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
But these two are closely connected. Let's assume Apple doesn't want you to know what is in their current phone, and they don't want you to know what is in their next generation phone. But what's inside their current phone isn't a trade secret anymore, because any of the millions of people who bought one has the right to void their warranty, open their phone, and look inside. They have the right because they are in legal possession of the phone. With the next generation phone, the fact that it was stolen goods means in turn that nobody had the right to open it. You could only detect what's inside by breaking the law. Therefore, what's inside is still a trade secret and publishing is treated accordingly.
I would say that disclosing trade secrets is by far the worse problem for Gizmodo. If Mr. Powell had lost his phone from his pocket on a busy street, and a truck had driven over it, destroying it completely so that nobody could find out anymore what it was, then there would be very little damage to Apple. Same if you stole an Apple prototype from their offices and used it as your phone for the next three years, without showing it to anyone and without realising it was a prototype. It was not the theft that damaged Apple, but the reporting about it. BUT the theft is what makes the reporting illegal, so it is still important.
If this leads to charges against Gizmodo, it all boils down to Gizmodo PAYING for a stolen device. It's the exchange of money to a thief that carried them over the line.
They knowingly PURCHASED stolen goods. If they had paid to look at the device, or paid to 'rent' the device and returned it to the source, the charges likely wouldn't be prosecutable. BUYING stolen property is bad. Returning it to the proper owner is a good thing, but to then, after 'buying it', you take it apart and publish all of the details you have found, that act one would think would cancel out the 'good will' created by returning the thing to Apple.
It has a lot to do with 'intent' and who 'controlled' it. If they 'paid for access' to the device, and then published the details, the control didn't change. Many organizations will pay for access to stuff like home grown porno tapes (Hilton, Anderson, etc) rather than 'purchase' them.
If Apple chooses to sue, they have every right. If the prosecutor continues with charges, they are in the right too. It's hard for Gizmodo to somehow prove that by 'purchasing' the device, they weren't doing it with 'intent' and 'foresight'. They knowingly purchased 'stolen' property. Their only possible avenue of arguing their way out is by somehow convincing a judge that the device, being 'found' in a bar, wasn't 'stolen' at all. It would likely involve some fancy footwork, but...
They knowingly PURCHASED stolen goods. If they had paid to look at the device, or paid to 'rent' the device and returned it to the source, the charges likely wouldn't be prosecutable. BUYING stolen property is bad. Returning it to the proper owner is a good thing, but to then, after 'buying it', you take it apart and publish all of the details you have found, that act one would think would cancel out the 'good will' created by returning the thing to Apple.
It has a lot to do with 'intent' and who 'controlled' it. If they 'paid for access' to the device, and then published the details, the control didn't change. Many organizations will pay for access to stuff like home grown porno tapes (Hilton, Anderson, etc) rather than 'purchase' them.
If Apple chooses to sue, they have every right. If the prosecutor continues with charges, they are in the right too. It's hard for Gizmodo to somehow prove that by 'purchasing' the device, they weren't doing it with 'intent' and 'foresight'. They knowingly purchased 'stolen' property. Their only possible avenue of arguing their way out is by somehow convincing a judge that the device, being 'found' in a bar, wasn't 'stolen' at all. It would likely involve some fancy footwork, but...
Essentially. The judge differed the motion to the judge that issued the warrant - which he is unlikely to overturn his own decision.
Jason Chen hasn't posted to his Twitter page since April 23:
http://twitter.com/diskopo
It must suck to have all of your computer gear seized. He's probably quiet "on the advice of his attorney".
Mark
http://twitter.com/diskopo
It must suck to have all of your computer gear seized. He's probably quiet "on the advice of his attorney".
Mark
It appears Jason needs a new avatar graphic. Rather than stuffing a Wii down his pants, it will be an iPhone prototype. While wearing handcuffs.
It appears Jason needs a new avatar graphic. Rather than stuffing a Wii down his pants, it will be an iPhone prototype. While wearing handcuffs.
...except it won't be Jason stuffing it down his pants, it'll be a big guy called Bubba.
BTW, here are some of his final desperate Tweets:
Heh, you mean it will be a big guy called Bubba stuffing Jason down his pants.
LOL!
Interesting isn't it? If anyone can be a journalist with a blog, the rights of the free press could be harmed or diminished by amateurs like Jason Chen who do not appear to follow the same code of ethics journalists from more established organizations follow. It also appears that criminal acts can cause the "protections" to not apply under federal law and a state case involving Gawker could remove those protections from state law when a crime is committed by the journalist.
I understand why actual journalists have certain protections when investigating cases of corruption and public safety issues but if anyone can be a journalist, how can laws be properly enforced if any citizen with a blog can use it as a shield?
You're kidding aren't you
? The unethical practice of chequebook journalism has been around for as long as journalism itself and isn't confined to smaller/"less established" outfits whatsoever. "Journalist ethics" is as close to an oxymoron as one can get - especially when talking about the mass media.I remember diskopo posting on a site back in 2006 as fan of Apple technology on a site called "hardware geeks". Now he thinks that he's a journalist.
No, I'm not kidding. This was not just a case of chequebook journalism where they "pay" for information or a video tape. They went as far as to knowingly purchase stolen property which they believed to be a prototype containing trade secrets and then reporting on those trade secrets for profit.You're kidding aren't you
There was no public need to know about the prototype.
