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
[nelson]Ha ha![/nelson]
Those who are blaming Apple for the search and seizure don't know a thing about the legal system. Apple makes a complaint, it starts the balls rolling and everything that happens after that is part of the legal system, not Apple's machinations. Once a complaint has been made, Apple couldn't even call them off if they wanted to.
Those who are blaming Apple for the search and seizure don't know a thing about the legal system. Apple makes a complaint, it starts the balls rolling and everything that happens after that is part of the legal system, not Apple's machinations. Once a complaint has been made, Apple couldn't even call them off if they wanted to.
And I believe they tore it apart after that $5K transaction.
Again, after they verified that it was legit they shouldn't have posted the pictures of the tear down. That is when they committed misappropriation of trade secrets.
Rabid pro and anti fanboys? Check.
Angsty teen emos railing against "the man"? Check.
Internet Lawyers? Check.
Wild eyed kooks and random trolls? Check.
I am going to sit down with a nice glass of wine and seriously enjoy reading this thread tonight.
Angsty teen emos railing against "the man"? Check.
Internet Lawyers? Check.
Wild eyed kooks and random trolls? Check.
I am going to sit down with a nice glass of wine and seriously enjoy reading this thread tonight.
That's what I'm saying. You're basically arguing with yourself. You said that:
That's not true. "Hard evidence" of Gizmodo knowing is not required by law. The laws are subjective enough that the jury or judge can find Gizmodo guilty without that "hard evidence".
Obviously since it's a California based Search Warrant, they searched property in California. A California Judge does not have the power to order a search of a property outside of their jurisdiction.
The mentioned penal code section 1524g is intended to protect journalists from subpoenas to release their sources. In this case, that's not the crime -- rather, the question is one of purchasing trade secrets, and specifically trade goods, illegally, so no defense there.
This isn't a civil case, and as a result Apple's influence may be limited. Were I a DA in Silicon Valley, I'd press the **** our of this -- you can't have money change hands in pursuit of exposing trade secrets expect get away with it, especially in the form of property you know isn't owned. And you should expect it even less in a state where so much of the economy is based on the generation of intellectual property.
Honestly, were I Apple I'd wait a few weeks and then try to negotiate an out for Chen & Gawker. Enforcing the law is one thing, but nobody should have to go to jail over a phone -- it's just bad PR for Apple's already controversial secrecy.
This isn't a civil case, and as a result Apple's influence may be limited. Were I a DA in Silicon Valley, I'd press the **** our of this -- you can't have money change hands in pursuit of exposing trade secrets expect get away with it, especially in the form of property you know isn't owned. And you should expect it even less in a state where so much of the economy is based on the generation of intellectual property.
Honestly, were I Apple I'd wait a few weeks and then try to negotiate an out for Chen & Gawker. Enforcing the law is one thing, but nobody should have to go to jail over a phone -- it's just bad PR for Apple's already controversial secrecy.
How about investing ten minutes to learn something about the subject matter of your comments?
First of all, search warrants are executed to obtain evidence that could prove the crime. It would not be logical to require proof that the crime has been committed and who committed it before investigators are permitted to gather evidence.
Second, neither the Sheriff's office nor the judge who signed the warrant broke any law. The COO of Gizmodo wrote a letter, which he posted on their website, complaining that a law that prevents a reporter from being held in contempt of court for refusing to testify as to the identity of news source immunizes reporters from search warrants even when there is probable cause to believe that they themselves are principals in the commission of crimes. This is just plain silly, and only a graduate of the Close-Cover-Before-Striking School of Law would even be able to claim such a thing with a straight face.
Third, Gizmodo published the facts it claims were related to it by its seller, and even assuming that neither the Seller nor Gizmodo were truthful, both are guilty of serious crimes. I am quite certain that the judge finding that probable cause existed and that a search was warranted read Gizmodo's own website version of the facts which condemns their seller, and therefore themselves.
A warrant signed by a judge based on detectives' statements made under oath and on pain of being convicted of perjury is not an invalid warrant.
Let me make a suggestion: when forming an opinion about the right or wrong of a criminal proceeding, don't automatically assume that the assertions of the defendant are credible.
There should have been no problem to contact him while they were waiting AT his residence to inform him his presence was required there.
Still retain the element of surprise and control of the scene imo.
I wouldn't be surprised if the apple and gizmodo lawyers are already negotiating. We may never know if they are or whether there was a settlement.
Gizmodo wondered aloud if it was a prototype when the first blurry pix surfaced. It's gonna take a lot of fancy unfrozen caveman lawyerin' to get 'em out of this one.
Out of curiosity, where did they say they hooked it up to iTunes? I recall them talking about some of the OS features that were noticed on the phone itself, but don't recall them ever mentioning it was hooked up to iTunes (they probably did, I just don't recall it).
All of these situations though could have been the result of a Chinese knock-off though. At times some of the Chinese imitation hardware is "superior" spec-wise to the originals (although usually the manufacturing quality of the hardware is cheap, so it often doesn't last as long or perform to spec).
