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

Response from Steve J about this

At the end of the day yesterday I sent Steve an email at the sjobs@apple.com address. Here is my note, his reply, and down at the bottom the headers so you can all decide whether this is authentic or not.

Steve-

I am a shareholder, owner of dozens of Apple products, and a huge supporter of you and the company, but this business of sending the cops after Gizmodo makes me very uneasy. It's time to tell your legal department to call off the dogs..

Carl Sacks
West Paterson NJ

The District Attorney is doing this, not Apple. It's out of our hands.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

Return-Path: <sjobs@apple.com>
Envelope-To: csacks@catersource.com
Delivery-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:54:18 -0400
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com ([17.254.13.22]) by host.catersource.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <sjobs@apple.com>) id 1O6a0A-0003UL-Lm for csacks@catersource.com; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:54:18 -0400
Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583B090037B7 for <csacks@catersource.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from et.apple.com (et.apple.com [17.151.62.12]) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id FA.9F.09567.8C346DB4; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.248.4.122] (wave-dhcp122.apple.com [17.248.4.122]) by et.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0L1I00JZ7IMFG180@et.apple.com> for csacks@catersource.com; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auditid: 1180711d-b7b5fae00000255f-4f-4bd643c887c5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_78Zkzbz/qIymYCxUUGaLFw)"
Message-Id: <B433AB37-A048-4FA3-B445-6CED451DAA39@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <A537BD39-4433-4583-9CBE-F7F434E9FDF5@catersource.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7D11)
References: <A537BD39-4433-4583-9CBE-F7F434E9FDF5@catersource.com>
 
satcomer said:
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?
Click to expand...
The bad news for gizmodo is their version of the story lines them up for conviction.
 
Also, to the people saying the "finder" of the phone (aka, "the thief" (by definition of California penal code)) didn't want to just leave it with the bar owner or an Apple Store employee because they might sell it on craigslist:

A) why didn't he go to the police?

B) it's wrong to do the right thing because someone else might sell it, but right to turn around and sell it for $5K yourself?

I'm really fuzzy on your logic, if you're following any.
 
Arran said:
Who said he left it?
Click to expand...
The story we have is that he was drunk, that he left it on the bar when he left, and that a few people noticed it and asked another individual if it was his phone, to which he had answered no. For the time period up until the individual who "found" it left with it, the Apple employee never returned to try and collect it.

Basically, he was drunk, forgot it, went home, probably crashed or whatever, woke up the next day, and said "F***".
 
Since we now know it was a birthday party, maybe the phone was stolen while the developer was still in the bar. The thief thought they were stealing an iPhone 3G and got a whole lot more.
 
Apple 1984 said:
You're going to be saying that a lot as this unfolds over the next several months! Mind if I pull up a chair? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think it will take long at all for the criminal investigation to unfold. If investigators don't find enough evidence to charge anyone, they'll know that within a week or two. And if they do feel they have enough evidence to charge someone, I believe that will also happen quickly. And if someone does get charged, I believe they'll plea deal before the ink on the arrest warrant is dry.

It's the civil action that is going to be a long drawn out affair.

Mark
 
Well documented joy-ride

This is a case of an extremely well documented joy-ride with stolen property. Gizmodo knew, or was hoping, the device purchased was in fact an iPhone prototype. There was intent on Giz's part to purchase property not lawfully obtained by a third party, and they were fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this "mystery" device.

Gawker needs to reign in those fools at Gizmodo, especially that child Brian Lam. I don't think Giz will fair well under his leadership.

This reminds so many people, including myself, of that stupid stunt at CES (Motorola keynote). They are children, and hopefully this incident will bar them from getting "journalist" access to trade shows. It is at least getting myself, and many others, to stop visiting their website. Maybe this will go down in tech history as an example of how NOT to run a gadget blog. Hopefully.
 
I think a lot of people in general are making way too big of a deal out of all this. Let's look at the simple facts:

1. An Apple engineer left "by accident" his prototype iPhone at a bar. He represent's Apple as an employee. Therefore, it's safe to say "Apple left a prototype by accident at a bar." (the employee signed an NDA and is 100% liable for the prototype, so this CAN be said about Apple, truthfully)

2. Gizmodo purchased the phone for $5,000. Of course they're going to try and get their hands on it, it's their job! Just like photographers taking pictures of celebrities. (paparazzi)

3. Jason Chen's house was illegally searched. This is very clear cut from reading simple California laws. He's a journalist - he's protected. It wouldn't surprise me if Gizmodo or Chen himself sue's the state of CA for an illegal search, and wins! :D


Now - What's the issue here? I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal of this. This phone is a prototype, and cannot be bought on the public market. You can't assign a monetary value to it, legally. Therefore, you can't claim that it costs more than $100 to justify the stolen property CA law. For all we know, it could cost $99. Sure, Apple might know that it costs $1,300 to produce the prototype, but that doesn't matter one bit. It's not a publicly sold item, therefore the "finder" has no way of knowing the true value. The difference here - is that regardless of what anyone "says" - the market value is not published. Therefore, the "finder" cannot determine it's legal monetary value.

