Print 106 comment(s) - last by Suntan.. on Apr 30 at 2:05 PM

The iPhone saga gets even more interesting...

It looks as though Gizmodo and Gawker Media has just landed themselves in hot water. Last week's scoop on the fourth generation iPhone brought the site massive page views and coverage on CNN, the Today Show, and even The View.

However, as we noted last last week, law enforcement in the Silicon Valley area are investigating the details surrounding how the iPhone was lost and Gizmodo's $5,000 transaction to retrieve said phone. Today, Gizmodo snuck in a tiny headline on its frontpage that shows that editor Jason Chen had a few visitors to his home on Friday night:

Last Friday night, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered editor Jason Chen's home without him present, seizing four computers and two servers. They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.

According to Chen's account of the events, the police bashed down his door while he was out. By the time he arrived at home, the police had already been there for a few hours and were well into cataloging his electronic possessions. In total, the task force seized 19 items from Chen's home including his MacBook, a ThinkPad laptop, MediaSmart server, a few external hard drives, two USB thumb drives, digital cameras, and an iPod.

The Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team is looking for email communications, call records, contact lists, text messages, and any other material relating to the sale of the iPhone 4G.

While the fourth generation iPhone saga has been detailed here on DailyTech in a few articles, you can see Gizmodo's coverage here. The full subpoena along with Gizmodo's response can be seen here.

Comments     Threshold

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

Apple harassing journalists
By sticksabuser on 4/26/2010 6:15:46 PM , Rating: 5
Wonderful... Giz ought to sue them for damages... They didn't steal the phone, and the phone wasn't stolen it was FOUND...

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By sapiens74 on 4/26/2010 6:19:56 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't apples fault

The NAzi police who overreact are to blame.

The police should have told Apple the same thing they would tell you or me

"We'll look into it"

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By jonmcc33 on 4/27/2010 8:59:52 AM , Rating: 5
Actually it is Apple's fault. They would have had to claim that it was stolen in order for the police to take such action. If something is lost and then found and returned to the owner then there is no crime, and police are not involved.

I must LOL at your "Nazi police" statement. Nobody likes the police until they need them it seems.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Ristogod on 4/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By tmouse on 4/27/2010 9:46:33 AM , Rating: 3
By the time some one needs the police, some one is already dead

Really? You sir live in a very sad world within the confines of your own tiny mind. I certainly do not think people in these sectors are gods, they do serve a vital function to ensure any form of civilized society, or do you believe in a Disney like "it's a happy happy world" where we do not need these type of people. Police do become cynical, you would too if you spent the majority of your life dealing with victims and criminals.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By MojoMan on 4/27/2010 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 3
He brings up a good point tmouse. Don't insult his intelligence. Someone can be narrow minded without being stupid. I don't think he's the one with the narrow mind here though. I have a cousin who is a sheriff. He has told me multiple times... they CANNOT protect you! They can only try to catch the bad guys AFTER a crime has been committed. That's why people need to arm themselves. His words, not mine.

Sure, we need them. They perform a vital function. However, police ARE working more and more with the military now (a violation of the LAW they are suppose to uphold), so his talk about police who abuse their power is a valid argument.

I was lied to and harassed by a police officer one time when I had just finished up my cheese burger in a McDonald's parking lot. He called me a liar and said I was up to no good. I drive a nice car, was in a nice part of town, had an empty McDonald's bag, and a receipt to show I had good reason to be parked in the parking lot for the 15 minutes I was parked there. Didn't matter. He still called me a liar and said I had been prank calling McDonald's. That's when I showed him my cell phone. What a pathetic joke of "police work." I'm sure we could all share stories like this.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By tmouse on 4/28/2010 7:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously have a VERY distorted view clearly colored by your personal experiences, hardly someone to throw around the term narrow minded. I'll stand by my statements as I suspect the majority of people would. The police certainly are no gods, just people who have to deal with the crappy parts of our society so we don't have to. Most police are fairly decent people, sure there are a@@hats as there are in EVERY occupation bar NONE. Most of us really hate them when we get caught doing things we KNOW are wrong and say stupid things like why are you not going after real criminals? They "protect" not by stopping someone from a crime before it happens (which would kind of require some form of supernatural powers) but by enforcing the laws (whether we like the laws or not, determining if the laws are fair is not their jobs but the jobs of our elected officials and by extension us). Your cousin is a piss poor sheriff in my opinion if he really said that you have to arm yourself (I suspect you were talking about a VERY specific incident involving a violent crime). Taking drug dealers off the streets (if only for a short time) protects people, same with pedophiles. Yes even speeding tickets even though none of us like them, things would be ALLOT deadlier on the roads if there was NO law enforcement. Take a criminal off the street you protect future victims from that criminal (obviously not ALL crime). If your cousin cannot see that maybe he should turn in his badge.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By walk2k on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 6:46:27 PM , Rating: 5
Apple has a history of harassing journalists and reporters. This is definitely excessive on the part of the police and Apple, and Gizmodo should sue for damages and violation of First Amendment Rights. They should also make sure they have a list of everything that was taken so they can ensure they it get it all back.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By whiskerwill on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 8:35:19 PM , Rating: 5
1. Apple pushed the police, don't forget that. Local cops don't do a raid like that for a single piece of stolen property, otherwise local police departments would only be busting down doors looking for stolen property. Evidently you don't live in an urban area.

2. The Apple engineer left the prototype in a bar. Another individual brought it home, allegedly because he thought it was his. Since most iPhones look exactly the same, this is an easy thing to do, especially given that they were all likely inebriated. The individual did attempt to call Apple to return the phone, but didn't make it past the secretaries.

3. Every news outlet, respectable or otherwise, pays currency for leads sometimes. And by sometimes I mean daily. It may be a little dirty, but Gizmodo didn't do anything wrong. Now, if they'd attempted to sell the prototype to HTC, Palm, Google, etc, then there'd be an issue.

