Gizmodo Cleared as Charges Finally Brought in Lost Prototype iPhone 4 Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Damages? What damages did Apple suffer? If anything this got more people excited about a device they knew was going to be released anyways. Well it did for me anyway. And no, I'm not saying they were right to do this at all I just don't think it damaged Apple.
CindyRed
macrumors member
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8L1)
If not criminally prosecuted for the misdemeanor of theft, can Jason Chen still be charged with being a complete dbag and throwing the Hogan/Wallower couple under the bus?
If not criminally prosecuted for the misdemeanor of theft, can Jason Chen still be charged with being a complete dbag and throwing the Hogan/Wallower couple under the bus?
for what its worth, Chen had his computers seized, and I'm pretty sure the police identified the people before hand. They didn't throw anyone under the bus.
arn
He barely even tried. It was pretty obvious after what his roommate did with her phone call. Even if it's accepted that his phone call was enough, he didn't do what he needed to do to legally make it his to sell.
The main damages to Apple were from giving competitors advance information. But, damages don't matter since it isn't a lawsuit and Apple isn't the one charging them.
Apple still has the option of suing Gizmodo and involved employees.
He threw them under a bus how?
Even if they took them seriously, Apple care probably cannot legally take lost property like that without the owners consent - the person who retrieved the phone did not contact the Police or the actual restaurant where the phone was lost.
If I found a lost wallet without an ID, I don't contact the wallet maker, I contact the police.
nagromme
macrumors G5
Sounds about right. Gizmodo can’t credibly claim they didn’t know it was stolen. But they CAN get off the hook even if they broke the law. It happens.
The web is packed with Apple-related free press, rumors, NDA violations, and leaks. Starting with this site! Apple doesn’t report them all to the police—and for what would they? They did report buying and sharing this stolen device. Sounds like calling it an action against “free press” in a broader sense isn’t justified. This is very specific. And reporting something—which really did happen—to the police isn’t all that much of an “attempt,” either—it’s a reasonable phone call any one of us would make if a law had been broken, or seemed to be. And it was, as the investigation showed (no surprise) even if some parties were not charged.
Last edited:
quagmire
macrumors 604
When Gizmodo knew it was property of Apple, they became aware they just bought stolen property. That is illegal.
They only returned it until they tore it apart and blackmailed Apple.
SockRolid
macrumors 68000
"Advance information" has a new spin
Advance information used to mean "stuff we can copy from Apple." Now it means "stuff we can't copy from Apple because they would sue us."
Maybe Apple doesn't need to be so secretive any more...
Advance information used to mean "stuff we can copy from Apple." Now it means "stuff we can't copy from Apple because they would sue us."
Maybe Apple doesn't need to be so secretive any more...
FriarNurgle
macrumors regular
Good for them. I still won't visit the Gawker sites due to the horrible redesign from Feb.
CindyRed
macrumors member
Sure he did. The moment Chen and his people agreed to fork over names, dates, locations, mother's maidens and measurements over to the US geek crimes patrol, they threw anybody not pretending to be a journalist that day under the bus. Goes against the the journalist's ethos twice. Once: committing a crime to gain information. Twice: Failing to protect sources. Why is the community defending these guys?
Lots of people said they were guilty of theft. People were redefining the word to fit, but they were still using the word. i think the logic went something like:
If an item is found and not returned, then it is stolen. By buying said stolen property, Giz was trafficking in stolen property. Ergo, they are thieves.
Faulty logic to be sure, but it was being used.
Actually, "Found in a bar, taken away, and not returned to the owner" doesn't equate to stolen either, at least not immediately. "Found in a bar, taken away, and reasonable steps not taken to return property" could equate to stolen, but that depends on how you define 'reasonable'. Selling it would equate to selling stolen property, apparently, so there is that.
quagmire
macrumors 604
Because kids have no ethics and morals these days.
greytmom
macrumors 68040
Will all the people who said that Jason Chen and Gizmodo were "clearly guilty of theft under California law" please come forward and apologize for name calling and insulting the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty" now ?
I can dream can I ?
Hell no. There's a big difference between being innocent and just not being charged. If it was wrong for the finders to sell the item, it was wrong for Gizmodo to buy it.
LOL! Who was proven innocent?! It's amazing how people have no clue...
frogger2020
macrumors regular
Sorry, for the kids on macrumors, it is Apple=good, everything else=bad.
Depends. If it was the clear cut, they would be charged. They admitted to buying it. With an open admission to the act itself, then it is up to the prosecutor to determine if that act was a crime. They have all the info they need, including an admission, that Giz bought the phone and committed the act. At that point, either the DA decided it was not a crime or they are the worst lawyers in history declined to persecute a case with a clear admission.
California law was the redefiner for whatever the reasoning was in Sacramento.
FWIW my comment was in regards to actually having a judicial /court system, Not Chen specifically.
But you are free to infer whatever you like.....
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Please explain. You can't be guilty until you're charged, tried and found guilty. Until then, you are innocent. That's how the justice system is set up for criminal cases in both Canada and the United States. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Maybe there's some twisted logic I'm not getting here...