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.
Authorities Begin Evidence Examination in Gizmodo iPhone Case
- Thread starter Mark Booth
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, "almost always" as in, there are occasionally prototypes that are less valuable than the Grand Theft threshold, but it's very rare for that to be the case. As for your claim of 'no determined value', Gizmodo/Chen established a *minimum* value of the prototype iPhone as $5000 when the purchase was made.
Even if you ignore the affidavit for the warrant, and all the associated testimony, Gizmodo/Chen has already admitted all of the facts necessary to get him convicted of knowingly purchasing stolen property. Just read the Gizmodo articles he wrote. He stated in the articles that he knew the guy selling it wasn't the owner. He bought it anyway. DOH!
Yeah if it was "just a phone", then why did giz pay $5000 + a $2500 if it is released?
Sounds like an easy grand theft charge since giz determined it was worth more than $400 for the police.
Why are the police taking this so seriously?
Companies need protection of prototypes and IP. Since tech companies are major employers in San Mateo county, you can bet the cops are going to take seriously the theft of a very valuable prototype. They are going to take it even more serious when the case is a slam dunnk conviction and if the affidavit is even partially true, there is going to be some jail time.
The prototype devices would be insured, so would have a nominal value. This probably would be quite a lot. Since the production line would require retooling, it's quite expensive to build a small run of prototypes.
Prototypes, by definition, has defined value of AT LEAST the research time and material made into developing it, divided by the number of prototypes. That will be a very high number, since the number of prototypes is low.
Didn't think of that, did you?
Read the affidavit. Apple's statement to the police is that the iPhone prototype was "invaluable". And any person with any common sense understands that R&D costs to build a testable prototype easily runs into the millions of dollars. Not to the mention the value contained in its trade secrets.
Mark
Surely you aren't suggesting that your phone is equally important as a multi-million dollar iPhone prototype? If that is what you are suggesting, then please explain what important secrets you have contained in your phone!*
You are just another member of the "it's just a phone" crowd. Get over yourself. It was a multi-million dollar prototype device that was illegally taken, illegally sold, illegally damaged, and illegally taken apart and displayed to the world. All of which are FELONIES.
* Nude photos of yourself in compromising positions don't count!
Mark
You people ar STILL not getting it. You are giving special priviledge to a company simply becasue its their lost property and not yours or mine. And taking apart a phone and taking pictures of it is a felony? Really?
If it's not yours and it's a prototype, yes.
You don't get it at all. It's not a "phone". It's a prototype, few-of-a-kind. BY DEFINITION, worth lots more than your standard, retail model.
I wouldnt have let it slide! And the third party? I wonder who that is. This might (or already have) bring problems.
No, YOU are still not getting it. It's not "just a phone". It was a SPECIAL phone. And, YES, taking apart that special phone and publishing pictures of its secrets are felonies!
READ THE AFFIDAVIT!
Mark
This statement could not be any more spot-on. Our society is going downhill at an alarming rate because of this. After reading through many folks reactions to these threads, I am even more alarmed at the state of things. Its very sad, really.
your phone gets lost: you buy another one
that phone gets lost: Apple stock takes a hit, shareholders get screwed, millions of dollars that would have circulated in the US economy is now going to some other country for knockoffs
so yeah, a company deserves special priviledge
Funny how you have to distort or ignore the facts to make your point. The phone was not simply taken apart and photographed. It was stolen and damaged. And why do you suppose the police would treat me any differently than Apple if somebody stole my invaluable commercial prototype? You seem to think it was just a phone, but that's not the case, as has been discussed to death already. You really ought to get up to speed.
You people will never get it, so this is my last on this. Its not about Apple's stock (heaven forbid we would want to affect a company's stock). Its about civil rights. Its about a dozen armed people smashing in a guy's door over a cell phone. We in America have been letting our civil rights erode slowly but surely ever since 9-11. Fifteen years ago, there would have been outrage over this clear abuse of power. Now its accepted and even defended. Sad.
Oh thank God!
It's not just a cellphone! It's not just a cellphone! It's not just a cellphone! It's... ah, fk it.
- How do you know how many people it took to smash in the door?
- They aren't just "people". They are police officers.
- Once a search warrant has been approved, the police have a policy on how that should be served, regardless of the item, so as to preserve potential evidence. This includes breaking down a door if no one answers. What do you expect them to do?
To make a better car analogy:
Your phone is a Toyota Camry. There are millions of Camrys on the road. The police look over any surveillance footage in the area, and, if you have a GPS tracker in your car, they'll use that to help find it. Still, the police have no leads, and you have next to no chance of ever seeing your car again, regardless of how diligent the local police are.
The iPhone prototype is an instantly noticeable exotic car. Anyone who sees the car will know that it is not just a Toyota Camry. Not only is the exotic car conspicuous wherever it goes, but the roommate of the car thief called the police on him, and the blogger who bought the stolen car took it apart, damaged it, and then quite publicly bragged about it online.
Furthermore, the blogger attempted to extort the owner of the car before returning it, and publicized that as well. After he realized he'd been caught, thief attempted to hide the license plates, but then admitted it to the police and showed them where to find them.
So, um, yeah. Your Toyota Camry is lost forever. Sucks for you. It's probably already been chopped for parts. There's not much the police can do to help.
On the other hand, the police have already recovered the second car, and they have gobs and gobs of evidence about the theft that was basically just dropped in their lap. The police's job is done. All the DA has to do is organize the evidence and figure out who to charge with what.
The police and the DA are obviously going to finish a slam-dunk case. Your everyday car/phone theft isn't going to be solved, but not for lack of trying. The police and the DA are simply doing their jobs by seeing an easy case through to the end.
Do you seriously contend that fifteen years ago police did not execute search warrants? Escalating your rhetoric does not make your argument more persuasive.
And by collaborating with Gizmodo to publish photos of the internals, he conspired to misappropriate trade secrets, which is against both federal and california law.
Gizmodo is fighting for its life at this point, maybe personal savings, too. Denton could be up on charges depending on what cops find. Gizmodo hired criminal defense attorney Thomas Nolan, Jr. of Nolan, Armstrong & Barton of Palo Alto and attorney Thomas R. Burke from the San Francisco office of Davis Wright Tremaine who specializes in First Amendment cases.
I'll give your rant a big ol' W T F?
If you steal something worth millions in R&D, then the police will do the same to you once a search warrant is issued.
Don't want to police knocking down your door with a COURT ISSUED WARRANT? Don't steal expensive stuff and definitely don't steal trade secrets or corporate prototypes that are worth millions and millions in R&D and marketing costs.
The search was done exactly the way it would happen in any case. They come to your door with a search warrant. They ring the door bell or knock on the door. You can open the door and they'll search. Or you don't open the door, in which case they have the right to enter anyway. They can and will break the door open, but the police then has to pay for the damage (that is definitely true if you were not at home; it may be different if you were there and refused to open). That is what happened; when Chen arrived at his home they told him that he should call someone in to repair the door, and what to do to get the cost refunded. Yes, they broke the door. No, Chen didn't pay for the repair out of his own pocket.