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
This entire thing is going down exactly as I expected. No surprise to me. The guy that "found" the iPhone will soon be in custody, if he isn't already. If the DA is more interested in hanging Gawker Media out to dry, then I'm sure the guy will work a plea deal in exchange for testifying against Gawker.
I wonder if Jason Chen is feeling like all of those unique page views were worth it now?
Mark
I wonder if Jason Chen is feeling like all of those unique page views were worth it now?
Mark
Even without a contract you'd be liable. If I lend you my car and you sell it, you stole it. Your attempts at differentiating are pointless, since the issue was whether only the manner in which a good is obtained results in theft, or whether the disposition of the object can be the event that results in theft. I listed examples where disposition matter. There are many more such examples.
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
Apple didn't have anything to do with this. Openly buying stolen property to the tune of $5000 and bragging about it - is just plain dumb, District Attorneys are typically politicians - often looking to make a name. Some cops are on their own power trips as well.
Common (oops I mean Come on) wake up and stop defending alleged thieves... There is a reason they paid $5000 dollars and not $25 for a used stolen phone... And - that same reason is why the police are pursuing it. For all we know,
wants this kept low profile and aren't really excited about this kind of publicity. This is not a simple 'lost phone' case, once someone realized it was prototype material, and possibly could be of interest to competitors they go shopping it out to the highest bidder... Sounds like a thief to me...
In order for a crime to be investigated or to occur for that matter, a victim has to exist. Apple obviously pursued charges
I find it truly pathetic how many people are squirming with joy over this. They actually enjoy the fact that someone's life was disrupted so much and sanctity of home violated legally or not.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
If Apple was involved in pressing the police to pursue this it was nothing more than a "we will show you" action on their part. It was a childish, bully move and will cost them money. They know they have virtually unlimited funds to spend on lawyers and the "little guy" has nothing. Makes me sick and has turned me from a "not buying another Mac until they put out a decent upgrade" to "never going to buy Apple again" person.
I am sure Chen has the backing of Gawker's leagal team but if he incurs any personal expense I would be willing to contribute to his legal defense. Apple can s@#k it.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
If Apple was involved in pressing the police to pursue this it was nothing more than a "we will show you" action on their part. It was a childish, bully move and will cost them money. They know they have virtually unlimited funds to spend on lawyers and the "little guy" has nothing. Makes me sick and has turned me from a "not buying another Mac until they put out a decent upgrade" to "never going to buy Apple again" person.
I am sure Chen has the backing of Gawker's leagal team but if he incurs any personal expense I would be willing to contribute to his legal defense. Apple can s@#k it.
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
This isn't your buddy's phone that got swiped .
This is sensitive property of the third-largest corporation in the United States. It's not just a "f***ing phone." It's not worth a few hundred bucks. It's worth BILLIONS. Apple's market position depends on it. There is a great deal at stake. Use your head.
What???
If you owned a device that you spent millions of dollars developing and then an organization that specializes in exposing trade secrets to gadget geeks knowingly purchased that device for $5000, exposed that proprietary technical and valuable economic information on the internet, thereby damaging your business, you would be a pretty high priority. This wasn't just a regular phone, and it certainly wasn't returned as "no harm, no foul." There was harm done to Apple's business by this intrusion. I love going to these sites to argue and agree with other geeks. I love that sometimes we get a blurry image or a secondhand report on some new technology, but I do not agree with how far Gizmodo went to knowingly purchase and expose this phone to the public. Their egos needed a big check up against the boards and Apple just gave it to them.
I just read a few more of everyone's comments and have decided you are a bunch of tools. Get a clue. Gizmodo f**!ed up pretty bad here.
If you owned a device that you spent millions of dollars developing and then an organization that specializes in exposing trade secrets to gadget geeks knowingly purchased that device for $5000, exposed that proprietary technical and valuable economic information on the internet, thereby damaging your business, you would be a pretty high priority. This wasn't just a regular phone, and it certainly wasn't returned as "no harm, no foul." There was harm done to Apple's business by this intrusion. I love going to these sites to argue and agree with other geeks. I love that sometimes we get a blurry image or a secondhand report on some new technology, but I do not agree with how far Gizmodo went to knowingly purchase and expose this phone to the public. Their egos needed a big check up against the boards and Apple just gave it to them.
I just read a few more of everyone's comments and have decided you are a bunch of tools. Get a clue. Gizmodo f**!ed up pretty bad here.
Not true, dude. First off, the guy who found the phone had a legal obligation to make a "reasonable effort" to return the phone. He didn't. (He could've returned it to the bar owner, the police... Anything. Instead, he just called Apple's Technical Support.) In the state of California, that's called "theft."
Secondly, Gizmodo bought the stolen property. There's a law for that, too. Like I said before, if you buy a TV from a dealer in a back alley, chances are, you can at least SUSPECT that it was stolen. That's what Gizmodo did, and guess what? That's ALSO "theft."
Thirdly, while Apple spoke to the local police about this incident, the investigation is being led by a computer crime task force. Conspiracy theories aside, I think that the case is now out of Apple's hands and it's the government that's pursuing the case. Don't blame Apple for Gizmodo's theft and subsequent investigation, haters. If you stole my credit card, and I knew your name, I'd talk to the police, too.
Lastly, Gizmodo is making the statement that a search warrant of this kind is, in the words of MacRumors, "illegal under journalist protection statutes." What a lame argument. Does that mean that a journalist has the right to steal my property, just to get a story? It's not a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, people. They stole, and now they're paying for it. Good riddance.
