Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests

wovel said:
As I indicated it has been argued to death by actual attorneys, feel free to look it up yourself. You clearly have little or no knowledge of the law involved. The moment he picked up the phone he took on certain legal responsibilities.

You said case law, just like you saw it on TV, that was cute.

Just realized you are likely just the next incarnation of Chen after his pastparticiple id was outed. Properly handled, good luck.
Click to expand...

Ladies...please...read line 1

Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.
Ask A Lawyer Online. Get an Answer ASAP!

Donations cover only 20% of our costs.
Bookmark and Share
Search this title:
Notes
Title 18 RSS Title 18 RSS feed
PDF (1 pages)
No Update(s) Pending
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Criminal Lawyers near Modesto, California
Lawyers: get listed for free!

Ramon Maga�
Criminal Law
Modesto, CA

Ben Roberts
Criminal Law, Bankruptcy / Debt, Domestic Violence, DUI / DWI, Estate Planning, Injury Law
Modesto, CA

See More Lawyers

All lawyers
Prev | Next

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
Study law abroad: Cornell Paris Institute


INTENT people! Do you know what that means? The INTENT was to report! NOT copy! Apple created this monster, they ****ed up....now deal with it!
 
after reading so many posts, i tend to believe that nothing should have happened if Gizmodo simply returned the phone after taking superficial photos.

They took it apart and then brag about it. and ask apple legal to write a letter to get the phone back.

Are they run by a bunch of kids? If it is microsoft , google or any other company, I should have supported those companies as well. Giz crossed the line.
 
captain kaos said:
So the apple employee messed up then goes running to the police to cover his @rse and now this guy's home is raided and he'll probably get a conviction.


Its. Only. A. Bloody. Phone.
:mad:
Click to expand...

LOL welcome back.... Ummm, are you even remotely aware of the development costs associated with such said "phone"... obviously not.

The marketing, production and cycle time of these devices are well planned on an enormous scale. When "any" company brings a new product to market ahead of their competitors, prototypes, testing and marketing are involved on a global (yes not just in your grandmas basement) scale.

It wasn't a kids toy, it was a phone used in the field for testing... hundreds exist to make sure they work everywhere (even in a bar). :rolleyes:

leaving anything accidently behind for someone to steal does not constitute the right to exploit and reap profits from that mistake and you should be ashamed for thinking otherwise. :eek:
 
pv1191 said:
Laguna,

Sorry I've been lurking for months. This crap pissed me off. If you don't get it I feel sorry for you. Laugh if you want, but my IPAD 3G order was cancelled today. I will not do business, on any level, with a company who thinks they are above freedom of the press. I don't care how much money, how good their products are, or how many liver transplants they have!
Click to expand...

The Freedom of the Press, please ... give it a rest.

You are assuming, yes ASSUMING, that the iPhone was found because a) that is what Gizmodo say they were told by the bloke selling it, and b) it's the version of events that Gizmodo have reported.

For all we know that iPhone COULD have been stolen from Powell, swiped from the table while he wasn't looking, it happens every day in bars across the world. At the end of the day either Gizmodo is sticking to the "We bought it from someone who found it" line that they were told, or they knew it was acquired illegally, paid for the device, and then spun the story that it was lost by an Apple employee when in actual fact it was stolen from one.

And why people cannot see that Gizmodo missed a HUGE opportunity to take their site to another level by returning the phone to Apple in exchange for some form of package for their loyalty is ridiculous. The $5,000 they paid could, along with their confidentiality, bought them inside access to the latest Apple tech before other sites, exclusive sneak peeks, interviews, etc.

Instead, by acting like some 30p UK tabloid newspaper, they've ended up with 15 minutes of fame and a lawsuit.
 
WeegieMac said:
The Freedom of the Press, please ... give it a rest.

You are assuming, yes ASSUMING, that the iPhone was found because a) that is what Gizmodo say they were told by the bloke selling it, and b) it's the version of events that Gizmodo have reported.

For all we know that iPhone COULD have been stolen from Powell, swiped from the table while he wasn't looking, it happens every day in bars across the world. At the end of the day either Gizmodo is sticking to the "We bought it from someone who found it" line that they were told, or they knew it was acquired illegally, paid for the device, and then spun the story that it was lost by an Apple employee when in actual fact it was stolen from one.

And why people cannot see that Gizmodo missed a HUGE opportunity to take their site to another level by returning the phone to Apple in exchange for some form of package for their loyalty is ridiculous. The $5,000 they paid could, along with their confidentiality, bought them inside access to the latest Apple tech before other sites, exclusive sneak peeks, interviews, etc.

Instead, by acting like some 30p UK tabloid newspaper, they've ended up with 15 minutes of fame and a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. If I had my own company, and if someone did this to my company, I will definitely file charges against them.

All these people who is supporting Giz, what if you misplaced your wallet and it had some personal info and Giz posted that info to the entire world to see?

Wait, Giz already did that to that poor employee.

Edit: we all agree, we like to get some inside scoop about apple products before it is released to public, thats why we are here on macrumors. But once you cross the legal, ethical boundary, i don't think many people will support that site.
 
pv1191 said:
INTENT people! Do you know what that means? The INTENT was to report! NOT copy! Apple created this monster, they ****ed up....now deal with it!
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. It's quite obvious you don't.

The basis of trade secret is someone benefits by keeping it secret. Like, say, the formula for Coca Cola. Someone "reporting" the formula for Coca Cola would be treated the exact same way.

