backtop


Print 30 comment(s) - last by eddieroolz.. on Apr 29 at 6:07 PM


  (Source: Gizmodo)
Wired apparently didn't think buying potentially stolen goods was a good idea

On March 28 Wired.com reportedly received an unbelievable email claiming that a tipster had obtained a misplaced fourth generation iPhone.  According to the site, they entered a brief discussion about coverage on the device.  The discussion quickly terminated though when the source start hinting he wanted money. Wired declined to buy possibly stolen property and thus walked away from the year's biggest tech scoop.

Gizmodo on the other hand had took the bait.  Now, not long after police raided the home of a Gizmodo editor, police reportedly have located the seller as well.

A source close to the transaction is quoted by 
Wired.com as claiming that the seller made an earnest effort to return the phone to Apple.  They claim they tried to contact Apple and searched for the iPhone user on Facebook, but couldn't find them.  

They claim the $5,000 "sale" described by 
Gizmodo was really merely for an exclusivity agreement, not the sale of the actual device.  Describes the source, "The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?"

The finder is reportedly a college-aged Silicon Valley man.

If the search warrant against Chen is any indication, the man may soon face criminal charges.  Police obviously aren't buying the exclusivity fee claim, particularly after 
Gizmodo admitted in writing to buying the phone and numerous staffers at the site commented on the device's purchase, including site owner and Gawker President Nick Denton.

The police reason that if the finder wanted to return the phone, why didn't he just turn it in to police?  That, after all, is the legal approach if you discover something valuable that didn't belong to you.



Comments     Threshold


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

The right thing?
By Chaser on 4/28/2010 8:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
What if Gizmodo had acquired the phone -even for $5000.00- and then quietly returned it to Apple without exposes and Youtube videos? I have a feeling that Apple, out of gratitude for their defunct, drunken engineer's irresponsible actions, would have shown Gizmodo some appreciation with exclusive reviews ahead of everyone else or some other tokens of gratitude since Gizmodo is one of several recognized gadget tech review sites. As it stands now Gizmodo, although not a criminal offense I don't think, acted underhandedly to get a "scoop" and they may end up paying for it.




RE: The right thing?
By Keeir on 4/28/2010 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... Chaser

Given Apple's reputation, I wouldn't have "quietly" turned the phone back into them. That almost seems like an invitation to be visited late one night.

But seriously no, Apple is not really known to be kind to anyone with advanced knowledge of this product, nor would they be willing to grant any favours.

Gizmodo did nothing underhanded. Unless you think Spy shots of automobiles, airplanes, etc are also "underhanded". Nor did the person finding the phone or Gizmodo do what was likely the most profitable, least risky, and quite frankly also the most criminal act.... contact Motorola, Samsung, etc to sell the prototype.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














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