid on Chen's home because the Gizmodo editor appears to fall under California's shield law, which prevents law enforcement agencies from executing search warrants on journalists. The DA has said that it will not examine Chen's computers, which were seized in the raid, until it determines whether or not the law applies. Nick Denton, the owner of Gizmodo's publisher, Gawker Media, told Yahoo! News via email that he is holding off on seeking the return of the computers until the DA makes its decision. "We're leaving it with the DA initially. And then taking it to the judge who issued the warrant if that doesn't work. Not necessarily looking for the most aggressive course."




Defense strategy
By Riven98 on 4/28/2010 12:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Gizmodo doesn't need any lawyers- they can use all these posts to formulate their defense! :-P




APPLE
By BadgerRings on 4/27/2010 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
Let me introduce Apple, the new Microsoft.




EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By mattclary on 4/27/2010 9:55:58 AM , Rating: 5
Fine, lets see the police report where Apple reported it stolen. If the item wasn't stolen, it wasn't a felony.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By mattclary on 4/27/2010 11:39:19 AM , Rating: 1
If there was no report of theft until AFTER Apple's hot new hardware showed up on the net, then it means someone in Apple broke their contract or non-disclosure agreement, not that there was a felony theft.


RE: EFF so cute.
By whiskerwill on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By Teldin on 4/27/2010 12:15:29 PM , Rating: 3
The car was not stolen, they just forgot where they parked it!


RE: EFF so cute.
By dragonbif on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By PrezWeezy on 4/27/2010 1:26:50 PM , Rating: 5
No, more like, you forgot where you parked your car and you left the keys in it. Someone took the keys, locked the door for you and spent the next 2 weeks trying to call you to give it back. You made it clear you didn't want it back, so they then got rid of it. Wrong? Maybe. Stolen? No.


RE: EFF so cute.
By InvertMe on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By sigilscience on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By PrezWeezy on 4/27/2010 3:27:53 PM , Rating: 4
That depends on if he has a case number or not. If he does, and they show in their case notes that he did in fact attempt to return it, then yes they will believe it.


RE: EFF so cute.
By bupkus on 4/27/2010 3:42:08 PM , Rating: 5
I would caution you that it has yet been proven the finder is a thief.

You should talk to the character in the movie "Office Space" about the game he invented call "Jump to Conclusions".


RE: EFF so cute.
By mattclary on 4/27/2010 12:29:07 PM , Rating: 3
How long would it take you to notice your phone was missing?

How long did it take to write the article on Gizmodo?

Who did Apple give possession of the phone to?

Why did that person not report it stolen in less time than it took Gizmodo to write up a decent sized article?

It seems clear that someone violated a contract with Apple, it is not clear there was a felony theft.


RE: EFF so cute.
By sigilscience on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By kjsharke on 4/27/2010 3:40:35 PM , Rating: 3
You are what you write, I think. Of course they don't think that: the implication was that the Apple employee breached *their* contract with Apple, which was almost certainly the case. Perhaps there was a theft as well.


RE: EFF so cute.
By drycrust3 on 4/27/2010 1:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, your car is stolen when you didn't lend it to someone. If you leave your car with the doors open and the keys in the ignition, and someone rings you up and says, "you left your car unlocked and the keys in the ignition" and you say, "you can have the car" then it wasn't stolen.
The finder of the phone rang the official Apple call centre and the person who answered said they didn't want to know. They didn't take contact details and say a more senior person in the company would call them back, they didn't offer to reward the finder, they gave the caller the distinct impression they could keep it.
The caller decided to sell it.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 2:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Apple didn't say "you can have the car". They said "I don't think that's our car".


RE: EFF so cute.
By justjc on 4/28/2010 4:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
One could also question the act to call Apples Support, as they are sure not to know about a next gen product, especially if you remembered the name on the Facebook Profile you logged into through an app. I don't see many people called Gray Powell on Facebook, so he would be an easy find.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By deeznuts on 4/27/2010 3:33:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
California Penal Code section 485 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 . The guy who found the phone is guilty of theft. Calling the Apple switchboard is not a good faith effort to return the phone. The guy saw the Facebook profile of the phone owner and didn't contact him. He didn't even check back at the bar to see if anyone had reported a missing phone. He didn't give it to the police. He took none of the steps that a reasonable and honest person would take if they were actually wanting to return a lost phone. Those of you who are saying the guy tried to return the phone, ask yourself what you would do if you found a lost phone in a bar. How would an honest person get it back to the person who lost it? Gizmodo, having inquired about the origin of the phone and knowing that the guy did not make a good faith effort to return the phone, is guilty of knowingly buying stolen property.


