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

[MacToddB]

Please quote the exact page, paragraph number and line reference in the affidavit.

There aren't specific page numbers, as several documents are included but it's the 12th page in the PDF, in the middle under FACTS. Look for 'huge', 'invaluable' etc.

http://www.eff.org/files/gizmodoaffidavit.pdf

I hope you will forgive the obviously transposed letters. Still getting the hang of the iPad.

 

[ct2k7]

There aren't specific page numbers, as several documents are included but it's the 12th page in the PDF, in the middle under FACTS.

http://www.eff.org/files/gizmodoaffidavit.pdf

I have read this many times. I will quote what it says:

Page 11 Para 7

The above Apple representatives told me that on or about 3/25/2010, Apple employee Rober Gray Powell (known as Gray Powell) lost a prototype iPhone 4G cellular device while he was at the Gourmet Haus Staudt restaurant located at 2615 Broadway in Redwood City, San Mateo County, CA. At the time the phone was lost, it possessed a case that was intended to make it look like an Apple iPhone 3GS. At the time of the theft, the 3GS was a consumer product that was being sold by Apple at retail stores, unlike the unreleased prototype 4G iPhone which is a trade secret of Apple.

Page 16 Para 1

Continuing on 4/21/2010, I spoke with Witness/Victim Robert "Gray" Powell via telephone. He told me that on 3/25/2010, he left work at approximately 2030 hours and went home. He picked up his uncle (name unknown) and went to the Gourmet House Staudt located at 2615 Broadway in Redwood City, CA. Powell remained at the restaurant for approximately 2 hours until closing time at approximately 2300 hours.

Page 11 Para 2

Powell said he sat at the bar with his uncle. He said the last memory he had of the prototype phone was placing it in his bag, which he then put on the floor by his feet. Powell said that his bag was knocked over at one point in time was it was possible the prototype iPhone fell out of the bag and onto the floor.

Page 11 Para 3

I asked if Powell if it was possible that someone stole the prototype iPhone from his bag. He said he did leave his bag with his uncle at one point during the evening when he went to the bathroom, although unlikely, that someone removed the prototype iPhone from his bag.

Powell said he left the restaurant when the restaurant started to close and believes the finder of the prototype iPhone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.

I haven't taken the liberty to write the whole document out, but from my reading, there is no indication at all that he was in a state of inebriation.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I hope Jason Chen and Gizmodo come out of this okay. They did nothing wrong.

 

[ct2k7]

I hope Jason Chen and Gizmodo come out of this okay. They did nothing wrong.

I believe it was felony.

 

[MacToddB]

I haven't taken the liberty to write the whole document out, but from my reading, there is no indication at all that he was in a state of inebriation.

If you had read the content of my post instead of pointing out typos, my reference to the affidavit was the word huge, to describe the value of the loss.

If one drink is too much to remember you are 'field testing' a top secret, invaluable prototype, then one drink is too many... Inebriated or not.

I hope Jason Chen and Gizmodo come out of this okay. They did nothing wrong.

I don't wish any harm and I read gizmodo frequently, but the new details in the affidavit are very damaging.

http://www.eff.org/files/gizmodoaffidavit.pdf

 

[ct2k7]

If you had read the content of my post instead of pointing out typos, my reference to the affidavit was the word huge, to describe the value of the loss.

If one drink is too much to remember you are 'field testing' a top secret, invaluable prototype, then one drink is too many... Inebriated or not.

I quoted your post as when I made my post. Having seen your changes, I accept your apology to still assimilating the means of typing on the iPad.

The document doesn't state that he drank anything at all. Though unlikely, it is possible. What we see here is negligence, but not gross negligence.

 

[tingly]

The degree of negligence will only come into play if Apple gives him consequences (taking him off the field test list, docking pay, demotion) or sues him. I'll take a shot that the latter won't happen and the former will likely be kept private for years.

 

[MacToddB]

I quoted your post as when I made my post. Having seen your changes, I accept your apology to still assimilating the means of typing on the iPad.

The document doesn't state that he drank anything at all. Though unlikely, it is possible. What we see here is negligence, but not gross negligence.

As documented elsewhere, on his Facebook page, while enjoying his beer, he typed the last thing in his iPhone “I underestimated how good German beer is,”

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I don't wish any harm and I read gizmodo frequently, but the new details in the affidavit are very damaging.

http://www.eff.org/files/gizmodoaffidavit.pdf

Affidavits always sound horribly damaging. It's up to a court to decide if the laws in question were broken.

