Print 54 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on May 19 at 10:14 AM

Brian Lam wasn't exactly forthcoming when Jobs contacted him

And you thought that whole iPhone 4G/HD saga was over? CNET News has just posted excerpts from an affidavit for the search warrant used to raid Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house.

If you may recall, an Apple engineer lost a prototype iPhone in a bar, a man by the name of Brian Hogan found the phone, and an unnamed third person then sold the phone to Gizmodo for $5,000. Once Gizmodo came into possession of the phone, the biggest tech news story of 2010 was upon us.

We are now learning, thanks to CNET, that none other than the big man himself, Steve Jobs, contacted Brian Lam and requested the return of the iPhone prototype. Steve Jobs is known to get rather upset and tyrannical with his own employees, so one must wonder how that conversation went.

It was also revealed that Apple pushed police to investigate the case. CNET provides this excerpt from the affidavit:

Sewell told me that after released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of, Brian Lam. Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the e-mail address...that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple.

According to CNET, even after Steve Jobs contacted Brian Lam requesting the return of the iPhone, he still wasn't satisfied. In fact, Lam went on to respond stating that he wanted "confirmation that it is real, from Apple, officially."

Lam continued, stating, "Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively."

As we all know, Brian Lam did get an official response from Apple in the form of a letter from Apple's legal department on April 20.

The full 19-page search warrant is expected to be made public before 5pm EST today.

Updated 5/14/2010 @ 4:48pm

You can find the previously sealed documents (search warrant, affidavit, etc.) here.

Comments     Threshold

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

By JasonMick on 5/14/2010 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
According to CNET, even after Steve Jobs contacted Brian Lam requesting the return of the iPhone, he still wasn't satisfied. In fact, Lam went on to respond stating that he wanted "confirmation that it is real, from Apple, officially."

As I've said before I'm no fan of Apple's tactics, but Gizmodo seems to have made some bad decisions here.

When someone contacts you about their lost or stolen property you don't start making demands, you give them their property back.

RE: Interesting
By inighthawki on 5/14/2010 3:48:01 PM , Rating: 5
Uh, typically I like to make sure it belongs to the person asking for it before I blindly hand something over. While it was likely an exploitative attempt on Gizmodo's part to get proof that it was real, I don't see how it is unreasonable to provide proof that that something belongs to you before someone gives it back.

RE: Interesting
By Luticus on 5/14/2010 3:53:17 PM , Rating: 3
While i'm usually not very pro-apple, i'm with them on this one... i mean seriously, the phone was reported by Gizmondo as an apple iphone 4g device and then Steve himself calls and asks for it... who else's is it!? they should have just taken the phone call and demand for return of the device as circumstantial proof that it's probably real and published that story, had they turned the device over to begin with and published the story like that then perhaps they wouldn't look so bad now.

RE: Interesting
By inighthawki on 5/14/2010 3:54:59 PM , Rating: 4
That's a fair assumption, but legally, for example, that is not proof. Steve jobs asking for a device back that is labeled as an iphone 4g does not provide any real evidence that it actually belongs to Apple.

RE: Interesting
By Luticus on 5/14/2010 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 3
Then they should have done the smart thing and turned it into the authorities and let them sort the mess out. Either way, what they did is stupid. They got greedy when they should have just taken their story and ditched the device...

RE: Interesting
By JasonMick on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By deeznuts on 5/14/2010 4:29:58 PM , Rating: 5
Hi Jason, this is steve jobs. No really it is.

RE: Interesting
By Iaiken on 5/14/2010 4:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
YOU aren't Steve Jobs, I'M Steve Jobs!

RE: Interesting
By JasonMick on 5/14/2010 4:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
At least one of you must be the Fake Steve Jobs ;)

RE: Interesting
By just4U on 5/14/2010 10:57:07 PM , Rating: 3
Steve's the type that would have multiple user accounts I think!

RE: Interesting
By jbwhite99 on 5/17/2010 5:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
multiple accounts - one for each personality?

RE: Interesting
By lexluthermiester on 5/18/2010 4:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, Yes!

RE: Interesting
By Makaveli on 5/14/2010 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
i'm gonna sue you both for using my name. You're not smug enough to be me!

Even my greatest enemy bill isn't stupid enough to try and be me there can only be one.

RE: Interesting
By Inspector2211 on 5/14/2010 6:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, you know what? You claim you're Steve Jobs?
Look, here's what I'm gonna do:
Give me your land line phone number and I'll look up "Jobs, Steve" in the White Pages to make sure this is really you, and I'll call you right back.

Oh, you have an unlisted number?
Why the h*** would you do that?

RE: Interesting
By xsilver on 5/15/2010 2:04:26 AM , Rating: 5
ok steve to prove you're real im going to fedex you a dog turd - now if you can polish it up so good that someone is willing to pay money for it I'll believe you...

RE: Interesting
By quiksilvr on 5/14/2010 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Don't act all high and mighty, Jason. Do you really think we don't see through YOUR little ruses when it comes to your sensationalist article titles? You have no right to judge on Gizmodo's practices when:

1) You don't have the facts straight. For all we know Gizmodo could be innocent or Apple guilty (or the other way around, or somewhere in the middle).
2) You are a hypocrite.

