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

[WelshBloke]

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.

Mind you, as soon as the rightful owner came forward Giz surrendered the phone to them.

 

[Deeko]

Mind you, as soon as the rightful owner came forward Giz surrendered the phone to them.

....after publishing numerous articles on it, earning themselves millions of page views.

Gizmodo knows how to contact Apple (a lot better than the guy who sold them the phone I'm sure). They also know how to contact the guy that actually lost the phone. They did neither. By surrendering the phone when requested, they may have saved themselves another charge, but they still knowingly purchased a stolen device and then used said device to make money for themselves.

 

[Schfifty Five]

I'm not surprised. When I first read/saw the article/video of giz talking about the "recovered iphone 4.0", I immediately thought that there were some legal issues involved.

However, I didn't think that the main legal issue would be purchasing stolen property, but rather the leaking of intellectual property/trade secrets. When Jason posted that video showing all the new design features and the insides, I was thinking that he had no right posting that information.

 

[narzy]

Mind you, as soon as the rightful owner came forward Giz surrendered the phone to them.

After they BOUGHT STOLEN PROPERTY. There are no finders keepers laws in California, in fact there is the exact opposite. This isn't journalism this is theft for profit. If they had just asked to see the phone from the guy who found it, wrote the article and the guy returned it they would have been in the clear. The fact that they bought known STOLEN PROPERTY puts them in deep shit.

 

[darkxshade]

....after publishing numerous articles on it, earning themselves millions of page views.

Gizmodo knows how to contact Apple (a lot better than the guy who sold them the phone I'm sure). They also know how to contact the guy that actually lost the phone. They did neither. By surrendering the phone when requested, they may have saved themselves another charge, but they still knowingly purchased a stolen device and then used said device to make money for themselves.

That's the paradox, why would you contact a company who had already openly admitted they did not lose a phone[statement after Engadgets initial photo leak]? Apple decided they wanted to play games, Gizmodo played along... when Apple decided the game was over, Gizmodo gave it back without objection.


On a side note, kind of stupid how much one is burdened with so much responsibility for finding something that didn't belonged to them with possibly no compensation when all the time and effort was put into locating the owner, like finding a needle in a haystack. It's almost counter to what we believe since if no one is willing to pick things up in fear of legal ramifications, then no one would ever find what they lost.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

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.



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?

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]?

You might have stated it better than I did.

For the record, I believe that Apple is a victim of it's own policies and that Jason is a victim of being blinded to the right course of action by financial/reputation/"getting a scoop"/whatever (which makes him an idiot).

I fully understand that if Jason purchased the phone knowing full well the phones seller was NOT the owner, that is going to be problematic for Jason.

 

[Deeko]

That's the paradox, why would you contact a company who had already openly admitted they did not lose a phone[statement after Engadgets initial photo leak]? Apple decided they wanted to play games, Gizmodo played along... when Apple decided the game was over, Gizmodo gave it back without objection.


On a side note, kind of stupid how much one is burdened with so much responsibility for finding something that didn't belonged to them with possibly no compensation when all the time and effort was put into locating the owner, like finding a needle in a haystack. It's almost counter to what we believe since if no one is willing to pick things up in fear of legal ramifications, then no one would ever find what they lost.

Its funny that this situation can be described by multiple Simpsons episodes...

Let me make this perfectly clear, Kent. I have no dog.

Homer was upset with his dog so he says this on the news. Someone then uses this statement as a "legal" claim to owning the dog, since Homer apparently disowned it. Everyone watching the episode is like "huh, it doesn't work that way. its still really his dog."

Just because Apple wouldn't come out publicly and say "Yep, that's our stolen property and our protected trade secrets! Isn't it great?" doesn't make it less stolen, and doesn't mean Apple didn't take steps to have it returned. Its a very weak defense, and Gizmodo should have known that from the start.

Ok, we put up a flyer! heh heh

This quote occurs after they find a $1,000 bill, and Marge says legally they have to post a flyer for the rightful owner to claim it first. So they put a tiny flyer way up on a telephone pole. Clearly, they were not attempting in good faith to return the bill - just like the guy that found the phone was not when he called customer care.

 

[darkxshade]

Just because Apple wouldn't come out publicly and say "Yep, that's our stolen property and our protected trade secrets! Isn't it great?" doesn't make it less stolen, and doesn't mean Apple didn't take steps to have it returned. Its a very weak defense, and Gizmodo should have known that from the start.

