Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
While taking pictures of the outside of the phone may be one thing, but what about the guts of the phone? Since the product hasn't been released yet to the public, are the guts, which were photographed and shown to the public, covered by copyright laws and such?

.

I'm not sure of copywright laws, though it definitely would fall under Trade Secrets which is a more complex and punishable offence.
 
Well, they couldn't be sure if it was the real deal UNTIL they opened it really, since Apple is retarded and do not mark them as prototypes.

I think they were pretty smart, logically they had to do what they did to find out for sure if it was real.

Why? It wasn't theirs, and they had no right to it since they didn't own it. Whether it is a real diamond engagement ring or a CZ, your legal duty is the same--you can do nothing with it other than to try to get it back to its owner. You can turn it in to the police, of course, and if you follow the rules you may end up its owner yourself if the owner doesn't claim it. But whether that diamond is real or not, or that apparent iPhone is, is absolutely irrelevant to anyone committed to obeying the law.

Of course, if you don't want to pay $5,000 to a thief if the stolen property he is offering to you unless you are convinced it is the "real deal", then I suppose you would need to find out somehow. That logically would indeed make you pretty smart with the only minor flaw in your clever plan being that one night you'll arrive home to find a welcoming party at your doorstep.
 
This is why I hate cops. Was it really necessary to break down the door? The guy's not an accused murderer or rapist, it's a basically an Intellectual Property case for God's sake. The cops should have asked him to come down and open the door. What's he going to do, rush the cordon the cops have around the house? Breaking down the door was pure intimidation and thuggery: "we're cops, we're badass, don't mess with us!"
 
This is why I hate cops. Was it really necessary to break down the door? The guy's not an accused murderer or rapist, it's a basically an Intellectual Property case for God's sake. The cops should have asked him to come down and open the door. What's he going to do, rush the cordon the cops have around the house? Breaking down the door was pure intimidation and thuggery: "we're cops, we're badass, don't mess with us!"

You have to understand how search warrants work. If a search warrant is signed by a judge, it gives law enforcement full right to enter the location(s) listed on the warrant and seize property related to the warrant.

When a search warrant is served, the police knock on the door and announce themselves once. If no response is heard, the police enter the premises to secure said evidence. This is how it works, search warrants in general are upheld by all levels of our court system.

He wasn't home so there was no one to ask to "come down and open the door." Maybe you should get off of your cops are bad soap box...
 
*facepalm*

AGAIN, show me one shred of evidence that Gizmodo admitted it was STOLEN, in their own words.
Jason chen said in his own words
Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it. Now that we definitely know it’s not some knockoff, and it really is Apple’s, I’m happy to see it returned to its rightful owner.

P.S. I hope you take it easy on the kid who lost it. I don’t think he loves anything more than Apple except, well, beer.

There you go he admits it "was stolen" and then the kicker "when we bought it". So not only admits its stolen but that they "bought it". The claim that they didn't know it was stolen at the time because they weren't sure it was Apple's is pure bull. The seller told them it was not his thats all that needs to be said.
 
Apple definitely does not have a copyright to the photos. Gizmodo, weirdly enough, does.

Yes but there are laws in California protecting companies from having their trade secrets disclosed without their expressed written permission if they can prove that trade secrets were obtained through theft, espionage or other nefarious means...
 
Yes but there are laws in California protecting companies from having their trade secrets disclosed without their expressed written permission if they can prove that trade secrets were obtained through theft, espionage or other nefarious means...

Absolutely true. Also federal laws in Title 18.

True, but wouldn't their copywright be null-in-void should the courts decide that the photos were acquire illegally?

No. But all the copyright does is (theoretically) prevent others from republishing those specific photos.
 
Jason chen said in his own words


There you go he admits it "was stolen" and then the kicker "when we bought it". So not only admits its stolen but that they "bought it". The claim that they didn't know it was stolen at the time because they weren't sure it was Apple's is pure bull. The seller told them it was not his thats all that needs to be said.

Right, but what's important is whether they knew it was stolen WHEN they bought it. They claim they didn't. That's the key.

Just because the seller says it's "not his" doesn't mean he stole it. Obviously he did, but this statement alone isn't enough for Gizmodo to have assumed it was stolen.
 
Right, but what's important is whether they knew it was stolen WHEN they bought it. They claim they didn't. That's the key.

Just because the seller says it's "not his" doesn't mean he stole it.

But it's not a believable claim. And constructive knowledge is good enough. The law doesn't require that Gizmodo obtain a confession from the seller.
 
Under California law, you can also knowingly purchase a stolen good IF your intent for purchasing it, is to return it to its rightful owner.

