The LOLest part about this: Gizmodo plays the journalism card after paying $5,000 for a lost phone. Sorry, but up-and-up journalists don't pay $5,000 for an iPhone prototype. That's what the Enquirer and Weekly World News do.
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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To prove he's the guy who wrote the articles which illegally published apple's trade secrets, to find email communications between him and the seller, etc.
I couldn't believe it either. They basically dared someone to come after them. At first, I thought it was cool to be getting a sneak peek at the phone, but the way Gizmodo stupidly posted all of the details made me change my mind about how they went about all of this. I don't want to see Chen or any of Gizmodo's staff lose their livelihoods over this, but the guy needs to be taught a serious lesson.
And the guy who initially sold the phone has to be terrified right now, if he's not already in custody.
Actually there is no official name for it yet. At least not publicly.
Or maybe the warrant is the official release of the name.
Good this should teach these shameless, self promoting bastards a thing or two!
Hope they send them to the big house to meet bubba!
Hope they send them to the big house to meet bubba!
This is funny.
Gizmodo knew they had "acquired" something that was "not theirs" from the get go. They wanted it and they wanted to be the FIRST to show the world the "next gen iPhone". They even sealed that fate by buying it for $5,000.00. This is after the "guy" that found it, told them his story and how it wasn't even his to begin with.
With all that aside, they now proceed to "break the news" to everyone about the next gen iphone, complete with pics of the device torn asunder.
It all boils down to them knowing they were in possession of a device that did NOT belong to them, WAS NOT theirs to release or make public and yet they did all of that.
Stupid stupid people. They deserve everything they are getting right now.
I certainly do. They didn't give that poor Apple employee a break, so why do they deserve one?
So now the police can take if you are in possession of LOST property?
Yes. They always could, and always should if instead of trying to restore lost property to its owner you decide you're going to just go ahead and sell it for $5,000. That's because it is the law of the land, and because if someone finds something that belongs to someone else who lost it, and if reasonable effort could return the property to its rightful owner, and if you fail to exert that effort and simply treat the property as your own, you are a poor excuse for a civilized human being.
So you go ahead and roll your eyes. I'm shaking my head.
Frickin' morons.
Anybody who thinks this is over the top has obviously never heard of the concept of industrial espionage. In clear cut cases of burglary, you sure as hell would have seen such actions.
And right now, far as I can tell, we only have the word of Gawker that it was "lost." For all we know, it could have been pickpockted, or left in a backpack that was stolen.
Anybody who thinks this is over the top has obviously never heard of the concept of industrial espionage. In clear cut cases of burglary, you sure as hell would have seen such actions.
And right now, far as I can tell, we only have the word of Gawker that it was "lost." For all we know, it could have been pickpockted, or left in a backpack that was stolen.
Or maybe the police want to show everyone that stealing is, in fact, still illegal even if you post about it on a tech blog? Nah, too obvious.
I thought a lot about this - trying to understand it from each party (Gizmodo, Apple and the person that sold the phone) involved perspective.
Here are my thoughts:
Person that stole the property:
Clearly knew he had something worth value OR he would have tried to return it to the bar/owner.
Gizmodo:
Clearly knew they had some pre-release phone, most likely from Apple OR there is no way they would have paid $5k for it. Come on now. They were very aware of the possible outcome and this whole thing was worth $100k+.
Apple:
If you have prototypes out there, you really should have the cases etched that it is personal property of Apple, serial number, and phone number to call if lost. Heck my company Dell and Blackberry have that on them.
Here are my thoughts:
Person that stole the property:
Clearly knew he had something worth value OR he would have tried to return it to the bar/owner.
Gizmodo:
Clearly knew they had some pre-release phone, most likely from Apple OR there is no way they would have paid $5k for it. Come on now. They were very aware of the possible outcome and this whole thing was worth $100k+.
Apple:
If you have prototypes out there, you really should have the cases etched that it is personal property of Apple, serial number, and phone number to call if lost. Heck my company Dell and Blackberry have that on them.