In my honest opinion, I do not see this as being a PR stunt or anything like that of any kind. What happened here is very simple - Apple made a mistake, their new iPhone prototype was leaked, and now they're trying everything in their power to show it "wasn't their fault", because "Apple doesn't make mistakes". Guess what Jobs? You ****ed up.

An example of this is that they're claiming it's stolen. It's one thing if someone broke into the Apple campus and physically stole the phone, but this guy left it for hours at a random bar in CA. Get real Apple, no one is going to buy your "stolen phone" ********. At least, a real jury won't.

Despite what any CA law states - in the end, a jury will see that the old "finders keepers" rule is appropriate here. Apple screwed up, and they need to pay the price. Not Gizmodo.
 
Bafflefish said:
The story we have is that he was drunk, that he left it on the bar when he left, and that a few people noticed it and asked another individual if it was his phone, to which he had answered no. For the time period up until the individual who "found" it left with it, the Apple employee never returned to try and collect it.

Basically, he was drunk, forgot it, went home, probably crashed or whatever, woke up the next day, and said "F***".
Click to expand...

...and reported it stolen a month later!
 
The phone was taken from private property. It wasn't left near a fountain in a public park.

fabian9 said:
What's your source for this information?

As far as I can tell the question as to if it was stolen or lost is going to be the key to this case.

Fabian
Click to expand...
 
till said:
Bit of an inflammatory headline, when you consider some of the wildly stupid accusations being flung around lately, as if law enforcement is an arm of Apple Inc.

Powell and Apple reported a theft. Yeah, that's often how investigations start. News? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think MacRumors is being pretty careless here. The headline makes it appear as if Apple somehow pressured the police for an investigation. Later in the article we see there is no basis for that belief and they may have simply reported the stolen property and asked for an investigation, which is a very different thing and probably what anyone would do had their property been stolen.

Later in the article:

While Apple would have to actively pursue any civil charges related to the incident, some observers wondered whether Apple was pressing the examination of possible criminal charges or if law enforcement was working on its own after having been notified of the loss or theft of the iPhone.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how Gray Powell has been doing since this broke. I hope he's doing okay. There was nothing to be gained by outing him.

If you're a young guy and you have your dream job at Apple then losing the phone could have been stressful but then how this has ended up going public with Jason and the Giz must be tough.

I hope he has good people around him.

Jason and Giz did something stupid here. IMHO.
 
Acejam2k said:
I think a lot of people in general are making way too big of a deal out of all this. Let's look at the simple facts:

1. An Apple engineer left "by accident" his prototype iPhone at a bar. He represent's Apple as an employee. Therefore, it's safe to say "Apple left a prototype by accident at a bar." (the employee signed an NDA and is 100% liable for the prototype, so this CAN be said about Apple, truthfully)

2. Gizmodo purchased the phone for $5,000. Of course they're going to try and get their hands on it, it's their job! Just like photographers taking pictures of celebrities. (paparazzi)

3. Jason Chen's house was illegally searched. This is very clear cut from reading simple California laws. He's a journalist - he's protected. It wouldn't surprise me if Gizmodo or Chen himself sue's the state of CA for an illegal search, and wins! :D


Now - What's the issue here? I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal of this. This phone is a prototype, and cannot be bought on the public market. You can't assign a monetary value to it, legally. Therefore, you can't claim that it costs more than $100 to justify the stolen property CA law. For all we know, it could cost $99. Sure, Apple might know that it costs $1,300 to produce the prototype, but that doesn't matter one bit. It's not a publicly sold item, therefore the "finder" has no way of knowing the true value. The difference here - is that regardless of what anyone "says" - the market value is not published. Therefore, the "finder" cannot determine it's legal monetary value.

In my honest opinion, I do not see this as being a PR stunt or anything like that of any kind. What happened here is very simple - Apple made a mistake, their new iPhone prototype was leaked, and now they're trying everything in their power to show it "wasn't their fault", because "Apple doesn't make mistakes". Guess what Jobs? You ****ed up.