4. I'm not stupid enough to store pornographic content on my phone, nor do I leave it laying around in bars.

And yes, I do vote, regularly. Today, as a matter of fact, special election in my city.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By alanore on 4/26/2010 9:05:09 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Mitch101 on 4/26/2010 9:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is more to this story than Apple is saying and we all know that Apple likes to hide things. Im betting the guy who lost it in the bar is claiming it was stolen or filed it as stolen otherwise what are the police acting upon? Something had to be filed for the police to get a warrant and raid his home. I'm also betting they took the computers to confirm the story.

Either way Gizmodo has been a big supporter of Apple products and if Apple is in the wrong this could backfire on Apple badly. Look at the list of items taken most are apple products.

The kind of force here also lays credence to the Chinese worker who died over losing an iPhone.

Someone needs to probe Apple as apparently they are above the law.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By jconan on 4/27/2010 11:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
But Apple will have hidden any records or deleted it alleging that Apple killed the worker. Apple will do the Pontius Pilot as they are above the law with their Messiah running the company. As they can do no wrong even if it was a mistake, wrong or unethical. Obviously Apple probably has lined the pockets of some agency with donations or coercion.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By porkpie on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 9:40:33 PM , Rating: 3
[quote]You're leaping to conclusions. There's no evidence Apple did anything but report the crime.[/quote]

See the link above where its reported that Apple sites on the steering committee for high tech crime.

[quote]They did worse than that. They made all those trade secrets available to ALL those companies, not just one of them.[/quote]

Posting pictures, inside and out, most of which features have already been in competing phones for the past year, barely qualifies as a trade secret breach. If Apple's trade secrets are features that their competitors have been using for the past year, then they should just give up now because the gap isn't going to close.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By porkpie on 4/26/2010 10:11:57 PM , Rating: 3
" its reported that Apple sites on the steering committee for high tech crime."

So? Are you seriously claiming this is proof of anything? God forbid you ever serve on a jury.

"most of which features have already been in competing phones for the past year, barely qualifies as a trade secret breach"

I don't know what your brain uses in place of logic, but if you kept the receipt, I suggest getting a refund. The "secret" part here is what Apple chose to put in or leave out of the latest iPhone. What their competitors are doing is irrelevant in this case.

You're also confusing a trade secret with patentable IP. In this case, the trade secrets are based more around marketing decisions for feature inclusion, "look and feel", etc -- rather than any new technology.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 11:21:27 PM , Rating: 4
Ease up on the personal attacks, the discussion is about the conduct of the police, Apple, and Gizmodo.

What Apple chose to put into the new iPhone, that could be discerned from the pictures only, as the device was bricked remotely, are all features and aspects already present in their competitor's products. None of which would be patentable under cases of prior use. High res screen, forward facing camera, etc. These are not trade secrets, these are becoming standard features on a modern, high end smart phone.

Unfortunately, the only time I was called for jury duty, I was serving the US military out of state and was unable to fulfill the obligation.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By robinthakur on 4/27/2010 12:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but to be honest here the big reveal of any Apple product is which features are included in the *Apple* product, and how that is assisted by the software, the usability etc. What competitors may or may not have tried before is pretty irrelevent. The average iPhone buyer does not care that HTC/Nokia have had forward facing cameras for years or that the HTC Touch HD has a higher resolution screen, they want what's in the Apple product due to the usability and attention to detail of the interface. Sad but true. This is what keeps the internet buzzing for months on end leading up to a product launch. Some would argue that Gizmodo have done an excellent job at promoting Apple but I would dispute this, because now what is Steve jobs going to present? Where's the buzz? Finding out what the final case will look like? This will probably cost Apple sales because many aspects of the iPhone are marketed as if no other competition exists.

The point is that this was a prototype, the decent thing for Gizmodo to do would have been to give it straight back to Apple and think of the industry which pays their bills. They are in a symbiotic relationship with companies like Apple, they write about the tech that Apple produces, why bite the hand that feeds you? Smacks of arrogance to me...oh and i'm sure the police wouldn't have needed much more reason to Raid Chen's home than read Gizmodo where its all plainly stated that they paid $5000 to obtain goods which did not belong to them of dunbious provenance. How could they not investigate?

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By tmouse on 4/27/2010 10:19:17 AM , Rating: 5
There is no crime for anyone who is not under a NDA to tell any "trade secrets" they come across, as long as they themselves were not actively involved in the stealing of the trade secrets. They can say they purchased something that was purported to be a prototype that was not acknowledged by Apple as actually being one at that time. SO the guy goes to them and says I have a apple prototype phone, they ask if to his knowledge it is stolen, he says no he found it and called Apple (presumably looking for a reward) and no one got back to him. They buy it to get access to it to see if it a true prototype or bull (they take a risk it is a phony but they will still get more than their money back on a speculating story). The police will have to prove they had knowledge it was stolen beyond a reasonable doubt. If you bug a room and get trade secrets it illegal. If you find a stack of papers in a public bathroom it's not illegal unless you use the information for stock manipulation, extortion or your under a NDA for that secret. I still do not buy the idea that anyone would go out and get drunk enough to forget a highly valuable prototype when they work for a company as litigiously anal as Apple. Apple will also be part of this probe, they will have to document the exact time they were notified of its loss as well as all of their steps to retrieve this device (they better have logs of ALL of the places this guy went and proof the contacted them and asked for a lost phone). If their implying it was "lifted" from the guy they better have filed a police report the next day (he HAD to have noticed it was missing by the next morning if not the same night)

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Mitch101 on 4/26/2010 9:50:29 PM , Rating: 5
Lost <> Stolen

Jason Chen bought a lost phone that Apple support identified to the original finder as a chinese knockoff.