RE: Interesting
By icanhascpu on 5/14/2010 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, obviously there was some confusion over who the iPhone belonged to. Lets disregard that Gizmodo themselves prove in their very own article that is was indeed Apples and indeed authentic.

How about some of you let your common sense and rationality overcome your hate for Apple? Because you're starting to sound like the people you hate.

RE: Interesting
By XZerg on 5/15/2010 8:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
Just a thought - since Stevie contacted him via email, wouldn't the email address be a quick giveaway that it was from iStevie iJobs?

RE: Interesting
By Camikazi on 5/15/2010 1:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
iCan spoof rather easily :)

RE: Interesting
By rcc on 5/19/2010 10:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
The were willing to pay $5000 for it. They knew it was real.

Not to mention they were willing to pay $5000 for what amounted to stolen property.

RE: Interesting
By spread on 5/14/2010 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, he was asking for confirmation that it WAS indeed Apple's property.

RE: Interesting
By whiskerwill on 5/14/2010 5:29:39 PM , Rating: 5
Well, he was asking for confirmation that it WAS indeed Apple's property.
No he was asking for a letter he could post on his sites for extra hits.

RE: Interesting
By eskimospy on 5/14/2010 6:13:28 PM , Rating: 3
And if Apple had a brain in their head they would have printed him a 3 sentence letter saying exactly what everyone already knew, thus avoiding a colossal PR SNAFU.

Yeap, he was being a douche trying to get a letter out of them, but Apple's response of 'okay, instead of a letter we will involve the police' was every bit as ridiculous. Ah well, all parties involved are getting what they deserved.

RE: Interesting
By whiskerwill on 5/14/2010 6:18:00 PM , Rating: 1
The difference is they were the ones with the stolen property, not Apple.

And the only people this is a "colossal snafu" to are the usual Apple haters. No one else really cares one way or another.

RE: Interesting
By teng029 on 5/14/2010 7:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. i sincerely doubt apple's sales will be affected by this one way or another.

RE: Interesting
By eskimospy on 5/15/2010 10:26:11 AM , Rating: 5
There has been a story in nearly every major news publication about how Apple sent the police to break down the door of someone for writing a news story about their phone.

Maybe in the business you run that's good PR, but here in reality it sure as shit isn't. It's not like people aren't going to buy the new IPhone because Steve Jobs is a jackass, but Apple gained literally nothing from this other than bad press.

Some things aren't a conspiracy by people who hate Apple, sometimes they are just Apple doing something dumb.

RE: Interesting
By ClownPuncher on 5/14/2010 3:53:57 PM , Rating: 5
Jobs just pinned this on Lam so he could (eventually) remove Lam from the public eye (once he goes to jail or loses his job). This is to ensure Jobs can harvest the liver with little to no scrutiny.

RE: Interesting
By glitchc on 5/14/2010 4:05:32 PM , Rating: 5
Serves him right for posting his blood type and Rhesus factor on Facebook.

RE: Interesting
By PLaYaHaTeD on 5/15/2010 2:20:14 PM , Rating: 1
If I were an admin on this site, I would have elevated your post to +6 green status.

On second thought, attracting attention to your post would probably get DailyTech raided by jobs, so nevermind.

RE: Interesting
By MonkeyPaw on 5/14/2010 4:49:11 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, it sounds like both companies could have handled it better. If Giz, a very Apple-friendly news site, came into possession of the phone, and Steve Jobs says he wants it back, I would think they could have reached a better deal than Giz showing the pictures on the website and Apple consequently raiding a writer's home.

Instead, perhaps Apple could have offered them an inside story in exchange for the prototype and a signed NDA (which is standard from every other tech business). Giz could then say they got to use the phone, say it's really cool but is sworn to secrecy, and all would be well. Maybe Apple even lets them have one early so they can have the best launch article. Instead, Giz looks like your stereo-typical journalist dirtbags, and Apple looks like the evil corporation that raids homes and causes people to jump out of windows.

PR disaster!

RE: Interesting
By bplewis24 on 5/14/2010 5:23:24 PM , Rating: 1
I agree and disagree with you somewhat. I truly believe Gizmodo had every right to request a letter on official letterhead from Apple stating the property was theirs and they wanted it back. I mean, if "Steve Jobs" called me asking for the phone, I would NOT immediately believe it was him and accept the first address he gave me and send it back. I would need some verification of it.

However, this statement may REALLY come back to haunt Lam:

Lam continued, stating, "Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately . It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively ."

Remember, Gizmodo's claim was that they were basically an innocent party that was approached by a person with a phone that they didn't know was stolen. But in this statement, not only is Lam giving motive (Apple PR being cold) for underhanded tactics, but he is also at least intimating that Gizmodo was "aggressively" pursuing this type of a story, which I have no doubt Apple's lawyers will emphasize as much as possible.


RE: Interesting
By angryplayer on 5/14/2010 6:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
if requested you return the item, would you?

and what the hell is

RE: Interesting
By thurston on 5/14/2010 9:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
and what the hell is

I bet you could find out by typing it in your address bar and hitting enter.

RE: Interesting
By angryplayer on 5/16/2010 2:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your wit is wasted. I did and it scared me.

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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