Gizmodo editor's apt. searched and computers seized over iPhone prototype

[darkxshade]

Supposedly, Apple initially denied they lost a prototype phone AND Gizmodo wasn't sure if this iPhone was genuine. Keep in mind that the initial reaction by most Apple fans is that this was too ugly/blocky to be an Apple design as well. So it's not unreasonable for a "journalist"[quoted because I'm using this term lightly] to acquire this device and review it. It was not until Apple asked for it back when Gizmodo gave it back. Theft could be defined in many ways, this one falls under a gray area and is why so many here are debating this but I'm leaning more towards no[not stealing] because Gizmodo's intent was not to steal it, it was for journalism and again they gave it back when Apple came forward. Apple is as much or more to blame for this than Gizmodo, except Gizmodo isn't the one telling the teacher on them and getting them sent to the principals office.


I was just thinking... can you imagine the backlash if Jason committed suicide. 😛

 

[WelshBloke]

Supposedly, Apple initially denied they lost a prototype phone AND Gizmodo wasn't sure if this iPhone was genuine. Keep in mind that the initial reaction by most Apple fans is that this was too ugly/blocky to be an Apple design as well. So it's not unreasonable for a "journalist"[quoted because I'm using this term lightly] to acquire this device and review it. It was not until Apple asked for it back when Gizmodo gave it back. Theft could be defined in many ways, this one falls under a gray area and is why so many here are debating this but I'm leaning more towards no[not stealing] because Gizmodo's intent was not to steal it, it was for journalism and again they gave it back when Apple came forward. Apple is as much or more to blame for this than Gizmodo, except Gizmodo isn't the one telling the teacher on them and getting them sent to the principals office.


I was just thinking... can you imagine the backlash if Jason committed suicide. 😛

Its certainly not black and white, but Giz were willing to pay 5grand for it which suggests that they were confidant it wasnt a cheap Chinese knock off.

Personally I think Apple should let this one slide, Giz didnt show any of the juicy stuff and gave it back when asked. If they'd shown all the details and then sold the phone to the highest bidder then, yes, Apple would have more of a reason to be annoyed.

 

[darkxshade]

Its certainly not black and white, but Giz were willing to pay 5grand for it which suggests that they were confidant it wasnt a cheap Chinese knock off.

Granted they paid 5g for it but that's the price you pay for exclusivity. It's obviously clear already[based on the initial Engadget article] that this wasn't a regular 3g iPhone but as long as Apple denied they lost one, I believe it was fair game. You can't lose something and claim you didn't then when someone acquires it for journalism, ask for it back. Then when they gave it back, you call the police and have their house ransacked. I think that's a bit bullshit almost akin to entrapment.

 

[ProfJohn]

If he gets charged then he would be invalidated as a Journalist.

Being a journalist does not give you the right to commit a crime.

 

[dwell]

Being a journalist does not give you the right to commit a crime.

Writing a for a blog does not make you a journalist either.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Whether they released trade secrets or not is not really an issue, unless they have some sort of NDA they are in breach of. Its Apples responsibly to keep those things secret if they want them so.

The whole issue will come down to how the phone was obtained and the legal issues involved there.

Now if the phone was found to have been obtained illegally then, yes, they are going to be in deep shit, but otherwise they have no responsibility to keep Apples secrets.

To add to your post, if it's decided by the courts that:

1: the search warrant was legal, thus ruling Chen is not a reporter

and

2: the phone was stolen at the time of purchase

and

3: that Apple did NOT refuse to admit they had lost a prototype, or the guy who sold it/Gizmodo did not make a reasonable attempt to return the device prior to publishing the articles

then Chen is in trouble. I do not believe that Gizmodo/Gawker will be held liable for damages, unless it was one of Chen's higher ups that actually told them to buy it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Anyone defending Giz or Jason is an idiot, plain and simple.

Do you really think he paid $5000 for the phone without being certain that it really was a 4g iPhone? If this guy is as much of an apple fanboy as everyone claims then I bet he knew exactly what the writing on the back of the phone meant, specifically the DVT designation.

The second he determined that it was in fact a 4g phone he should have came to the realization that he does not have the right to posses the phone nor did the person who sold it to him have the right to sell him the phone.

Finally, and most importantly, claiming to be a journalist does not shield him from prosecution for buying stolen property. And of course there is always the possibility that the police are going after the person he bought it from and might not even charge Jason with a crime.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Being a journalist does not give you the right to commit a crime.

It hasn't been determined if a crime has been committed yet. It's currently under investigation.

Writing a for a blog does not make you a journalist either.