What was such an important phone doing in a bar/public place?

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 11:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
Wait, Apple support initially ID'd the phone as a Chinese knock off? That pretty much vindicates Gizmodo, makes the police look foolish, and makes Apple look like they threw a childish temper tantrum.

It was my understanding that the prototype was being tested in a 'live' environment, a good practice for any company making consumer electronics.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By porkpie on 4/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Apple harassing journalists
By OCedHrt on 4/27/2010 12:27:37 AM , Rating: 5
a) Yes true, but guilty until proven innocent?
b) I remember it was several calls and speaking with higher tier support as well.
c) Gizmodo may or may not have known it was a Chinese knockoff. They did not confirm anything until it was dismantled, since the phone was not operable!

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By abo75 on 4/27/2010 5:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't a $200 phone. It's a unique prototype, capable of costing the company hundreds of thousands, if not millions in damages.

Do you mean this could cost Apple millions in damages? The only way this episode will cost Apple is in lost sales of the 3GS. I've been holding off getting a new iPhone in anticipation of the 4G long before the images were released, now that I've seen it, I can't wait for it to be available.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By robinthakur on 4/27/2010 11:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
OK, this piece of technology is unreleased and Gizmodo have not only plastered it all over the Internet but have also taken it apart putting Apple at risk of industrial espionage, probably pissing them off royallly and guaranteed that they won't be getting any exclusives from Cupertino anytime soon (Kind of crucial when you are a consumer electronics site) They also paid $5000 to get possession of this phone, acquired by dubious means (can his story about trying to return it to Apple be corroborated by Apple? Wouldn't you know if the iPhone you had picked up wasn't your own or ccheck it before you left the bar? I certainly would) presumably knowing that the device did not belong to the person selling it, nor did they attempt to return it or hand it in to the police. This is clearly wrong, its not a "lead", its property that DID NOT BELONG TO THEM which they paid for.

All of the above is bad, but the total douche move of Gizmodo was to name the employee that lost it. Won't be reading their site again, who on earth does Fatso think he is?

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By MartyLK on 4/27/2010 12:10:25 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you! I agree with you 100% and you saved me the trouble of saying that.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Ristogod on 4/27/2010 9:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, people like you make me sad I live in a Democracy.

You don't live in a Democracy. You live in a democratic REPUBLIC. And in a republic, the powers of the government are limited to protect the people.

Furthermore, a democracy is mob rule. So if the majority of the people vote to take the minority's homes or possessions away, nothing can prevent that in a democracy. In a republic no democratic vote could allow that to happen.

Also on your points.

1. You are idiotic or naive to think that Apple didn't coerce the police into taking action.

2. There is no law stating that one must interpret the need to and keep a secret. If you need something kept secret, they by god you'd better keep it secret.

Now if Apple could prove by Gizmodo's actions that they causes damages, then that's different. But you and I both know that this will not cause any damages, but rather will only add publicity and sell more overpriced phones to gullible consumers.

3. It's not a conspiracy. If someone got a hold of my phone because I LOST it, and they made my information public, then it's no one's fault but my own. Surely I can get upset about it, because there is a moral issue involved, but I can't expect others to keep safe and secret what I'm not capable of keeping safe and secret myself.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By AnnihilatorX on 4/26/2010 6:50:16 PM , Rating: 1
It's called finder's keepers

It's perfectly legal to pick up something and put it in your pocket provided you tried locating the owner in the vicinity, and after so take it to police station. If a legitimate owner does not claim the item for so many days, the item will be returned to the finder.

At least that's the UK law. Don't know about the finder law in US.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By bwave on 4/26/2010 7:22:14 PM , Rating: 3
In the US (at least based on my experience in Maryland) you are required to turn item into law enforcement, then they hold the item for 30 days. After 30 days, they AUCTION the item off, and keep all proceeds for themselves. You don't get a finders fee or anything.

(had a friend watch a $750 peice of equipment fall off a work truck, nearly hitting his truck. He got out and put on his truck to get it out of the roadway, and drove it immediately to Sheriff's office, along with a description of the truck and the first 3 letters of the Maryland license plate. He left his name and address, when he called 2 weeks later to check if the guy had picked it up. (mostly for curiosity sake hoping the guy had) he was told that was not public information. He was told he was welcome to come bid on it during the next scheduled public auction should the guy have not claimed by then. Item sold for ~$400

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Solandri on 4/27/2010 3:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
California law requires you to make an earnest attempt to find the rightful owner, or return it where you found it (in this case, the bar, presumably so the bar could try to return it to the owner). Failing that, you're supposed to turn it in to the police. If nobody files a lost item report to claim the phone, after a certain amount of time, it becomes yours and you can pick it up from the police. Then you can sell it to Gizmodo for $5000.

Since the phone wasn't turned in to the police, it didn't belong to the person who sold it and he had no right to sell it. The moment he sold it, it became stolen property (as in, he's claiming he owns it so he can sell it, when he doesn't really own it). Otherwise you could do silly things like claim you "found" a shiny new Mercedes which was "lost" in a parking lot, and when you couldn't find the owner you sold it to the friendly neighborhood chop shop.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By alanore on 4/26/2010 7:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Finder's keepers law is only applicable to unowned or abandoned items. I'm not sure if this would count as unowned/abandoned as apple originally didn't want it back (allegedly), but then they did.

Either way finder's keepers is only a quasi-law.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Omega215D on 4/26/2010 7:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
so you find someone's phone with HIS contact info, yet you can still keep it with impunity? That's some serious bull.

unless the guy who found it called Apple HQ and not tech support it's considered stolen.

That said, I still don't know if this is part of a publicity stunt. XFX did something similar, ie. claiming product was stolen but they had a disclaimer on the bottom of the notice.

