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

[2499723]

Jason Chen is just the kind of guy you want to punch. In fact, that goes for most of the staff of Gizmodo. Their articles are written in this pseudo-intellectual tone, as if they're pulling all the big words they can remember from their 9th grade vocabulary books, but the writing is simply horrible. Their style is both insular and self-congratulatory, and I find it extremely irritating. I can't write worth a damn, but then again, I'm not published on the internet. You can just imagine them patting themselves on the back and getting pepped over the second and third review of their own articles. This iPhone incident has only served to highlight their arrogance. I could give a **** about the iPhone, but I hope Gizmodo goes down anyway. Give us a quality site, Gawker, or don't give us a site at all. I'll stick with Engadget. The writing isn't great, but the staff doesn't piss me off as much. And thanks for being here, MacRumors. =)

 

[Block]

Besides the people directly involved in the issue, in this case Gizmodo, Apple, and any middle parties, nobody really knows what exactly happened.

As such, taking a side, whether it be Apple's or Gizmodo's is plain stupid. The only semi-valid concerns are regarding the legality of such a search-and-seizure, but even then without knowing the full extent of the story one cannot make an accurate assessment.

 

[*LTD*]

http://daringfireball.net/

Good Luck Feigning Ignorance
Daring Fireball 10-04-28 2:16 AM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:

In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman’s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. […]

Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, “When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it’s in plain view, which is legal,” but cautioned, “TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.”

Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo’s best defense would be to argue that it didn’t know the phone was Apple’s property when it was shown to them.

Good luck to the editors of a web site that specializes in mobile gadgetry — owned by the same publisher that received this warning (http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt) from Apple just two months prior — arguing that they didn’t know that a heretofore unseen iPhone prototype, for which they were willing to pay $5000, belonged to Apple. And that’s their best defense.

★

 

[nimrod323]

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!

maybe he meant "Short Term borrowing"? im starting to think he did not leave it at the bar it was taken from him in the bar, sober or not pick pockets could strike at any given time, even if it's not in a confined place full of people with ambient lighting, broad daylight i mean.

 

[Smacky]

Apple sits on the steering committee of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) taskforce

REACT, a taskforce set up to investigate high-tech crimes, is now handling a case involving a phone left in a bar

Coincidence? I think not
Conflict of interest? Hell yeah

 

[marcfogel]

maybe he meant "Short Term borrowing"? im starting to think he did not leave it at the bar it was taken from him in the bar, sober or not pick pockets could strike at any given time, even if it's not in a confined place full of people with ambient lighting, broad daylight i mean.

Possibly. I suspect he had no idea what happened, and that is what the DA is trying to determine. Was it stolen from him or did he leave it on a bar-stool. This could affect the court of public opinion, a jury

 

[nimrod323]

Possibly. I suspect he had no idea what happened, and that is what the DA is trying to determine. Was it stolen from him or did he leave it on a bar-stool. This could affect the court of public opinion, a jury

A bar stool couldn't barely accommodate his behind, theres no space to even place a phone there(it would have fell to the ground, if he stood up and judging from the pictures at gizmodo,the screen looks okay), he'd have to place it on the counter or it was in his pocket the whole time. Regardless of this, the jury should observe what the CA law dictates.

 

[mccldwll]

Possibly. I suspect he had no idea what happened, and that is what the DA is trying to determine. Was it stolen from him or did he leave it on a bar-stool. This could affect the court of public opinion, a jury

It doesn't matter whether it was pick pocketed, picked up while owner distracted, or simply found after owner left. Gawker apologists can make all the TV lawyer arguments they want, but based on the admitted facts, under CA law, it was "stolen" property.

 

[nimrod323]

It doesn't matter whether it was pick pocketed, picked up while owner distracted, or simply found after owner left. Gawker apologists can make all the TV lawyer arguments they want, but based on the admitted facts, under CA law, it was "stolen" property.

They should also observe the cctv too, logic says bar counters should have at least a few of them, to charge the guy who took it and disprove his claims that he was "hanging around" and "asked around?" for the owner.

 

[MH01]

I parked my car as I went into Starbucks. I stayed in Starbucks for an hour and came out to find my car gone.

I left the bar and after realizing I forgot my phone I called the bar to discover my phone is gone.

My property left the premises of both examples by a third party.

That's theft.

If you drove to the starbucks drunk, after 6+ steins and then could not remember where you parked your car, which was left with the keys in the ignition (which was later returned to you), I am struggleing to see the connection here. Though i suspect your confused with what lost and what stolen actually means.

 

[MorphingDragon]

If you drove to the starbucks drunk, after 6+ steins and then could not remember where you parked your car, which was left with the keys in the ignition (which was later returned to you), I am struggleing to see the connection here. Though i suspect your confused with what lost and what stolen actually means.

