Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think that alot of people here are trying to mix 3 possible cases together...as i see it they are:
1) Recieving Stolen Goods by Gizmondo
2) Libel of Gray
3) Exposing Trade Secrets

a few pages back someone asked if Gizmondo would be in less trouble if they did not post photos of the phone..my thoughts are that if they would have only posted photos of exterior of the phone they may have had some wiggle room in the Exposing Trade Secrets case ..when they disassembled the phone and posted photos of the disassembled phone (even photos of the screws?) they crossed the line...not doing this would not have helped them in cases 1 and 2 though..

as far as i understand things the 3 cases will be treated seperatly ...
Also i have to believe Apple's competitors took a very close look at those photos..
Feel free to correct any of my assumptions...
This only my opinion...

True. The theft and trade secret cases go together though. Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.

In other words, its pretty much a given that the original finder didn't do due diligence in returning the phone. Raiding Chen's apartment is to secure corroborating evidence that Chen knew that the item was stolen because Gizmodo posting that they knew it was a prototype and could have been stolen might not be enough. (Do any Lawyers on here know?)

I'm curious to see if the limit of scope of this case is just Chen. The police may raid more Gizmodo employees or their offices if they can prove that multiple employees knew they were breaking trade secret law. "Gawker start your paper shredders!"

http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpres...§§-3426-et-seq-the-uniform-trade-secrets-act/
 
Subpoena - a writ issued by a government agency that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence, the agency most often a court, under a penalty for failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

If they are looking for corroborating evidence that Chen knew that he was taking possession of stolen property or that by posting pictures of a prototype (see trade secrets) device on the internet, he was potentially breaking the law, then why would they be required to get a subpoena? They are probably not trying to get Chen to give up the seller as they can or already have gotten his identity through investigation or forensics.

The short answer is: the Privacy Protection Act requires a subpoena because it allows the target of the search to assert their first amendment right, which matters in America.

You can make your assumptions about the existence of stolen property and who knew what when as part of a conversation among friends, but those assumptions don't mean anything in court. Your reasoning mixes all sorts of different issues (trade secret law, theft offense, intent) that would result in lots of folks going to jail, if the law was so imprecise; it's not.
 
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.

They well can. It's reporting on a news, really hot news. They have every right to do so since they are not bound by a NDA.

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".

True, but it is the DA who has to prove guilty. That said, Gizmodo (Gawker lawyers for that matter) only have to insert a doubt into the argument of the DA, which isn't difficult task. That alone will destroy any good case. Gawker lawyers can really produce lots of doubt.

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.

Perhaps, but this is not a civil case of Apple v Gawker Media.

Yes they did wonder, which is why they risked $5000 to acquire this doubtful device which ended up being true.

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.

How? You can't tell because of the design, it's not an Apple design we have seen yet. Really? I can bet $100 that if that iPhone landed on the hands of someone here and that person posted a break down. I am pretty sure (I even bet on it) people here would very quickly say, fake, mock-up, photoshop, etc etc.

All those things you listed may be true, but that still doesn't mean it could well have not been the prototype but a really good mock-up.
 
That's the dumbest statement in here yet.

Your not stealing if you're getting YOUR computer back.

Did you read CPC 496 or just hit the quote button and spat out the first thing that came into your head?

It says:

(a) 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,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

Now let's shorten that to the relevant part of my question:

(a) 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, [...]
shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

This time think before replying.
 
If you were one of those pedantic morons who think the letter of the law is holy then yes. You bought stolen property (even though common sense would say since it was YOUR property it's fine) but there are idiots that would prosecute you because "you broke the law and everyone has to be held accountable" or some other such nonsense.

Precisely. Question is, are the police being, using your terminology here, pedantic morons.
 
:rolleyes: We seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding. You say that under California law "it was insufficient to determine the rightful owner" and somehow assert that Gizmodo knew this. First of all, I don't think EITHER of us knows what is considered "sufficient", and furthermore, how you could possibly prove that Gizmodo knew that this duty was not performed.

Ok, you keep selectively reading my posts...

Again, I'll connect the dots for you....

I as well as others have already pointed out what is sufficient under the law to find the rightful owner; the finder took no such actions. Giz stated in detail what the finder did to locate the owner, they even stated they thought it was sufficient, yet it was not. By the posts on Giz I can ascertain that either a) they are reading from the same "law" book as you or b) they are simply a bunch of idiots.

Either way I'm positive that the police/DA have enough evidence to prosecute Giz if they so chose. We don't know if Giz or the finder are the ultimate targets of this investigation.
 
Amen. I was mostly amused by the situation until they threw the engineer under the bus. Completely unnecessary and cruel. Payback time.

Absolutely. I was arguing with a classmate today that said a friend of his works with or worked with Gray Powell, and said friend told my classmate that Gray was either fired or demoted and moved to another team. Regardless of what happened, neither outcome would be better than simply remaining as you were before this whole fiasco. I do think Apple will milk the guilt out of Gray Powell in the long run; taking Gizmodo to court shows how serious Apple is about the matter. There's no way Gray Powell would be let off the hook, merely delayed in his..."sentencing."