Argh, hypocrisy. Most of you people loved to see the new iPhone version. The only thing I think it was terrible from Gizmodo was to "out" the name of the engineer that lost the Phone. That was a dick move. But I really appreciated Gizmodo to show pics of the new iPhone (...that looks like an old iPod)
RIP Gawker Media & Gizmodo
The bottom line is that a judge in a Superior court is convinced there is enough evidence to issue a warrant to search and obtain property, then the odds are in favour of a Criminal case against Gawker LLC, and possibly Jason Chen himself.
A criminal case alone won't end Gawker's operations, just likely send somebody to jail and have hefty fines laid. A civil lawsuit will finish them off.
This is potentially a billion dollar lawsuit. If Apple is able to prove that the sales potential for such a popular product were reduced and that competitors were given an edge on what they were prepared to release, Gawker will be blown out of the water. They simply won't have the money to pay and their operations will fold.
The bottom line is that a judge in a Superior court is convinced there is enough evidence to issue a warrant to search and obtain property, then the odds are in favour of a Criminal case against Gawker LLC, and possibly Jason Chen himself.
A criminal case alone won't end Gawker's operations, just likely send somebody to jail and have hefty fines laid. A civil lawsuit will finish them off.
This is potentially a billion dollar lawsuit. If Apple is able to prove that the sales potential for such a popular product were reduced and that competitors were given an edge on what they were prepared to release, Gawker will be blown out of the water. They simply won't have the money to pay and their operations will fold.
I wonder what Jason Chen is doing today? Besides shopping for a door.
Gizmodo thought this out well I wonder if this is still going to plan for them?
Other than the entertainment factor I guess a few people will be looking for new Jobs.
I don't particularly like people who take someone's stuff that is proprietary or secret then plasters it all over the net for competitors and others to see. This just shows really poor form.
Gizmodo had an opportunity to sneak up behind Apple and pull down their trousers in public. They checked the legal consequences and then went ahead and pulled them down, took numerous pictures then posted the pictures on an ongoing leak basis.
Exposing un released product both from the outside and then it's inside pieces is a line that shouldn't be crossed.
In one of the earlier stories on Giz didn't they mention the phone had been offered to Engadget and they declined before Giz bought it.
I think Giz and Jason deserve everything they get. They made a calculated assessment of the situation and went public on that basis.
Is it appropriate for IP to be exposed in this way. If so then Gizmodo may become the back street dealer where people can sell prototypes they've acquired to make a quick buck. And Gizmodo can be the shop front for looking inside products that have not been released to market.
How many pages a minute is this thread running at. I can't read fast enough.
Gizmodo thought this out well I wonder if this is still going to plan for them?
Other than the entertainment factor I guess a few people will be looking for new Jobs.
I don't particularly like people who take someone's stuff that is proprietary or secret then plasters it all over the net for competitors and others to see. This just shows really poor form.
Gizmodo had an opportunity to sneak up behind Apple and pull down their trousers in public. They checked the legal consequences and then went ahead and pulled them down, took numerous pictures then posted the pictures on an ongoing leak basis.
Exposing un released product both from the outside and then it's inside pieces is a line that shouldn't be crossed.
In one of the earlier stories on Giz didn't they mention the phone had been offered to Engadget and they declined before Giz bought it.
I think Giz and Jason deserve everything they get. They made a calculated assessment of the situation and went public on that basis.
Is it appropriate for IP to be exposed in this way. If so then Gizmodo may become the back street dealer where people can sell prototypes they've acquired to make a quick buck. And Gizmodo can be the shop front for looking inside products that have not been released to market.
How many pages a minute is this thread running at. I can't read fast enough.
For Realzies?
Yeth! Surport AppleTURD! Surport JizzMODO!
Seriously. Do either of these dingbat parties deserve anymore publicity?
Next please....
Yeth! Surport AppleTURD! Surport JizzMODO!
Seriously. Do either of these dingbat parties deserve anymore publicity?
Next please....
Whether we "loved to see" the new iPhone is irrelevant to the legality of Gizmodo's actions.
Again, what you think is or is not "terrible" is irrelevant to the legality of Gizmodo's actions.
You'd have a point if this was Apple pressing forward with a civil case -- and I don't think anybody would think that would be worth their time.
This is the DA, however, with a criminal case. Not as easily spun.
What is interesting is how hard both Gizmodo and their apparent supporters (or is it just the Fandroids and people that are anti-Apple? Not sure) are trying to push this into some sort of "evil corporate takeover" angle.
The right thing is happening. If Gizmo doesn't like it, they shouldn't be breaking the law.
If apple sues then gizmodo will have a right to discovery of emails and all kinds of info apple probably won't want to share
Potential remote data wipe? Why would the police give a potential criminal any opportunity to destroy data that is fundamental to their case?
It's only a crime if they KNEW it was stolen. This was my point the entire time, yet you still disagreed with my original post.
Re-read what you quoted:
"Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained..."
See? They have to know that the property was stolen or obtained in a manner constituting theft or extortion. How can you say Gizmodo KNEW this. This was the entire point of my original post. How did you miss that? The crux of the issue is whether or not Gizmodo knew it was stolen or obtained illegally to begin with. If you believe the guy who found it in the bar's original story, then it was in fact NOT stolen. It's going to be hard to prove that Gizmodo knew otherwise.
Nah. He's probably here posting about how it's no big deal, apple sucks, and it's just picking on the little guy. At least until there's a knock on the door.