Dictionary definition of stealing:

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right

 

[MH01]

They should also observe the cctv too, logic says bar counters should have at least a few of them, to charge the guy who took it and disprove his claims that he was "hanging around" and "asked around?" for the owner.

I thought CCTV is a UK feature

"to charge the guy who took it and disprove his claims that he was "hanging around" and "asked around?" for the owner." --- I thought you were being logical? is it illogical that if there were a camera it actually backed up his story?? geez....

 

[MH01]

Dictionary definition of stealing:

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right

Definition of lost.

a. No longer in the possession, care, or control of someone or something

So if I am walking through a park, and find an ipod, are you telling me it is now stolen??? No i am in possesion of property that does not belong to me, but it is not stolen, i have a care of duty to report this to authorotise, and if it is not claimed after x time i can take possesion of it.

If you ever buy a stolen car, you are not a criminal!! What it means, is when the rightful owner claims it back , you legally have to return it and your out of pocket.

 

[WeegieMac]

To all those leaping atop the moral high horse, yelling "Prove it was stolen", I ask this ... prove that it wasn't.

Sorry, what was that? That's right you can't.

There's no more proof that it was lost than there is that it was stolen, yet people are too quick to believe Gizmodo's side of the story.

 

[nimrod323]

I thought CCTV is a UK feature

"to charge the guy who took it and disprove his claims that he was "hanging around" and "asked around?" for the owner." --- I thought you were being logical? is it illogical that if there were a camera it actually backed up his story?? geez....

ah, its a double edged sword then? still it(camera footage and all), wouldnt deter him from saying to the bartender this "hey, someone left a phone here, there you go, now go find that unlucky fellow", instead we get this huge debacle all over the news outlets.

 

[.Andy]

Jason Chen is just the kind of guy you want to punch. In fact, that goes for most of the staff of Gizmodo. Their articles are written in this pseudo-intellectual tone, as if they're pulling all the big words they can remember from their 9th grade vocabulary books, but the writing is simply horrible. Their style is both insular and self-congratulatory, and I find it extremely irritating. I can't write worth a damn, but then again, I'm not published on the internet. You can just imagine them patting themselves on the back and getting pepped over the second and third review of their own articles. This iPhone incident has only served to highlight their arrogance. I could give a **** about the iPhone, but I hope Gizmodo goes down anyway. Give us a quality site, Gawker, or don't give us a site at all. I'll stick with Engadget. The writing isn't great, but the staff doesn't piss me off as much. And thanks for being here, MacRumors. =)

Reading a technology blog makes me so mad I want to assault people !

 

[MH01]

Jason Chen is just the kind of guy you want to punch. In fact, that goes for most of the staff of Gizmodo. Their articles are written in this pseudo-intellectual tone, as if they're pulling all the big words they can remember from their 9th grade vocabulary books, but the writing is simply horrible. Their style is both insular and self-congratulatory, and I find it extremely irritating. I can't write worth a damn, but then again, I'm not published on the internet. You can just imagine them patting themselves on the back and getting pepped over the second and third review of their own articles. This iPhone incident has only served to highlight their arrogance. I could give a **** about the iPhone, but I hope Gizmodo goes down anyway. Give us a quality site, Gawker, or don't give us a site at all. I'll stick with Engadget. The writing isn't great, but the staff doesn't piss me off as much. And thanks for being here, MacRumors. =)

You should head over to appleinsider, they never let facts get in the way of self promoting apple products, you will love it, all positives and no negatives.. Though i am really interested how your find macrumours to be a great source of editorial content, given they do not actually write the stories but collate them.

 

[blipper]

To all those leaping atop the moral high horse, yelling "Prove it was stolen", I ask this ... prove that it wasn't.

Sorry, what was that? That's right you can't.

There's no more proof that it was lost than there is that it was stolen, yet people are too quick to believe Gizmodo's side of the story.

The easy answer to that is that the burden of proof in any legal proceeding would be on those asserting that the phone is stolen.

I'm a lawyer with 25 years admission to the bar and deciding whether 1) the phone was stolen; 2) Gizmodo is liable civilly for its subsequent actions would require a lot more information that has come to light in MacRumors threads so far. The California statutes that have been posted so far leave a lot of room for factfinder decision, e.g., the requirement of "knowing" appropriation of the property of another or what constitutes a "reasonable and just attempt" to find the owner of "lost" property are questions for a jury and depend on the specific facts introduced into evidence.

 

[nimrod323]

Definition of lost.
So if I am walking through a park, and find an ipod, are you telling me it is now stolen??? No i am in possesion of property that does not belong to me, but it is not stolen, i have a care of duty to report this to authorotise, and if it is not claimed after x time i can take possesion of it.