They must prove that Gizmodo KNEW it was stolen or obtained in that manner. The guy who sold it to them could have told them, I tried to return it. Apple wouldn't take it back. Keeping in mind the facebook profile was no longer accessible by the time Gizmodo got his grubby hands on it.

And according to the guy's story, the next day the phone was bricked. So while he had access to the facebook profile that night, he was pissed drunk, allegedly. The next day, go back to FB profile, to look for name/number, it's dead. Gone. Now what? He contacts apple.

What exactly do you expect is "reasonable" efforts to return the phone? Sure he didn't do it that very night, but I don't think anyone on earth doesn't think doing it the next day, during normal business hours, is unreasonable.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By omnicronx on 4/27/2010 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 4
I was wondering what you had to gain from all these 'reasonable effort' posts.. its happened to you before.. little bias no?

The guy could have gone to Apples front door and you would have probably had the same stance =P


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 4:31:30 PM , Rating: 1
Not bias, just personal experience with what happens when you lose a phone, and all the ways you try to get it back. The phone was lost by a person, and the finder made no effort whatsoever to contact that individual. Gizmodo said they weren't sure the phone was even Apple's - so why didn't they try to find the guy from the bar? By, you know, telling the bar they found a lost phone?

In any case, I'm betting that if the finder had actually gone to the Apple campus with phone in hand and asked to speak with their product development department, or security, or lost and found, or any other logical point of contact, the phone would have been promptly reclaimed.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 4:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
Incidentally, has Gizmodo said how they figured out the name of the developer who lost the phone? Did the phone magically get unbricked after they posted their article online?


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Also, Gizmodo wrote about the half-*ssed way the guy attempted to return the lost phone. Gizmodo admits they wouldn't expect a low-level support tech to be in on the secret that a new iphone was being developled, and the guy didn't send Apple any photos or any identifying information that could have been used to verify one way or the other.

http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-t...


RE: EFF so cute.
By mattclary on 4/27/2010 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
Investigation is fine, but this walks a fine line of freedom of speech.

If the item was reported as stolen, then fine, the reporter should have a search warrant served, since he was obviously in possession.

BUT, if the person who possessed the item never claimed it stolen, it smacks of a broken NDA, not felony theft.


RE: EFF so cute.
By dragonbif on 4/27/2010 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
This would be "freedom of the press" not speech.

So you know there are some things that the press does not have the right to report on so it is not 100% in the US. For example, you cannot report on a child and show images of the child without permission. You cannot wire tap a phone to get info. The fine line is where the rights of others starts and in this case it could be Apple the owner of the item.

They did not say he stole this phone but purchased a stolen item and he new the person should not have had it in the first place.


RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/2010 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
"Fine, lets see the police report where Apple reported it stolen"

So you're saying if no police report was filed, no crime was committed? So if someone loots your safety deposit box and you don't realize it, you can't convict them?

Think before you type, people....THINK.


RE: EFF so cute.
By UnitedStatesOfAuthority on 4/27/2010 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 5
The reason we have laws protecting journalists is so they can expose corruption (including government) and report facts without the fear of prosecution. Give up free speech and what do you have left?

It may seem frivolous in this case but it really should fall on the company to secure their products and prototypes not the government. That could lead to favoritism, more lawsuits, and bribery.


RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By clovell on 4/27/2010 12:24:59 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure I'd call it industrial espionage - that calls to mind a much more malicious intent. Gizmodo didn't resell, ripoff, or otherwise diminish the product - they exposed it.


RE: EFF so cute.
By robinthakur on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By Omega215D on 4/27/2010 1:47:17 PM , Rating: 5
It appears that the boys at gizmodo..

*puts on sunglasses

took a bite out of the wrong Apple.

cue The Who.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 2:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
lol!


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 11:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
There was no public interest being served in this case. Gizmodo didn't expose corruption - they exposed intellectual property and trade secrets. Their article was entirely self-serving.

"it really should fall on the company to secure their products and prototypes not the government".
-Yeah, we have laws about this stuff. It falls on the government to enforce the law. Which is what they're doing.