Also
I am not sure Gawker has much of a legal leg to stand on. Read the law cited by Gawkers own COO. It basically says a journalist cannot be held in contempt/searched for failing to disclose information about a source of information.
But thats not what they are searching for. Gizmodo did not receive and report information, or spy photos; they received and reported on stolen property. The investigation is about knowingly purchasing stolen goods, and they are looking for information about what and how Giz knew about the item being stolen.
Any lawyers out there, feel free to correct me. But as far as I can tell, that law is written to protect journalistic sources of information, not people who buy/sell stolen goods; even if the goods are newsworthy.
I am not sure Gawker has much of a legal leg to stand on. Read the law cited by Gawkers own COO. It basically says a journalist cannot be held in contempt/searched for failing to disclose information about a source of information.
But thats not what they are searching for. Gizmodo did not receive and report information, or spy photos; they received and reported on stolen property. The investigation is about knowingly purchasing stolen goods, and they are looking for information about what and how Giz knew about the item being stolen.
Any lawyers out there, feel free to correct me. But as far as I can tell, that law is written to protect journalistic sources of information, not people who buy/sell stolen goods; even if the goods are newsworthy.
How come Gizmodo pixellates Chen's personal information, but publishes all sorts of information about Gray?
In California, if an item is worth more than $950, the theft of the item can be charged as a felony. Value under $950 is a misdemeanor. Since Gizmodo paid $5000 for it, presumably, that settles the valuation question.
The police are likely searching for the identity of the seller which can reasonably be expected to be found on his computers. Far too many people are forgetting the police are also investigating the anonymous seller, not just the buyer (Gizmodo). Seizing his computers makes perfect sense.
And you know the correct name how? Presumably, the police, who have been in contact with Apple, are far more likely to know Apple's name of the prototype device than you are.
Yeah! And the only way we can stop these fiends is by...not stealing from them.
For those of you with legal minds - would Gizmodo be in this much trouble if they'd only photographed the exterior of the phone and not dismantled the entire thing?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that Gizmodo is in the wrong here and the Cali DA is right to investigate. If Gizmodo thinks they can hide behind journalistic privilege on this they are severely misinformed. They knew the phone was technically 'stolen property' when they purchased it.
This is also a CRIMINAL case. Apple is not directing this investigation, so stop blaming Apple. Their property, both physical and intellectual, was stolen and sold. The item was lost, not abandoned. An extremely high value stolen item - law enforcement typically investigates these types of things...
I think it's awesome we got a peek at this phone, but Gizmodo did it with ZERO journalistic integrity.
This is also a CRIMINAL case. Apple is not directing this investigation, so stop blaming Apple. Their property, both physical and intellectual, was stolen and sold. The item was lost, not abandoned. An extremely high value stolen item - law enforcement typically investigates these types of things...
I think it's awesome we got a peek at this phone, but Gizmodo did it with ZERO journalistic integrity.
Wow, you'd think this was a serious drug raid, or people trafficking. But no, all this, just for a prototype iPhone. It's not really stealing, did the guy have bad intentions who found it? After all, he asked around before he took it. Did Gizmodo have bad intentions? Anyone siding with Apple here needs to rethink. Way over the top, and it's being blown out of proportion by the media. Ridiculous.
Right. Unless an honest law-abiding citizen should find it before a thief does.
The phone wasn't "lost." It was stolen. Gizmodo bought it knowing it was somebody's stolen cell phone and then took it apart. I don't know if you forgot, but trafficking in stolen goods is illegal.
Yes. They purchased the physical phone itself. If they had paid for photographs of the phone (or maybe even for the chance to take photographs of the phone) this would be different.
They made a dumb move taking possession of the device.
So now the police can take if you are in possession of LOST property?
This has been discussed ad-nauseum.
When the guy failed to make a good-faith effort to return the phone (just hand it to the damned bartender or restaurant owner. End of story.)
At that point it became stolen by california statute. Gizmodo knew exactly what they were buying. Stolen property.
Go get 'em.