Didn't you know? They were supposed to leave a nice note and hope Chen didn't destroy any evidence when he came home.
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
Didn't you know? They were supposed to leave a nice note and hope Chen didn't destroy any evidence when he came home.
BFD. Chen returned the "stolen" property to apple on his own free will. No jury will convict because of that. The only thing he will get nailed for is the trade secrets thing.
Haven't dealt with the law, much, hm? Trade secret stuff can be quite valuable.
And damaging the phone is going to mean a conviction.
And I think people think confusing a prototype's costs with a retail phone's costs. Not the same at all.
BFD. Chen returned the phone after taking photos of it, disassembling it, and posting all the details on Gizmodo - thus profiting from his ill-gotten iPhone and damaging Apple in the process.
Newsflash: if I steal your car, take it on a road trip, and then return it to you, I will still go to jail. It's true!
You cannot look at something immediately and know it real, even if you have owned every Apple product ever made, and especially if it is a brand new product. Pictures of fakes are published all the time and people, even close Apple followers, are fooled. Asking someone to put in writing what they've verbally claimed is not extortion. Telling the world that Apple said it was real is not a violation of the law. Apple may not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.
- Jobs called Gizmodo personally before Lam even shot out that email.
- Gizmodo doesn't have an MO that pays out $8500 plus bonuses to everyone who contacts them with a decent knockoff.
- The email was not written in the context of being utterly confused about the phone's legitimacy. It was written in the context of, if you don't give us something to post on our website, we're not going to give you the phone back.
You only have to have a reasonable suspicion that it wasn't the seller's property in order to be convicted and only if that turns out to be the case. Gizmodo didn't have to believe that it was a prototype or that it was worth $400+. If I think I'm stealing a $10 print of the Mona Lisa and it turns out to be the real thing, I'm going to prison for a multi-million dollar theft.
so what? he had to disassemble the damn thing to verify it was really an apple device. after he realized who it belonged to, he returned it to its owner.
also, its apple's own fault if the information revealed by their lost prototype caused any damage. if the trade secrets contained within that prototype are so valuable apple should have tethered it physically to the user or installed a tracking device because phones are very easy to lose.
that's a stupid analogy.
I guess California doesn't have real crimes to investigate
I agree 100% - must be a slow crime day in that county, or the DA is running for office and looking for a handout from Apple
That's retarded. Steve Jobs had already called them and said it was Apple's device. He didnt have to disassemble it to prove it. It had a dock connector. It was recognized as an iPhone in iTunes. And Steve Jobs said it was his.
Not to mention the stickers with Apple information on them that were removed and hidden in the weeds by the thief.
That's one of the STUPIDEST things I ever heard.
I really hope nobody ever loses anything that you happen to pick up.
Uh huh. First of all, it's irrelevant as he purchased something from someone he knew was not the rightful owner, at which point the crime has already been committed.
And you better believe he knew it was an Apple device to have paid $5,000 for it.
I don't think the "blame the victim" defense is going to work in this particular case.
Not so much an analogy as pretty much exactly what Chen did.
oh so some guy calls on the phone and says I'm steve jobs, thats my phone, and he's supposed to give it back? how did steve jobs even know he had it?
you mean the alleged thief that chen purchased teh phone from. if the stickers were in the weeds, how was chen supposed to know about them?
actually whats stupid is you thinking that he somehow damaged a prototype phone that was lost in a restaurant and a jury will convict him for that.
lol. once again... no jury is going to convict him, he returned the damn phone. if youre so confident that he's going to get convicted of theft and/or buying stolen property, lets make a wager. if he doesnt get convicted, u never post here again. if he does, I will never post here again.
since when is it someone elses job to keep apple's trade secrets safe in the public domain?
"pretty much exactly?" what the heck is that supposed to mean???
Sounds good to me! Hope we never hear from you again then. (Granted, I'm not the one you were making the wager with, but good riddance to you!)
jW
Gizmodo admits steve jobs called, and then they demanded a written letter they could post on the website. Have you been following any of this?
Right, because there was no conspiracy about that.