Although the part where they took the phone apart and didn't get it back together right sounds pretty bad. How the hell can breaking something worth $400 or more be a felony??? That's just stupid.

 

[tingly]

How the hell can breaking something worth $400 or more be a felony???

California rarely adjusts the figures. With the heat they're getting on overcrowding in their prisons, maybe it's time they do.

Grabbing the first figures I find from the first source I find, right or wrong
$250 Arizona
$400 California, Florida
$500 Colorado, Tennessee
$2,500 Indiana
$5,000 Nevada

They're lucky it happened in California. Penalties are much harsher in some states.

 

[ct2k7]

As documented elsewhere, on his Facebook page, while enjoying his beer, he typed the last thing in his iPhone “I underestimated how good German beer is,”

That doesn't say that he became drunk at all. Next, you're going to say that he still drank beer. My rebuttal would be that this doesn't fall out of scope of the contractual agreement, thus, although it may be a contributary factor, the fact that he drove home successfully, with no injury to anyone, and that his uncle allowed him to drive, shows that he was not even near the state of inebriation, and fully aware.

 

[MacToddB]

That doesn't say that he became drunk at all. Next, you're going to say that he still drank beer. My rebuttal would be that this doesn't fall out of scope of the contractual agreement, thus, although it may be a contributary factor, the fact that he drove home successfully, with no injury to anyone, and that his uncle allowed him to drive, shows that he was not even near the state of inebriation, and fully aware.

Let's review:

1) I said repeatedly, "drunk OR NOT" (the emphasis is new) and I NEVER said he was "inebriated"
2) You insisted he might not have had anything to drink ("though unlikely, it is possible"), despite his own Facebook posting being one of the earliest known elements of this case
3) Now that you know he admitted to drinking, you excuse it because he didn't injure someone.
4) Not every drunk driver injures someone
5) He was at the bar (they sat at stools, remember, the iPhone was left on a stool) for two hours, until closing (which makes it hard to believe the story of the "finder" but that's for another discussion.

I repeat, drunk OR NOT, he did indeed have at least one drink, on his birthday, at a German Beer Haus, and when he left, after two hours when they closed, he did not have the wherewithal to remember his top secret prototype wasn't with him. I don't care if it's drinking, incompetence, or a combination. It's unprofessional. Doesn't excuse the rest of the parties. Plenty of guilt to go around.

 

[MacToddB]

California rarely adjusts the figures. With the heat they're getting on overcrowding in their prisons, maybe it's time they do.

Grabbing the first figures I find from the first source I find, right or wrong
$250 Arizona
$400 California, Florida
$500 Colorado, Tennessee
$2,500 Indiana
$5,000 Nevada

They're lucky it happened in California. Penalties are much harsher in some states.

Doesn't really matter. The price was never $400.

Gizmodo paid between $5,000 and $8,500 for it. So both Gizmodo and the seller valued it much higher than $400.
Apple's lawyers say it is "invaluable" and the value would be "huge".
Besides, even a new iPhone 3GS is worth more, considering you can't buy it unsubsidized.

In fact, Steve Jobs should use this joke at his announcement. Suppose the price is $300. "That's a bargain, since some people have been known to pay $5,000 for one of these!"

 

[tingly]

Doesn't really matter. The price was never $400.

I was replying to a tangent about $400 being too low for a felony, nothing to do with the phone's value. IMnaiveO, $400 is too low and the iphone incident should be felonious.

 

[Simmerl]

I hope Jason Chen and Gizmodo come out of this okay. They did nothing wrong.

Well, except for buying a stolen prototype and destroying it.
And one might still argue they're intended to ruin Apple's iPhone business by posting specs of the 4G (so people stop buying the 3GS).

Let's review:

Is there a reason you keep attaching a photo of the poor guy to every second post you make? He didn't do anything to deserve that.

 

[tingly]

I think it's gonna be named more like 3Gc or 3Gx since it won't have 4G. I was wondering about the repeated pic posting, too. If nothing else, it's that much more to scroll thru.

 

[MacToddB]

Is there a reason you keep attaching a photo of the poor guy to every second post you make? He didn't do anything to deserve that.

People are STILL claiming it's possible he didn't have a drink. His own Facebook posting shows he did. Exhibit A.

Sorry for the redundancy, but I was trying to prove a point. Hmm, maybe that front facing camera is a bad idea

(I've edited the original so there's only one such photo... less scrolling.)

 

[Mark Booth]

He was drinking, period. Enough to the point that he forgot about his top secret prototype whose loss represents "huge" damages (Apple's words, in the affadivit).