If it's not a stunt then yes the person who picked up the phone and Gizmodo broke the law. it needs to be 30 days before someone can claim a found item theirs.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By walk2k on 4/26/2010 8:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree the police tactics here seem excessive.. they took his iPod? Really?? Like it would have email or text message or phone records? It's a damn iPod!

Reminds me of Steve Jackson Games all over again.

Also this:

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Aloonatic on 4/27/2010 2:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's called finder's keepers
Maybe when you're 10, in the play ground.

There's a offence called "theft by finding" where, basically, you have to make a reasonable attempt to return what you find to the owner, else if you keep it, you are a thief. If you find £10 on the street, you're not going to be prosecuted as the odds are, it would be impossible to find the original owner. If you find a sack full of cash, then you need to hand it in, as someone will be looking for it. Same goes for found lottery tickets, I think there was a case not that long ago where a couple found a ticket that had one a large prize and were prosecuted. If the item has been abandoned, then it's yours.

It would be hard to claim that the "finder" was not able to return a mobile phone to its original owner, or that the phone was "abandoned" by them. Just call the network operator and they will do the rest, or with an iPhone, just go to your nearest Apple shop thing (whatever they're called) and clearly someone was looking for this, so it wasn't "abandoned".

Not that any of that matters, as this case didn't happen in the UK, but I thought you might want so clarity on the UK laws, so that you don't fall foul of them and find yourself looking foolish in court, using "play-ground" defences.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By ekv on 4/26/2010 6:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Rather indirect ... but note "Apple's veil of secrecy"

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By MartyLK on 4/27/2010 12:07:39 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you! Saved me the trouble of saying it myself.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By dxf2891 on 4/27/2010 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
Well, if YOU pick up something I leave behind, you call that stealing?!?!? WTF?!?! It could be argued that GIZMODO offered a reward to find the missing phone and were never compensated by Apple for returning it. Apple got their phone back before the laws intervention. They received it from a person who found it unattended in a bar. He didn't take from the guy at gunpoint nor did he pick his pockets. He picked it up from a bar. The guy who found it had no legal obligation to return it. The fact that the owners got it back, and it was never reported as stolen, is causing a pretty sticky issue for these Tech Cops.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By crystal clear on 4/26/2010 9:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but Giz exposed everything that was inside.....that invites big trouble (legally)for them.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By tmouse on 4/27/2010 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
No it dosen't.

There are no specific forms of legal protection for trade secrets. In fact, there is no single standard by which to determine whether or not information is proprietary All of these laws require the information to be acquired illegally. Its not illegal to get information fram a inside source, its illegal for the source to sell it. It would also be illegal to hire someone to bug a meeting or break in to get the information. Unless they can prove Gizmodo had reason to believe the phone was in fact stolen properity they broke no laws. Even then the crime would be reciving stolen goods not revealing trade secrets, that would require Gizmodo to hire someone to steal the phone.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By Solandri on 4/27/2010 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Right. Seems to me the most Gizmodo is in trouble for is buying stolen property (the fact that they paid $5000 for a $300 phone says they knew it was special, and they knew Apple wanted it back). The police raid and seizure was so they could get the name of the guy who (illegally) sold the phone to them. Though I imagine Apple threw a hissy fit to get the police to crack down in a big way.

RE: Apple harassing journalists
By crystal clear on 4/27/2010 9:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Read this-

</ The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) is a model law drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to better define rights and remedies of common law trade secret. According to thorough legal research, it has been adopted by 45 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas have not adopted the UTSA. Some of these states continue to apply common law to trade secrets, and some have adopted separate state statutes. In 2007, the UTSA was introduced in both the New York and New Jersey legislatures.


Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade sec ret, which is defined as

a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or
b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it.
Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:

improperly; or
under an obligation not to disclose or use it; or
from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or
by accident or mistake (for example, through a misdirected email or facsimile transmission), if before using or disclosing the trade secret the person acquiring it learns that it is a trade secret. This is one of the reasons that many firms and individuals who deal regularly with trade secret information routinely include a notice in their emails and fax cover sheets advising of the confidential nature of the contents.
[edit] Remedies

The UTSA imposes civil rather than criminal liability for misappropriation of trade s ecrets and creates a private cause of action for the victim. Remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Act are injunctions, damages, including "exemplary" (punitive) damages, and, in cases of bad faith or willful and malicious misappropriation, reasonable attorney's fees.


RE: Apple harassing journalists
By tmouse on 4/28/2010 8:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
Find out what defines a trade secret first. A device is not a trade secret, by definition a trade secret cannot be simply reversed engineered, so taking apart a phone and seeing what components are there is not a trade secret. Think about it if it were any public announcement would be revealing the trade secret. Also you cannot have temporary trade secrets. A products date of release and the general components contained in them can be confidential information but that does not make them trade secrets. Now if you bothered to read your own wiki you would see:

"Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:"

A) means the item was willfully and with knowledge acquired either directly or from someone who got it through inappropriate means (ie: it is stolen, There is NO evidence we have seen that show Gizmodo was told the device was stolen or that a prototype was stolen from Apple. The guy said he found it and said Apple disavowed any knowledge that it was real (he MAY be guilty but NOT Gizmodo) they did not even have evidence it was a real product until after they got it

B) in case you did not realize this IS a NDA

The USTA does NOT apply here with the information we have at hand.

By inighthawki on 4/26/2010 6:04:44 PM , Rating: 5
Talk about an overkill reaction for purchasing supposedly stolen hardware. Damn they act like the guy murdered someone. I don't see why any action beyond giving the device back and maybe a small fine was in order.

RE: Overkill
By ekv on 4/26/2010 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Black boots and helicopters right around the corner...? Amazing.

