Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[cmaier]

Pick and choose much? Reread his entire thing...



1. True
2. Yes they are.... paying for the police comes right out of our taxes. All of that for a phone that the competition never got, and the OS was never compromised. Also, for something they can't fully prove as stolen.

I read his entire thing carefully, but perhaps the complete lack of grammar threw me off. What are you talking about?

And they don't have to prove it's stolen. The DA does. And it is easy to prove. The law in california requires that you turn it into the police before you can claim ownership of it. And you can't sell it unless you have ownership of it. It's simple as pie.

 

[ouimetnick]

How was he being an ******* for leaving the phone there by mistake? Did he go, " I am going to leave this prototype device here so when the finder takes it I am going to press charges for stealing against him" ?

I hope you keeping lost property comes to teach you a lesson in what is legal and what is not. Finders keepers doesn't apply in the real world.

Him being drunk doesn't effect the possible charges against Gizmodo. It makes him irresponsible, but it doesn't excuse Giz for buying lost/stolen property.

I am going to talk to my dad tonight since he is a lawyer( that is able to practice in the US unlike Gawker's ) and see what his thoughts are on this.

I agree, but how would someone NOT have the common sense to think its okay to bring a prototype worth millions of dollars with him to a bar. At a bar you drink. Drink too much, and your then drunk. People do stupid things and more when drunk. I do think Gizmodo was dumb to do what they did, but a 27 year old should figure out. Birthday= celebrate. human+ too much beer/wine= drunk. I don't bring important thing with me If i'm concerned for their safety.

 

[Amnak]

So I don't normally post, but after reading through a bunch of these pages I'm amazed at how many people are missing the point.

The point to REACT (the division of the Police Force doing this work) is to do exactly this! They are in the business of protecting all of the computer companies in the area. Apple didn't even have to file a complaint (if they did) because there was enough evidence on the Internet to force and investigation. In matters of law the party that was violated doesn't actually have to file charges ... it just make matters easier.

this is exactly what i think... i also dont understand the comments like f apple isn't this an apple rumor site not to say that everyone has to gush apple but say this were a story about a new phone as popular as the iPhone...well nothing is as popular... but say it was a nexus one predecessor it would be a huge trade secret loss.

 

[spazzcat]

A.) The guy called standard Apple support numbers. If he knew enough to sell the phone to Gizmodo, he knew that the people at those numbers would not have a clue.

B.) Regardless of who technically owns the phone, any sane person would try to contact Gray once they knew his name and facebook info.

C.) Regardless of all of these things, what you assume is incorrect. Just because you can't find the owner of something doesn't make it yours (by law in California).

The other thing is, Apple can pop up messages on iPhones. I am sure they had a message, "if found, please call xxx-xxx-xxxx" on the phone...

 

[M-5]

And as I said, regardless of their efforts to contact the owner, if that fails the next step they are required by law to take is handing it over to the police. At no point does the property just automatically become that of the finder.

So if you lose something, and I return it but you refuse to take it, I'm supposed to hand it over to the police?

 

[ct2k7]

are you kidding me? on what planet is $5,000 a hefty some for something like this. I think the $5,000 shows that they were skeptical about the device and thought, well we will give it a shot, it is just $5,000.

Compared to the actual value of the device in terms of components, it's ok.

*sum.

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

im guna say this one more time. im on apples side but legally its to gizmodo. FIRST THE ONLY REPRODUCTION FOR BUYING STOLEN GOODS IF U DIDENT KNOW THEY WERE STOLEN IS U HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK AND UR MONEY HAS TO BE ETUNED. SO THE ONLY ONE AT FAULT HERE IS THE GUY WHO SUPPOSEDLY STOLE IT. THE POLICE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING IF HE MADE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO FIND THE OWNER( I LISTED A COUPLE IN A EARLIER POST). IF HE DID NOT THEN HE GOES TO JAIL AND THE DEVISE IS RETUNED PLUSE GIZMODO GETS THERE MONEY BACK. IF THE GUY WHO SUPPOSEDLY STOLE IT LEGIT DID WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO FIND THE OWNER THEN THERES NOTHING APPLE CAN DO.

