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
Don't you think things would be different if all Jason paid for were pictures of the supposedly next generation iPhone as opposed to buying the phone itself?
I guess California doesn't have real crimes to investigate
I guess you don't have any time to keep up with the actual story.
This case is being investigated by a team that handles computer and technology crimes specifically. So they're not exactly taking detectives off a murder case here. This is what they do.
By the way, you are about the 450th person to say this, so you're not as original as you think, and just as uninformed as the other 449.
I'm pretty sure the department investigating this issue isn't involved with murder investigations.I guess California doesn't have real crimes to investigate
Steve Jobs is the Kobe Bryant of the digital world. It's comical how he takes everything so personally and acts so childish at times. I wonder if he'll demand a trade if the case doesn't turn out the way he wants.
I guess you don't have any time to keep up with the actual story.
This case is being investigated by a team that handles computer and technology crimes specifically. So they're not exactly taking detectives off a murder case here. This is what they do.
By the way, you are about the 450th person to say this, so you're not as original as you think, and just as uninformed as the other 449.
There are real crimes other than murder, you know. So far as computer crime goes, I'm much more concerned about hackers, distributors of child pornography, people who steal credit card information, etc. than people who buy lost iPhones.
Special masters are usually retired judges or law professors, theoretically someone with no interest/attachment to the parties involved (i.e., no career or financial motivations).
In this case, the special master would have someone technical to analyze the contents of the hard drive(s), particularly e-mails and summarize the findings to the D.A.'s office. The special master would probably be someone with in-depth experience in handling computer crimes, industrial espionage, etc.
Despite the recession and the across-the-board loss of tax revenue, San Mateo County is still a very affluent county. Like other affluent counties, the D.A. office in San Mateo County has a higher conviction rate than less affluent areas. They will not press charges unless there is a very good likelihood of winning the case.
This is a criminal case involving stolen goods. The D.A.'s office would be the one to press charges, not Apple.
Whether or not it materially affected Apple's operations is not at stake. It doesn't matter if it was a prototype next-generation iPhone or a houseplant from Jonny Ive's office. California law stipulates that an item must be returned to its rightful owner if that party can be identified. I think a jury of peers will find that a prototype device is likely the property of the company whose logo is on the device.
In this case, the special master would have someone technical to analyze the contents of the hard drive(s), particularly e-mails and summarize the findings to the D.A.'s office. The special master would probably be someone with in-depth experience in handling computer crimes, industrial espionage, etc.
Despite the recession and the across-the-board loss of tax revenue, San Mateo County is still a very affluent county. Like other affluent counties, the D.A. office in San Mateo County has a higher conviction rate than less affluent areas. They will not press charges unless there is a very good likelihood of winning the case.
This is not a civil case.
This is a criminal case involving stolen goods. The D.A.'s office would be the one to press charges, not Apple.
Whether or not it materially affected Apple's operations is not at stake. It doesn't matter if it was a prototype next-generation iPhone or a houseplant from Jonny Ive's office. California law stipulates that an item must be returned to its rightful owner if that party can be identified. I think a jury of peers will find that a prototype device is likely the property of the company whose logo is on the device.
slap yourself because that is a horrible analogy. you must be a celtic fan upset at your impending implosion.
Chen is not going to do time or pay a fine for this. He will have a very, very good lawyer, the kind of guy who eats your average Assistant District Attorney for lunch, and they'll throw arguments at the jury until Apple looks like the bad guys (for what it's worth, I think Apple is the bad guy already). Even if convicted, Chen will end up with a tiny slap on the wrist. This is one of those cases where the real penalty is the agony and disruption for everyone involved, not whatever a judge says when he bangs his gavel.
The case will turn on reasonableness.
Was it reasonable for Jason to suspect the phone had been stolen? Maybe - that's what the DA is investigating.
If it was indeed accidentally lost, as the story goes, the guy who found it made a reasonable attempt to return it. The attempt was unsuccessful. Depening on CA's property laws, that will probably be considered abandonment. At that point, Jason had a right to be able to buy and the finder had the right to sell. If that was the case, there was no stolen property to buy and Jason probably didn't do anything worthy of a criminal conviction.
But SJ, taking things ultra-personally like a teenager, has to act like Jason is some kind of Apple terrorist out to destroy his company.
Was it reasonable for Jason to suspect the phone had been stolen? Maybe - that's what the DA is investigating.
If it was indeed accidentally lost, as the story goes, the guy who found it made a reasonable attempt to return it. The attempt was unsuccessful. Depening on CA's property laws, that will probably be considered abandonment. At that point, Jason had a right to be able to buy and the finder had the right to sell. If that was the case, there was no stolen property to buy and Jason probably didn't do anything worthy of a criminal conviction.