RE: Overkill
By chagrinnin on 4/26/2010 10:42:34 PM , Rating: 5
The Gestapple are coming! The Gestapple are coming! :0

RE: Overkill
By PandaBear on 4/26/2010 6:09:22 PM , Rating: 5
What a waste of my tax dollar. Get the cops to write red light tickets or catching thugs should be the priority rather than protecting Steve's bragging right.

RE: Overkill
By DM0407 on 4/26/2010 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 5
Very true. This comes out of the pockets of everyone here in 'Amer-ka'.

Have we broke down the doors of the CEO's at Goldman Sachs?

RE: Overkill
By thepalinator on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Overkill
By ekv on 4/26/2010 6:47:20 PM , Rating: 4
Has the White House returned Goldman Sachs million dollar campaign contributions?

It'd be nice if law enforcement agencies would do just that, enforce the law, instead of viewing porn and getting by with a slap on the wrist.

Or bust the muslim punk from Houston that "honor" killed his daughter and fled jurisdiction.

The special task force is nice to have, but perhaps they ought to focus more on nailing the asses of Internet kiddie porn-types, than doing the DEA-style number on Gizmodo. Simply serving the subpoena would've been sufficient.

RE: Overkill
By jconan on 4/27/2010 11:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
Would this be considered malfeasance then? The Supreme Court and the police are enacting the improper code. Knowingly it wasn't even reported stolen. 2nd it's not even trade secret as Apple had stated that it was Japanese fake unfortunately it couldn't be recorded on the phone without breaking consent to record. All this sounds quite dubious and a strong hand of malfeasance.

RE: Overkill
By Tony Swash on 4/26/2010 7:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
What a waste of my tax dollar. Get the cops to write red light tickets or catching thugs should be the priority rather than protecting Steve's bragging right.

Do you think that journalists should be able to buy stolen industrial secrets and then publish them for gain with no legal redress? Doesn't sound like a some thing we should tolerate to me.

If it was a Microsoft's industrial secret that had been stolen I would have been amused but I would also have perfectly understood the need for legal action to deal with the situation. Just because I don't like a company doesn't mean I thinks its OK to commit crimes against them.

RE: Overkill
By inighthawki on 4/26/2010 9:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh gee, what a huge secret, a brand new iphone, complete with almost the same specs as every other iphone with a few features tossed in to make people think it's worth paying an additional $500. Let's be honest here, industry or not and secret or not, it's just a piece of hardware and it really isn't special. Should he be punished? Yes. Should they be going through this extreme? No.

I could be making the new latest and greatest gadget in my basement but if I lose it in a bar and someone prints the details of it, the police would likely laugh at me if I asked to do anything more than sue them for damages. Hardly grounds for raiding someone's house and taking tons of personal data in an effort to see if he ever mentions the new iphone...

RE: Overkill
By screamlordbyron on 4/26/2010 9:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the fact that Apple let this phone out into the wild probably, on its face defeats most expectation of trade secret protection.

Also, the phone was not stolen, it was lost or abandoned. Thus it is unlikely that there is a prosecutable conspiracy.

Also, the search warrant which was executed appears to have been contrary to California law.

Finally, there have, as of yet been no charges brought against Mr. Chen of Gawker Media. It is very possible that there is not intent to bring charges against them related to their possession of the phone, unless perhaps it appears that they did something further, such as retained a coned copy of the firmware, etc.

In short, the rhetoric is more than a bit overblown here.

RE: Overkill
By porkpie on 4/26/2010 9:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple let this phone out into the wild probably..."

Giving your software engineers the product to test is not "letting it out in the wild", even if they take it off premises.

"the phone was not stolen, it was lost or abandoned."

It was not abandoned. And lost property is still the property of the owner, except in certain cases where that owner cannot be determined.

"Also, the search warrant which was executed appears to have been contrary to California law."

Possibly. However, that only affects the evidence that was seized. It's not a universal "get out of jail free card" for Gizmodo, or the person who sold them the phone.

RE: Overkill
By samspqr on 4/27/2010 6:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
lost property is NOT still property of the owner if you offer to give it back and get dismissed

which is what happened

RE: Overkill
By Chocobollz on 4/26/2010 8:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
Hint: don't screw with Apple if you don't want to lose your Jobs! ;-)

RE: Overkill
By michal1980 on 4/26/2010 11:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
on the other hand how much 'work' are these cops doing?

Its not like they had to look to find who ended up with the phone.

Giz told the world they had 'stolen' property.

It's probably not about Apple...
By Roffles on 4/26/2010 6:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of tech geeks are so used to prototype leaks, whether intentional or not, that they have become desensitized to the reality of these situations.

This wasn't just some phone, and Gizmoto knew it. They bought a disguised prototype, photographed all it's secrets, and went public with their findings. This is nothing short of profit driven espionage. How can anyone say the first amendment protects this behavior?

My guess is that Apple is out to set an example and other companies out there with their own prototypes appreciate the fact that some precedence is finally being set in the matter.

RE: It's probably not about Apple...
By ICBM on 4/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: It's probably not about Apple...
By porkpie on 4/26/2010 7:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Of course Giz knew it was a prototype...The 1st Amendment absolutely protects this type of information"

Your high school civics teacher should be fired for incompetence. How in the world did you conclude that a criminal conspiracy to profit from stolen trade secrets counts as "freedom of speech"?

By screamlordbyron on 4/26/2010 9:40:59 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it appears that perhaps you were the one to flunk civics, as well as "basic fact checking."

(1) The fact that Apple let this phone out into the wild probably, on its face defeats most expectation of trade secret protection.

(2) The phone was not stolen, it was lost or abandoned. Thus it is unlikely that there is a prosecutable conspiracy.

(3) The search warrant which was executed appears to have been contrary to California law, which excepts journalists from this type of search warrant.

(4) The police were aware the fact they improperly obtained a warrant against a journalist, as Gawker Media's COO and General Counsel had put the DA's office on notice earlier that day.