RE: EFF so cute.
By TheDoc9 on 4/27/2010 1:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps this was a leak by apple from the beginning, especially since it came at a very curios time as new android phones were being released and announced.

An attorney might say 'prove this', of course there never will be any proof of this for obvious reasons. It simply takes eyes and half a brain to figure it out for yourself. Too bad for the editors, they have no chance with the way things work.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By clovell on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 1
LOLz. You web raged.


RE: EFF so cute.
By InsaneGain on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 3:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
Just let him go. Web rages are "teh funny". :)


RE: EFF so cute.
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 1
you sound like your what about 14? Comparing this to murder is absurd. Also, amazingly uneducated. And you sound really really upset over this. So I laugh at you.

If you are a journalist and you find out someone else commited a crime and you expose it, you are allowed to protect your source. If it is discovered that YOU are the murderer, the legal ground to protect a source (you in this case) will be over ridden. It probably will not if you purchase something someone else found.

btw, making threats like this is actually illegal. This type of information is easily found in investigations. If the OP meets an unfortunate accident, well, your comments will likely make you a prime suspect.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 1:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you sound like your what about 14? Comparing this to murder is absurd. Also, amazingly uneducated.


You tell me I'm uneducated in the form of a sentence fragment? Heh Look I'm not a grammar Nazi but that was kinda funny.

quote:
And you sound really really upset over this. So I laugh at you.

I just used the f-bomb. It's not that big of a deal. Just because you drool, stutter and shake with rage when you use the f-bomb doesn't mean I do. I bet I'm laughing more actually...hell I still haven't stopped chuckling about that stupid logic from the previous post :)

quote:
If you are a journalist and you find out someone else commited a crime and you expose it, you are allowed to protect your source. If it is discovered that YOU are the murderer, the legal ground to protect a source (you in this case) will be over ridden. It probably will not if you purchase something someone else found.


The police are not investigating the person that stole the phone. Such an investigation may indeed be hampered by laws designed to protect freedom of the press. Rather the police are investigating the person that bought the stolen goods. Freedom of the press does not give you immunity to search and seizure as long as there is there is reasonable cause. I'm going to trust the Judge on this before some armchair lawyer in a forum post.

quote:
btw, making threats like this is actually illegal. This type of information is easily found in investigations. If the OP meets an unfortunate accident, well, your comments will likely make you a prime suspect.


If you're too stupid to tell the difference between an analogy in an argument and a true threat then I think your true threat is likely to be Darwin.

Besides, Oh grand poo-bah of intarweb lawyering, where did I actually threaten anyone? Read carefully and show some attention to detail.


RE: EFF so cute.
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can pick on your grammar too. this isn't grade school, however. To put it in simpler terms for you, you sound uneducated on this topic. You read and write well though!

I did not laugh at your language. Your statements. You seem quite upset. I'm on the internet. I find it funny and am telling you so.
quote:
The police are not investigating the person that stole the phone.


How do you know that? Please share. The most likely reason to confiscate the equipment is to find the person that originally took it, and THAT is protecting a source. That is why the penal code was listed on Gizmodo's site. (If they are looking for stolen property it would have been a different warrant I think. )
quote:
If you're too stupid to tell the difference between an analogy in an argument and a true threat then I think your true threat is likely to be Darwin.


Even veiled threats can be construed as "probable cause."

quote:
Besides, Oh grand poo-bah of intarweb lawyering, where did I actually threaten anyone? Read carefully and show some attention to detail.


you said:
quote:
Perhaps I'll start a blog, become a journalist, then come over and just straight fkcing kill you. I'll then bury your body in my back yard.


You did not say, "I'll straight fkcing kill someone ." You said, "I'll...just straight fkcing kill you. I'll then bury your body in my back yard." Doesn't even sound like a veiled threat. Pretty direct. You said, "perhaps". So it sounds like "you may or you may not." Still a threat.


RE: EFF so cute.
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/27/2010 2:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you interpreted his post as a threat then you fail at reading comprehension. It very clearly was analogy for the sake of argument.


RE: EFF so cute.
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 2:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
why? Do you fail at reading comprehension for having an opinion about Gizmodo or Apple? I don't think so. I think you have an opinion.

If you think I felt threatened, you sir, fail at reading comprehension. And logical argument, and life... yada yada. I can blast you just as you blast me.