If Gizmodo wasn't sure whether Apple was the legal owner, then what they should have done is go straight to the police and hand over the phone to the police and let them sort it out.
Let's start with the "finder": He was required by law to return the phone to the rightful owner or hand it over to the police, and not doing either made him a thief. Then Gizmodo bought the phone, knowing it to be stolen property. Now any jury will say that by paying $5,000 Gizmodo made it evident beyond reasonable doubt that they _knew_ it was an iPhone prototype and therefore owned by Apple. But it doesn't even matter, they knew it was stolen. And the only thing you are legally allowed to do when you buy stolen goods is to hand them straight to the owner or to the police.
There was no need and no permission for Gizmodo to open the phone to find out who the owner was, as someone claimed. Gizmodo had no need to know the owner, all they needed to do was call the cops. There was no need for Gizmodo to ask Apple for some proof of ownership either, all they needed to do was call the cops.
And please, since when is theft not punished because the stolen goods are returned, "voluntarily" when the rightful owner knows the identity of the thief? And especially when the stolen goods come back damaged.
Either way, Gizmodo is screwed in terms of this trial. There is no way they can win as they completely **** on CA law.
Yes, because destroying evidence, buying stolen property, revealing trade secrets (and who knows how many other felonies) are crimes protected by the constitution and the bill of rights..... at least, according to Rafterman.
I think he's one man that's been spending too much time in the rafters.
Mark
oh good, u want to take me up on my wager? great. anyone else?
how did jobs know they had the device?
They sure as hell will if they follow California state law....
*yawn* ever heard of a negating defense?
riiiiight. he damaged a phone that wasnt working to begin with.
We all have our opinions. Reasonable doubt is a very personal interpretation, and will ultimately depend on a judge's opinion, and then a jury's if it gets that far. I guarantee the jury will not be composed of people who read Apple blogs, and that is a much less Apple sympathetic crowd. Lots of casual observers think Apple is making way too much of this.
I don't believe the law says you have to hand found things over to the police. It says you must make a "reasonable" effort to find the owner. It will be a matter of of a jury's opinion if the finder made a reasonable effort. Chen? Publishing where thousands of Apple fans will read it will not guarantee Apple will be contacted? He could have quietly returned it to Apple and published nothing, yes, and that might be considered unethical to do it the way he did. You can't say he tried to hide the fact he had it, and he did ask Apple to confirm it was their phone. Publishing in the Lost and Found in a newspaper is certainly considered a reasonable effort.
There is plenty of reasonable doubt in my mind that the intention for either was to keep the left behind iPhone for themselves. Several people have drawn the car analogy, of driving and bring it back - that is often considered "joyriding" rather than "Grand theft auto." Clearly the intent can make a difference, or there would be no such thing as joyriding. There are specific laws that deal with autos, not so with phones. The finder did profit from the owner's misfortune, and it does look like he had a chance to contact him and did not - that is certainly what is alledged. He may see punishment. I doubt either he or Chen will be treated like someone who tried to sell it on eBay or a pawn shop by a jury. It is certainly doubtful to me that Chen intentionally broke it, but he did show the world he took it apart. He may well be held responsible for the damage to the prototype. I don't think Chen or the finder acted ethically, by any means.
Proving damage was done to Apple is next to impossible. Everyone realize Apple stock is higher now than the day Apple asked for it's phone back, April 19? And that some analysts have raised the projected value to $320 per share? The new iPhone will be a huge success as always.
I don't try to justify anything either of these guys did. I wouldn't have asked for money for it, and I wouldn't have paid for it. I just express doubt that jury will easily convict them of theft. I do doubt that any real damage was done to Apple at all, other than the protoype damage, which isn't all that valuable if millions of them will be sold in a couple of months. The damage is to their pride in their secrecy and surprises as a marketing strategy. Industrial espionage? It hasn't been mentioned much so far, but I'm sure it will be if the theft doesn't take. If you read about industrial espionage cases, this doesn't quite fit it, especially if the engineer truly dropped his phone. What Apple really wants is to make anyone think very hard about what's happening to Chen before outing their unreleased products, and decide it just isn't worth it.