 

[katiepea]

Katie: You had to rag on a guy for using "your" instead of "you're", so I feel just a tiny bit compelled to point out: a whole bunch of lower case "i", instead of capitalized personal pronoun "I" (it appears you don't know how to use the shift key); "preform" instead of "perform", and "non-admissable" instead of inadmissible. Katie...meet Karma. Karma...meet Katie.
And your should be banned for urging someone to commit suicide. Not cool even in a heated debate.

sorry but i do indeed know how to use the shift key, it's just this macbook pro is so hot i try to limit finger exposure as 217 F will definitely burn my fingers if exposed too long to.

 

[JediZenMaster]

are you kidding me? on what planet is $5,000 a hefty some for something like this. I think the $5,000 shows that they were skeptical about the device and thought, well we will give it a shot, it is just $5,000.

They should be glad all they paid was 5,000 because they will need plenty of money for laywers

 

[mattster16]

Last time I checked, Apple has the iPhone. The car is in their possession. It wasn't stolen. If you drove my car and then returned my keys, I don't think the cops would break down my front door and take my computers.

We need a little Judge Judy here.
"Apple - your employee f'd up. Yes your secret was revealed to the world, but that is your own fault. Nobody stole the prototype. nobody knew it was a prototype. It was disguised. Your employee left the phone at a bar when he was drinking. Someone found it, realized it was something interesting, and sold it. The person buying it returned it to you. You have no damages. You got more press than ever. Unless you can prove this has financially damaged you, then you are out of luck. Sorry Apple. Next time be a little more careful with your employees."

Say someone took your car and sold it to someone else. Then the new 'owner' kept it for a month, disassembled it and put it back together, and then finally returned it to you. You're saying neither committed a crime and all should be forgiven?

(And this example doesn't even address the trade secret issues involved in the iPhone case.)

 

[cmaier]

According to california code, the item was only "Stolen" if the finder did not make "Reasonable" attempt to return the item. A phone call is REASONABLE attempt.
!

Actually, it;s not, because he didn't call the right person. Second, that's not all that is required. You have to turn it over to the police before you can claim it as your own property and sell it.

 

[snowmoon]

The basic fact is that Gizmodo is in the wrong both in a criminal and in a moral sense.

1. They knew who the owner was and made no reasonable attempts to return the item
2. They dealt with stolen property that they knew was not their to buy or sell
3. They then blackmailed the owner into revealing trade secrets before they would return the device. ( demanding publishable *proof* that this was an Apple prototype ).

 

[JediZenMaster]

sorry but i do indeed know how to use the shift key, it's just this macbook pro is so hot i try to limit fingure exposure as 217 F will definitely burn my fingers if exposed too long to.

We could all only be so lucky.

 

[jav6454]

I read his entire thing carefully, but perhaps the complete lack of grammar threw me off. What are you talking about?

And they don't have to prove it's stolen. The DA does. And it is easy to prove. The law in california requires that you turn it into the police before you can claim ownership of it. And you can't sell it unless you have ownership of it. It's simple as pie.

Yet they have to prove he didn't want to, not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty.

Also, Jason Chen didn't find the iPhone, Dude_1 did.

 

[i.mac]

Giz folks should at least pay comunity service.
Then they should pay civil damages to the engineer they ousted.
Then they should pay damages to Apple.
Then they should be taken off line for lack of Integrity.

 

[admanimal]

Does exchanging funds on a "Lost" item turn it into a stolen item? In what way?

Well, you can't sell something you don't own; therefore by selling it the seller was assuming ownership of property that wasn't their own. Sounds like stealing to me.

 

[wizard]

If there was justice in this country they would stand them up against the wall & bang

Seriously they have a history here this is nothing more than the last straw.

Just saw this:

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

I can believe it, but it shouldn't have happened this way.

Why not they had several chance to behave in an ethical manner. Instead they took on thee roll of industrial spies. What do we do with spies?

Apple undoubtedly holds a great deal of sway in these matters. Apple lost a phone. It is despicable that a company as large as Apple then relies on and pressures public resources, such as our police, to harass and steal from someone who embarrassed Apple over having lost said phone.

it may have been lost, that we do not know for sure. What we do know is that what happened afterwards was unethical. Further we will soon find out if it was legal.

Can you possibly imagine losing all your data in one day? All your computers, iPhones, iPads, and your backups of all your data too? It's unfathomable.