But SJ, taking things ultra-personally like a teenager, has to act like Jason is some kind of Apple terrorist out to destroy his company.
In the state of California, it is when the rightful owner can be reasonably identified.
I may be wrong, but from the way the police are now using 'Bait Cars', it seems to not only be a problem selling one, but also just picking one up and taking it home with you. I guess the 'Finders, Keepers' is only a rule for kids.
The term "finders keepers" has never been in any lawbook. And yes. It has always been a kids term.
If they were stolen, and have reason to believe they were stolen, then yes it is.
---
But you're only taking his word for it that he "found" the iPhone on a barstool, tried to return it and could not. Other versions of the story have the phone being stolen out of the employees bag.
I never said Chen would do time.
Frankly, I'm not sure if Chen can afford a good lawyer and I'm not sure that cheapskate Nick Denton would pay for one.
Personally, I don't think this will go to jury. It's likely that it would be settled out of court. I'm convinced that Denton will drop Lam and Chen like hot potatoes once this chapter is over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now.
Yes, Chen will pay a fine. San Mateo County will definitely find a way to extract money out of him.
It was pointed out in the other thread yesterday that California property law states that ownership for "found" goods does not transfer for 60 days. Not only that, but it DOESN'T transfer to the finder, but instead to the owner of the property that the item was found on.
Everyone, let's not go beyond what has happened here. Whether Apple got free press is beyond the point. The issue of the iphone being found or stolen is also beyond the point. What matters is that property that didn't belong to the founder sold the item to a party that knew very well what they got.
You can say over and over how good faith attempt was made to return it, you can say that it was sold for exclusivity of a release, it doesn't matter. Read the affidavit!
Dude who found the phone tried to activate it through his roomates computer, then made a half ass attempt to call Apple (applecare for that matter) when he should have called the corporate offices.
Then he tried to get into a bidding war with Engadget, Cnet, Gizmodo and one or two other places and the only site that bit was Gizmodo (the others were smart enough not to touch this with a ten foot pole).
Roomate tried to stop this fool from selling the phone and he did it anyways, so she turned him in by calling Apple (not applecare).
This dudes buddy tried to scatter all the evidence about town...if they weren't guilty of anything then there was no need to do that.
Finally, Gizmodo tried to extort Apple, which isn't a black and white issue as some of you believe it to be.
All this with property that didn't belong to the guy who found it. Doesn't matter if it was lost or stolen. If I found an unknown car in my driveway with the keys in it, I can't just go selling it!!!
You can say over and over how good faith attempt was made to return it, you can say that it was sold for exclusivity of a release, it doesn't matter. Read the affidavit!
Dude who found the phone tried to activate it through his roomates computer, then made a half ass attempt to call Apple (applecare for that matter) when he should have called the corporate offices.
Then he tried to get into a bidding war with Engadget, Cnet, Gizmodo and one or two other places and the only site that bit was Gizmodo (the others were smart enough not to touch this with a ten foot pole).
Roomate tried to stop this fool from selling the phone and he did it anyways, so she turned him in by calling Apple (not applecare).
This dudes buddy tried to scatter all the evidence about town...if they weren't guilty of anything then there was no need to do that.
Finally, Gizmodo tried to extort Apple, which isn't a black and white issue as some of you believe it to be.
All this with property that didn't belong to the guy who found it. Doesn't matter if it was lost or stolen. If I found an unknown car in my driveway with the keys in it, I can't just go selling it!!!
First off, the whole issue of "stolen versus lost" has not been decided, and won't be decided until a jury pronounces a verdict. Until then, you should probably refrain from declaring it one way or the other, because 1) you're not on the jury and 2) if you were on the jury, you wouldn't be allowed to make posts like this outside of the court room. So in other words, you're being stupid.
The government of California is not at Apple's beck and call. The city of San Mateo initiated the investigation themselves, after the "finder's" roommate called the police. Apple still wasn't involved at that point. Did you read the officer's affidavit of how the events played out?
Also, just because a journalist knows something does not give him the right to publish it. A prototype iPhone is clearly protected under the "trade secrets" category, and trafficking in trade secrets falls under the "corporate espionage" umbrella, which (oh look) is a felony, JOURNALIST OR NOT.
This is not about Apple trying to screw over some guy who got a hold of a prototype device. This is about guy who allegedly committed a felony and who is being investigated by the DA.
Please get a clue before posting.
Well they need to nail the thief, Gizmodo writer might only just get a slap on the wrist but probably won't get off free.