I thought you were making a logical analogy? If you have reported it to the authorities, the police for example (They are the highest authority there is,if you try to argue this point then what you instead done would be construed as selective methods to keep possession of said item, like calling applecare, fully aware they couldn't help you locate its true owner) wouldn't they keep it under their possession and not give to you back? You see finder keepers is not something the police could acknowledge and decide to award you the aforementioned Ipod, for your trouble of finding it in the park.

 

[Manderby]

I just found a word on the apple website where obviously someone forgot a character. I believe it is the real thing, the next product so to speak, so now I present you the newest Prototype for the next apple product name:

i

There might be something missing at the end, but this is pretty much the prove that something great is coming up.

Do I get sued now because I did not reported the spelling error?

SCNR. I know, the situation is much more serious and not so funny at all but I can't help myself, I'm actually enjoying this show.

UPDATE: Apple has corrected the spelling error. No more evidence. Sorry.

 

[WeegieMac]

The easy answer to that is that the burden of proof in any legal proceeding would be on those asserting that the phone is stolen.

I'm a lawyer with 25 years admission to the bar and deciding whether 1) the phone was stolen; 2) Gizmodo is liable civilly for its subsequent actions would require a lot more information that has come to light in MacRumors threads so far. The California statutes that have been posted so far leave a lot of room for factfinder decision, e.g., the requirement of "knowing" appropriation of the property of another or what constitutes a "reasonable and just attempt" to find the owner of "lost" property are questions for a jury and depend on the specific facts introduced into evidence.

Exactly.

That's the point I'm trying to make. People are automatically taking Gizmodo's sequence of events and doing so as gospel. Gizmodo told us that an Apple employee "left" the phone in a bar. Gizmodo told us that someone then "found" the phone and "tried" to return it to Apple but got given a "ticket number". Gizmodo then told us that they bought the phone for $5,000 from the person who "found" the iPhone that was "left" at the bar.

People are simply lapping this up and now Apple are pushing for prosecution, it's a case of "big bad Apple".

Gizmodo's version of events keeps them covered, but who's to say Gray Powell didn't leave the phone on the table at the bar and it was swiped when he took his eye off it for a second. We all do it in the pub, we feel the phone vibrate in our pocket, take it out, read the text, and put it down on the table. A conversation, someone saying "excuse me" to get past your chair/stool, taking a swig of your pint, any of these are normal pub behaviour ... phones go missing like this every day all over the world.

People are demanding that people prove the phone was stolen, but my point is that how can people believe so blindly that it was simply "left" behind at this bar just because Gizmodo say it was?

 

[res08hao]

Chen is English right? If he hasent become an US citizen and he gets convicted, won't he be departed from the US? That would be sad over an iPhone prototype imho.

Sad why? Good riddance. We have plenty of asians.

 

[Shasterball]

Jason Chen is just the kind of guy you want to punch. In fact, that goes for most of the staff of Gizmodo. Their articles are written in this pseudo-intellectual tone, as if they're pulling all the big words they can remember from their 9th grade vocabulary books, but the writing is simply horrible. Their style is both insular and self-congratulatory, and I find it extremely irritating. I can't write worth a damn, but then again, I'm not published on the internet. You can just imagine them patting themselves on the back and getting pepped over the second and third review of their own articles. This iPhone incident has only served to highlight their arrogance. I could give a **** about the iPhone, but I hope Gizmodo goes down anyway. Give us a quality site, Gawker, or don't give us a site at all. I'll stick with Engadget. The writing isn't great, but the staff doesn't piss me off as much. And thanks for being here, MacRumors. =)

Stop holding back. Can you tell us what you really feel?

 

[res08hao]

The easy answer to that is that the burden of proof in any legal proceeding would be on those asserting that the phone is stolen.

I'm a lawyer with 25 years admission to the bar and deciding whether 1) the phone was stolen; 2) Gizmodo is liable civilly for its subsequent actions would require a lot more information that has come to light in MacRumors threads so far. The California statutes that have been posted so far leave a lot of room for factfinder decision, e.g., the requirement of "knowing" appropriation of the property of another or what constitutes a "reasonable and just attempt" to find the owner of "lost" property are questions for a jury and depend on the specific facts introduced into evidence.

You must be a very bad lawyer. The owner's name is in the phone; he sold it-illegally-for $5000. Please post your real name so nobody ever uses you.

 

[koobcamuk]

Sad why? Good riddance. We have plenty of asians.

The point was that he's English you racist, not Asian.

I think America was just fine before Europeans invaded anyway, so you're an immigrant too.