(5) There have, as of yet been no charges brought against Mr. Chen of Gawker Media. It is very possible that there is not intent to bring charges against them related to their possession of the phone, unless perhaps it appears that they did something further, such as retained a coned copy of the firmware, etc.

While I'm not saying that Gizmodo was 100% above board here, most of this talk about criminal conspiracy, stolen trade secrets, etc. is way over the top. To the contrary, it appears that the police here knowingly violated California law in obtaining an improper warrant. The whole thing is one big ugly mess of bad (if not illegal) behavior on all sides.

By Xaussie on 4/26/2010 8:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about the leak. It's just a stupid iPhone. This is about (a) the theft of personal property from a bar (b) someone purchasing property that was clearly stolen (or does Gizmodo think Apple has started selling off prototypes PRIOR to product release to make ends meet or something ???).

And for those who think this is such a special case, start buying stolen property and then blog about the cool stuff you've gotten your hands on. See how long it takes before there's an axe through your front door!

Has anyone noticed that we've only heard the thief's side of the story, which of course paints him in the most glowing altruistic light possible. When the truth comes out we might just hear that the person is actually a professional pick-pocket who was able to swipe a phone from an unsuspecting engineer without getting caught (yet).

If he wasn't stealing it why not just hand it to the establishment. Isn't the first thing any of us would do if we lost something of value in a bar, call the bar and ask if someone handed in an iPhone? Why would you walk out of the place and take it home (and not hand it in to the police either) if your sole intent wasn't to steal it and try and sell it to make money (which surprise! is exactly what he did).

RE: It's probably not about Apple...
By Roffles on 4/26/2010 8:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Haha okay, you keep pretending it's "just" a phone and I'll keep pretending it's not a disguised secret prototype for the multi-billion dollar iPhone brand. You can also pretend all you want Gizmoto purchasing a stolen phone for $5,000 doesn't break a code of journalistic ethics. It reeks of everything that's wrong with journalism and the media.

Furthermore, people seem to be perfectly fine with the "i found it on the floor of a bar and i tried to return it without success" story.

A few things that draw suspicion:

1. California bay area residents *in general*, ESPECIALLY those 20-somethings who populate bars in Redwood city, know their phones. It wouldn't be a huge shock to learn that the person who "found" it at the bar quickly (very quickly) discovered he had a gold nugget in his possession.

2. The phone was bricked/disable the very next day, possibly even tracked by Apple. For all we know, Apple knew of the phone's whereabouts and let this happen. Their could be another side to this story entirely and this house raid is just a part of it.

RE: It's probably not about Apple...
By ICBM on 4/26/2010 10:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it is just a phone. If this was a first generation iphone prototype, then it would be a slightly bigger deal. Since every iphone release since then has been the same thing with tiny improvements makes it a relatively boring device.

People saying this is the problem with journalism I think don't really understand. Are these people saying it is better to just wait to report on press releases put forth by governments and people instead of digging in and trying to find things out for themselves.

Giz gave the device back, willing. They never claimed ownership. You could consider the money as paying to access the device. Journalist do this all the time with informants and buying information. This may be slighlty below some of your ethics, but alot of journalism is.

I stick by my original statement placing all the blame on Apple. If they let the device loose, then that is their bad. I understand Steve himself monitors the prototypes, so this egg is directly on his face.

By porkpie on 4/26/2010 10:56:13 PM , Rating: 1
"Giz gave the device back, willing."

Giving the phone back after publishing all its secrets is rather like giving the farmer back his daughter after you've already impregnated her.

By robinthakur on 4/27/2010 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
This may be slighlty below some of your ethics

Yes. Yes it is. Gizmodo knew what they were doing when they published this exposée on "just a phone" (LOL!) the stolen property they paid $5000 to "access" which billions of dollars and an entire worldwide industry rides on. If for no other reason than the gross invasion of privacy they carried out by naming the individual that 'lost' the prototype, they are the lowest of the low.

Where the concept of 'jouranlistic integrity' is concerned I don't think it really expected to apply to Consumer Electronic Sites...they aren't war reporters. Expect repercussions....

By Chocobollz on 4/27/2010 5:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, so if I lost my daughter and you found her on the street, you basically have the rights to take her home, and do whatever you like to her. Very good point. One question though, do you even have a brain?

Thou Shall not question the Empire!
By satveeraj on 4/26/2010 8:07:35 PM , Rating: 5
1.) Thou Shall not say anything bad about Apple
2.) Thou Shall only buy Apple
3.) Thou Shall not steal from Apple, especially prototypes
4.) Thu Shall not question Steve Jobs
5.) Thou Shall keep buying every new Apple device regardless the last one was only release a month ago
6.) Thou Shall always be a Fan boy for life
7.) Thou Sall not attempt to defame Apple
8.) Thou Shall not attempt to copy Apple
9.) Thou Shall embrace the iReligion and seek no other
10.) Thou Shall not compare Apple to Pears

There you go...summed it all up for the Empire Rules

RE: Thou Shall not question the Empire!
By Xaussie on 4/26/2010 8:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm far from an Apple fan boy. Their computers are overpriced prettied up, slow, junk.

I however agree completely that Gizmodo absolutely did the wrong thing here, as did the person who sold them the phone. $5K is going to seem like way too little when Steve is finished with him. I'm not a Jobs fan either but I'm going to enjoy watching what he's going to do to these guys.

RE: Thou Shall not question the Empire!
By Roffles on 4/26/2010 9:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
You and me both...I never have and probably never will choose Apple over a competitor. To me, it's not about Apple. It's about the direction we're headed with online journalism and the blogosphere. Something like this needs to happen to keep these fools in check.

Today it's Apple and tomorrow it will be your favorite hardware manufacturer getting burned by these unethical practices.