And you're still right but it still has to "dampen" any repercussions to Gizmodo for being strung along into it. Something this big is hard to ignore[I'm not justifying it btw]. Despite what people believe in respect to whether or not they're journalists, they are in fact a tech site and they were faced with almost insurmountable pressure to do what they wanted to do and Apple simply egged them on to do it with their false truths. I'm not saying they should be cleared of any wrongdoing, just of anything of a criminal nature involving prison time to the editor. I still think they[Gizmodo the entity] should be sued to oblivion if Apple so chooses to.

 

[Fingolfin269]

The one thing I found most interesting about this conversation was that from the very beginning I knew what computer type I would find in the sig of a poster. Those who wanted the guy to burn had a reference to some type of Mac while the others went one way or another. STRANGE INDEED!

I couldn't care less what happens to this guy. I think Apple would have been better served just leaving it alone once they got it back but obviously they thought otherwise.

 

[Deeko]

haha I don't think it takes too many of my discussions with dwell to realize that I am not exactly a mac fanboy....

 

[dwell]

haha I don't think it takes too many of my discussions with dwell to realize that I am not exactly a mac fanboy....

Seriously. If Deeko is defending Apple, Giz does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[preslove]

So, let me put a scenario to you "it's not theft, he 'found' it" people.

You're at a bar and you find an iPhone. It's in a case, so there's no reason to believe that it is a prototype. Would you 1. take it home or 2. hand it into the bartender?

If you chose #1, then you're at least an asshole and more than likely a thief. If you find lost property in a public establishment, then the easiest and most effective way to get the property back to the owner is to GIVE IT TO PROPRIETOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. That way, when the owner realizes that they lost their property they can retrace their steps and call all the places they recently visited and then go and pick up their property from said proprietor. That's what a non-asshole/thief does in these situations.

In this case, the guy who found the phone did not immediately hand over the lost phone to the bar, but started to play with it [1]. Then he TOOK THE PHONE away from the place it was lost, thereby making it impossible for the owner/loser to trace his steps back to the bar and retrieve it [2]. Then, he did not try to contact the dude who lost it [3]. Then he half-assedly tried to return it apple by calling the customer service line at apple (like the monkeys manning the phones would believe him or know what to do) [4]. Then he sold it for $5,000 [5]!

You think that this is ethical and should be legal? If so, you have no moral compass. The simple, ethical thing to have done was just hand it into the bartender/bouncer/hostess.

 

[Anubis]

in a perfect world he will go to a PMITA prison and apple will get shit on because of it


win win situation

 

[Rangoric]

That's the paradox, why would you contact a company who had already openly admitted they did not lose a phone[statement after Engadgets initial photo leak]? Apple decided they wanted to play games, Gizmodo played along... when Apple decided the game was over, Gizmodo gave it back without objection.

So when you lose your iPhone I call APPLE, and not YOU? When you lose your Car, and I find it, I don't call you to get it back to you I call the Manufacturer?

That's the only thing I don't get. They said they called APPLE, the maker of the phone, not the owner of it. The owner being the one who actually lost it. And think that means they tried to return it?

Does that bug anyone else?

 

[Anubis]

So when you lose your iPhone I call APPLE, and not YOU? When you lose your Car, and I find it, I don't call you to get it back to you I call the Manufacturer?

That's the only thing I don't get. They said they called APPLE, the maker of the phone, not the owner of it. The owner being the one who actually lost it. And think that means they tried to return it?

Does that bug anyone else?

if you found my phone and tried to call me to return it you would be calling yourself as you would be the one with my phone

 

[darkxshade]

if you found my phone and tried to call me to return it you would be calling yourself as you would be the one with my phone

:awe:

 

[Deeko]

if you found my phone and tried to call me to return it you would be calling yourself as you would be the one with my phone

This is true - but clearly he logged into the guy's Facebook account before the phone was shut off. Which means he could have sent him a Facebook message...or, since he was in there already, an email. They had options to contact the guy that actually "lost" the phone. They chose not to exercise them.

 

[preslove]

if you found my phone and tried to call me to return it you would be calling yourself as you would be the one with my phone

Considering it was an iphone, he could have emailed or facebook messaged him.


But, AGAIN, he should have just turned it in at the bar.

 

[Anubis]

This is true - but clearly he logged into the guy's Facebook account before the phone was shut off. Which means he could have sent him a Facebook message...or, since he was in there already, an email. They had options to contact the guy that actually "lost" the phone. They chose not to exercise them.

i know i was just being an ass about calling someone who has lost their phone

 

[darkxshade]

So, let me put a scenario to you "it's not theft, he 'found' it" people.

You're at a bar and you find an iPhone. It's in a case, so there's no reason to believe that it is a prototype. Would you 1. take it home or 2. hand it into the bartender?

If you chose #1, then you're at least an asshole and more than likely a thief. If you find lost property in a public establishment, then the easiest and most effective way to get the property back to the owner is to GIVE IT TO PROPRIETOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. That way, when the owner realizes that they lost their property they can retrace their steps and call all the places they recently visited and then go and pick up their property from said proprietor. That's what a non-asshole/thief does in these situations.

In this case, the guy who found the phone did not immediately hand over the lost phone to the bar, but started to play with it [1]. Then he TOOK THE PHONE away from the place it was lost, thereby making it impossible for the owner/loser to trace his steps back to the bar and retrieve it [2]. Then, he did not try to contact the dude who lost it [3]. Then he half-assedly tried to return it apple by calling the customer service line at apple (like the monkeys manning the phones would believe him or know what to do) [4]. Then he sold it for $5,000 [5]!

You think that this is ethical and should be legal? If so, you have no moral compass. The simple, ethical thing to have done was just hand it into the bartender/bouncer/hostess.

Lets be honest, most people if not all inherently care about themselves first and foremost. You find an item at a bar, on the street, wherever, you could genuinely try to find the owner if you had some ethics but barring that, I can certainly understand it if they kept it for themselves afterward. If you give it to the bartender or the police, you therefore give up your right to the item in question if they can't find the owner as well. I can't speculate as to what the bartender or police would do with it but I can say with 100% certainty the person who found it got nothing out of it while the bartender or cop whether they are ethical themselves get that opportunity to keep it depending on how they want to run with it. So I can't fault him for not going through the right channels... that he wanted to locate the owner on his own but most likely he is a selfish thief in the end.

 

[Rangoric]

if you found my phone and tried to call me to return it you would be calling yourself as you would be the one with my phone

Ah so because I have your phone, I have no way to get it to you, I get to keep it. Or I should call who made the phone, because you know, they'll know your number. Perhaps I should also call the makers of the Apps on the phone, that's obviously better then looking for a Home, Mom, or the #1 number of the quick dial. None of those would be better then just taking it home.

And that's all better then giving it into the place it was "found" at or the police.

But then, you just wanted a funny one liner.

 

[DayLaPaul]

My prediction: 2 years informal probation. This isn't the crime of the century, folks.

 

[preslove]

Lets be honest, most people if not all inherently care about themselves first and foremost. You find an item at a bar, on the street, wherever, you could genuinely try to find the owner if you had some ethics but barring that, I can certainly understand it if they kept it for themselves afterward. If you give it to the bartender or the police, you therefore give up your right to the item in question if they can't find the owner as well. I can't speculate as to what the bartender or police would do with it but I can say with 100% certainty the person who found it got nothing out of it while the bartender or cop whether they are ethical themselves get that opportunity to keep it depending on how they want to run with it. So I can't fault him for not going through the right channels... that he wanted to locate the owner on his own but most likely he is a selfish thief in the end.

No. You turn it in at the business you find. They hold it for a while until the person who lost it comes back for it. I'm a reference librarian. People lose stuff all the time at our computer terminals. Ethical people turn said property into our lost and found. THIEVES take the property away.

Sure, the bartender might have stolen the turned-in-phone, but turning it in absolves the finder of any legal or ethical responsibility for it.

 

[darkxshade]

No. You turn it in at the business you find. They hold it for a while until the person who lost it comes back for it. I'm a reference librarian. People lose stuff all the time at our computer terminals. Ethical people turn said property into our lost and found. THIEVES take the property away.

Sure, the bartender might have stolen the turned-in-phone, but turning it in absolves the finder of any legal or ethical responsibility for it.

Well I'm not defending the finder, just saying there's a psychological aspect to it for the reasons people do what they do[that everyone is inherently selfish]. Personally I think he deserves to go to jail for exploiting the situation to make $5k. But it's not him I'm defending, it's the Gizmodo editor... he also did it for selfish reasons but he's sorta doing his job chasing a big scoop. He definitely went overboard[we all can't always be clear headed about these things when they present themselves] but I can't completely fault him for it either and I don't think he deserve to serve jail time because of the circumstances surrounding the event, especially with the web of lies from Apple at the time. If he paid 5k because he wanted it for himself, there wouldn't even be a debate. That's why if anything, I think it's fair game for Apple to go after Gizmodo the tech site through civil channels and not Jason Chen the "journalist" through criminal charges... last thing we need is another persn locked up for stupid reasons at the expense of tax dollars. That's the best way I can state my case. I'm starting to think I'm just repeating myself so I'm done after this.

 

[Gunbuster]

Hope he was using BitLocker. Oh wait he couldn't, haha.