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.
also revealed that Apple pushed police to investigate the case. CNET
this excerpt from the affidavit:
Sewell told me
that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone
prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the
editor of Gizmodo.com, 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,
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
As we all know, Brian Lam did get an
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.
quote: 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.