Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gizmodo Cleared as Charges Finally Brought in Lost Prototype iPhone 4 Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love how everyone on here are expert lawyers all of a sudden.
w00master
Sarcasm appreciated. Honestly, the guys that took the PVT unit and didn't try to return it are the ones that broke the law IMO. My understanding is that in California, if you find a lost item and there is any means of identification that allows the owner contact, you are obligated to attempt to return it. These guys didn't do that. To be guilty of buy stolen property you much be aware it is stolen. The exact dialog between the seller and buyer can determine that. Has anyone posted the court recorder text from this hearing?
One of my favorite lost items stories is from an old girlfriend of mine. She was up in the Hollywood hills and found a very feminine wallet on the street. The looked up the address on the drivers license inside and found it was a few blocks away. The go there, knock on the door and a very well know celebrity answer the door. My ex-gf went past the star strike fast and shows them the wallet. They wait at the door, this celeb screams in a drunken voice, "Someone found your wallet, you can pay for this if you didn't cancel the credit cards yet!"
Long story short, it was the house of the agent that represented the celeb. She was very happy to see the wallet returned with all the cash in the wallet. She took the cash out of the wallet (several C-notes and change), handed it to them and invited them in for drink and snacks. These two college girls spent a few hours hanging out and even did some hot tubbing. The entire time, no one hit on them. Around sunset, they got a ride back to their hotel while holding a few autographed CDs and lots of pics.
Karma pays off quick!
News Flash
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp announced that today they have acquired Gizmodo. Rupert Murdoch is quoted as saying, "We're delighted to have a media company in our portfolio that can break the law AND avoid prosecution. Gizmodo is our kind of company."
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp announced that today they have acquired Gizmodo. Rupert Murdoch is quoted as saying, "We're delighted to have a media company in our portfolio that can break the law AND avoid prosecution. Gizmodo is our kind of company."
Gizmodo posted it themselves in the article how the seller got a hold of the prototype. All of the contact information that was published was all given to Gizmodo by the seller because when Gizmodo received the prototype, it was remotely bricked. So they knew how the seller got a hold of the prototype. They knew the lame attempt the seller did to "return" it to Apple. Gizmodo should have known that a person selling lost property means they are now buying stolen property.
Of course at the time they didn't know it was legit, but no credible news outlet would buy it if that was the sellers story even if it did turn out to be fake.
re aapl smart engineer
...apple engineer Gray Powell left the phone on a bar stool...
good one dude - homer simpson would be proud - doh
"have a drink on me..." ac/dc
...apple engineer Gray Powell left the phone on a bar stool...
good one dude - homer simpson would be proud - doh
"have a drink on me..." ac/dc
Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
Cough, Cough, OJ Simpson...California too.
No it won't because this is a statement that buying stolen goods is OK so long as you have enough legal power and some sort deniability.
So what should have gizmodo done? Refuse to cooperate with the police and get thrown in jail for it?
This isn't some sort of bikie gang we've got here. All gizmodo were dealing with were 2 guys looking to cash in on some lost property. If the cops wanted info, Jason should've given it to them.
Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
Unfortunately I cannot give you the satisfaction since I was not one of those who said Gizmodo was guilty of anything but being reckless enough to risk such charges.
To your point, apparently the police did not have a strong enough case and/or there are laws in place that protect Gizmodo's actions since they are classified as journalists.
I will say that Gizmodo showed some guts in going for that story, the downside has been exclusion from every Apple event since.
Incidentally, your position on Gizmodo is very similar to my position on the IP litigation and rulings. When the court makes a ruling, I am inclined to believe they had sound reasoning for it. I don't assume paid-off judges or legal trickery. I just believe that there are laws in place and they will usually get applied properly (albeit some of the laws could use a good revision, but either way, everybody is at least playing by the same rules). Basically, I am saying if somebody wins a patent or trademark case or ruling against a competitor, then I believe that there must be something to it. If somebody loses, then my presumption is they did not have a strong enough case and therefore could not prove any wrong-doing.
With Gizmodo, the case was apparently not strong enough to warrant pursuing it. I'm sure some folks are breathing a sigh of relief and toasting a victory tonight.
Of course, that must be it......they must have much more and better lawyers than Apple.......
Gizmodo is still guilty of their actions. Since the DA returned the seized items due to the 1st amendment issue, they probably had to give Chan a plea bargain to once again gain access to the information on his computer to prosecute the other guys.
I still hold to my belief based on California law that Giz/Chan knowingly bought stolen property(as defined by Cailifornia law) and tried to Blackmail Apple before returning it.
Even if this happened to Microsoft I would feel the same way about these scumbags.
