Lol.
Any company has a right to protect trade secrets. I believe in most states, there are laws against industrial espionage among other similar things.
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.
Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lol.
Any company has a right to protect trade secrets. I believe in most states, there are laws against industrial espionage among other similar things.
They have a civil obligation to Apple and a criminal obligation to the State of California, both defined by law. Where you would have a point is if Apple was doing something illegal and the story exposed it. A jury might excuse Gizmodo for the sake of the greater good. If only that was what happened.
Isn't there a clause the says you waive all those rights, when you leave the trade secrets in a bar?
C.
Not all the rights. If someone detects trade secrets by cracking open a stolen device then they are liable. And the way the laws about finding lost property are written, when you find a device and then damage it by opening it you have actually stolen it.
You would lose trade secret protection for things that can be seen, or if the finder uses the phone in a reasonable way to find the owner. You don't lose protection for what is inside the closed phone.
Gizmodo does not have any civil obligation to Apple. That's ridiculous. Apple cannot force everyone to keep their secrets...that is why they make their people sign NDAs. Unless Gizmodo voluntarily signed one they owe Apple no loyalty.
The laws don't have to mention every different method to do something. If you check the law text, I bet there is no explicit mention of bicycles in the laws about theft; that doesn't mean you can steal my bicycle and say "it doesn't say I can't steal bicycles". Here is the relevant sentence:
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
The phone was owned by Apple. Apple didn't authorise Gizmodo to open an iPhone that Apple owned. The contents of the iPhone is a trade secret. Gizmodo appropriated the trade secret without authorisation. You don't need authorisation to look at a phone that is lying around in a bar. You need authorisation by the owner to open it.
Gizmodo is free to reveal anything that they obtained legally. They have no right to reveal a trade secret that they discovered by illegal means, like opening a stolen iPhone. You have no obligation to protect my property, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to steal it.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
My favourite post (so far as I've read up to). This is how it is, plain and simple.
lkrupp said:
My favourite post (so far as I've read up to). This is how it is, plain and simple.
On this I agree.
Gizmodo had no way of verifying what they had was stolen Apple property. They might have suspected it, but the verification only came when they had opened the case and seen the Apple branded parts inside.
At that point, any remaining doubt that this was a legitimate Apple device, and it could not possibly legally belong to the vendor.
The majority of Gizmodo's scoop was based on the outside of the case.
The design, the cameras, the size and weight and son on.
All that (potentially damaging) information could have made it out into the public domain without any law-breaking whatsoever.
C.
But it clearly doesn't make any difference to the case. What happened was that the phone was stolen. Phones get stolen in different ways: Robber holds knife to the victims throat (no fault with the victim). Very clever pickpocket takes phone out of your pocket (no fault with the victim). Not so clever pickpocket takes phone out of your pocket while you are drunk (You better watch out in the future, the pickpocket is still a thief). Guy picks up a phone that dropped out of a drunk's pocket and instead of returning it, keeps it and then sells it (drunk deserves a major telling off for his stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that the person who picked it up is a thief).
Many crimes can only happen because someone is stupid. There is for example fraud, which arguably can _only_ happen if the victim is stupid. That doesn't change the nature of the crime. Stealing from a drunk person may be easier than stealing from a sober person, but it is just as criminal.
Gizmodo may not have known that it was Apple property (but really, how stupid do they think we are? They would never have paid $5000 if they hadn't believed it was an Apple iPhone prototype), but they definitely knew one hundred percent sure that it was stolen. They knew that someone had lost it, someone had found it, and that the finder, by giving the phone to Gizmodo, turned the "finding" into "stealing".
So going to a bar to drink with a top secert important iPhone, getting drunk/carelessly leaving it there is doing nothing wrong? Not taking enough precations when handling a million+ prototpe iPhone carelessly seems wrong. It's not a mass produced iPhone, but a special one, and this guy is an ass hole for even bringing it to a bar, and even more of an idiot for leaving it there. It seems like Gray DID SOMETHING WRONG.
It is very wrong and very stupid, but if it was done out of stupidity and not intentional then it is not illegal. It is between Gray and his employer.
According to California law (and the law of about every other country in the world) picking up lost property and keeping it to yourself instead of trying to return it to the owner is _theft_. And if you turn your brain on, it is in the nature of the crime that the owner cannot know for some time that a theft has occurred. The item could be not found (no theft), the finder could still be looking for the owner (no theft), the finder could have done everything they could and then given the item to the police (no theft). When photos of the phone appeared on the internet, that was the first time that Apple could know that the phone was stolen, not just lost.
You're confusing NDA's with civil obligation. NDA's are a contract and civil obligation is something like how we're obliged not to cause monetary damages to others. I can break an NDA and not cause actual damage if I'm lucky.
The legal system is what forces us to keep trade secrets. NDA's are just a legal convenience.