My point was that incendiary comments on websites are very much used as evidence. Read the news. If you make incendiary statements on websites you can be sued, or sue. Ask this judge...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/cleveland-judge-denie...


RE: EFF so cute.
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/27/2010 2:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why? Do you fail at reading comprehension for having an opinion about Gizmodo or Apple? I don't think so. I think you have an opinion.

What? This has absolutely nothing to do with the aspect of your post to which I replied. WTF are you talking about?

quote:
If you think I felt threatened, you sir, fail at reading comprehension.

Um, no, I didn't say that you personally felt threatened. I merely said that you interpreted the post as a threat. I made no claim as to towards whom you interpreted it as a threat. You have failed yet again at reading comprehension.

quote:
And logical argument, and life... yada yada. I can blast you just as you blast me.

You can try, but it doesn't mean you are right. The non-retractable posts above very clearly show that you are wrong.

quote:
My point was that incendiary comments on websites are very much used as evidence. Read the news. If you make incendiary statements on websites you can be sued, or sue. Ask this judge...

And my point is that it was not an incendiary comment. It was an argument device which you obtusely misinterpreted.


RE: EFF so cute.
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What? This has absolutely nothing to do with the aspect of your post to which I replied. WTF are you talking about?


Allow me to explain. You said:
quote:
If you interpreted his post as a threat then you fail at reading comprehension. It very clearly was analogy for the sake of argument.


You call it an interpretation, which is an opinion of how something was intended. So I stated an opinion. I then asked how that was a failure of reading comprehension. That would mean I was not able to comprehend what he was trying to say. I then quoted him a few times and said that my opinion was that it was threatening and highly emotional. You also seem highly emotional. That dude, is What The Fvkc I was talking about.
quote:
If you interpreted his post as a threat then you fail at reading comprehension. It very clearly was analogy for the sake of argument.


I later stated that I felt it was an extreme metaphor, and one that might have repercussions if something ACTUALLY happened to the original poster and online evidence was sought and yada yada. Another similarly extreme case.

So, you found me guilty of taking something too seriously when it was a metaphor, and I charge you with taking MY comments too seriously, as they seem to be not accurately comprehended by you.
quote:
You can try, but it doesn't mean you are right. The non-retractable posts above very clearly show that you are wrong.

LOL, the internet version of "No Take Backs!" I just like f'in with ya dude!

quote:
And my point is that it was not an incendiary comment. It was an argument device which you obtusely misinterpreted.


Sigh, dude... of which you are apparently also guilty.

For the record, I did not care at ALL for the statement made about killing someone and burying the body in the backyard as an "argument device" about a silly iPhone scandal. So I said so.


RE: EFF so cute.
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/27/2010 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You call it an interpretation, which is an opinion of how something was intended. So I stated an opinion. I then asked how that was a failure of reading comprehension. That would mean I was not able to comprehend what he was trying to say. I then quoted him a few times and said that my opinion was that it was threatening and highly emotional. You also seem highly emotional. That dude, is What The Fvkc I was talking about.

And now allow me to explain why your comment about opinions made no sense. An opinion about this news article is based solely upon the information presented and has room for error. My opinion about the news could be wrong just as easily as yours could since the info could be faulty. However, an interpretation of the post in question is very much clean cut -- there are right and wrong interpretations. You chose to argue in favor of an incorrect interpretation. Also, I am not being emotional at all. I am just a stickler for correct logic.

quote:
So, you found me guilty of taking something too seriously when it was a metaphor, and I charge you with taking MY comments too seriously, as they seem to be not accurately comprehended by you.

The difference here is that I am taking your posts at face value, yet this whole argument came up because you read too much into someone else's post and extracted a problem where there really was none.

quote:
Sigh, dude... of which you are apparently also guilty.

Again, I took your posts at face value. You said (emphasis mine):
quote:
btw, making threats like this is actually illegal. This type of information is easily found in investigations. If the OP meets an unfortunate accident, well, your comments will likely make you a prime suspect.

quote:
You did not say, "I'll straight fkcing kill someone ." You said, "I'll...just straight fkcing kill you. I'll then bury your body in my back yard." Doesn't even sound like a veiled threat. Pretty direct. You said, "perhaps". So it sounds like "you may or you may not." Still a threat.

You did not pose this as a hypothetical; you said in no uncertain terms that it was a threat. That is where you are wrong in this argument.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Smilin on 4/27/2010 2:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can pick on your grammar too. this isn't grade school, however.