By Bateluer on 4/26/2010 11:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, had Apple managed this differently, they'd have cashed in on tens of millions of dollars worth of free marketing, increasing their sales figures. Its also possible, if there were any features in the prototype that hadn't already been done by a competitor, that competing hand sets would be delayed in order to incorporate the new features, giving the iPhone time in the market place.

Instead, they've rubbed salt into their own eyes. Again.

By crystal clear on 4/26/2010 8:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow some reinvented the TEN commandments !

....(like Apple reinvented the phone)

By crystal clear on 4/26/2010 9:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
The Hate Apple Ayottolahs will soon incorp these TEN Commandments in their Koran.

Overkill yes, but deserved nonetheless
By Xaussie on 4/26/2010 6:53:06 PM , Rating: 4
My young son left a Nintendo DS Lite in Frys. By the time we realized and searched for it, it was gone. It was my son's Christmas present, and it was never handed in.

The person who took it, if I ever caught them, would be very sorry by the time I'd finished with them. This is stealing, no matter what and the person who took the iPhone 4G did pretty much the same thing. Gizmodo purchasing it for $5K knew they were buying stolen property.

If anything I'm really glad that they did this to a billionaire megalomaniac like Steve Jobs and not me, because he most certainly will (and is already) making them pay for their greed and thoughtlessness in an attempt to profit at the expense of others (e.g. the poor guy who left it behind in the first place).

Reminds me a lot of the utter morons who kept trying to extort money from that billionaire German lady who made the sex tape, and all ended up in jail. (Hint: $13 Billion buys a pretty damn good fleet of private investigators).

RE: Overkill yes, but deserved nonetheless
By soghjai on 4/26/2010 7:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
The person who found the iphone attempted to return it but Apple tech support told him he had a chinese knock off. Apple is a victim of their own paranoia

RE: Overkill yes, but deserved nonetheless
By Xaussie on 4/26/2010 8:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Such diligence, he called Apple corporate to say he found an iPhone in a bar. Maybe all of their lost iPhone recovery teams were out on other calls that day. That has to be the lamest reason I've heard yet for stealing something and not returning it. Next time I steal someone's Rolex remind me to cover my arse by calling Switzerland and asking them if they want their Rolex back, before I sell it to the highest bidder. Face it, he wasn't trying to return it to it's rightful owner, he was trying to see if Apple would pony up some money to get it back!

Maybe the thief who stole my son's Nintendo DS Lite called Nintendo and asked them if they'd lost one? I should sue Nintendo for not immediately recovering it for me!

I'm ROFL, this guy who took the phone is going to jail and probably some of the people from Gizmodo as well. No sympathy at all, they deserve what they get. Ignorance of the law has never been successfully used as a criminal defence. There was a woman a while back who had $50K accidentally put in her account so she spent it. When they arrested her she claimed she thought it was an inheritance from a relative who died. She went to jail.

By samspqr on 4/27/2010 6:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
the guy who found it called the owner (apple), described it, and stated that it was indeed an iphone, running the iphone OS (for a while), yet it looked kind of different, that's why he thought it was kind of "special"

apple knew it had lost the phone (they remotely killed it), yet they dismissed the call as bogus; it was all their fault, because of their bad internal communications (the project was "secret", so the people picking the phone didn't know about it)

he DID try to give it back; what else could the guy do?

By JonB on 4/27/2010 1:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
The person who took it, if I ever caught them, would be very sorry by the time I'd finished with them.

By "... by the time I'd finished with them." did you mean you have committed another crime of assault and battery? Actually striking them? If so, then you will have trumped their misdemeanor theft with a felony.

Or, if you verbally threatened them with physical harm but didn't actually touch them, they could perhaps charge you with assault (misdemeanor assault, anyway).

The actions taken by Apple, and the "too eager to please" Silicon Valley REACT force, are above and beyond the actual theft of a phone. This wasn't even a "felony" level theft by most dollar level classifications.

This will take at least a year to play out, hopefully to a lot of media coverage. It is better than the Housewives of New Jersey. I'm looking forward to the entertainment.

By Suntan on 4/30/2010 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm... When I was a kid, my dad would have said, "Well son, that will teach you not to lose track of your stuff..."

Too bad there are a lot people like you who constantly find moments in life which can be used to teach your children to be more responsible for themselves, and then waste those moments teaching them to instead b!tch and moan to others about how they were wronged.


By sapiens74 on 4/26/2010 6:12:31 PM , Rating: 2

We live in a police state for the rich....

By thepalinator on 4/26/2010 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair, Apple pays more in taxes than every "Joe Schmo" in the state.

By nafhan on 4/26/2010 6:45:41 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, individuals or corporations that have more money getting preferential treatment is about the opposite of fair. In fact, that sounds similar to bribery.

By whiskerwill on 4/26/2010 7:12:06 PM , Rating: 3
When you have a rare and expensive prototype get stolen, and the person who has it is advertising they have it all over the Internet -- I'm sure the police will help you out too.

Just don't expect the police to do door-to-door random searches of every fracking house in the city, just to find your $200 phone.

By ekv on 4/26/2010 6:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Given Apple's profit margin ... who pays?

When Apple forced 3rd party hardware dev's out of business, that's when Apple lost my support.

Shakes head
By damianrobertjones on 4/27/2010 3:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's a damn phone. A PHONE!

Why oh why are the cops bothering? Would they raid someone's home if 'YOU' lost your phone??


RE: Shakes head
By cyberserf on 4/27/2010 3:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
This is not Russia man.
I can't believe someone would authorize a raid on someone's home over a lost/stolen phone.
This is unbelievable.
We need accountability now!!!
If this was Apple's doing make them pay big!

