Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gizmodo Cleared as Charges Finally Brought in Lost Prototype iPhone 4 Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not hard, obviously, to show that Chen received stolen property. What is difficult, though, is to prove that he knew he was receiving stolen property.
To win a receiving stolen property case, the prosecution would have to prove that Chen knew, at the time he bought the phone, that it was stolen. Not that Chen should have known it was stolen, not that he might have known it was stolen, and not he later found out it was stolen, but that but that there is a 98% certainty that he actually knew it was stolen when he bought it.
Any evidence - like an e-mail - suggesting that Chen may have believed it was a fake would probably be enough to sink a RSP case.
The case is also be made more complicated by the fact that the theft was committed due to Hogan's failure to make an genuine effort to return the property to Apple (allegedly, of course; Hogan hasn't been convicted yet). After all, there is no theft if Hogan found a lost item, made a genuine effort to return it to the actual owner, and was not successful. So to convict Chen, you would *also* have to prove that, even if he knew that the phone belonged to Apple, Chen also knew that Hogan had not made a genuine effort to return the phone to Apple. This would also be very hard to prove.
So even though there are pretty clear ethical lapses on Chen's part, the people were probably right not to prosecute him, since it's really not clear that he committed the crime of receiving stolen property.
To win a receiving stolen property case, the prosecution would have to prove that Chen knew, at the time he bought the phone, that it was stolen. Not that Chen should have known it was stolen, not that he might have known it was stolen, and not he later found out it was stolen, but that but that there is a 98% certainty that he actually knew it was stolen when he bought it.
Any evidence - like an e-mail - suggesting that Chen may have believed it was a fake would probably be enough to sink a RSP case.
The case is also be made more complicated by the fact that the theft was committed due to Hogan's failure to make an genuine effort to return the property to Apple (allegedly, of course; Hogan hasn't been convicted yet). After all, there is no theft if Hogan found a lost item, made a genuine effort to return it to the actual owner, and was not successful. So to convict Chen, you would *also* have to prove that, even if he knew that the phone belonged to Apple, Chen also knew that Hogan had not made a genuine effort to return the phone to Apple. This would also be very hard to prove.
So even though there are pretty clear ethical lapses on Chen's part, the people were probably right not to prosecute him, since it's really not clear that he committed the crime of receiving stolen property.
I think that's the thing, convicting Hogan is easier then convicting Chen - he has alot more flexibility to have plausible denial. We as humans may not believe that dependability (me included), but legally, there are extra steps that the DA knows are hard to climb. The DA doesn't have our luxury. In short, it's a case built on the facts of another case. The DA figured that Gizmodo probably has enough wiggle room to raise doubt given that they returned the product early on.
That and going after a media company is not the same as going after two individuals - the case would have to be much more damning there.
That and going after a media company is not the same as going after two individuals - the case would have to be much more damning there.
Whether you meant this sarcastically or not, this is pretty much nailed to a tee. This forum reminds me of Animal Farm sometimes, and Steve Jobs is Napoleon. "All Macs are equal, but some Macs are more equal than others."
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...
Yes, there is something that you don't get.
If you did the crime, you are guilty. If you didn't do the crime, you are innocent. You can also be convicted or not convicted; we hope that you get convicted if you are guilty and not convicted if innocent.
"Innocent until proven guilty" means that in a criminal court case, the jury should start with a completely empty slate. The fact that the police arrested you and a prosecutor decided to take you to court must not be taken as any evidence of guilt by the jury. Then the jury should listen to the evidence, and if there is enough evidence to prove your guilt, then and only then they should convict. It doesn't make any difference to the guilt or innocence of a person, it is about rules that should as often as possible lead to the correct judgement.
It is not required that you "know", it is enough if you "should have known" and deliberately closed your eyes and mind to that knowledge. It is blatantly obvious that at that time nobody who wasn't an Apple employee could legally sell an iPhone 4.
Last edited:
And this publicity stunt finally comes to a close.
Although I wish they went after the gawker network. That's turned into a real slimeball organization and I'd have loved to see them get a bloody nose.
Although I wish they went after the gawker network. That's turned into a real slimeball organization and I'd have loved to see them get a bloody nose.
Last edited:
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 ?
Just because they weren't charged in this doesn't mean they didn't do it.
And what's with this bullcrap about "the few of us who said "innocent until proven guilty""? What, people can't have opinions anymore? People can't say simply "meh, I think they didn't do anything wrong" or "I think they're guilty". This is a fricken forum. It's like talking around the water-cooler about this or that. We're not on a jury passing legally binding judgments on people. We're shooting the breeze.
Get off your high horse and stop being so sanctimonious.
Very few Apple worshipers left here. Oh sure, a few vocal ones. But there's more Apple haters here than worshipers. A site dedicated to Apple just draws them like brains to a zombie, so they can show the world how smart they are in not liking anything Apple does! They're the new hipsters!
At first, it wasn't. But, when he failed to do put any reasonable effort into returning the lost item and then sold it, it became stolen property. And as soon as Gizmodo realized that, they should have immediately returned it to Apple.
Instead, they tore it apart, took pictures, wrote countless articles about them receiving stolen property, forced Apple to acknowledge it was an iPhone prototype in writing so they could scan it to their site for everyone to see and then returned it.