I am sure Gizmodo suspected (strongly) that the device was authentic - why else pay. But you must recall that hundreds of people, on this forum, and well-respected pundits were very eager to proclaim it as a fake. or a knock-off. We know that a well-executed fake shot can create a lot of buzz.
I myself made a photoshop image last year, and it ended up on Engadget.
For Gizmodo the actual proof came when the case was cracked and there were Apple parts inside.
At that point, Gizmodo should have realised they were in possession of stolen equipment. They should have contacted either Apple or the Police.
By not doing so promptly, I think they crossed a line.
The odd thing was, the law-breaking was not necessary for the scoop. Only the negligence was.
C.
Yet more internet convictions by those who have no knowledge of the facts, just the gossip and rumours that spring up on a few sites - "I read it on the internet, it must be true".
"Stolen iPhone" ? "Stolen Property" ? Prove it. And I don't mean start quoting the California Penal Code. You need to prove, with corroboration for all non-physical evidence, ie. all testimony, that the crime of theft has been committed. You have to prove it beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
"So the guy allegedly steals the iPhone and then makes multiple calls to Apple the next day" ? Well, that's not going to convict him.
Not helped by the Apple Engineer. loses the phone, or allegedly has it stolen, gets it back 5 weeks later and then reports it stolen. After 5 weeks ? Sure there's a limit to how long they can wait to report it, and they're well within it, but 5 weeks, and after you have it returned ? And what efforts did the engineer make to retrieve the phone ? Did he even call his own number when they awoke from their night on the ale ? (The first thing anyone does when they misplace their phone). The defence will be in fits of laughter.
You need to prove the phone stolen before you can even look at Gizmodo. Did they belive it stolen ? The guy that found it must have had a good story to tell them about the circumstances of finding it, and their efforts to return it.
I'm not saying everybody is innocent, but you need to do more research before declaring someone as guilty, or you better get back onto Google to find out how to defend yourself in a libel case.
"Stolen iPhone" ? "Stolen Property" ? Prove it. And I don't mean start quoting the California Penal Code. You need to prove, with corroboration for all non-physical evidence, ie. all testimony, that the crime of theft has been committed. You have to prove it beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
"So the guy allegedly steals the iPhone and then makes multiple calls to Apple the next day" ? Well, that's not going to convict him.
Not helped by the Apple Engineer. loses the phone, or allegedly has it stolen, gets it back 5 weeks later and then reports it stolen. After 5 weeks ? Sure there's a limit to how long they can wait to report it, and they're well within it, but 5 weeks, and after you have it returned ? And what efforts did the engineer make to retrieve the phone ? Did he even call his own number when they awoke from their night on the ale ? (The first thing anyone does when they misplace their phone). The defence will be in fits of laughter.
You need to prove the phone stolen before you can even look at Gizmodo. Did they belive it stolen ? The guy that found it must have had a good story to tell them about the circumstances of finding it, and their efforts to return it.
I'm not saying everybody is innocent, but you need to do more research before declaring someone as guilty, or you better get back onto Google to find out how to defend yourself in a libel case.
They knew the item was stolen. They had no right to buy it (the correct thing would be not to buy it, the good thing would be to tell the seller that they are in the process of turning their find into a criminal offence and advice them to give the phone to the police), and they definitely didn't have the right to open it.
We discuss a lot of things here that don' matter. Like someone posted a link to a discussion whether a blogger is a journalist - doesn't matter. Whether Powell was drunk - doesn't matter. In this case, whether the phone was owned by Apple - doesn't matter.
If the guy said he found it, then no matter what the circumstances, selling the phone to Gizmodo instead of handing it over to the police makes it theft. For example, if Gizmodo turned up five minutes after the phone was found and the guy had no time yet to find the owner (no theft has happened yet), selling it to Gizmodo would make it theft.
I read it on Gizmodo, the actual folks being accused. Their stories meet the tests for conviction. If I tell you I dented your car, you might as well believe me. It's not like my internet conviction matters, anyway. This post won't end up in front of a real jury.
Saw this on AppleInsider.com just now, twist that knife.
It is not as difficult as you might think. If you take Gizmodo at their word, they and their source committed a crime. Without question. Assuming they derive no benefit from self incrimination, we can assume that the incriminating parts of their story are true. We have a completely willful confession from one of the perpetrators, that is in fact fairly solid proof. Gizmodo is welcome to attempt to sue me for libel, but nothing I have said is untrue. Compare their written statements to the laws of the state of California and they have committed a crime. I don't need to Google libel, the best defense against libel is to simply state the truth. I also believe libel is one of those crazy things that usually requires intent to do harm to the person or entity.
This is still America and it is much harder to commit libel than most people think. In my opinion, Gizmodo and Jason Chen have enough legal troubles at the moment to worry about the one or two people who may actually be legitimately accused of libel.
All these theories sourced to one person's story...
