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.
Investigation Into Lost iPhone 4 Prototype Wrapping Up, Jobs Interviewed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anything less than a felony charge against Chen and Gizmodo is a failure on the part of the police in my opinion.
I encourage everyone (who has not already done so) to READ THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT for themselves:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf
I realize that the affidavit is the detective's side of the story. But it was good enough for a judge to issue a search warrant on Jason Chen's home.
It will only take you a little bit of time to read that affidavit. I think MANY found the affidavit to be rather eye-opening!
That affidavit is as close as you can get (at this point) to knowing what this case is all about from an "inside" perspective, versus what is posted on blogs and forum message boards.
Mark
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf
I realize that the affidavit is the detective's side of the story. But it was good enough for a judge to issue a search warrant on Jason Chen's home.
It will only take you a little bit of time to read that affidavit. I think MANY found the affidavit to be rather eye-opening!
That affidavit is as close as you can get (at this point) to knowing what this case is all about from an "inside" perspective, versus what is posted on blogs and forum message boards.
Mark
I beg to differ.
I'm guessing most people posting have read through the blogs, reports and affidavit are basing their opinion on all of this information.
That's what I've done, and my opinion stands that there was criminal wrong doing.
Now wether the investigation comes to the same conclusion is a different thing, likewise even if the investigation deems there was criminal activity in this sorry affair they would only attempt to prosecute if they were fairly certain of a conviction, and even then it may fail in the courts. But all that withstanding my opinion probably won't change unless the following information I've read on this can be revoked.
Nice young Christian boy *cough* finds *cough* iPhone, makes no real attempt to return it to the rightful owner, or the place he found it, or to the police as common sense would suggest. Uses friends computer to check it's validity (friend later grasses him up for fear of reprisal).
Nice young Christian boy sells (stolen) phone to Gizmodo, after other websites turned him down (again probably for fear of legal reprisals).
Gizmodo divulge trade secrets of the stolen prototype device, and when Steve Jobs phones the editor to ask for it's return he receives an email that tries to openly extort information for Gizmodos personal gain, other wise they say they will keep the stolen property.
There's more to it, but most already know the story, so I'll stop here.
Now my opinion may be wrong, but all I've read on this informs me otherwise.
P.S. the only thing I'm screaming at Gizmodo is, "You idiots, didn't you talk to your lawyers before you took this stupid and possible criminal action!"
Which brings up the point of a civil trial. If the investigation finds wrong doing, but not enough in the prosecutor's eye for a likely conviction, then Apple can go after whomever in civil court to get damages awarded. There, all Apple has to do is convince a judge or a majority of jurors that they were damaged and the defendant is responsible. The sticking point would be could someone hide behind journalism rights to avoid such a confrontation? Also, would Apple want the potential PR black eye that could result by getting directly into it?
They were hoping I'd bring free iPads.... they were hoping wrong.
Steve
Sent from my Verizon iPhone 5
Your attempt of humor is so flawed.
Steve Jobs would never advertise another company. So the whole "Sent from my Verizon iPhone 5 is stupid.
I understand your point, and I was inclined to agree until I did some further thinking.
1. Industrial Espionage (given any of the broad definitions) contains aspects that are illegal under US law.
2. What Gizmodo Obtained was Intellectual Property
3. That intellectual property was originally obtained illegally.
4. Gizmodo paid for hardware they knew was stolen.
5. Gizmodo's Motive for taking any and all action was not for hobbyist reasons, it was to make a profit.
6. The Profit that Gizmodo hoped to make was not off the hardware, it was off the Intellectual property.
Given that Gizmodo committed at least one illegal activity, and did so in order to profit off the IP of another company, this stinks of Industrial Espionage. If it was some punk kid in his basement who hoped to take it apart and educate himself on modern electronics, I don't think Apple would care. It's that Gizmodo essentially bought and sold IP that could get them in trouble.
You can blame all you want,but Apple is under no legal obligation to do such,just as you are not required to with yours.This blame the victim crap frankly makes me puke.
They can do that on a conviction, too. I've always thought it strange that you can sue someone after an innocent verdict, but I get why.
KnightWRX, pretend everyone has "IMHO" at the end of their posts. We all do. Join us. Join us. As long as they admit to having a strong opinion if called to the jury box, it's all good in the United States of Americaaaa!!! *air force overfly* *flag parade* *fireworks*
Whoever that was who said Jobs would order his local cops/DA around, this happened outside their jurisdiction. All they could do is shrug at orders.
you forgot the line about how in Cali, if you find something and don't return it to the owner it is considered theft. And Gizmodo/Chen admitted on their site that they bought the phone for the felony level price of $5k from someone not the owner. Thus under Cali law they purchased a stolen item.
Hogan didn't turn the phone over to the bartender, didn't use the Facebook info to contact Powell, didn't drive the less than 30 minutes to Apple HQ and according to his roommates actually said that he had no intentions of returning his new 'free iphone' and was actually attempting to restore it to wipe it for his own use when he discovered it was a prototype
So yeah, not believing him or Giz
WOW, Knight. I don't think I've seen too many comments as dense as yours in quite a while. I guess I could always use a good laugh.
...not to mention that his roommate eventually called Apple and had no trouble reaching the head of Apple security. (no puns, people!)
Key points that would be debated in a court of law and decided upon by a judge in said court of law unless the charged party decided to enter a guilty plea.