I honestly want to know directly from Jason Chen why it was appropriate to reveal Gray Powell's identity, his picture and Facebook profile.

Has Chen or Gizmodo commented on this? I want to know.

Saying, "Oh, but his ID would have been revealed eventually," whether valid or not, is a poor argument.

I can't murder someone and argue in court: "Oh, but they would've died eventually, you know, from natural causes!"
 
True. The theft and trade secret cases go together though. Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.

In other words, its pretty much a given that the original finder didn't do due diligence in returning the phone. Raiding Chen's apartment is to secure corroborating evidence that Chen knew that the item was stolen because Gizmodo posting that they knew it was a prototype and could have been stolen might not be enough. (Do any Lawyers on here know?)

I'm curious to see if the limit of scope of this case is just Chen. The police may raid more Gizmodo employees or their offices if they can prove that multiple employees knew they were breaking trade secret law. "Gawker start your paper shredders!"

http://thetradesecretsblog.wordpres...§§-3426-et-seq-the-uniform-trade-secrets-act/

I agree and thank you for clarifying it and for the link...i am most interested in how the Trade Secrets part of this plays out..
 
The phone was returned to Apple. Done deal. They got their property back. As far as we know, nobody broke in to Apple headquarters and stole the phone. It was lost, found by a guy, guy gives it to Gizmodo (for a fee), Gizmodo gets a huge scoop, phone goes back to Apple. If Apple wants to prosecute, do it in a civil court. Don't wast taxpayer dollars by getting a police task force involved and raiding some guys home! Seriously.

"No, officer, I didn't sell the phone. I gave it to Gizmodo ... for a fee. It's totally different than selling it. I only asked for a fee for my trouble in holding onto it for a few days, and making half-hearted attempts to give it back to Apple. I mean, I don't exactly remember if I mentioned it was a prototype, or that the owner was an Apple employee. It might have slipped my mind. But anyway, I figured Gizmodo would be the best people to se... I mean, give it to, since they know a lot about Apple and could probably get it back to the owner. Eventually."

No harm no foul, right? Except for Gizmodo publicly humiliating an Apple employee and laughing in the face of Apple itself by demanding a written request before they would return the device.

Who cares if anyone broke into headquarters and stole something, or found it alone on the park bench? There's right and there's wrong, and the more I hear people justify and make excuses for Gizmodo and the thief, the more my opinion of the society in which I live slides downhill. I know countless honest and upright people, and it's a crying shame one of them didn't find the phone, since they would have done the right thing, and this whole thing would have blown over without a whisper to the outside world. (sigh...)
 
Why are so many people commenting on this without being informed? So many people are claiming that the guy who found the iPhone didn't make an attempt at returning it to Apple, but Gizmodo ran an article which clearly stated that the finder called Apple to try to do exactly that. He wasn't successful, but he made a clear effort. Basically, he tried returning it to Apple, but the they didn't want it.
 
Ok, you keep selectively reading my posts...

Again, I'll connect the dots for you....

I as well as others have already pointed out what is sufficient under the law to find the rightful owner; the finder took no such actions. Giz stated in detail what the finder did to locate the owner, they even stated they thought it was sufficient, yet it was not. By the posts on Giz I can ascertain that either a) they are reading from the same "law" book as you or b) they are simply a bunch of idiots.

Either way I'm positive that the police/DA have enough evidence to prosecute Giz if they so chose. We don't know if Giz or the finder are the ultimate targets of this investigation.
Perhaps I missed it, but I saw mainly speculation as to what is considered sufficient by the law. Can you show me the actual legal text where this is defined? Not some forum poster's interpretation, but actual text.

edit: If Gizmodo knew what effort was taken by the guy, and this was in fact legally defined as not enough, then they may be trouble. If it was NOT clearly defined, it's hard to argue that they knew due diligence was not carried out.
 
.

Now let's shorten that to the relevant part of my question:

(a) 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, [...]
shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

This time think before replying.

Well, you wouldn't be "buying" your property since you already had title to it. I'm not an expert on this area of the law, but it seems unlikely that "receives" includes getting your own property back, as that would even include the police returning your property, etc.
 
Precisely. Question is, are the police being, using your terminology here, pedantic morons.

The DA's office likely influenced by a request from Apple are using their discretion to create an investigation. They will then use their discretion based on findings to file or not file charges...of course Apple wants charges filed so I would look for that to happen.

The DA is not a pedantic morons because they are fully aware of the latitude they have to push or not push based on wordings. The pedantic morons as the people posting here that say it's WRONG because if some wording. Like the "receiving stolen property" comment. Some people would have you charged for buying back your own property because by the letter of the law it was "stolen"...nevermind the common sense that it was yours to begin with. People are charged all the time with such things even thought any reasonable person would say it's not fair or right.
 