If you knew before purchase that it is illegal, but only decided after the purchase that you wished to return it to the owner, it's illegal.

I think Gizmodo is making the claim that they purchased it with the intention that if it turned out to be an authentic Apple prototype, that they were going to return it immediately. It's a fairly fine line, but one that I think ultimately can be supported...

Yeah, that's the claim they're making. Had their actions been consistent with that claim they would probably be OK. Unfortunately, instead of returning the phone they proceeded to disassemble it and turn it into a very profitable scoop. With an obvious financial motive and actions consistent with an intent to profit from acquiring the phone, it's going to be nearly impossible to convince a jury that their only interest was in returning the phone to its rightful owner.

If they wanted to return it they could have done so easily. They actually had more options to return the phone than the original finder/thief did. In addition to contacting the bar where it was "lost", handing it over to the police or contacting Gray Powell directly, they could have talked to one of their contacts at Apple and asked if they were missing a phone. To be clear, they could have done these things before disassembling the phone and publishing their story. It's nice that they gave the parts back to Apple after they were done, but that hardly constitutes a compelling defense.

What they should argue is this:

"Your Honor, if you read Gizmodo you will see that half of our articles about Apple are highly flattering and that many members of our staff own and enjoy Apple products. So when we were presented with the opportunity to purchase this prototype phone, our first instinct was of course to return it to the company we love and praise on a regular basis.

"After the purchase, however, we remembered that the other half of our articles portray Apple as an evil empire headed by a fanatical lunatic who uses his Gestapo-like secret police to crush opposition and engender fear in the hearts of his defenseless, peasant-like employees. So we felt it was incumbent upon us to disassemble this device to search for evidence of mind controlling or other nefarious technology, technology that might spread Apple's evil ways beyond the confines of Cupertino and threaten the freedom of peace-loving people the world over and possibly even the Swiss, who would of course be completely defenseless in the face of Apple-branded evil.

"In closing, it is clear that at all times during this incident we were carrying out our duties as good citizens and responsible journalists, tactfully alternating between the two. We were a 'good citizen' for the first few hours, definitely including the time of purchase, then 'journalist' for a week or two, then 'citizen' again at the end when we gave the remains of the phone back to Apple, having determined that it posed no threat to humanity."
 
Well, they couldn't be sure if it was the real deal UNTIL they opened it really, since Apple is retarded and do not mark them as prototypes.

Actually anybody in the industry would have recognized the serial tags on the case as being and apple test unit. Hell I would. Thats why i originally doubted the first photos no ID tags. but those were on the case.
 
Regardless of whether you think Gizmodo acted illegally or not, the question begs...

Why is California bankrupt again?

BINGO!​

We have a winner.

And one wonders, has the iPhone made Commissioner Gordon's BATPHONE outdated now? :D

Steve Jobs seems to have his own private iPhone police force! HAHA!

If this story had not already made Apple the laughingstock of Leno & Letterman (which it already has), you can now add the entire world to the joke!

It's just amazing that the world is still talking about this ONE phone!

And it's not even going to hurt Apple as far as I can see.
It's not even a revolutionary product!

Breaking down a person's door to investigate a freaking phone theft???

HAHA!​

Apple is going to be the laughingstock on this one in the court of public opinion regardless of what else happens in the real court.

How does this beg the question about California's bankruptcy?

Are you suggesting that California police investigating a possible crime is making California bankrupt? So California should not investigate possible crimes?

No, of course not. You are simply suggesting that this crime is not reasonable. Why? Is it because it is related to Apple? How is that pertinent to the law? It's not, nor should it be. Put the blindfold back on and let the balance swing -- there is due process.

By the way, Leno and Letterman are comedians.
 
cmon now, we all know that isn't even remotely what happened, the phone was lost, and tried to be returned for weeks. all gizmodo did was buy a phone that apple seemed to not want, and report it, THEN returned it promptly upon apple changing it's mind and wanting it back.

How do you know if Apple didn't want it... remember, we a still only going on the Gizmodo-spun info. Apple probably wanted it, but didn't know who had it. It's only after Gizmodo started gloating did the Wheels of Justice know where to extend the Long Arm of the Law towards! ;)
 
But it's not a believable claim. And constructive knowledge is good enough. The law doesn't require that Gizmodo obtain a confession from the seller.

I'm just not sure how you prove that it wasn't a believable claim. Did Gizmodo probably not look into it very much intentionally? Yes. Can you prove this in court? I don't know.
 
you think the state read gizmodo and went: OK BOYS GATHER UP THE TROOPS, THIS HACKER LEAKED THE IPHONE PROTOTYPE TO THE PUBLIC, LETS GO GET THEM. this didn't happen without apples legal team pulling strings, and the search according to what i've read from the actual FACTUAL warrant, was completely illegal.