That's up to the courts to determine what a "journalist" is defined as. If a journalist is somebody who is paid to report on (whatever), then he fits that definition. It just depends on the courts view of what a "journalist" is legally defined as.

 

[darkxshade]

If this guy is as much of an apple fanboy as everyone claims then I bet he knew exactly what the writing on the back of the phone meant, specifically the DVT designation.

But what do you believe if your hunch tells you it is an Apple product while Apple says it isn't?

The second he determined that it was in fact a 4g phone he should have came to the realization that he does not have the right to posses the phone nor did the person who sold it to him have the right to sell him the phone.

He determined it was in fact a 4g phone after he acquired it and opened it up for review, it's nothing but speculation before it since Apple denied everything. This is also why it's not black and white.

 

[Deeko]

I don't know why people find it so difficult to understand that this is a crime.

Gizmodo did not purchase this phone just so they could give it back to Apple. There was no benevolent agenda like that here. They purchase something that they had a good idea was lost/stolen. Then, after spending a week destroying it and deciding it is indeed authentic, its not like they just turned it in. They published a whole series of stories on it, with the intent of getting themselves lots of clicks and publicity. They returned it to Apple after Apple wrote them a letter saying basically 'you have our property. give it back.' They fact that they complied does not make the aforementioned crimes less severe.

(PS - even though the prototype was "left at a bar", and that he "tried really really hard to return it" how do we even know that's accurate? You're taking the word of a guy that sold the thing to a tech blog? Why? Lets not forget that he clearly was able to access the guy who "lost" its Facebook profile - why wouldn't he....ya know....send him a Facebook message? With how many holes there are in that part of the story, it wouldn't surprise me if he lifted it out of the guy's pocket.)

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Anyone defending Giz or Jason is an idiot, plain and simple.

I'm not defending Giz/Jason, because honestly I don't give a fuck about the iPhone. I do believe that legally speaking, there are some issues with any case Apple attempts to bring to the courts which depending on the ruling will allow Giz/Jason "off the hook" so to speak.

Do you really think he paid $5000 for the phone without being certain that it really was a 4g iPhone? If this guy is as much of an apple fanboy as everyone claims then I bet he knew exactly what the writing on the back of the phone meant, specifically the DVT designation.

It isn't likely they would pay $5k for something unless they knew there was something different about it. Knowing it's an Apple product, that alone is worth $5k to most tech reporters. Also, if the stuff about the guy who sold it to Giz made a reasonable attempt to return it prior to selling it to Giz is true (it was left at the bar, i.e. left there not taken, and the guy who picked it up attempted to return it to Apple), then there is no "stolen property" being sold. That will determine if it was "stolen" at the time of purchase or not.

As for the DVT designation and knowing it's a prototype, so what? Legally, there is nothing wrong with publishing information about prototypes as long as no NDA contract was broken and it wasn't obtained through illegal means (i.e. stolen).

The second he determined that it was in fact a 4g phone he should have came to the realization that he does not have the right to posses the phone nor did the person who sold it to him have the right to sell him the phone.

At that point the crime, if it is found there was a crime committed, had already happened. Legally, he had a right to posses the phone and the seller had a right to sell it provided that it was not "stolen".

Finally, and most importantly, claiming to be a journalist does not shield him from prosecution for buying stolen property. And of course there is always the possibility that the police are going after the person he bought it from and might not even charge Jason with a crime.

Nobody who is rational here is claiming that being a journalist does shield him from prosecution of buying stolen goods. What him being a journalist would mean (if it's decided he is in fact a journalist and those laws protect him), is that the search warrant was not legal. So, on that basis alone any evidence from that search would prove to be obtained through illegal means, and could not be used in the court case.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I don't know why people find it so difficult to understand that this is a crime.

Gizmodo did not purchase this phone just so they could give it back to Apple. There was no benevolent agenda like that here. They purchase something that they had a good idea was lost/stolen. Then, after spending a week destroying it and deciding it is indeed authentic, its not like they just turned it in. They published a whole series of stories on it, with the intent of getting themselves lots of clicks and publicity. They returned it to Apple after Apple wrote them a letter saying basically 'you have our property. give it back.' They fact that they complied does not make the aforementioned crimes less severe.

(PS - even though the prototype was "left at a bar", and that he "tried really really hard to return it" how do we even know that's accurate? You're taking the word of a guy that sold the thing to a tech blog? Why? Lets not forget that he clearly was able to access the guy who "lost" its Facebook profile - why wouldn't he....ya know....send him a Facebook message? With how many holes there are in that part of the story, it wouldn't surprise me if he lifted it out of the guy's pocket.)

Hopefully Jason maintained email/communication records to prove what was said between him and the guy who sold it, along with him and Apple. Otherwise, unless the search warrant is ruled illegal, he is basically fucked.

 

[darkxshade]

I'm not defending Giz/Jason, because honestly I don't give a fuck about the iPhone. I do believe that legally speaking, there are some issues with any case Apple attempts to bring to the courts which depending on the ruling will allow Giz/Jason "off the hook" so to speak.

This is the only reason I'm even debating this, I don't like the guy or Apple. And I don't know what the facts are, I can only go by what I know and based on what I know, it's a little BS that such a thing warrants a felony when there are so much more horrendous things that go on that aren't but that's for another discussion. There's too many conflicts and gray area scenarios in this case that I'm trying to say doesn't make him a clear cut thief. What if this transaction was made out of the country... what if it was lost in say Mexico and Gizmodo flew down there to buy it? Would it still be a felony then?

All that aside, this would all have been avoided if Apple wasn't being such dicks with their constant cat and mouse game. If they had simply taken the due diligence to reacquire the phone instead of denial, none of this would have happened but they didn't and decided to be two faced about it and now want to hang some guy for it and is why I think it's BS that he's being labeled a felon. I can understand that he bought "stolen" property but like I said, it's not that cut and dry.

 

[ProfJohn]

It isn't likely they would pay $5k for something unless they knew there was something different about it. Knowing it's an Apple product, that alone is worth $5k to most tech reporters. Also, if the stuff about the guy who sold it to Giz made a reasonable attempt to return it prior to selling it to Giz is true (it was left at the bar, i.e. left there not taken, and the guy who picked it up attempted to return it to Apple), then there is no "stolen property" being sold. That will determine if it was "stolen" at the time of purchase or not.

Where's your brain??

The guy who sold the phone did not own the phone plain and simple.

If you left your phone on the counter of a bar and I find the phone I do not have the right to sell the phone, PERIOD! It is not my phone no mater how hard I tried to return it to you.

The fact that this was a prototype makes that even more obvious. Because a prototype would clearly be the property of the company that made it and not the property of some guy who happens to have the phone in his hand.

 

[ProfJohn]

This is the only reason I'm even debating this, I don't like the guy or Apple. And I don't know what the facts are, I can only go by what I know and based on what I know, it's a little BS that such a thing warrants a felony when there are so much more horrendous things that go on that aren't but that's for another discussion. There's too many conflicts and gray area scenarios in this case that I'm trying to say doesn't make him a clear cut thief. What if this transaction was made out of the country... what if it was lost in say Mexico and Gizmodo flew down there to buy it? Would it still be a felony then?

All that aside, this would all have been avoided if Apple wasn't being such dicks with their constant cat and mouse game. If they had simply taken the due diligence to reacquire the phone instead of denial, none of this would have happened but they didn't and decided to be two faced about it and now want to hang some guy for it and is why I think it's BS that he's being labeled a felon. I can understand that he bought "stolen" property but like I said, it's not that cut and dry.

A lot of people who get assaulted are dicks too, does that mean it is right to assault them?

BTW as far as this being a petty crime or small crime. Apple sold 9 million iPhone in the last quarter. What if 10% of people wanting to buy an iPhone read their blog and decided to wait till the 4g hits the street before buying a new iPhone. That would amount to 900,000 less phones being sold by apple. That is $90 million in lost revenue, not exactly small change.

This crime has probably cost Apple far more money than that smash and grab robbery that cost them $40,000+

 

[Pardus]

Like other's said, this seems like a PR stunt.

And yet people still buy apple...

Cut the fuel line, stop buying overpriced apple crap, the train stops.

 

[Deeko]

All that aside, this would all have been avoided if Apple wasn't being such dicks with their constant cat and mouse game. If they had simply taken the due diligence to reacquire the phone instead of denial, none of this would have happened but they didn't and decided to be two faced about it and now want to hang some guy for it and is why I think it's BS that he's being labeled a felon. I can understand that he bought "stolen" property but like I said, it's not that cut and dry.

Where did Apple deny that the phone was theirs? Granted Gizmodo posted about a dozen or two stories on this so I might have missed it - but all I've seen is that the dude that stole/found the phone called their general customer service line to say he had a prototype, and of course that low level customer service rep had no clue what he was talking about and couldn't help him.

Come on - you can't see that as a calculated move on his part? Anyone who really thinks about the situation can tell you that the person he called wouldn't be able to help, so he very would could have just done it to get a trouble ticket and say "look! I tried", even though it was not necessarily in good faith.

I ask again - if they knew the name and Facebook profile of the guy that actually lost the phone - why did they not just send him a Facebook message? That would have been the simplest solution. You know the identity of the person that lost the device, you have a very simple means to contact him, and you did not do it. You then sold the device to someone else. Crime committed.

 

[preslove]

To add to your post, if it's decided by the courts that:

1: the search warrant was legal, thus ruling Chen is not a reporter

This is a nonsensical statement. The search warrant was legal because Chen is suspected of committing a crime. Shield laws protect suspected criminal SOURCES, not suspected criminal journalists. Is this distinction really that hard to understand?

 

[mugs]

It isn't likely they would pay $5k for something unless they knew there was something different about it. Knowing it's an Apple product, that alone is worth $5k to most tech reporters. Also, if the stuff about the guy who sold it to Giz made a reasonable attempt to return it prior to selling it to Giz is true (it was left at the bar, i.e. left there not taken, and the guy who picked it up attempted to return it to Apple), then there is no "stolen property" being sold. That will determine if it was "stolen" at the time of purchase or not.

Apparently he made an attempt to return it, but did he make a reasonable attempt? If he just talked to someone in a call center, obviously they wouldn't know anything about a prototype that hasn't been publicly announced. If he e-mailed Steve Jobs, or tried to contact the guy who lost the phone, that would be a good faith effort to return the phone.

 

[darkxshade]

Ok let me clarify, I really don't know what the specifics are, I can only go by what I've read and if initial attempts were made to return the device then that's what's leading me to my current opinion. If they clearly ignored protocols and just went ahead and bought the lost phone then they deserve what's coming to them.

So based on that:

The fact that he did buy something that didn't belong to him or the seller I'm willing to concede but I'm just saying this guy doesn't deserve to be hung out to dry because Apple wasn't entirely honest IF initial attempts were made. Apple should have been more forthcoming, they dropped the ball first. And for that reason, Jason should not have to pay for that. So if anything, I believe what he should be charged for is buying what would initially be a lost/stolen knockoff but the charges there would be minimal if any. This is because at the time of purchase, Apple was playing their stupid cat and mouse games.

If he just talked to someone in a call center, obviously they wouldn't know anything about a prototype that hasn't been publicly announced. If he e-mailed Steve Jobs, or tried to contact the guy who lost the phone, that would be a good faith effort to return the phone.

Didn't Apple release a statement along the lines of not having lost a prototype when Endgadget first leaked photos? If they did, isn't that a game changer?

 

[preslove]

If you can't return it to the owner, you're supposed to give it to the police.

 

[dwell]

Like other's said, this seems like a PR stunt.

And yet people still buy apple...

Cut the fuel line, stop buying overpriced apple crap, the train stops.

How is leaking a product three months in advance a "publicity stunt". That's essentially putting people who are looking at an iPhone "on the fence" for three months.

Apple is purposefully overly secretive because they want to protect sales of their current line up. Who wants an iPhone 3Gs today if a 4G is around the corner with dual cameras, etc?

What kind of "publicity stunt" involves a criminal investigation? Take off the tin foil hat, dude.

 

[ProfJohn]

Dark, if Jason is charged with a crime it will most likely be for buying 'stolen' property.

Who it belonged to is irrelevant. i.e.. Apple, a knockoff, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc etc

The only thing that will matter in a court of law is did Jason know that the person who sold him the phone was not its rightfully owner and there is no way he can make the argument that he thought the seller was the rightful owner.

 

[preslove]

Dark, if Jason is charged with a crime it will most likely be for buying 'stolen' property.

Who it belonged to is irrelevant. i.e.. Apple, a knockoff, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc etc

The only thing that will matter in a court of law is did Jason know that the person who sold him the phone was not its rightfully owner and there is no way he can make the argument that he thought the seller was the rightful owner.

Yeah, the whole "we didn't know if it was a real prototype" defense is bullshit if they knew that the seller found it at a bar.

 

[darkxshade]

Dark, if Jason is charged with a crime it will most likely be for buying 'stolen' property.

Who it belonged to is irrelevant. i.e.. Apple, a knockoff, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc etc

The only thing that will matter in a court of law is did Jason know that the person who sold him the phone was not its rightfully owner and there is no way he can make the argument that he thought the seller was the rightful owner.

I agree with you there but I think Apple lost their right to file the charge since they weren't entirely honest to begin with. It's somewhat of a conflict of interest... they set him up to fail.

I never said Gizmodo was in the right either, just that the circumstances are hard to accept since both sides are to blame when the actions of one resulted in the actions of the other. Just as an excercise, how would this have turned out if Apple simply and truthfully said they did lose a phone and want it back initially? That any attempts to reveal trade secrets would result in legal action? Would Gizmodo still go ahead with what they did[Pay $5000 for it and review it]?