It is very much how the justice system works. Without search warrants and the evidence obtained by them you would not be able to run down these criminals. Hopefully Apple is successful here and these get fifeteen to twenty five years in the big house. If we are real lucky they won't leave jail alive.

That would likely be the best our justice system could do. Personally they should be dealt with like all spies, that is stood up against a wall and shot slowlly until dead.



Dave

 

[quinntaylor]

Last time I checked, Apple has the iPhone. The car is in their possession. It wasn't stolen. If you drove my car and then returned my keys, I don't think the cops would break down my front door and take my computers.

We need a little Judge Judy here.
"Apple - your employee f'd up. Yes your secret was revealed to the world, but that is your own fault. Nobody stole the prototype. nobody knew it was a prototype. It was disguised. Your employee left the phone at a bar when he was drinking. Someone found it, realized it was something interesting, and sold it. The person buying it returned it to you. You have no damages. You got more press than ever. Unless you can prove this has financially damaged you, then you are out of luck. Sorry Apple. Next time be a little more careful with your employees."

That might be appropriate if we were talking about a civil case between Apple and Gizmodo. This thread is about investigating criminal actions of Gizmodo and/or the seller. If the police are able to mount sufficient evidence to show that one or more crimes occurred in this exchange, it's silly to think that no wrong occurred.

And for the record, Gizmodo's story certainly insinuates that the finder knew it was a prototype. I'd expect that anyone in Silicon Valley who recognizes a device as an iPhone would also recognize that the device's design was nothing like any shipping iPhone. Particularly when the the photos clearly display "XXGB" on the back where the size should be, it had special stickers, and the guy who lost it was identifiable as an Apple engineer. Let's do the math...

 

[JediZenMaster]

Well, you can't sell something you don't own; therefore by selling it the seller was assuming ownership of property that wasn't their own. Sounds like stealing to me.

Yep. Let me sell you this prototype Chevy Volt in my garage

 

[quagmire]

I agree, but how would someone NOT have the common sense to think its okay to bring a prototype worth millions of dollars with him to a bar. At a bar you drink. Drink too much, and your then drunk. People do stupid things and more when drunk. I do think Gizmodo was dumb to do what they did, but a 27 year old should figure out. Birthday= celebrate. human+ too much beer/wine= drunk. I don't bring important thing with me If i'm concerned for their safety.

True, but Apple does do field testing so it isn't out there that there are iPhone prototypes among us, but we don't know it.

And it still doesn't harm the potential case against Gizmodo.

Again, I am going to talk to my dad about this tonight.

 

[Kevlar]

are you kidding me? on what planet is $5,000 a hefty some for something like this. I think the $5,000 shows that they were skeptical about the device and thought, well we will give it a shot, it is just $5,000.

Which leads to the question, why wait over 2 weeks to post information about the device?

They obviously thought they may of had some kind of legal problem with how they obtained the device and tried to find a piece of law which stated they indeed were safe. The Gawker legal officer sending Chen the information about the portion of law which he believes protects Chen proves they knew they were on shaky ground.

 

[ouimetnick]

You're calling the guy a drunk loser and retarded. Then saying what Gizmodo did was stupid and childish. Do you not see the irony in this post?

You must be a child because no self-respecting adult would use the word "retarded" to get their point across. It's kinda, um...stupid and childish!

Oh and Gizmodo isn't a news site! Msnbc.com is...

My profile clearly states i'm 14. They both screwed up. Its gizmodo's job to report tech news. They DID cross the line by tearing it open. But a mature 27 year old wouldn't make such an "easy to not make mistake"

 

[Cartaphilus]

The difference here is that the watergate tapes involved public employees and the government. AND it exposed criminal activity that hurt the public. As part of the government (of the people, for the people, by the people) the public deserved to know.

Gizmodo exposed nothing but Apple's trade secrets. Apple did nothing nefarious.

Are you sure you're not referring to the Pentagon Papers?

 

[jav6454]

Giz folks should at least pay comunity service.
Then they should pay civil damages to the engineer they ousted.
Then they should pay damages to Apple.
Then they should be taken off line for lack of Integrity.

1. No
2. No, not their problem he was sloppy
3. Worse, no.
4. Why are they lacking integrity? It's Journalism.

 

[FakeWozniak]

**** you Apple.

Letting your emotions get the better of your logic. -- Spock