You mean what you read written by the Chief Operating Officer of the company being accused of a crime, and upon whose employee the search warrant was served--that FACTUAL warrant?

Had Gizmodo learned secrets about the 4G iPhone legally it was free to publish them all day long, and neither Apple nor anyone else could have done a thing about it. Gizmodo is being investigated in connection with the commission of the crime of receiving stolen property, and, I suspect for other crimes connected with the misappropriation of the found iPhone.

And Apple's legal team hardly needs to exert influence with the District Attorney--although they have every right to file a complaint--before she and the Sheriff's Department are motivated to prosecute a crime when all the evidence for its commission have been ballyhooed on Gizmodo's own website.
 
Yeah, that's the claim they're making. Had their actions been consistent with that claim they would probably be OK. Unfortunately, instead of returning the phone they proceeded to disassemble it and turn it into a very profitable scoop. With an obvious financial motive and actions consistent with an intent to profit from acquiring the phone, it's going to be nearly impossible to convince a jury that their only interest was in returning the phone to its rightful owner.

If they wanted to return it they could have done so easily. They actually had more options to return the phone than the original finder/thief did. In addition to contacting the bar where it was "lost", handing it over to the police or contacting Gray Powell directly, they could have talked to one of their contacts at Apple and asked if they were missing a phone. To be clear, they could have done these things before disassembling the phone and publishing their story. It's nice that they gave the parts back to Apple after they were done, but that hardly constitutes a compelling defense.

What they should argue is this:

"Your Honor, if you read Gizmodo you will see that half of our articles about Apple are highly flattering and that many members of our staff own and enjoy Apple products. So when we were presented with the opportunity to purchase this prototype phone, our first instinct was of course to return it to the company we love and praise on a regular basis.

"After the purchase, however, we remembered that the other half of our articles portray Apple as an evil empire headed by a fanatical lunatic who uses his Gestapo-like secret police to crush opposition and engender fear in the hearts of his defenseless, peasant-like employees. So we felt it was incumbent upon us to disassemble this device to search for any evidence of further evil emanating from Apple, evil that might reach beyond the confines of Cupertino and endanger peace-loving people the world over and possibly even the Swiss, who of course would be completely defenseless in the face of Apple-branded evil.

"In closing, it is clear that at all times during this incident we were carrying out our duties as good citizens and responsible journalists, tactfully alternating between the two. We were a 'good citizen' for the first few hours, definitely including the time of purchase, then 'journalist' for a week or two, then 'citizen' again at the end when we gave the remains of the phone back to Apple, having determined that it posed no threat to humanity."

I think you and Babblefish nailed it. They're walking a very fine line, will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Just because the seller says it's "not his" doesn't mean he stole it.

Actually it means exactly that. Even if he had "found" the device(he didn't) and was in legal possession of it offering it for sale an item that isn't yours is defined as "intent to permanently deprive the owner of there rights to the device" at that point that is theft. Once he offered to sell it it was by all standards stolen.
 
Right, but what's important is whether they knew it was stolen WHEN they bought it. They claim they didn't. That's the key.

Just because the seller says it's "not his" doesn't mean he stole it.

Yup, but there could be reasonable suspicion for a warrant...

The real questions in my mind are:

1. Whether bloggers count as a protected class (journalists). I don't think bloggers are explicitly listed under the law.

2. Whether the receipt of a prototype phone, stolen or not, would be protected under the Privacy Protection Act.

On one hand, if Chen is being investigated then it would appear that the police were fine in getting a warrant rather than a subpoena. On the other hand, if the warrant was issued to prove the receipt of stolen goods, then the blog / Chen could be protected.
 
But it's not a believable claim. And constructive knowledge is good enough. The law doesn't require that Gizmodo obtain a confession from the seller.

I've tried to explain to him over the last 10 pages and he never seems to grasp that. I've got no real problem with the kid, he just seems to think that if you didn't know something was illegal, you're immune from prosecution - which is not the case in the real world.
 
I'm just not sure how you prove that it wasn't a believable claim. Did Gizmodo probably not look into it very much intentionally? Yes. Can you prove this in court? I don't know.

You can never prove what someone is thinking. You can only test against what a reasonable person might think.
 
I've tried to explain to him over the last 10 pages and he never seems to grasp that. I've got no real problem with the kid, he just seems to think that if you didn't know something was illegal, you're immune from prosecution - which is not the case in the real world.

If you don't know the LAW you're not immune. Not knowing an item is stolen at the time of purchase is completely different.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.