Well, you wouldn't be "buying" your property since you already had title to it. I'm not an expert on this area of the law, but it seems unlikely that "receives" includes getting your own property back, as that would even include the police returning your property, etc.

I see but what if its my sister who receives it on my behalf, or my best friend, or a good samaritan? How can we non-arbitrarily run the distinction. You obviously see my drift, and since you admit you don't know the details of this situation I won't press further. Thanks for the response though; it was informative.
 
Haha.. This keeps getting better and better..

Don't you love government resources being spent on these "violent criminals"?

You bet I do. Nothing encourages compliance with the law better than footage of people in orange jumpsuits being led away in handcuffs. Apparently the tech community includes a disturbing number of people in need of a civics lesson, and publicizing the prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of malefactors is the best way of delivering it.
 
Perhaps I missed it, but I saw mainly speculation as to what is considered sufficient by the law. Can you show me the actual legal text where this is defined? Not some forum poster's interpretation, but actual text.

edit: If Gizmodo knew what effort was taken by the guy, and this was in fact legally defined as not enough, then they may be trouble. If it was NOT clearly defined, it's hard to argue that they knew due diligence was not carried out.

No, you're just to lazy to search so you don't learn the truth.

Well here you go:

California’s civil code, section 2080.1:

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.
 
"No, officer, I didn't sell the phone. I gave it to Gizmodo ... for a fee. It's totally different than selling it. I only asked for a fee for my trouble in holding onto it for a few days, and making half-hearted attempts to give it back to Apple. I mean, I don't exactly remember if I mentioned it was a prototype, or that the owner was an Apple employee. It might have slipped my mind. But anyway, I figured Gizmodo would be the best people to se... I mean, give it to, since they know a lot about Apple and could probably get it back to the owner. Eventually."

No harm no foul, right? Except for Gizmodo publicly humiliating an Apple employee and laughing in the face of Apple itself by demanding a written request before they would return the device.

Who cares if anyone broke into headquarters and stole something, or found it alone on the park bench? There's right and there's wrong, and the more I hear people justify and make excuses for Gizmodo and the thief, the more my opinion of the society in which I live slides downhill. I know countless honest and upright people, and it's a crying shame one of them didn't find the phone, since they would have done the right thing, and this whole thing would have blown over without a whisper to the outside world. (sigh...)

No one cares. This is not related to the issue at hand.
 
The DA's office likely influenced by a request from Apple are using their discretion to create an investigation. They will then use their discretion based on findings to file or not file charges...of course Apple wants charges filed so I would look for that to happen.

The DA is not a pedantic morons because they are fully aware of the latitude they have to push or not push based on wordings. The pedantic morons as the people posting here that say it's WRONG because if some wording. Like the "receiving stolen property" comment. Some people would have you charged for buying back your own property because by the letter of the law it was "stolen"...nevermind the common sense that it was yours to begin with. People are charged all the time with such things even thought any reasonable person would say it's not fair or right.

Well said. Let's just hope the DA is reasonable with Chen and those Gizmodo folks.
 
I see but what if its my sister who receives it on my behalf, or my best friend, or a good samaritan? How can we non-arbitrarily run the distinction. You obviously see my drift, and since you admit you don't know the details of this situation I won't press further. Thanks for the response though; it was informative.

If someone is acting as your agent, then the same rules would apply as would apply to you. But your friend deciding on his own to pay the money without your ok would not likely be your agent.

On the other hand, public policy might mean this law should be strictly applied, as written. It's a good idea to discourage people from paying the "ransom" to get their stuff back, and instead go to the police. I'm sure some of my colleagues no the topography of this law - although I practice in California, I am almost always dealing with Federal, not state, law.
 
We seem to be disagreeing on what constitutes knowledge of ownership. At what point do you think they "discovered the owner"?

I've already said it: When ~~they announced~~ that they believed it was a prototype, they had a duty to contact the owner or the police. It was THEIR DETERMINATION that sets the time limit because that's the very last possible moment when they could possibly have argued against mens rea.

And as others have said (and I've already said), I'll take it back further to the point of purchase. There's no way in which this is any different than someone buying a "lost item" from a fence. In fact it's even more damning, because the fact that they paid so much for it indicates that they: (1) hoped they knew the true owner, (2) hoped they would be able to keep the item until they had used it for their own benefit.
 
No, you're just to lazy to search so you don't learn the truth.

Well here you go:

California’s civil code, section 2080.1:

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

This is the most important thing the gizmodo apologists keep ignoring. They keep repeating "he called apple!" as if that was the beginning and end of his responsibility. The law states quite clearly if you can't return it, you don't just get to keep it for yourself or sell it. You turn it over to the police.
 
No, you're just to lazy to search so you don't learn the truth.

Well here you go:

California’s civil code, section 2080.1:

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

lol... what's with all the hositility? I don't see why you are so testy.

Anyways, that's very interesting, but I think it's hard to argue that Gizmodo made the leap from reasonable to unreasonable in terms of "reasonable time", as to qualify as theft. After all, they returned the phone as soon as it was asked for.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.