If some of you honestly believe no crimes were committed, why don't you do it yourself and see how well it works out for you...
I still hold to my belief based on California law that Giz/Chan knowingly bought stolen property(as defined by Cailifornia law) and tried to Blackmail Apple before returning it.
Even if this happened to Microsoft I would feel the same way about these scumbags.
If some of you honestly believe no crimes were committed, why don't you do it yourself and see how well it works out for you...
Last edited:
We don't actually know what Apple said or if Hogan actually contacted Apple at all. On the other hand, Hogan's roommate had no trouble contacting Apple security.
What we do know is that Hogan knew the name of the phone's owner and even accessed his facebook page. How do we know this? Gizmodo published the owner's name (Powell) and employer (Apple). They bragged about it!
Hogan crossed the line when he failed to return the phone to its known rightful owner. Gizmodo crossed the line when they bought a phone from someone they knew wasn't the rightful owner. Gizmodo is lucky they aren't being prosecuted, Hogan and his associate aren't so lucky.
I was hoping Apple would harass them in the courts and do something more than just ban them from Apple events. I'm not saying anyone would win or lose, just that gawker deserves to be taken to task for their BS more often. I'd love to see them have to pay for high priced lawyers and a long drawn out case, but that's just my irrational (or not) dislike of gawker in general.
I'd call them news aggregators at best. Most of them can barely even spell and often re-interpret/spin the articles they link to (if at all) to the point of getting it backwards or just plain wrong. It's like they don't even read what they publish or understand their sources (when they do have them).
Sometimes they just make crap up. IMO, that's not journalism, but I suppose the law protects people who are bad journalists, too.
I was hoping Apple would harass them in the courts and do something more than just ban them from Apple events. I'm not saying anyone would win or lose, just that gawker deserves to be taken to task for their BS more often. I'd love to see them have to pay for high priced lawyers and a long drawn out case, but that's just my irrational (or not) dislike of gawker in general.
Yeah, Gawker sites are pretty bad. We already know about Gizmodo with the iPhone 4 prototype and them running around turning off TV's of peoples presentations...
Jalopnik also breaks embargo's so they can be first to post the info on a new car while the rest of the media doesn't post it until the embargo ends.....
Of course they are guilty of their actions. We are all 'guilty' of our actions. Whether those actions are criminal is the question and to a lesser extent, if they are criminal, can they be successfully prosecuted.
Given their admission to the actions and the mountain of evidence available, it would seem that if they were criminal, a conviction would have been almost assured.
From the DA on why charges weren't brought against Chen.
"We had a conflict between the penal code and the 1st Amendment and California shield laws," Pitt said. "We felt that the potential Gizmodo defendant [Chen] had a potential 1st Amendment argument -- one that we weren't prepared to address on this particular set of circumstances."
http://tinyurl.com/Cheni4DA
DA also states that he didn't think Chen purchased the phone out of "financial greed". Sounds like he saw a tougher case against Chen and decided it wasn't worth the time and money to pursue.
"We had a conflict between the penal code and the 1st Amendment and California shield laws," Pitt said. "We felt that the potential Gizmodo defendant [Chen] had a potential 1st Amendment argument -- one that we weren't prepared to address on this particular set of circumstances."
http://tinyurl.com/Cheni4DA
DA also states that he didn't think Chen purchased the phone out of "financial greed". Sounds like he saw a tougher case against Chen and decided it wasn't worth the time and money to pursue.
Which was what I kinda thought. I like how John Gruber puts it:
There may have been a crime that took place and Chen might have been guilty of said crime or there may not have. We will never know (so we cannot say one way or the other). The DA didn't want to go through the effort to try and prove it due to a conflict with the penal code and the shield laws. Maybe the state could have gotten around it, but my guess is that Pitt felt that things were too rich for the potential risk.
That's why the DA has the discretion that he does. In this case he decided not to prosecute - which is his choice.
Pretty much agree with you.
Is it me or does he sound a little chafed about those shield laws? You can just see the events unfolding in a couple of ways. Goes for Chen and loses = waste of time. Goes for Chen and wins, then has to go to appeal, then possibly more appeals = waste of lots of time.
Pitt? Sure. While I don't know Pitt personally, I have little doubt that his perspective is that the shield laws were never dreamed for these scenarios (like property theft) and that they needlessly complicate things.
I would imagine that Pitt has a respect for shield laws, but those kind of laws become like other things that aren't a problem most of the time, but when they are a problem, it's really annoying.
Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
I know. I've been eagerly awaiting this day for over a year and laughing my head off since I saw this post.
Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
No. Because they were. They confessed to having done what they did.
This action doesn't negate that. The DA has just decided that it isn't worth pursuing, not that they didn't do anything wrong