An example of this is that they're claiming it's stolen. It's one thing if someone broke into the Apple campus and physically stole the phone, but this guy left it for hours at a random bar in CA. Get real Apple, no one is going to buy your "stolen phone" ********. At least, a real jury won't.

Despite what any CA law states - in the end, a jury will see that the old "finders keepers" rule is appropriate here. Apple screwed up, and they need to pay the price. Not Gizmodo.
Click to expand...

Oh, lord, I don't think I could make any more mistakes deliberately, if I tried....
 
Acejam2k said:
3. Jason Chen's house was illegally searched. This is very clear cut from reading simple California laws. He's a journalist - he's protected. It wouldn't surprise me if Gizmodo or Chen himself sue's the state of CA for an illegal search, and wins! :D
Click to expand...

Which juge has ruled that?
 
mingoglia said:
I find it very interesting that Apple (among other companies) is on the Steering Committee of the task force the house.
Click to expand...

Why would that be "very interesting"? Is it any more interesting than all the other tech companies on the steering committee? Do you suggest any company that wants to be on the steering committee sign a pledge to never have any crime committed against them investigated? I'm sure lots of companies would sign up for that.
 
Acejam2k said:
I think a lot of people in general are making way too big of a deal out of all this. Let's look at the simple facts:

1. An Apple engineer left "by accident" his prototype iPhone at a bar. He represent's Apple as an employee. Therefore, it's safe to say "Apple left a prototype by accident at a bar." (the employee signed an NDA and is 100% liable for the prototype, so this CAN be said about Apple, truthfully)

2. Gizmodo purchased the phone for $5,000. Of course they're going to try and get their hands on it, it's their job! Just like photographers taking pictures of celebrities. (paparazzi)

3. Jason Chen's house was illegally searched. This is very clear cut from reading simple California laws. He's a journalist - he's protected. It wouldn't surprise me if Gizmodo or Chen himself sue's the state of CA for an illegal search, and wins! :D


Now - What's the issue here? I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal of this. This phone is a prototype, and cannot be bought on the public market. You can't assign a monetary value to it, legally. Therefore, you can't claim that it costs more than $100 to justify the stolen property CA law. For all we know, it could cost $99. Sure, Apple might know that it costs $1,300 to produce the prototype, but that doesn't matter one bit. It's not a publicly sold item, therefore the "finder" has no way of knowing the true value. The difference here - is that regardless of what anyone "says" - the market value is not published. Therefore, the "finder" cannot determine it's legal monetary value.

In my honest opinion, I do not see this as being a PR stunt or anything like that of any kind. What happened here is very simple - Apple made a mistake, their new iPhone prototype was leaked, and now they're trying everything in their power to show it "wasn't their fault", because "Apple doesn't make mistakes". Guess what Jobs? You ****ed up.

An example of this is that they're claiming it's stolen. It's one thing if someone broke into the Apple campus and physically stole the phone, but this guy left it for hours at a random bar in CA. Get real Apple, no one is going to buy your "stolen phone" ********. At least, a real jury won't.

Despite what any CA law states - in the end, a jury will see that the old "finders keepers" rule is appropriate here. Apple screwed up, and they need to pay the price. Not Gizmodo.
Click to expand...

Unless it was stolen from the guy in the bar.
 
Bafflefish said:
The story we have is that he was drunk, that he left it on the bar when he left, and that a few people noticed it and asked another individual if it was his phone, to which he had answered no. For the time period up until the individual who "found" it left with it, the Apple employee never returned to try and collect it.

Basically, he was drunk, forgot it, went home, probably crashed or whatever, woke up the next day, and said "F***".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but where did that 'story' come from? Any independent corroboration? All I can find is Gizmodo's original story which is echoed by a million news outets with the protective caveat "according to Gizmodo". Do we have anything independent to go on?
 
Mystic385 said:
I wonder how Gray Powell has been doing since this broke. I hope he's doing okay. There was nothing to be gained by outing him.
Click to expand...
Probably depends on Steve's temperament that day as to what ended up happening to him as a result of this.

If you're a young guy and you have your dream job at Apple then losing the phone could have been stressful but then how this has ended up going public with Jason and the Giz must be tough.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure working at Apple should be one's "dream" job. I think a lot of Apple fans, being that they are fans, think it would be ideal. But I could see working for Apple being very, very stressful.
 
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