Gizmodo Cleared as Charges Finally Brought in Lost Prototype iPhone 4 Case

[Rodimus Prime]

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 ?

but that would require some Apple worshipers to admit they were wrong and we both know it will never happen. Instead we can expect them to use twisted logic and say that everyone else is wrong.

 

[berol]

What if the guys who are being charged with theft of the device told Gizmodo that they found the device, and Gizmodo genuinely believed that?

The 2 main stories out there are he found it and/or another found it and handed it to him. There hasn't been much dispute on that, though there was some wondering. It's what you do after you find something that makes your actions legal/illegal.

When Gizmodo took it apart, they broke something which would be another charge.

The more I think about it, I think the DA stepped aside for an Apple lawsuit. Fining someone the maximum that the law allows in a criminal courtroom is nothing compared to what Apple could theoretically do in a civil courtroom.

 

[Rafterman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A5274d)

Also, I'd love to see Apple I after them in civil court and nail them for damages.

Yeah, because Apple needs the money

 

[Centient]

Story of several young guys making a series of poor decisions.

The guys who sold it were wrong and really must have known the situation was shady. However it's easy to imagine them just getting caught up in the excitement of the whole thing and pressing on in spite of their reservations. Happens all the time. They'll probably enter a guilty plea in exchange for some fines and community service.

Giz's reputation took a justified hit because of this, but buying a stolen iPhone prototype isn't as bad as some NYT journalist creating entire stories out of thin air IMO.

 

[ALUOp]

How could you prove Gizmodo knew it's really Apple's property? It could be some knock-offs from China. They returned the phone after Apple released a formal written letter that claimed the ownership of the phone. So, the chance of getting a conviction in court is very slim. That's why they're dropping the charge. I'm glad that they do. Just like the other person said, I can't believe there was a case to begin with, not to mention the raid and seizure of Chen's computers. My friend living in the same area got his car stolen around that time and they said they would only provide a report and wouldn't do any investigation due to limited resources.

 

[quagmire]

How could you prove Gizmodo knew it's really Apple's property? It could be some knock-offs from China.

The moment they plugged it into a computer and saw the identifiers they knew it was a legit iPhone. Even if they thought the code was a knockoff, the moment they began to tear it apart should have had them realize it was Apple's property. At that point they should have stopped dissecting it, called Apple and returned it.

They returned the phone after Apple released a formal written letter that claimed the ownership of the phone.

That is what we call blackmail. They didn't return it until they had something from Apple saying it was theirs so Gizmodo could post it on their website to confirm to everyone that is the next iPhone.

 

[cere]

The 2 main stories out there are he found it and/or another found it and handed it to him. There hasn't been much dispute on that, though there was some wondering. It's what you do after you find something that makes your actions legal/illegal.

Actually, not entirely. If they knew it was lost property, then buying it could be a criminal act. It could come down to what was their intent when they bought it. Yes, they intended to examine it, but they also intended to return it, as evidenced by them contacted Apple about it.

When Gizmodo took it apart, they broke something which would be another charge.

maybe.

The more I think about it, I think the DA stepped aside for an Apple lawsuit. Fining someone the maximum that the law allows in a criminal courtroom is nothing compared to what Apple could theoretically do in a civil courtroom.

That doesn't make sense at all. Assuming Apple will sue in civil court, why would that, in any way, make the DA step aside? They felt Giz should only face criminal or civil and not both? If they felt a crime was committed and they have a mountain of evidence, including admissions, then they would have prosecuted.

 

[The Phazer]

It would be awesome to see Gizmodo engage in a bit of libel tourism and sue most of the people stating nonsense in this thread to teach a few people a lesson about shooting their mouths off on issues they clearly have very little understanding of...

This thread clearly has English readership, so they can bring the case there, win, and pursue through the American courts still in several states...

Phazer

 

[cere]

That is what we call blackmail. They didn't return it until they had something from Apple saying it was theirs so Gizmodo could post it on their website to confirm to everyone that is the next iPhone.

Actually it's called confirming ownership.

 

[pdjudd]

How could you prove Gizmodo knew it's really Apple's property? It could be some knock-offs from China.

They reportedly paid a few thousand dollars for the phone. I doubt that anyone ays that much for something over the phone that you could get in person from China for way less than what Gizmodo paid.

 

[mazz0]

WTF?! How have they gotten away with this? They bought it, that's not even denied. Are we expected to believe they thought they were buying it from a legitimate owner? Effing ************.

As for these guys claiming to be journalists!

 

[cere]

WTF?! How have they gotten away with this? They bought it, that's not even denied. Are we expected to believe they thought they were buying it from a legitimate owner? Effing ************.

Nope, you aren't expected to believe that. No one claimed that. Giz admitted to buying it from a person that told them they found it. They knew they were paying for 'lost' property. The DA decided not to prosecute, even with that admission. That implies the DA felt no crime was committed by Giz. That is what we are expected to believe. Seems plausible.

As for these guys claiming to be journalists!

That might be why the DA decided no crime took place (on the Giz side of the transaction).

 

[Glideslope]

They are very lucky!!! I'm shocked.

Nah. Steve let go.