Everyone on the internet (that is EVERYONE on the internet) has based their views of this whole situation on the claims of the guy/gal who actually acquired/stole the iPhone in the first place. People have made all of these assumptions based on the story he/she told Gizmodo. Therefore we have NO evidence to the fact that he/she either 'found' or 'stole' the iPhone. So, let this play out.
Personally, I find his (it's 'his' from here on in - sorry, gals) story extremely dodgy. It's one thing to call Apple's customer service line and give some vague description of a phone that may have been lost, but why did he not go straight to the bartender and report the phone lost? Why did he not take it to the police station? Or, while it was still activated, why didn't he try to make a call to any numbers saved on it? That's what I've done in the past when I've found a phone. And if nothing illegal ACTUALLY occurred, I bet we can all agree that this event can be classed as 'dodgy as f*ck'. Who gives a crap if you think Apple is the second coming or the devil incarnate? Anyone who finds/steals and seeks a $5000 profit should be hung (figuratively, of course). And so should Gizmodo, not for paying $5000 for a phone, but for its staff's ATROCIOUS writing skills.
Everyone on the internet (that is EVERYONE on the internet) has based their views of this whole situation on the claims of the guy/gal who actually acquired/stole the iPhone in the first place. People have made all of these assumptions based on the story he/she told Gizmodo. Therefore we have NO evidence to the fact that he/she either 'found' or 'stole' the iPhone. So, let this play out.
Personally, I find his (it's 'his' from here on in - sorry, gals) story extremely dodgy. It's one thing to call Apple's customer service line and give some vague description of a phone that may have been lost, but why did he not go straight to the bartender and report the phone lost? Why did he not take it to the police station? Or, while it was still activated, why didn't he try to make a call to any numbers saved on it? That's what I've done in the past when I've found a phone. And if nothing illegal ACTUALLY occurred, I bet we can all agree that this event can be classed as 'dodgy as f*ck'. Who gives a crap if you think Apple is the second coming or the devil incarnate? Anyone who finds/steals and seeks a $5000 profit should be hung (figuratively, of course). And so should Gizmodo, not for paying $5000 for a phone, but for its staff's ATROCIOUS writing skills.
The moral of this sorry tale is that
Finders are not keepers,
but losers certainly are weepers.
C.
Finders are not keepers,
but losers certainly are weepers.
C.
Should of just said that "Though the book at him." was the New Zealand version of the American version of "Throw the book at him." and thus you could have gotten away with it!
should HAVE just said....etc
If the criminal case were not pursued, then everyone would assume (or question whether) it was all a setup. You still think this was a publicity stunt? Think again.
Nothing the engineer did was criminal, and if you glance up at the thread's title you'll see the words "criminal investigation". I get the feeling that you (like many) have totally swallowed Gizmodo's version of events... hook, line and sinker. Sucka. Those are (at best) 2nd-hand lies.
Well perhaps others might be interested to hear you explain your line of reasoning. [then again, i didn't notice where you've said anything worthwhile as yet... so why start now? (isn't that it?).]
THIS^. (i'll bet the adrenaline rush sobered him up in 2 seconds). And that is probably only a *part* of what Gizmodo didn't realize (or think through). Anyone who loses a cellphone will also get a friend (or a stranger even) to call/text their own phone. It's so obvious we have not been informed of many facts... and some of what we do "know" is simple-minded misinformation. [suitable for troll food perhaps.]
Ah, another girlfriend of the Gawker clan chimes in. Thanks so much for those rare pearls of wisdom.
--
One thing for sure Mr. Chen is unfortunately guilty of: he's not particularly bright where the line between journalism and crime gets drawn is concerned. I'm no expert either, but my gut says this phone was deliberately absconded with.
Not sure of the accuracy but, i thought i heard somewhere that our light-fingered felon was a female... so (if true), there are all sorts of scenarios possible with that element added to the mix.
If these guys really think REACT is going to same them, they are crazy. I think the lawyer who wrote the letter to the police on their behalf isn't even admitted to a bar in the US.
These Gizmodo guys have screwed everything up from A to Z. I mean everything. Sayonara guys...
What are you talking about. Seriously? If you lose something and someone takes it and exploits it, you are at fault? I can't even begin to understand where you are coming from...
That is probably a good move since it is a basic tenet of law.
These Gizmodo guys have screwed everything up from A to Z. I mean everything. Sayonara guys...
What are you talking about. Seriously? If you lose something and someone takes it and exploits it, you are at fault? I can't even begin to understand where you are coming from...
That is probably a good move since it is a basic tenet of law.
Stolen == Stolen.
What's this concept you are throwing around? Partly stolen, temporarily stolen?
The length of time the owner is deprived of their property is irrelevant. Once they are deprived of their property, that property is classed as stolen. Period!
What's this concept you are throwing around? Partly stolen, temporarily stolen?
The length of time the owner is deprived of their property is irrelevant. Once they are deprived of their property, that property is classed as stolen. Period!