I personally would not mind seeing journalistic protections being removed from not only bloggers but also tabloids at least in the case when a crime is committed to obtain the information and there is no need for the public to know. There was no scandal or coverup but rather trade secrets of a publicly traded company.
Gawker knowingly caused irreparable harm to Apple and its shareholders.
There's no "need" for a public to know a great many things that are published under the guise of "journalism". Stolen photos, videos, information etc which in many cases are paid good money for. As much as you want to pretend there's a gulf between what gizmodo did what more "established" journalist sources do, it's patently not the case. The driver for all journalism is page hits which in turn is income. Ethics barely gets a look in.
As for your line of "trade secrets" reasoning, don't leave them at a bar/don't take them out in public. It's apple's stupidity that it was out in public in the first place and it was left behind. They're a starring partner in this episode.
How so? What are the damages?
Doesn't matter. (And, of course, trade secret protection easily applies to "in the field" testing).
You don't know the law, do you?
Exact damages remains to be seen. But don't be as naive as you are in your legal knowledge as to believe that there couldn't possibly be any; depending on how early in the design process this prototype was derived, there are several ways this could help competitors.
Taking them to a bar for a drink is field testing?
I've not discussed the law or defended gizmodos actions here whatsoever. Just that apple are absolute morons for leaving a phone replete with trade secrets behind in a public bar. It's hilarious.
Yes exact damages remain to be seen. Again I made no legal arguments or claimed any legal knowledge. Just asked aristotle to outline the claim that "irreparable damage has been caused to apple and it's shareholders".
It was the employee's job to take the phone out and test it in the field. He was not violating any rules which is proven by the fact that he still has his job. The fact that a specially designed case was created by Apple (to make the prototype look like a regular iPhone 3GS) is additional proof that Apple WANTED the phone to be used in everyday, real world situations by their engineering team. It's how they make a better and more reliable product for their customers.
As for leaving it in a bar... ALL YOU HAVE IS THE WORD OF A THIEF THAT THAT IS HOW IT HAPPENED. The guy that left the bar with it that night is the only person that has given a story so far. It is entirely possible that the phone was lifted out of the Apple engineer's pocket without his knowledge. The engineer did file a stolen iPhone report with police, not a "lost" iPhone report.
It amazes me how many people read the supposed words of an admitted thief, published by the "National Enquirer" of the web, and instantly believe it all to be factual and accurate. In a court of law, the other side of the story will be told. And it will probably be a decidedly different story.
For me, the most interesting thing right now is how long it is taking for the DA and the court to decide what they are going to do with regard to Jason Chen's seized equipment. It's been more than two weeks now, and no word on arrests or on the disposition of Jason Chen's computers and records.
Does that 17 days bode well for Jason and Gizmodo? As in, if the DA had an ironclad case, wouldn't we have seen some arrests by now?
Or, does it bode badly for Jason and Gizmodo? Meaning, is the DA busy working a deal with the guy that stole the iPhone (and possibly other parties) to build a case to nail Jason and/or Gizmodo?
Is Jason Chen working a deal to nail someone that might have been giving the orders?
Will this all just go away with little more drama?
Or, will some folks be facing federal charges and possible prison sentences?
Mark
Income or persuasion, though I would like to think that there are still some journalists that write with the purpose of reporting news. Perhaps ethics is where we should start. As for me, I would just give the lost phone to the bartender and be done with it. Not everyone would agree, but to me, that would be ethical.
Has Hogan been charged with a crime or is he an alleged thief in caps lock?
I think you'll find the national enquirer website is the national equirer of the web.
This is the last thing that needs to happen if a "crime" has been found to be committed. The people involved are by no means a danger to the public and deserve incarceration.
My ethics would be to try and return it. But there's no way I'd hand it over to anyone else to do so. Especially not a bar keep. They get my name and number to give if someone comes asking if a phone has been handed in. If the caller can describe it it's theirs. Apart from that I'd try and use the contact numbers in the phone to find the owner.
This just in....
California prosecutors investigating Gizmodos purchase of a prototype iPhone have offered a new argument for keeping details of the probe a secret: Public disclosure could compromise the identity of an informer.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone-probe-informant/
So, apparently, the police and DA had an insider providing them with information on this entire situation. Could it be someone working at Gawker?
This story is far from over!
Mark
California prosecutors investigating Gizmodos purchase of a prototype iPhone have offered a new argument for keeping details of the probe a secret: Public disclosure could compromise the identity of an informer.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone-probe-informant/
So, apparently, the police and DA had an insider providing them with information on this entire situation. Could it be someone working at Gawker?
This story is far from over!
Mark
If you pick up something of significant value that doesn't belong to you, make little attempt to return it to the rightful owner, and then sell the item for $5,000 profit, you are a THIEF! And, as I said, for all we know, Hogan pulled it right out of the engineer's pocket. Hell, for all we know, Hogan wasn't even the guy that left the bar with it. It could have been someone else. All we have so far is Hogan's STORY of how it went down. You'll excuse me if I don't automatically believe the story of a someone of low moral character.
As for felony charges... That is EXACTLY what I think is being worked on these last few weeks. I'm betting that federal prosecutors have already been brought into the loop and that arrests will happen sooner rather than later.
Mark