I agree with ALL of that. I get it. Whether it's short term or long term field testing, that's all good and useful and appropriate. I agree. But you have to USE the thing you're testing. And using it requires knowing where it is. If he was field testing, he wasn't doing a good job.

I agree, that it's stolen property. Just to clarify, are you saying he was robbed/pickpocketed, i.e. stolen from him?

I'm sorry, but you DON'T get it. He put the iPhone in his bag and took the bag with him when he left. He had every reason to believe the iPhone was still in the bag when he left. There was ZERO carelessness on his part. The iPhone was either taken from his bag or it accidentally fell out of his bag. That is not negligence or carelessness.

He was using the phone as his everyday phone. That means you have it with you in case you RECEIVE a call. When a friend calls you, that is part of the testing. Hell, keeping it inside a bag might have even been part of the testing.

Powell stated that he left the bag with his uncle for a short while. Perhaps the iPhone was lifted from his bag at that time? Powell doesn't think so, but maybe it did happen. But REGARDLESS of how Brian Hogan ended up with the phone, the minute he made negligible attempts to return it and decided to sell it instead, Brian Hogan became a thief. Morally and legally. And, as his roommate's statement to police indicates, he KNEW what he had, was advised NOT to sell it, and he did it anyway. Thief, thief, thief!

Mark

 

[gwangung]

Let's review:

1) I said repeatedly, "drunk OR NOT" (the emphasis is new) and I NEVER said he was "inebriated"
2) You insisted he might not have had anything to drink ("though unlikely, it is possible"), despite his own Facebook posting being one of the earliest known elements of this case
3) Now that you know he admitted to drinking, you excuse it because he didn't injure someone.
4) Not every drunk driver injures someone
5) He was at the bar (they sat at stools, remember, the iPhone was left on a stool) for two hours, until closing (which makes it hard to believe the story of the "finder" but that's for another discussion.

I repeat, drunk OR NOT, he did indeed have at least one drink, on his birthday, at a German Beer Haus, and when he left, after two hours when they closed, he did not have the wherewithal to remember his top secret prototype wasn't with him. I don't care if it's drinking, incompetence, or a combination. It's unprofessional. Doesn't excuse the rest of the parties. Plenty of guilt to go around.

Point 5 actually contradicts your conclusion.

And this is negligence, at most (and not particularly egregious, since by all accounts he behaved to remedy this immediately). This cannot match, in any way, the culpability of the other actors.

 

[Mark Booth]

I repeat, drunk OR NOT, he did indeed have at least one drink, on his birthday, at a German Beer Haus, and when he left, after two hours when they closed, he did not have the wherewithal to remember his top secret prototype wasn't with him. I don't care if it's drinking, incompetence, or a combination. It's unprofessional. Doesn't excuse the rest of the parties. Plenty of guilt to go around.

I repeat, he had it in his bag and he took his bag with him when he left. How is that some form of carelessness on his part?

If he had left the bag behind when he left the bar, now that would be some carelessness. But he didn't leave it behind. He took the bag with him and thought the iPhone was in there since that's where he put it.

Sorry, but your attempts to paint Powell as guilty or unprofessional or careless are one gigantic FAIL!

Mark

 

[tingly]

It seems that he noticed that the bag was knocked over, but didn't look to see if anything fell out and slid. BTW, this made me question if the phone really was found on the barstool. Makes me think things like maybe the finder kicked it away, snuck it onto the stool after Powell left and then started asking around knowing that nobody would claim it.

 

[marksman]

Anyone think this was a publicity stunt for Gourmet Haus Staudt? They have received 10s of millions of dollars of publicity. They have received all kinds of publicity that a restaurant like that would not receive in a million years.

I think it would be funny if they put a sign out front that said "Not responsible for lost cell phones."

 

[marksman]

I hope Jason Chen and Gizmodo come out of this okay. They did nothing wrong.

A mindset like that is a precursor to becoming a lifelong criminal.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

A mindset like that is a precursor to becoming a lifelong criminal.

Way to extrapolate.

Who would have thought someone could be so rude on the internet?

 

[cmaier]

Way to extrapolate.

Who would have thought someone could be so rude on the internet?

It's actually not an extrapolation. One says, essentially: "I hope these people [who the facts now clearly prove committed multiple felonies, not to mention unethical acts] are not punished. My moral sense and understanding of the law informs me that they did nothing wrong." We don't have to extrapolate to understand the fact that anyone who thinks unethical acts are ethical and/or felonies are not illegal is thinking like a criminal.