 

[*LTD*]

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 ?

Apology for what?? They're still SLEAZY, and Apple was absolutely correct in pursuing the matter legally, because justice was indeed served: The men who sold it were charged.

Done.

but that would require some Apple worshipers to admit they were wrong and we both know it will never happen. Instead we can expect them to use twisted logic and say that everyone else is wrong.

Nope. See above.

Apple went after all parties involved, as they were right to do. Giz got off the hook, luckily enough, but others were charged in the matter.

LESSON LEARNED for Giz and Gawker Media, rest assured.

 

[pdjudd]

That implies the DA felt no crime was committed by Giz. That is what we are expected to believe. Seems plausible.

It implies nothing. There can be plenty of reasons that the Police or DA can decline to prosecute. The DA has the discretion to prosecute charges and the police have the discretion on who they want to arrest and charge.. We cannot assume what those reasons are unless the DS explains them.

 

[fertilized-egg]

That might be why the DA decided no crime took place (on the Giz side of the transaction).

That seems to be it. Still feels like a bit of shady dealing and that's why Engadget stayed away from making the offer but if they want to protect the journalism, I'm personally fine with that.

 

[CindyRed]

Umm...the police already had all of that info.

No bus. No throwing.

if police found it more beneficial to withdraw a warrant and return computers and equipment in exchange for information it was because they lacked evidence for prosecution. Rest assured, there was a bus and people were thrown.

 

[robertcoogan]

Typical

Chen and Gizmodo are still turds, even if they get a free ticket on trafficking in stolen goods.

 

[The Phazer]

LESSON LEARNED for Giz and Gawker Media, rest assured.

Indeed. Do it again - they received a massive cash injection and no charges have been brought. Win/win for them.

Phazer

 

[quagmire]

Indeed. Do it again - they received a massive cash injection and no charges have been brought. Win/win for them.

Phazer

You really are encouraging them to continue buying stolen property?

 

[cere]

It implies nothing. There can be plenty of reasons that the Police or DA can decline to prosecute. The DA has the discretion to prosecute charges and the police have the discretion on who they want to arrest and charge.. We cannot assume what those reasons are unless the DS explains them.

They had evidence of the act. They had admissions to the act. They had everything they needed to prove Giz's actions. You know that, they know that, we all know that. They only thing we didn't know, was whether those actions were considered criminal. With that mountain of clear and self-admitted evidence on their side, the DA would have to be pretty incompetent to refuse a prosecution.

if police found it more beneficial to withdraw a warrant and return computers and equipment in exchange for information it was because they lacked evidence for prosecution. Rest assured, there was a bus and people were thrown.

The decision to return the equipment may not have been theirs. Giz was fighting a 1st amendment fight to have the equipment returned. The police already had the other people in custody and their admissions, admissions from Giz about their involvement and the roommate testimony. Giz didn't need to throw anyone under any busses.

That's just some fanciful dream someone has in order to feel better about wanting Giz to be guilty. If the legals system doesn't find them guilty, they need to be guilty of something. They must have thrown someone under a bus.

 

[pdjudd]

They had evidence of the act. They had admissions to the act. They had everything they needed to prove Giz's actions. You know that, they know that, we all know that. They only thing we didn't know, was whether those actions were considered criminal. With that mountain of clear and self-admitted evidence on their side, the DA would have to be pretty incompetent to refuse a prosecution.

Not unless there were other mitigating factors. You said it. All we have is the information that was publicly provided. Just because we think there is enough evidence, doesn't mean that's how the DA sees it.

Maybe the DA thought that Gizmodo made proper steps to return the stolen property and felt that their actions didn't merit charges.

 

[kiljoy616]

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 ?

Fangirls will never apologize that for sure. Glad to see these guy coming out of it. But can't imagine the cost.

 

[berol]

Actually, not entirely. If they knew it was lost property, then buying it could be a criminal act.

They only have to have a reasonable suspucion that it was lost and I think they were told it was found in a bar. Pretty sure, since Engadget reported it when they posted the photographs.

That doesn't make sense at all. Assuming Apple will sue in civil court, why would that, in any way, make the DA step aside?

That doesn't make much sense to me either. My thinking was that the DA decided on his/her own. The DA has a budget to consider. If what the DA can do is a slap on the wrist compared to what Apple can do, prosecuting would have an element of wasted money and time to it. It'll also be a lot easier for Apple to get a judgement than the DA, much less burden of proof in civil court. But, this could also be the end of the legal issues for Gizmodo for all I know.

 

[pdjudd]

My thinking was that the DA decided on his/her own. The DA has a budget to consider. If what the DA can do is a slap on the wrist compared to what Apple can do, prosecuting would have an element of wasted money and time to it. It'll also be a lot easier for Apple to get a judgement than the DA, much less burden of proof in civil court. But, this could also be the end of the legal issues for Gizmodo for all I know.

I think that's what it was. The DA felt that the case against gizmodo would be a crapshoot already given that the phone was returned after receiving notice. The DA probably felt that even f he could prove things, he didn't want to go after a media company and be seen as antagonistic toward the media.

The other two people charged is a different story and the case is much stronger.