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

[zub3qin]

Let's agree to disagree and look ahead.

With nearly 1000 posts in a few hours on this Gizmodo/Apple/SWAT team thing, and a lot of anger on these boards, maybe we should all agree to disagree and look forward.

Any guesses as to how Apple will handle the Keynote now that the leak has occurred? Take the poll I posted on the iPhone page of Macrumors.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/905282/

 

[imacdaddy]

Why? All Apple did was report the matter to the police. It is up to the police to decide if the law has been broken and if so then to follow through to see if it is possible to prove the matter.

That is true. We're not 100% sure if Apple reported this to the police after the Gizmodo leak or back in March when the prototype was lost. But it's up to the police to decide and act. The police did say last week they'll get involved if law has been broken.

Separately, Gizmodo is a tech blog not and Jason Chen is not a journalist.

 

[slackpacker]

The second they took it apart they went way to far.

I really don't feel any love for giz on this one they were the evil Giz on this the Giz that shuts monitors of at trade shows ...... but this was theft.. .

 

[babbit]

You're not kidding. I've had items stolen and the police act like they don't even want to take a report. Any other phone that got stolen would get no attention from the police at all. Just take the report and file it.

Jobs is applying pressure to make this a federal case.

This isn't any other phone. This is a phone that represents nearly 50% of the value of one of the largest companies in the world. The Police does the same thing whenever anything of value gets stolen or lost by large corporations. There's no need for anyone to put pressure at all.

 

[quagmire]

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).

This iPhone behaves exactly like an iPhone does when connected to a computer, with the proper boot sequence and "connect to iTunes" restore functionality. Xcode and iTunes both see this as an iPhone. Mac OS X's System Profiler also reports this as an iPhone in restore mode, which is a natural consequence of remotely wiping the phone, but report different product identifiers (both CPID and CPRV) than either the 3G or the 3GS.

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

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).

True, but again Gizmodo did state the quality of the prototype was typical Apple( linked above). While definite proof was in the dissection, evidence was pretty clear at saying that the device was almost for certain legit.

 

[HitchHykr]

So if you pick up something that someone else dropped/lost are you now in possession of stolen property? Is it a matter of the effort that you put on returning it to the rightful owner? So at what point does it turn into stolen property? If you don't post a craigslist ad within 5, 10 minutes? Does this law apply only for iPhones?

 

[the editor]

Well, in all probability, Apple Inc. has paid more tax dollars this year alone than you have in your lifetime. Just saying.

so....you're point being? the fact that Apple pays more taxes doesn't mean that apple should have more rights than Anny other man working and paying taxes.

This enitre Iphone thing's getting ridiculous...i mean common its just a f***ing phone

Apple should just stop playing the "Area51-everything we do is top-secret" card, its getting kind of old really. I don't even see why Apple should lose money over a prototype leak...i look at it this way people whom want to buy an iphone are going to buy one anyway regardless the leak.

i'm saying Apple saw and took the opportunity to get some free advertising and to make everybody aware that a new model Iphone is comming. thats why they are making such a big deal out of it, its called making the best out of a situation...my 2cents

 

[snowmoon]

So if you pick up something that someone else dropped/lost are you now in possession of stolen property? Is it a matter of the effort that you put on returning it to the rightful owner? So at what point does it turn into stolen property? If you don't post a craigslist ad within 5, 10 minutes? Does this law apply only for iPhones?

In this case it becomes officially stolen when you sell it to another party.

 

[TeamMojo]

Gizmodo is not journalism. And especially when it knowingly acquires prerelease (essentially stolen) goods. Every Apple follower knows that pre-release Apple products are sacred and secret. Gizmodo was not practicing journalism. Engadget was, as were the rest who followed up on the story once it was out. But it never should have gotten out.

 

[HitchHykr]

This isn't any other phone. This is a phone that represents nearly 50% of the value of one of the largest companies in the world. The Police does the same thing whenever anything of value gets stolen or lost by large corporations. There's no need for anyone to put pressure at all.