RE: Shakes head
By eddieroolz on 4/27/2010 4:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
A lost phone, with billions at stake. It's not just your ordinary Moto RAZR that's been lost, its a multi-billion dollar prototype that was only authorized to be used by a test engineer.

RE: Shakes head
By R3T4rd on 4/27/2010 4:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
How's it multi-billion? As others have stated on here and other sites, the new iPhone 4G boasts new hardware that have been standard on other Smart Phones from other companies for years now. Sounds more like a $200 prototype.

RE: Shakes head
By eddieroolz on 4/29/2010 5:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
If a test driver loses a prototype car for Mercedes-Benz, he'll be in deep trouble. But hey, it has parts that have been standard on cars for decades right?

Of course, that logic doesn't work.

By zenmonkman on 4/26/2010 6:22:31 PM , Rating: 5
It's not that I don't like the due diligence used in this case ... but it's been mis-allocated ... Let' laser beam enforcement efforts on the radical Muslims that threated South Part with the same diligence and I'll be happy. My gosh, those guys are trying to steal the FREEDOM OF SPEECH and that's much more valuable than a pre-released Apple product.

Oh Steve!
By wiz220 on 4/26/2010 6:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Could any company other than Apple get this sort of preferential treatment? Maybe this is why Steve is always describing Apple products as being soooo much more than just electronic gizmos. So that when something like this happens people are fooled into thinking it's an ACTUAL emergency requiring search parties, a declaration of martial law and the suspension of constitutional rights (/sarcasm).

RE: Oh Steve!
By Xaussie on 4/26/2010 8:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, but when you take on powerful people expect the consequences ...

They should be thankful they are in the US. In many other countries the lot of them would be under six feet of concrete by now.

There was an attempt to return the phone
By soghjai on 4/26/2010 7:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how any law has been broken.

A) The person who found the phone DID try to return it. Since he didn't have Steve Job's personal cell phone he did the next best thing and called Apple tech support. Since the company is so secretive the operator had no clue that there's a 4G phone missing and told him he had a chinese knock off.

B) When Apple asked for the phone back Jason complied.

By porkpie on 4/26/2010 7:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
But the chap who sold the phone *knew* it wasn't a Chinese knockoff. One random phone call to Apple's customer service line is not "a good faith effort" to return the property. By law, he should have turned it over to the local police department.

However, the search at Gizmodo likely violated federal law (the Newsroom Protection Act) so the situation appears to be even more complex.

19 items seized?
By cheetah2k on 4/27/2010 12:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
the task force seized 19 items from Chen's home including his MacBook, a ThinkPad laptop, MediaSmart server, a few external hard drives, two USB thumb drives, digital cameras, and an iPod.

I'm still scratching my head why they seized his iPod?

Was it looking kinda shady or something?

RE: 19 items seized?
By woka on 4/27/2010 8:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
Many iPods can be used as a thumb drive. The touch has a mail client, note taking ability, and can take voice memos.

That or the paranoia has them looking for other prototypes?

Legal Definitions
By dxf2891 on 4/27/2010 3:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Stolen Property Property obtained by larceny, by stealing, by robbing, by theft; something unlawfully taken from its rightful owner

Found Property Property found in a public or semipublic place—where the public is ordinarily invited and expected to be—may be considered lost, since the owner or manager of the location does not represent its owner

It seems that the guy who "surrendered" the phone to Gizmondo based on legal definitions "found" the phone versus "stole" the phone.

RE: Legal Definitions
By dxf2891 on 4/27/2010 4:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that this is a violation of Mr. Chens First Amendment Rights as he is a member of the press. His sources are protected and can not be devulged without his say so. Man, these cops are wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny. I guess Mr. Chen is poised for a lot of free publicity and a huge payday. Damn if this don't sound like it's right out of a movie. You know, if Apple plays this right, they could come out a winner as well. I.E. We want our consumers to have the best possible experience, yada, yada, we don't want the product to lose its luster, yada, yada, we apologize to Mr. Chen and are willing to compensate him for his damages and trouble. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Break even for Gizmodo?
By nafhan on 4/26/2010 6:50:38 PM , Rating: 3
So, in terms of page hits/advertising dollars, I'm still thinking they are probably coming out in the black from this whole thing - even if you consider the computers the police took to be a total loss.
Plus, I think it helps with their image a little bit. It's all the "man's" fault now!

Nowhere in the world is safe
By carniver on 4/26/2010 6:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going to mess with Jobs.

A phone, really
By knutjb on 4/26/2010 7:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Kick in the door of what was publicly displayed but how much espionage goes unnoticed? I don't agree with the payment nor do I agree with Apple taking out their anger on a third party when they lost the phone. The old poster from WWII--loose lips sink ships...

Gizmodo should learn its lesson now.
By ie5x on 4/27/2010 3:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
Having been a frequent visitor to tech sites like this one and Gizmodo, I was being lately surprised and shocked to see the shameless Apple worship being done at Giz. Their Apple articles are seldom balanced. Some of them felt as if Giz is just a marketing outfit for Apple. Probably this incident would teach some lessons to them. Maybe, just maybe, they would now take in the truth and portray all shades of Apple to their readers.

By PAPutzback on 4/27/2010 7:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
But can they even prosecute on that since they were looking for something related to the phone.

It really does suck that if you have enough money you can have lawyers get police to break into a house.

I don;t understand what they are looking for. The phone has been returned.

By knowom on 4/27/2010 4:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
I hate Apple, but Gizmodo had it coming their is know way being a tech journalist he didn't know better he couldn't have been that naive.

In this case I'm sorry, but Gizmodo acted like a complete idiot and deserves any penalties he might incur as a result of his bad karma.

By holymaniac on 4/27/2010 4:18:00 AM , Rating: 1
They break in, damage property and steal things - and get away with it. They will not have to pay, the courts protect them. We allow those in authority way too much power. They abuse it daily.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki