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
Can we work a "caption and asportation" in there someplace? It makes it sound cooler.
Powell didn't hire Orrick.
Guess what... for everything a reason. I need glasses. Badly.
Let's wait and see.
Watch the Countdown/MSNBC video link I posted earlier with the interview of congressional law professor Jonathan Turley. According to Turley, real journalists don't want this Apple/Gizmodo situation to be the case for which legal precedent is set for journalists. Why? Because this one involves alleged criminal activity by the "journalist", not just his "source".
Mark
The original finder called Apple asking about said property; making a reasonable (I think) effort to connect it back to the owner. The representative from Apple said they did not know anything about it. It was Apples negligence here that they did not communicate the missing iPhone to their support staff. They had their chance to get it back - and the BLEW OFF the guy trying to do it. Its as simple as that.
This little nugget of information seems to go unmentioned in the drive to paint this as a theft. I don't know about you, but I don't think a thief calls the owner (Apple here) and asks if they lost the item in question and how to return it.
This part is interesting:
"News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a sale are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back, this person said. Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.
But it seems that the DA has yet to decide on what to charge anyone with anything.
Cart before the horse?
If it's not reported stolen and the owner did not attempt to look for it, is it "stolen"?
Did the owner report the iPhone as stolen?
"Your honor, these are not my pants."
Of course. Stolen means someone stole it. Reporting the crime doesn't render it stolen.
Nonetheless, it was reported stolen, and the owner did attempt to look for it, calling the bar repeatedly, sending goons to the "finders" house, etc.
This.
I am sure a quick look at phone records show an attempt to return the iPhone, at which point one can argue the iPhone was abandoned.
Calling Apple Care about a phone prototype is about as effective as telling your mechanic that you have an idea what is causing the unintended acceleration in your Toyota. Not appropriate. BTW, Apple has a local phone number he could have dialed, or even Powell's number. Fail.
I'm sure Apple should have informed the janitors and groundskeepers to be on the lookout as well.
Haha.
Seriously, dude, when all the facts you believe are true are introduced as evidence, then the jury or other factfinder will get to decide. If you think it's true now, then you can decide the case right now in your own mind. The rest of us can reasonably decide otherwise (or not).
BTW, "sold it illegally" is the sort of conclusion that the factfinder gets to make as allowed by a judge based on the evidence in the record. It's not a fact that stands alone.
If later, the third party called you and said "Hey bro, I think I found your phone in Starbucks last night, how can I get it back to you" and you claimed to not know about the phone you had lost...then what is that? Stupidity? Negligence? I don't think its theft at that point.
Would you say to the caller - how dare you call me and try to retune my forgone phone - you thief! No.
In short: your whole example fails, because the finder called Apple and tried to return it to them. Apple did not accept the offer and thought it was a hoax. You cannot call someone a thief when the owner REFUSES TO TAKE THE ITEM BACK. It does not work that way.
According to the story (which you don't believe anyway so I don't know why you assume he even tried), he called "several different numbers" before ultimately ending up with support. Just because you know how Apple works and what AppleCare is doesn't mean that it's common knowledge, the guy may not own any of their products. Everything's relative, stop being so damn binary about it.
This nugget of information has always been around and mentioned.
If the details are correct, then I'd say this was a lame ass attempt and far less than reasonable (um, dude. how about calling numbers in the iphone to figure out who it belonged to? Or look in the directory and settings for ownership clues?)
2800.1 is part of the California Civil Code, not the Criminal Code. That being so, it basically means the alleged finder of the phone did not have legal authority to convey ownership to anyone else. It may bear on the reasonableness of the attempts to return the property.
Don't think you're thinking it through. Even for a prototype, you're going to have clues of who the phone was assigned to. If synched (which it almost have to be), it'd have internal numbers you could call that could trace back to the person it was assigned and you wouldn't need to call numbers at random; you'd get directly to the person it was assigned to.
This is assuming that there was no traces of direct ownership in the iPhone prototype. You're going to have to argue that this was likely. Feel free to make that argument.
Juries decide facts and juries are made of lay people not lawyers. If we accept the interpretation of the law that several folks who are actually members of the California Bar have provided for us and then independently review the "confession" provided by Gizmodo, most of us reasonable people seem to believe a crime was committed...Does it mean anything , no. Is it as far fetched as you seem to make it out to be no. Admittedly rules of evidence might change what a jury actually sees, but I think Gizmodo/Jason Chen would have a difficult time excluding anything they chose to publish.
Please note I have over 25 years of eligibility as a juror in the United States and 5 years in the Jurisdiction in question. This makes me more qualified to judge the facts of this case than you
Anyone who posts on this site would likely be voir dired right out of the jury selection process, especially those above who've expressed their urges to punch Jason Chen, etc.
Why would Gizmodo have to figure out if it was real or not?
The finder learned the identity of the phone 'owner' (Gray Powell) prior to being bricked through the facebook app.
Gizmodo reported that they called him directly. So where is the NEED to open the phone? Or even remove the phone from the case?
Missing Facts
Gizmodo posted the name of the Apple engineer in the blog.
This is a fact not speculation.
You can call Apple and ask for a person by name.
They fail. The person who found the phone had this information.
The finder didn't contact anyone at the bar, this is a fact.
Gizmodo disassembled a phone that they had no right to possess.
They then disseminated information about a product not yet released.
That would be considered theft of intellectual property.
Was Apple hurt? Well it gives the competition information that they didn't have and gives them a several month advantage to design something.
Also journalists can claim the greater good only when society benefits from releasing the contents of secret documents. The release of specification and pictures of a yet unreleased iPhone doesn't fit the bill.
Fry Gizmodo and the jerk who stole the phone....
Gizmodo posted the name of the Apple engineer in the blog.
This is a fact not speculation.
You can call Apple and ask for a person by name.
They fail. The person who found the phone had this information.
The finder didn't contact anyone at the bar, this is a fact.
Gizmodo disassembled a phone that they had no right to possess.
They then disseminated information about a product not yet released.
That would be considered theft of intellectual property.
Was Apple hurt? Well it gives the competition information that they didn't have and gives them a several month advantage to design something.
Also journalists can claim the greater good only when society benefits from releasing the contents of secret documents. The release of specification and pictures of a yet unreleased iPhone doesn't fit the bill.
Fry Gizmodo and the jerk who stole the phone....
So the general definition is it does not to need to be reported to be called stolen?
Since the original possessor did file a theft report and did call the bar to find it, then its on record.
Wiki on Larceny notes
"The taking must be without the consent of the owner. This means that the taking must have been accomplished by stealth, force, threat of force, or deceit."
I did not read any coercion to get he iPhone.
Another item I have issue with, the police raided his house and confiscated this computers.
Why?
What is in those computers that they need?
The iPhone G4 was returned so the physical property is no longer in his house.
Did someone think the memory contents of the G4 was copied to Chen's computers?
Jason Chen did a potentially illegal act (receiving likely stolen item), and we all know that Apple does not leave prototypes lying around on purpose, and I do not condone what he did,
but the actions of law enforcement is highly questionable IMHO.