So that phone is worth $120B? So either Gizmodo got a bargain or you are exaggerating a tiny bit.

 

[Avatar74]

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.

And that's why Apple is quietly biding their time for now until the criminal investigation does most of the discovery for them.

People forget that Chen didn't just go "oh hey, a neat phone, I think I'll hand over $5000 out of my pocket for what just appears to be any old iPhone"... no, it was more like "Holy ****...", followed by phonecall to Gizmodo editors to request approval for $5000 in funds to acquire said device, followed by acquisition of device... Someone at Gizmodo either authorized the acquisition, funded the acquisition, or authorized a reimbursement for the acquisition, or Chen is a total moron and Gizmodo will wash their hands... oh wait, they didn't. They published his articles, and even had the COO go out of his way to back Chen with a faulty read of Section 1070.

Oops.

Yep, if the facts show that Gizmodo knowingly acquired the device... given Gawker Media's size, Apple could spend a tiny fraction of their free cash flow and disintegrate Gawker in one shot.

The folks at CES certainly wouldn't miss them.

 

[*LTD*]

To shield or not to shield . . .

http://www.businessinsider.com/henr...ce-may-allege-that-gizcommitted-felony-2010-4

Police may allege that Gizmodo committed felony in 4G iPhone imbroglio
Monday, April 26, 2010

Henry Blodget writes for The Business Insider, "Online journalists are freaking out that California police appear to have ignored California's shield law when breaking into Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and seizing his computers in connection with the iPhone probe. "Gawker Media LLC, meanwhile, is arguing that CA police violated the shield law and is demanding immediate return of the confiscated property."

"The search warrant is ambiguous about the specific reason the police gave for the search and seizure," Blodget writes. "Specifically, it's possible--likely, even--that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone ('buying stolen property')."

Blodget writes, "If that's the 'probable cause' the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply."

 

[MacToddB]

While I think Gizmodo deserves what is happening to them right now, they aren't a small blog by any stretch. They used to get invited to Apple events.

Yeah... I even have the seating assignments for the iPhone 4 Launch.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

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.

No, it's not relevant to the legality...but everyone was ecstatic about seeing the new iPhone months before it's announcement and release, yet bash Giz at the same time, supporting Apple for raiding Chen's house. It's a little ridiculous.

 

[AngryApple]

This sucks for Jason Chen. I hope they go after Gawker Media as a whole and not Jason as an individual. I see several of you hope someone gets put in jail for this. Who? Jason... that would be awful from my point of view for Jason to be put in the slammer.

Ya know, I think this has worked out very well for Gizmodo. Look at their massive spike in page views!

 

[tshandy]

I was at a bar during the holidays and found a phone in one of the booths. I immediately turned it over to the hostess. What happened with the prototype was theft, pure and simple.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Not true. Their real source is the person that sold them the iPhone for $5000.

arn

No, not true, I'm afraid.

The "source" of their story was the iPhone itself, which they illegally bought from a thief and which they illegally disassembled.

If a reporter broke into Apple's headquarters in the dark of night and riffled through Steve Job's desk to take documents they used for a story they published the next day would that reporter not be guilty of burglary? And following the publication of the details of the crime, would the journalist be immune from the execution of a search warrant on his home and office seeking evidence?

Be very careful about whom you seek to clothe with the journalist's privilege; it is the acts of irresponsible publishers like Gizmodo who convince legislatures to deprive all journalists of the privilege.

 

[eoblaed]

This is hardly SOP in my experience. Door bashing over a cell phone?! Seriously?!

No.

Serving a warrant in support of felony trafficking and possession of stolen goods. Remember, the value of the item(s) in question have very real relevance over the type of response law enforcement engages in. If this was some guy's 5 year old Motorola Razr, a 'cell phone', it'd be valued in the double-digits of dollars (if that much) and would engender a very different response.

