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

chembox said:
So if you buy a stolen (not really stolen but, found) iPhone, your home gets raided by the government and all of your computer equipment is detained and searched through?

Yeah, right. This only happens because of how Apple has an extreme obsession with secrecy.
Click to expand...

God after a billion posts and trillions of articles you manage to come out with such dumbass statements as if you've been living on the moon. Go and read some of the material out there and then you might be able to come her and contribute something worth reading.

No it is not about the police raiding someone because someone else's iphone was stolen. And it has nothing to do with Apple's obsession with secrecy. The police department isn't a branch of Apple's marketing dept, in case you didn't know. Laws were broken, trade secrets violated, knowingly and for personal (or company) gain (ie Gizmodo's). This was not just an iPhone it was an unreleased product that can reasonably be expected to make Apple hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions - Gizmodo gave Apple's competitors a blueprint of its design, it features, it internal construction. If I was a lawyer the only thing that would stop me taking Gizmodo for every penny it has, is that it probably doesn't have enough money to make it worth the effort.
 
Apple may have had the finder's contact info, at least his phone number when he called customer service, maybe more if the rep took his info.
 
This is a very interesting twist in the story. The article states that the police already know the identity of the person that took the iPhone from the bar and they've interviewed him. The article also states that Chen's computers have not been touched. If both of those statements are true, then there's no way that Chen can contend that the police want to search his computers to find the identity of the person that took the iPhone. The police already knew his identity.

Under that set of circumstances, the most likely scenario is that Jason Chen's computers were targeted because the police are investigating whether Jason Chen and/or Gizmodo was involved in criminal activity. And if that's the case, there are several legal opinions today that believe the California shield law will not stand.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the person that took the iPhone from the bar is NOT the same person that sold it to Gizmodo. There could be another person (or multiple persons) involved here.

My "gut" tells me this latest twist in the story means bad news for Chen and Gizmodo. Certainly, the person that took the iPhone from the bar must know where it went from there. And, apparently, he's talking.

Time to get some more popcorn!

smileyvault-popcorn.gif


Mark
 
So what was Gizmodo's idea, purpose or aim in outing Gray Powell. That seemed like a pretty shi**y thing to do.
 
Is this how us police handle a simple Stolen mobile phone cases ?
I guess they solved all the murder cases :rolleyes:
 
TeamDNA said:
IT wasnt STOLEN it was FOUND...... FOUND FOUND FOUND FOUND.. then SOLD..
Click to expand...

Which is illegal in most countries, unless you go through the proper procedures (take it to a police station, get a receipt, then come back 3-6 months later).

Honestly, the some of the reasoning here in incredible. They really need to teach these sort of things in schools better.
 
Anyone remember Jason O'Grady? He came across some inside information about an Apple product, Apple subpoenaed his ISP, tried to get them to take down his website and source of employment, and also subpoenaed O'Grady himself in order to get the name of the source who leaked the information.

bmk said:
God after a billion posts and trillions of articles you manage to come out with such dumbass statements as if you've been living on the moon. Go and read some of the material out there and then you might be able to come her and contribute something worth reading.

No it is not about the police raiding someone because someone else's iphone was stolen. And it has nothing to do with Apple's obsession with secrecy. The police department isn't a branch of Apple's marketing dept, in case you didn't know. Laws were broken, trade secrets violated, knowingly and for personal (or company) gain (ie Gizmodo's). This was not just an iPhone it was an unreleased product that can reasonably be expected to make Apple hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions - Gizmodo gave Apple's competitors a blueprint of its design, it features, it internal construction. If I was a lawyer the only thing that would stop me taking Gizmodo for every penny it has, is that it probably doesn't have enough money to make it worth the effort.
Click to expand...
I guess Apple shouldn't give top secret prototypes to irresponsible, young programmers who are bound to leave it somewhere. ;)

What happened to the new iPad being tested only in a dark environment with all windows blackened? Why isn't that same procedure shown with the new iPhone?

According to the New York Times, "Some Apple workers in the most critical product-testing rooms must cover up devices with black cloaks when they are working on them, and turn on a red warning light when devices are unmasked so that everyone knows to be extra-careful, [former employee] said."
 
Mystic385 said:
So what was Gizmodo's idea, purpose or aim in outing Gary Powell. That seemed like a pretty ****** thing to do.
Click to expand...