Until then, heck, until charges are even pressed, anyone condemning and screaming "GUILTY!" is wrong, under the United States' judicial system and under the provisions that make it so an individual is Innocent until proven guilty.
What a hard concept.
What a moron.We know that.We are not involved in the case and are not journalists so we can offer our opinion,which is GUILTY.Unless you are truly clueless,that is.
That your opinion.In my opinion they are.
Checkmate
This habit of talking down to everyone as if you are the Keeper Of All Truth is not going to win you any debates.
1. Stickers peel off and/or can be covered and ignored
2. Might as put one on that says "apple prototype" if you are going to say it is apple property
Easier method: "Yo barkeep. Dude left his phone" and hand it over. Never had to get up off his barstool and who knows he might have gotten a free shot out of it
No. Because it was Apple's phone. If you lose your phone it is your responsibility to press charges if you have reasonable cause to believe someone stole it.
Gizmodo published that someone, without Apple's permission had possession of the phone and took money to give the phone to Giz's rep Jason Chen. At that point, there was reasonable cause to know a crime had been committed. Apple might have sent the link to the DA to tip them off. Or they might have been watching after the Valleywag stunt in Jan. After that, all Apple did was agree to comply with the DA who made all the decisions to follow through on investigating the crime. Apple would then turn to possible civil suits but it looks more like they decided to simply kick Gawker out of the sandbox for now.
Yep. stupidity in believing that shield laws applied given the way it was handled and published. Stupidity in someone tweeting they would do anything for info about the new iphone. Particularly after the valleywag stunt.
This coming from a guy supposedly from Canada who hasn't given us any proof that he has a clue about US, much less California law. And so could be talking out of his 'hat' as much as this guy and his dad.
Yes but you forgot that said individual publicly admitted and even bragged about his actions. Many would consider that to be very valid (even in a court of law) proof of guilt.
As for your whole trade secrets v property. What they are arguing about in the criminal case is property. It is physical possession of the phone.
Lets be totally precise. They paid for a phone they knew did not belong to Hogan. They admit this.
They paid the amount (which was high enough to make it a felony) on the hope it contained IP. Which it did. Which they then published etc.
But even without that last bit, they could have been charged with a criminal act just based on buying the phone.
The real stupidity in all of this is that they could have avoided all of it just in how they worded things. If Chen had said in the articles that 'a source' gave him the photos and gave him the video (all of which had no faces etc) then he could have applied shield laws to protect the knowledge that in fact he was the source. Even without all the Gray Powell stuff, folks would have flooded the site to check out the rumors, upping the page load counts etc that create ad money for the site. And thats what it is all about, hit fodder
This post is followed up by two more pages of you debating this issue that you said no one here (including yourself) had a right to debate. You need to accept that people are free to draw their own conclusions and they are free to state whether or not they believe a person is guilty, based on the information available to them.
This is not a court of law. It is a forum, and there is nothing wrong with saying we believe or don't believe that someone is guilty, and we can most definitely debate whether or not the finder made a reasonable effort to return the phone.
None of what we say here is useful in court, and we only have the publically available information. We don't have any access to the evidence that the police may or not have collected. All of that is irrelevant as this is a forum where people are free to state their opinions, and people that disagree with you aren't necessarily wrong.
The court can't start with the assumption that a party is guilty, but the public can think whatever they like.
Copied this from OSX Dictionary since you seem to have forgotten the definition:
forum |ˈfôrəm|
noun ( pl. forums )
1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
Right. My point was that no one can ethically hide behind the buying and selling of hardware components, like some forum members think happened. The only reason that Hogan tried to sell the piece of hardware to the Media, and not on Criagslist or to a buddy, is because he thought it had IP of value. The only reason Gizmodo bought it from Hogan, was not because of the components, but because they also hoped it had IP of value.
This is like busting a cocaine deal where both parties claim they couldn't be sure it was cocaine and not flour, and that it could have been flour, even though what they were trying to buy and sell was cocaine.
Both parties were there for IP. Perhaps neither party new for sure it had IP, but that was the hope, and that was the case. Forum members who claim this has nothing to do with Apple's intellectual property are incorrect...in my opinion
You just based your opinion on other's opinions and then you say this :
So you're saying that when the facts come out, if the opinions you've based your own opinion on don't change, you won't change your mind.
And then you wonder why I'm a little annoyed at people who state their opinion as fact ? Seriously, fact is fact. Opinion is opinion. Innocent until proven guilty. Chen and Co. have yet to even be charged with anything, but in your mind, they are guilty and you base this on opinions published everywhere (because the facts sure don't support this guilty verdict).
You are entitled to your opinion. You're even entitled to not change your mind when the facts prove you wrong. But to pretend your opinion is factual because of your interpretation of known evidence (which we don't even know if it is court worthy or not at this point) and other's opinions is wrong.
Wiki is not always your friend.
People can form whatever opinions they want to, even asinine, illogical or unpopular opinions, and freely discuss them in the court of public opinion as long as slander, libel and other legal strictures are observed. Opinions are just that; we have evidentiary proceedings under the control of a judge to determine guilt or innocence. Lawyers, who do not give up their First Amendment Rights upon entering the bar, are also free to comment on cases in most instances; surely you've witnessed a defense lawyer in front of a slew of cameras, or a TV lawyer/commentator.
One can be legally liable for misappropriated trade secrets. That's a fact. Otherwise there would be no industrial espionage cases, where secrets are stolen and no written contracts are involved.