I'm not really familiar with Apples side of the story so I was wondering if you could fill me in with a few details?
1. How is it known for sure that this iPhone was stolen and not lost at a bar as Gizmodo claim?
It's both. The iPhone was lost (unless something more sinister happened, which we have no evidence for). It was then found, but finding an object and not returning it to the owner or alternatively to the police makes it theft. If you find something that is lost and then sell it for $5000, that is theft.
2. Assuming it is true that an attempt was made to find the owner of the phone, including as Gizmodo claim waiting for some time at the bar for Powell to return, why is the taking home of the phone viewed as an admission of guilt? It's entirely possible that he took it home intending to ring a contact number in the morning whilst less drunk
Who says taking it home is an admission of guilt? That's nonsense. It would have been perfectly fine to take the phone home (that is, in California it is. In other parts of the world that would be the theft. For example, in Germany something that is left in a bar would be in lawful possession of the bar owner, and the bar owner would have to return it to the rightful owner. Removing it from the bar would be theft). No guilt at that point. The theft happened when he kept the phone for weeks and looked for a buyer, instead of looking for the owner.
3. Upon the bricking of the phone and the discovery of the phone not being a 3GS why is the fact that Apple where contacted being ignored? Surely if this guy is a petty criminal as is being suggested then he would never have contacted them?
There is no evidence that Hogan ever tried to contact Apple. It has been reported that an associate of Hogan promised to contact AppleCare; whether that happened, we don't know. However, the law doesn't require contacting the owner, it requires trying to return the phone to its owner, and that has definitely not happened.
4. Why is the fact that Apple are pressing charges indicative that it was a theft? Maybe Powell was scared he would lose his job so made up a theft in order to preserve it?
That, my friend, is libel. You are just claiming that Mr. Powell made false claims that a crime has happened, which is a crime in itself. However, I put this down to you not understanding that completely legally finding a lost object, and then not returning it to the owner, is theft.
Yeah, so I was hoping that could be cleared up for me. It's just it seems like people are convinced here that Apple are faultless and Gizmodo are in the wrong (and they probably are to some degree, although whether their actions are criminal or unscrupulous is another question) and I'm not really sure why, can anyone fill me in?
Crime 1 (theft): The phone was stolen according to Californian law (if you want to read it, google for "theft law california"). Crime 2 (handling stolen goods): Gizmodo bought it knowing they were buying stolen goods. Crime 3 (criminal damage): Gizmodo took the phone apart and put it together again, destroying it in the process. Crime 4 (theft of trade secret): Gizmodo took the stolen phone apart and took photos of the things inside, which were a trade secret since they could only be discovered by committing a crime, and then Gizmodo published the pictures.
I almost wonder if Graham Powell was targeted because somebody found out he was a tester. It appears that it was easy to find out he was a baseband engineer, so I wonder if he was among many targeted to try and steal the phone.
It makes a bit of difference, but not too much. The main difference is that _everything_ about the phone would still be protected as a trade secret; if the phone was lost then anything that an honest finder would have learned about it would not be a trade secret anymore. And if Gizmodo were behind it, then they wouldn't have been handling stolen goods, but responsible for the theft, which would be worse.
Apple's only action so far has been to file a stolen iPhone report and encourage the police to investigate. Apple will not be making the decision whether criminal charges are filed, the district attorney will make that decision. As Steve Jobs clearly stated in an E-mail reply, it's in the DA's hands now.
I'd say Paul Hogan and Gizmodo made the decision that criminal charges will be filed. I think the saying is "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
Despite what Steve says, Apple has a big role in deciding if charges are filed. Certain crimes like murder are always prosecuted because the victim is no longer around to file charges, since they're dead. However in cases like this the victim, in is case Apple, has a BIG say in if charges are pressed.
I can't see any reason why Apple wouldn't press charges when their iPhone prototype is stolen, taken apart by someone who in the past offered substantial rewards for stealing Apple's trade secret, photos of trade secrets published, and when the perps offered all kinds of self-serving excuses to make Apple look as bad as possible in the process.
Case 1: Kid steals iPhone prototype from an engineers pocket and takes it home, mum gives him a good ear-bashing and returns the phone to Apple. No charges pressed.
Case 2: (This one here). Charges will be pressed.