Instead, this was an undisclosed prototype device that carries real and significant impact in a multi-billion dollar industry, the theft and grand public exposition of such is valued far, far beyond that of any dollar value attached to any 'cell phone', even a retail iPhone. This puts it easily into the felony range.

And yes, when a search warrant is being executed, and there's nobody home, the door comes down. Doesn't matter if it was a stolen prototype, or suspected drug possession, or a fugitive potentially in hiding, or whatever.

Apple didn't write up the warrant, or send out the police. And insinuating that Apple is applying blackmail type leverage against DA's and superior court judges and multiple groups of law enforcement agencies to get this kind of response ... especially without even the tiniest shred of evidence is irresponsible and irrationally paranoid. To what end? It doesn't serve Apple's purpose to attempt such crazy tactics. Anyone would be able to expose them and then Gizmodo's legal troubles of grand larceny, etc, etc, would be a shadow of a whisper compared to the legal trouble Apple would be in of attempting to influence and corrupt judges and DA's.

Do you honestly believe Apple would gamble *everything*, a gamble of incalculable risk and so easily exposed, to try to force this sort of response? Please.

 

[jaykk]

So that phone is worth $120B? So either Gizmodo got a bargain or you are exaggerating a tiny bit.

Ask the same question to any of apple's competitor ( MS, google, MOTO, HTC etc), they all will value it much higher than $5K..

 

[cmaier]

What the hell? I live in the same city as Apple, and I am supported by the same police department. When I got my phone stolen, and I reported it to the same police, I never heard from them again.

Apple is Cupertino. These cops are not.

 

[dasmb]

Whether or not the phone was stolen, Gawker intentionally paid money for it to an agent that they knew was not its legal owner.

If I paid your neighbor $5000 to buy your car, and then I break in and drive away -- was your car stolen?

In any, I actually expect Apple to side with Gawker, eventually and to the limit of their ability. For one thing they need all the bloggers on their "side;" for another, nobody should have to go to prison for being curious about a phone.

On the other hand, it is a criminal case, after all, and related to intellectual property in a economy that makes a lot of its money off IP. Not pressing this case to some chilling conclusion could set a bad precedent.

 

[iLunar]

so....you're point being? the fact that Apple pays more taxes doesn't mean that apple should have more rights than Anny other man working and paying taxes.

They're not getting any more rights than anyone else. My point was about tax-payer waste being a completely bogus argument. What is the police department for (specifically this crime unit) then to investigate potential crime?

 

[redkamel]

It screamed can be interpreted different ways. All your evidence points to knowledge it was a prototype AFTER the $5k transaction.

We know it is because they analyzed it. If you were given the device now and told it was a the next new thing you would have said, fake or knock-off.

Ok, we know for sure it is an iphone because they analyzed it. But its pretty easy to tell right away that there is a high probability it is real. it is not hard to do,they stated they did it, and they could do most of it in five minutes prior to paying. And all the steps would be common sense for any gadget person.

1. Did it look and feel like a solid prototype, markings, etc? yes
2. Did it display the apple sync screen when you plug it into a laptop ? yes (implying iphone OS)
3. Did itunes display it as an iphone? maybe
4. Did it have a 30 pin dock connector (that works ie a response when it plugs in)? yes

2,3, and 4 are things knock offs don't do. They don't have 30 pin dock connectors, they don't show the iphone OS screen when plugged in. I don't know if itunes recognized it or not, but they made some allusion about it being recognized as an iphone somehow.

 

[andiwm2003]

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.

do you really believe gizmodo can convince a jury that they didn't know?

 

[Lumpydog]

It's about the money

Leaks like this cost Apple and their investors money. Don't expect Apple to to sit on its hands and accept it. They have a duty to their investors to prosecute anyone that compromises Apple's stock value.

What Giz did HUGELY undermine's Apple's marketing strategy and competitive advantage.

If Giz figured out how to do it legally, good for them. Given the negative impact it will have to the product's introduction and launch, I have a hard time believing it was done legally.