Nor was I really picking on your grammar. Just the Irony. :) I hate grammar Nazis.

quote:
How do you know that? Please share. The most likely reason to confiscate the equipment is to find the person that originally took it, and THAT is protecting a source.


And if they were protecting a source the EFF complaint would stand. Why would the police and a judge break the law though? They have other low hanging fruit right in front of them: Bust the fencer who has publicly admitted the crime and given probable cause. Gizmodo handed it to the police on a silver platter.

quote:
Even veiled threats can be construed as "probable cause.
.

quote:
You did not say, "I'll straight fkcing kill someone ." You said, "I'll...just straight fkcing kill you. I'll then bury your body in my back yard." Doesn't even sound like a veiled threat. Pretty direct. You said, "perhaps". So it sounds like "you may or you may not." Still a threat.


No that's not what I said. That's part of what I said. The tactic of cherry picking out of context quotes doesn't work well when the full context and quote can be found above. Anywhoo...

I did indeed say "perhaps". I also asked if it was OK first so you're welcome to say no. So at no time did I make an actual threat. Tada! If you contend that it is instead a veiled threat then it merely shows you lack reading comprehension or cannot understand an analogy...and it was an analogy if you go retrieve the rest of the context/quote.

If you truly feel threatened then by all means call the police. I fully encourage you to do so. Be aware that false criminal accusations is a crime as well.


RE: EFF so cute.
By laughingoutloud on 4/27/2010 2:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would the police and a judge break the law though? They have other low hanging fruit right in front of them:


Good question. One that OJ Simpson's criminal prosecutors probably often ask.

quote:
No that's not what I said. That's part of what I said. The tactic of cherry picking out of context quotes doesn't work well when the full context and quote can be found above. Anywhoo...


I ommited text for brevity, not really to support my argument. Honestly, I agree that using an extreme metaphor can be effective. Hell, we are on the internet, saying what we please. Still, moderators often remove or flag incendiary comments. Its totally open to interpretation though. I personally feel that making statements about murder to support an opinion on possible theft to be a sign of high emotion. I think anyone who gets emotional over this topic is hilarious.

To be fair, I've read quite a few of your posts here. You don't seem nearly as emotional as when you posted the "veiled threat" I mentioned. Thus, its not nearly as funny any more. I don't lack in reading comprehension. I just targeted the most emotional commenters on this site as the objects of my ridicule (its called trolling I think?) and tried to pose arguments. If you read my comments, I hope I make it clear that I don't take any of this personally and LOVE IT when people back up their statements with links. (whether I agree with them or not).
quote:
If you truly feel threatened then by all means call the police. I fully encourage you to do so. Be aware that false criminal accusations is a crime as well.


Nah, dude, I totally don't feel threatened. I can stand up for myself! I think you were probably "threatened" first anyway. (by the previous poster not me) I've found it all unexpectedly entertaining.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Aloonatic on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By gamerk2 on 4/27/2010 11:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and buy obviously stolen goods apparently?


Prove Gizmodo KNEW the goods were stolen. Thats the issue, and the only issue. If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt Gizmodo KNEW the phone was in fact stolen, then the only conclusion is that no crime took place.

quote:
Come on, really? There is no "free speech" case here. If it was a prototype mind control device that the men in black left laying around, then you might have a point.


Nope, its the same thing either way. You can NOT apply one standard to item "X" and another to item "Y".


RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: EFF so cute.
By tmouse on 4/27/2010 12:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
That does NOT prove they knew it was stolen (IF it even was). THAT ONLY proves the prototype was real. I think the police are only trying an end run to get the name of the seller and they will drop this case, quickly. ANY DA trying to prosecute this is opening up his /her office and the city to a lawsuit. I do not see how you prove Gizmodo KNEW it was real and stolen BEFORE they got their hands on it if a theft was not public knowledge. Without a confession from the seller that he mentioned to them it was stolen creates a non winnable case and if the only evidence to find the seller is gotten from this illegal search kiss that case as well.


RE: EFF so cute.
By sigilscience on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By tmouse on 4/28/2010 9:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
So we now know you use a monitor with reflective glass.