Like how they exposed and humilated the employee of lost the prototype?
Karma is a *****.
A certain amount of schadenfreude when it comes to THIEVES and SLIME is entirely appropriate. Even therapeutic.
OK, so if I find a pair of prescription glasses am I supposed to leave my number at the nearest bar, then try to find the owner on Facebook (I guess I can start by looking for people that wear glasses) and then I turn it over to the police? That's a lot of work!
The level of effort seems a little arbitrary, I'd hate to be criminally charged just because there were better ways to get a hold of the owner. But, I'm sure the guy/gal that found the iPhone wasn't trying that hard to return it.
Unlike the cop shows, the person harmed does not have to "pursue charges" in a criminal matter. It is up to the DA to prosecute based on the evidence and Apple does not have to cooperate at all.
Yeah, if you're the sort of person who goes around doing what Gizmodo did, and then go ahead a brag all about on your commercial website to generate revenue, then, yep, you have no law to hide behind.
Come the revolution it will be open season on the wealthy and successful; until then it is just as illegal to steal from the rich as it is to steal from the poor.
And just for the record, your use of that profound speech conventionally attributed to Niemoller is offensive. Comparing the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney of San Mateo County, and a Superior Court judge to Nazis is just over the top. Don't cry "Wolf!" when all you see is a shepherd.
It was my understanding that the "break in and seizure of goods" occured at least 2-3 days after the "theft" took place. MORE than enough time to initially remove/delete any data well before the raid.
Unless I am mistaken.
HOWEVER I was super excited to hear about the new iPhone!!!
In this case they saw the Apple engineers Facebook account before the phone was deactivated. They knew exactly who lost the phone, they knew they worked for Apple, and they knew the names of some of his friends as well.
They knew and they proceeded anyways, they deserve everything they will get.
No. You have a far simpler solution. LEAVE THE GLASSES WHERE YOU FOUND THEM. You have no duty to go find the owner until you choose to take them into your possession.
This is what I don't get. Think pre Apple letter demanding it back. What happens if this iPhone was indeed some chinese knock off. Were there not already pics from awhile back showing the same device? Was it not wiped and non functioning? Regardless, whoever sold it to Gizmodo could have fabricated any story he wanted to and for Gizmodo to pay $5000 is chump change. You guys are talking about millions or billions in settlements if Apple wins. If a $5000 investment generates hundreds of thousands or millions more who cares. They waste more money on trivial things I'm sure.
The fact is if Gizmodo is shown some weird looking iPhone device and has the ability to throw it up on their website to generate traffic, whether it was real at the time or not, why is that wrong? When these pics came up most if not all of the community kept saying NOPE! NO WAY! 100% FAKE, NOT AN APPLE DESIGN etc. During this time they were still getting traffic to their website. So even if the story of how they obtained it is true, it could not have been, and though it is now known to be real; it was only until a letter from Apple stating that it actually was theirs did people believe.
I guess the question I'm getting at is is it Gizmodo's fault for not having superior technical skills to be able to determine what it was an Apple prototype and that they should have given it back regardless. When at the time they could have been just as skeptical as EVERYONE else and threw this up because it was exactly what the world was chomping at the bit for? If it was fake they would have been oh well....
One more question, if I lose my Apple product and after calling lost and found, the police etc. Do I call Apple? Is that someones next course of action when no one comes to claim something they find, they send it to the manufacturer?
I'm not being facetious at all. That's how I view it. It doesn't seem like Gizmodo is innocent until proven guilty and posting nope it's theft regardless of the circumstance doesn't seem to be something that would work in court.
The fact is if Gizmodo is shown some weird looking iPhone device and has the ability to throw it up on their website to generate traffic, whether it was real at the time or not, why is that wrong? When these pics came up most if not all of the community kept saying NOPE! NO WAY! 100% FAKE, NOT AN APPLE DESIGN etc. During this time they were still getting traffic to their website. So even if the story of how they obtained it is true, it could not have been, and though it is now known to be real; it was only until a letter from Apple stating that it actually was theirs did people believe.
I guess the question I'm getting at is is it Gizmodo's fault for not having superior technical skills to be able to determine what it was an Apple prototype and that they should have given it back regardless. When at the time they could have been just as skeptical as EVERYONE else and threw this up because it was exactly what the world was chomping at the bit for? If it was fake they would have been oh well....
One more question, if I lose my Apple product and after calling lost and found, the police etc. Do I call Apple? Is that someones next course of action when no one comes to claim something they find, they send it to the manufacturer?
I'm not being facetious at all. That's how I view it. It doesn't seem like Gizmodo is innocent until proven guilty and posting nope it's theft regardless of the circumstance doesn't seem to be something that would work in court.
Those points were talking about this case.
Obviously the only thing you could do with prescription glasses is if you found them in an establishment is to give them your number so the owner could get a hold of you if they called the establishment. If that fails take them to the local police station. If you found them on the street, only choice is taking it to the police station.
According to Gizmondo, they (the original finder) called Apple support and asked about it. If they did, which is a fact that can be verified I suppose, then that might constitute trying to find the owner. I don't know, just throwing it out there.
All the stuff is blah blah blah because it still boils down to is it has to be proven Gizmo knew it was stolen when they bought it.
The guy claimed he tried to return it and since he did that well Gizmodo is in the clear. Gizmodo is under no legal obligation to turn over the guy either.
That point along kills everything else you said.