I waved goodbye at them after that. I was growing weary of them making stories out of nothing with misleading headlines and was thinking about quitting already.
 
"Wagstaffe said that an outside counsel for Apple, along with Apple engineer Powell, called the District Attorney’s office on Wednesday or Thursday of last week to report a theft had occurred and they wanted it investigated.


Sounds to me like the Apple engineer contacted an "outside counsel" meaning HE asked for the investigation. Not Apple,Inc.

Seems to me had Apple,Inc. asked for it they would have used their own in-house lawyers.
 
aussie.damo said:
I loved seeing the new iPhone as much as the next person, but what Giz did was wrong. They should never have paid someone for that phone, for all they know it could have been stolen?! It sets a terrible precedent - what happens when someone knows an Apple tester, decides to rob and possibly assault them, so they can get some $ and fame from it.

The person who found the phone should have taken it to the closest police station, handed it in and suggested it be returned to Apple. I hope the full weight of the law is thrown both at Giz and the guy who found the phone so they are made an example of.

Damo
Click to expand...

To me the crux of all of this is two fold. First did Gizmodo know the iPhone was "hot"? Second did the seller steal this iPhone and make up a story to sell it?

Just ask any person in prison and they will tell you they are innocent. People make up stories to cover their ass everyday. :eek:
 
PeckhamBog said:
Stolen?

It was lost (from the reports I heard) but was there ever an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it?

If the Apple engineer hadn't lost it and it was obtained dishonestly, then I can understand the crime implication.
Click to expand...

Why is this so hard to comprehend (assuming it's not purposeful "confusion")?

I leave my car unlocked with keys somewhere, someone "borrows it" for a few days, then returns it. There is no crime, right?

Forget the IP implications, which I believe are more serious. You can't just "borrow" someone elses property if it happens to be available to you.
 
That says it was outside counsel for Apple. I bet Apple and or their lawyers recommended that he call the cops, not that it matters either way.
 
gnasher729 said:
But that is quite clearly the case since they know that a random person cannot be legally in possession of a prototype iPhone.
Click to expand...
Not if you make the argument that they didn't know it was a prototype. Could they have suspected? Sure. But until they further analyzed it, they could have simply have assumed it was a very elaborate knock-off. The issue of whether or not they knew is far more of a gray area than you're making it out to be.

Patents don't come into play. If there are any Apple patents in the iPhone, Apple must have gone to the patent office and registered the patents and everyone and their dog can visit a website and download the contents of those patents. Knowledge about a patent is intentionally open to everyone. Actually _using_ a patent requires a license from the patent holder.
Click to expand...
Given that the iPhone prototype is almost fully functional from the reports we've seen, of course there are patented technologies present within the prototype, AND licenses for said patents would be necessary, because the phone is in use (by testers, as we've obviously seen/heard).

Or did Steve sprinkle magic pixie dust to allow it to make wireless transmissions solely via "magic"?

But because the phone was stolen, it was illegal to open it and look inside and discover trade secrets in that way.
Click to expand...
If they hadn't attempted to plug it into iTunes, etc., and had simply disassembled it, the counterargument could have been that they couldn't verify its authenticity until it had been disassembled (a perfectly valid argument). However, the fact that iTunes recognized it as such, throws a damper on that idea. Although I guess an argument that it could have been a very elaborate hoax using a 3Gs could still be made...

You have the right to go to the nearest Apple Store, buy an iPhone, take it apart (because it is yours) and post on the Internet what you find. You don't have the right to do that with a stolen phone.
Click to expand...
Eh... that's another gray area too... If someone comes to you and says "Hey man, I have some "hot" merchandise for you...", and you willingly purchase it solely with the intent of trying to return it to the rightful owners, you are not breaking the law (at least not in California).

Now, say you obtain said merchandise. However, there's no obvious signs of who the former owner may have been. Ideally you would contact the police, report the stolen item, turn it over to them, and let it be. However, there may be some areas of "exploration" of said merchandise allowed, if doing so allows you to return it to the rightful owner.

Under the circumstances where "exploration" of said merchandise can potentially yield the rightful owner, I don't see posting said information on the internet is illegal. That having been said, when it comes to the concept of a phone, laptop, etc., I don't think disassembly would be covered. Turning it on, looking for information related to the owner, that's probably legal. Otherwise, yeah...
 
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