Copy and paste is not equivalent to legal knowledge.
 
pv1191 said:
Ladies...please...read line 1

Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret,

So what is your point? Thats exactly what gizmodo and chen did with the iPhone. Read the entire statute. Actually, do me a favor and go to bed. You have been wrong so many times in the last two pages of posts that I am embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...
 
WeegieMac said:
The Freedom of the Press, please ... give it a rest.

...And why people cannot see that Gizmodo missed a HUGE opportunity to take their site to another level by returning the phone to Apple in exchange for some form of package for their loyalty is ridiculous. The $5,000 they paid could, along with their confidentiality, bought them inside access to the latest Apple tech before other sites, exclusive sneak peeks, interviews, etc......
Click to expand...

Agreed, they were greedy and didn't even see the plus sides to being above the law LOL... It will and should bite them in the rear. :)

Of course there is always the slight possibility that they paid to have it stolen using Gray as a target employee... I don't want to get to far off subject though :)
 
BitDrive said:
Of course there is always the slight possibility that they paid to have it stolen using Gray as a target employee... I don't want to get to far off subject though :)
Click to expand...

I don't want to wander off too far either, but DA is looking for something like this when they issued search warrant.
 
jaykk said:
after reading so many posts, i tend to believe that nothing should have happened if Gizmodo simply returned the phone after taking superficial photos.

They took it apart and then brag about it. and ask apple legal to write a letter to get the phone back.

Are they run by a bunch of kids? If it is microsoft , google or any other company, I should have supported those companies as well. Giz crossed the line.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear at this point that they are a bunch of kids. They had no clue that they were going to get in trouble for buying that phone. Most people on here- if they paid $5000 for a lost Apple iPhone prototype- wouldn't be stupid enough to brag about it and document it online non stop for two weeks.

I hope Apple embarrasses the heck out of them in the press, but gives them a slap on the wrist. But if they find on those computers that Gizmodo targeted Gray on purpose, I hope Apple sues the crap out of them and wins.
 
jaykk said:
I don't want to wander off too far either, but DA is looking for something like this when they issued search warrant.
Click to expand...

BitDrive said:
Yup ;)
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to know what the person who took the phone actually told the police. The timeline suggests that the search warrant is at least in part based on information gathered during that discussion. (This also seems to entirely invalidate the shield law protection since the source was already known).
 
wovel said:
It would be interesting to know what the person who took the phone actually told the police. The timeline suggests that the search warrant is at least in part based on information gathered during that discussion. (This also seems to entirely invalidate the shield law protection since the source was already known).
Click to expand...

Um. What if the person who took the phone implicated Gizmodo as a partner in the crime? (As in, they told him/her not to contact the Apple engineer, don't contact Apple Security, but AppleCare would be good enough). Doncha think a search and seizure is justified in that case?

(Note: this need not be what actually happened; I'm just suggesting what the person who took the phone SAID to the police implicated them in a crime).
 
I think it's fair to assume that Gizmodo, Jason and team fully checked their legal position before publishing. They'd know the worst case scenario and did their cost / income analysis and went for it. We're not dealing with a couple of kids here.

They're in the business of blogging and would know their legal boundaries and would certainly check out any Gray areas.

The coming weeks and months will let us know if they did their homework well or not.

Personally I'd like to see a criminal prosecution succeed, followed by Apple burning their backsides in court. If you don't make a clear stand against people who disclose detailed information and photo's of gear that is not in the public domain to all including competitors with the resulting effects it can have in a fast changing market then you open the doors to more stuff being borrowed and plastered online.

Some might not like Apple being secretive but hell it's their gear. Jason and Giz just showed really bad form and deserve everything they get. Arseholes is a word that springs to mind. I wonder if the filter will get that word?
 
gwangung said:
Um. What if the person who took the phone implicated Gizmodo as a partner in the crime? (As in, they told him/her not to contact the Apple engineer, don't contact Apple Security, but AppleCare would be good enough). Doncha think a search and seizure is justified in that case?
Click to expand...

Well I agree with you , but I assume you were responding to the person I was responding to :) I mentioned to a friend the other day to find out how much of the "finders" strategy came from Chen.
 
pv1191 said:
Ladies...please...read line 1

Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000.


INTENT people! Do you know what that means? The INTENT was to report! NOT copy! Apple created this monster, they ****ed up....now deal with it!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the U.S. Code is being cited. The governing law is the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 3426 et seq.

As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise:
"Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
"Misappropriation" means:
Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

There's no intent requirement. If Gizmodo acquired a trade secret as a result of obtaining the iPhone from a thief they are guilty of misappropriating a trade secret. Their subsequent disclosure of the trade secret is another infraction.

This case raises some interesting issues, but I don't see much to talk about here once the Cal. Penal Code Sec. 485 fact issue is resolved.
 
wovel said:
Well I agree with you , but I assume you were responding to the person I was responding to :) I mentioned to a friend the other day to find out how much of the "finders" strategy came from Chen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant. But your post just triggered that thought--had never thought about it from the perspective that the "thief" could have implicated Chen as a co-conspirator. Then the police would HAVE to look at his computers. And since he clearly tampered with property not his, you don't necessarily have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Mystic385 said:
Some might not like Apple being secretive but hell it's their gear.
Click to expand...

Guess they should have kept better track of it then. Gizmodo did not sign an NDA to protect Apple and had no obligation to keep their "secrets". They did not sell the info to a competitor they published breaking tech news and also drew the line at how far they disassembled it. The only reason so many people here are upset about it is because "their" brand was embarrassed. If it was a competitor they would be cheering on whoever scooped the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back