The crime is receiving stolen goods. You have to know BEFORE it is REAL and STOLEN. They have to PROVE Gizmodo knew the seller did not make an effort to contact the owner AND KNOW it is a REAL prototype BEFORE they paid for it. Offering 5000 is not proof. News agencies pay lots for what turns out to be photoshopped pictures and false stories. It's a common practice. Since there was no public announcement that a prototype was in fact missing (there was apparently some time from when it went missing and when Gizmodo was contacted) there was no way for them to KNOW it was real or not. All Apple had to do was announce this (it would be embarrassing) and ALL news agencies would NOT be able to legally get the item, they did not.
NO CASE.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Laura K on 4/27/2010 11:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, its the same thing either way. You can NOT apply one standard to item "X" and another to item "Y".

Actually, the courts often consider whether there is a compelling public interest involved in cases of free speech.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Aloonatic on 4/27/2010 6:49:13 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus. Did someone open a can of stupid in here, or are you people so blinded by your hate of Apple that all common sense leaves the room?

Of course Gizmodo knew that it was not a legit phone. Everyone remotely interested in tech knows how strict Apple are over these things. If I was to walk up to you know and offer to sell you the phone, would you seriously think that I had obtained it legally? Honestly? Show me how the guy could have got the phone legitimately? As that is impossible, the only probable left is that it was stolen. Ipso, dipso, elementary my dear gamerk2.

And of course there is a difference in the freedom of speech angle. No laws are simple black and white. There is no public interest for the greater good here to try to wheedle their way out of this. I hate to have to be the one to break it to you, they did this for publicity for their site, pure and simple.


RE: EFF so cute.
By ICBM on 4/27/2010 11:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
Very well said. Journalist need protection. As long as their was no NDA signed by that journalist, then let the man/woman speak out! Journalist needs to report the facts, period. No scare tactics by companies/governments/organizations should ever be allowed to influence facts.

Apple should have secured their own products. If Apple lets a prototype walk out their doors, they are risking all their "trade secrets".

Now if this was an elaborate setup to have someone smuggle a phone out of Apple, and Giz has been involved from the beginning, that would be different. They would need evidence to prove that. Whether this search warrant was obtained legally or not is an interesting question, but based on what has been released, I don't believe a crime has been committed. Was it a self serving act, sure. When is being selfish a crime?


RE: EFF so cute.
By jonmcc33 on 4/27/2010 12:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple should have secured their own products. If Apple lets a prototype walk out their doors, they are risking all their "trade secrets".


I completely agree. But we already know how Apple is when it comes to securing their products. They put blinders on and deny that there is a problem.


RE: EFF so cute.
By wiz220 on 4/27/2010 11:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's sort of how it all starts. How would police KNOW something was stolen if the owner of the property didn't REPORT it as stolen? You're logic seems to be a little off here.

If someone looted your safety deposit box you would have to notice the crime before you could convict them. Authorities don't automagically know when a crime has been committed against someone.


RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/2010 11:29:44 AM , Rating: 2
Logic really isn't that difficult. A crime is a crime, whether or not its been officially reported. This isn't rocket science here.

The idea that stolen property isn't "stolen" until its listed on an official police report is the silliest argument I've heard all week. By that argument, you can't arrest a bank robber as he's fleeing...you have to first visit police headquarters and individually report the serial number of each bill taken.


RE: EFF so cute.
By Ard on 4/27/2010 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
That analogy is poor because people witnessed the bank robber commit the felony. His point is a very simple one: the police can't do anything about a crime they don't know about. If something is stolen, you call the police and report it. That gives the police the authority/probable cause they need to investigate the crime. If Apple really thought the phone was stolen, they would have taken similar steps. Given that the authorities are now involved, that's likely what was done, but the point remains.


RE: EFF so cute.
By porkpie on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: EFF so cute.
By tmouse on 4/27/2010 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that wasn't true, you could buy stolen property from someone who murdered the original owner, and never fear prosecution


It's perfectly legal to do so. IF it is shown you have stolen goods they are confiscated and you're out of your money, not charged with a crime UNLESS there is sufficient evidence that the item was obtained by illegal means AND you have the opportunity to know that. NO ONE heard of a stolen prototype, there was a good chance it was phony, maybe even disinformation spread by Apple. Maybe this was deliberately left by Apple to steal HTC thunder at the time. There is no reason to assume the device was stolen on Gizmodo's part IF that even happened (we ONLY have Apples statement that it was stolen and not mislaid and you KNOW the guy is not going to tell his bosses he lost the prototype in a bar).