I think part of the reason that Gawker was not targeted here was because the DA probably realized the risks of going after a media company based on hard to prove allegations and loosing. Going after Gawker would take a lot of resources and a lot more evidence than going after Hogan would. Going after Gawker was a long shot from the beginning and most people probably knew that.
I cannot believe how many times we have to keep repeating this. Finding lost property is not stealing, but failing to make a reasonable effort (like contacting the restaurant owner or the police - especially after establishing the owners identity) and selling the device is stealing.
Umm read both the post again. Neither he nor I were referring to Apple but to forum remembers here like you for example who screamed the guy was guilty. I know quite a few members started throwing insults at people like Knight who said that they would not being guilt.
If anything *LTD* you just proved my point and hurt your case.
"Lost in a bar" does not equate "Stolen" it seems.
I suppose you don't remember the text in the letter to Apple from Gizmodo? Gizmodo knew that they had Apple's property, and knew it when they bought it. They didn't steal it, but they knowingly bought stolen property. They've just gotten away with a crime.
Yep, they did and Apple "denied" it was their product.
But it seems like others on this site have forgotten this fact and of course are still assuming Gizmodo is guilty, because their lord and savior Apple can't do any wrong...
You expect a customer representative to acknowledge something they have no clue about? AppleCare has no idea how to deal with something like that.
Emailing Steve Jobs with a picture of the prototype attached would have had better results. Or just walk over to the Apple Campus and hand it over to security, or give his info to the bar so if anyone came back to claim it, they could call him, or send him a Facebook message saying he found it, etc.
+1
Apple should have never let that phone out of the building with someone who is going to a bar.
Regardless of this outcome, Gizmodo have certainly been exposed as having basically no journalistic integrity (IMO). I've not been to their site since this mess began and do not plan to ever do so. Jason Chen holds no journalistic credibility with me, personally. (I'm sure he's all broke up about that too)
I think that Gizmodo were very lucky and I doubt that there will be any leniency if they pull a stunt like this again. I expect that wasn spelled out to them.
In the end, given that Apple is basically selling phones as fast as they can make them, it's pretty hard to prove that this ordeal cost them much money, but it could have.
As far as I'm concerned, assuming the phone was lost (which it probably was), you see that it gets back to it's rightful owner or hand it in at that bar. That is what an upstanding, honest person would do. Not because it's Apple's property, but because the item doesn't belong you.
I don't recall any official statement saying that Gizmodo was cleared of any wrong doing, just that they won't be charged. While I'm surprised Gizmodo were not charged, I'm glad that it's done with.
Hey, did you hear that Apple is now the most valuable public company on earth?
I think that Gizmodo were very lucky and I doubt that there will be any leniency if they pull a stunt like this again. I expect that wasn spelled out to them.
In the end, given that Apple is basically selling phones as fast as they can make them, it's pretty hard to prove that this ordeal cost them much money, but it could have.
As far as I'm concerned, assuming the phone was lost (which it probably was), you see that it gets back to it's rightful owner or hand it in at that bar. That is what an upstanding, honest person would do. Not because it's Apple's property, but because the item doesn't belong you.
I don't recall any official statement saying that Gizmodo was cleared of any wrong doing, just that they won't be charged. While I'm surprised Gizmodo were not charged, I'm glad that it's done with.
Hey, did you hear that Apple is now the most valuable public company on earth?
Last edited:
I'm surprised Uncle Steve didn't pay off the judge and have all parties involved receive the death penalty.
It was not clear that it was a genuine iPhone 4. There were several pictures of fake iPhone prototypes floating around at that time. And there were plenty of counterfeit iPhones from China.
And it was not clear that the phone was stolen, certainly not at the time it was bought.
In any event, the prosecutor investigated the incident for over a year. The investigation included searching Chen's house and seizing his computers. Based on that, if the prosecutor does not think that there is enough evidence to prosecute, I think he is almost certainly correct.
When they plugged it in, the computer and iTunes recognized it as an iPhone. No knockoff iPhone tricks the computer and iTunes into seeing it as a genuine iPhone.
No one is saying Gizmodo knew it was the genuine deal from the start, but as soon as they had it, there was clear evidence it was the real deal and knew what they had was stolen Apple property. At that point, they should have stopped what they were doing and returned it to Apple.
Any respecting news outlet would turn away from a source stating that he found a lost iPhone prototype knowing the legal ramifications/headache that could ensue if it did pan out to be legitimate(engadget did). The moment the person who found the prototype tried to sell it without going through the proper means of trying to return it, it became stolen property.
Gizmodo probably got caught up in the, " OMG what a scoop if we manage to get our hands on the next-gen iPhone prototype!!!!!!!!! Imagine the hits!!!!" to realize that....
You also don't have to know it was stolen at the time you bought it. If I bought an iPhone for instance and after I received it, there were signs it was stolen, now knowing it was stolen and keeping it is illegal.
Last edited:
Maybe it was to generate interest?
Or, it could be that the phone did so well that Apple couldn't be bothered to take it out on them!
Or, it could be that the phone did so well that Apple couldn't be bothered to take it out on them!
Or at least a good comedy skit. I think someone did that at the Rooster T. Feathers on El Camino in Sunnyvale the week this story broke.