Gizmodo facing legal action due to iPhone fiasco

[Techark]

Seems they don't like leaks very much.
http://www.cnet.com.au/apple-iphone-raid-on-editor-s-home-339302687.htm?feed=rss

Police have seized computers and servers belonging to an editor of Gizmodo in an investigation that appears to stem from the gadget blog's purchase of a lost Apple iPhone prototype.

[gerbick]

Apple or the police? I think the paperwork starts/stops with the attorney general.

[t3h]

Contrary to popular belief, Apple does not control the police force. They reported what happened, and the police take it from there...

[jakiman]

Well. At least that 100% confirms that it probably was the final version of iPhone4. =P

[Techark]

I doubt Police would not have gotten involved if Apple hadn't gone to them and filed a complaint.

[mrojas]

Ah, the 1984 commercial...

[cyeung]

I followed Gizmodo until they started bragging about how they got the 4th-generation iPhone. It was unethical at best, especially after they threw some guy under the bus. And that was enough to make me stop reading their stuff.

[ysss]

That's the logical thing to do.

If Apple doesn't pursue gizmodo to the best of their ability then they are setting precedence of letting go/being weak toward future leaks.

They will use the law & legal system first, but who knows what strings they'll pull if this police action fails.

But reading the gizmodo response letters, I have a feeling that the guy was ready for something like this...

Moderator edit: oops, sorry ysss-- clicked the wrong button! :o

[Texrat]

But reading the gizmodo response letters, I have a feeling that the guy was ready for something like this...

heh... they've probably already approached their ad clients about upping fees. :D

[ysss]

lol yeah that... and disinfected his machines from all the torrent downloads... infringing mails, IMs, browser history/cache, etc...

[nermaljcat]

Not as into Apple as I used to be...

[bandora]

IRONY!! Apply fanboy site's editor goes to jail because of Apple! :D

[ysss]

@bandora: can you recommend me a good gadget site that's not a 'apple fanboy site'?

[silvermountain]

http://www.pcmag.com/

[HangLoose]

slashgear.com

[Texrat]

http://frys.com/

[maluka]

I think going after a journalist in this manner is plain wrong. Journalists shouldn't be bullied into revealing their sources in this way.

[ysss]

@silvermountain: thanks. they have a couple of ipad editorial pieces which talk favorably of the gadget too, albeit without the juvenille attitude associated with gizmodo/engadget.

@hangloose: thanks. i think they carry just about the same # of apple related news, albeit with less annoying (attitude) than engadget/gizmodo.

@texrat: lol a shop?

Getting back on topic...

I've found the following comments to hit the core of the matter:

The victim of the crime (Apple) doesn't have any say over whether charges are pressed in the matter...that's entirely up to the DA. I can say that I'm pretty sure that in that tech community it isn't just Apple that would be concerned about issues like this...if the DA did nothing, then it likely would send the message that it is okay to take something...including a prototype...and expose it to the world. I don't think other tech companies want that precedent set.

It is pretty clear that laws were broken in this case...especially with the fact that Gawker and Giz gloated over this situation...publishing their accounts...and if those stories don't line up with what they find on those computers...well...hope they get some better lawyers.

Let's be honest...they knew it was a real Apple prototype...because they paid $5k for it...and they should have known (as Engadget's legal team told them) that by purchasing said phone...they were breaking the law. By paying $5k for it...it made it a felony...and by doing it over State lines...it may even become a federal issue.



I would tend to agree that the actions by Mr. Chen suggest a crime took place. Why would he pay $5000 for a phone if he did not feel there was a chance to scoop a prototype product? Mr. Chen is trying to skirt his due diligence and state that he tried to contact Apple Support while brandishing an SR # as proof. I personally feel there will be a legal decision in the future that Mr. Chen did know this was a legal grey area and that Mr. Chen made insufficient effort to make it appear as if he tried to return the phone to its respectful owner. However, the act of purchasing a phone which was not his, knowing who the owner is, and exposing company prototype's secret workings to the world has got to lead to a conviction once the Apple's legal team sends the nuke.

from: http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/04/26/police-seized-jason-chens-computer-iphone-4g-legal-trouble/

Similar position as a fence or a chopshop?

[Joorin]

I think going after a journalist in this manner is plain wrong. Journalists shouldn't be bullied into revealing their sources in this way.

Journalists? Bullied? When did the Gizmodo people turn into journalists? Having an (albeit popular) blog doesn't turn you into a journalist.

And didn't they, themselves, out the person that most likely lost the device?

[geneven]

Journalists? Bullied? When did the Gizmodo people turn into journalists? Having an (albeit popular) blog doesn't turn you into a journalist.

And didn't they, themselves, out the person that most likely lost the device?

You mean "journalist" is a term you have to qualify for? Who do we apply to? You? The governor?

[mthmob]

Journalists? Bullied? When did the Gizmodo people turn into journalists? Having an (albeit popular) blog doesn't turn you into a journalist.

And didn't they, themselves, out the person that most likely lost the device?

But thats the thing... a public blog can be considered a news source (according to some), and they are protected by laws dealing with such.

[ysss]

In response to the California police raid on Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home, Gawker Media is arguing that the search and seizure was illegal because California law precludes a warrant being used to ascertain the name of a journalistic source.

Gizmodo’s interpretation of the law, however, entirely misses the point. The impetus for the warrant appears to be rooted in Gizmodo’s commission of a felony, namely the purchase of an iPhone they had reason to believe was stolen property.
Shield laws in the US were designed to protect sources, but by entering into a contract with said source (5 grand in exchange for the iPhone), Gizmodo was no longer just the recipient of information, but an active participant in the commission of a felony - hence the warrant.

Despite Giz’s arguments to the contrary, the warrant is 100% kosher.

source: http://www.edibleapple.com/police-warrant-issued-for-jason-chens-home-is-100-kosher/

I think he's screwed.

[mece]

In theory I'm against "leaks" of this kind, but I have to say it is still interesting, and great publicity for apple. Almost feel as if apple is suing to confirm that the phone is real. And the phone looks absolutely gorgeous btw!

[RevdKathy]

What did they do to the poor bloke who lost the phone? Decapitation?

[Joorin]

You mean "journalist" is a term you have to qualify for? Who do we apply to? You? The governor?

Apply to? No need to apply. Get educated, as in, learn to be a bit objective when relating events, learn how news is reported. Learn that "journalism" isn't editorializing about your pet peeve or favourite product/company.

If you're running a blog, you're not a journalist by that alone. It's not enough to describe your day, what you wore, what you ate and what you happened to read in the newspaper and reacted to to be a journalist. Getting paid to write your pieces is, for example, one way of separating yourself from the rest and actually be able to call yourself a journalist.

Unless you're going for the "a person who keeps a journal" meaning, which in this context would just be odd.

[slender]

What did they do to the poor bloke who lost the phone? Decapitation?

Dont know about that but this is nice:
http://twitter.com/Lufthansa_USA/status/12647904521

[attila77]

What did they do to the poor bloke who lost the phone? Decapitation?


Those who lose Apple prototypes are known for jumping off buildings. I'm not kidding, though this is not the same incident..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10291701-37.html

[netAdept]

What did they do to the poor bloke who lost the phone? Decapitation?

Room 101 :eek:

[Joorin]

But thats the thing... a public blog can be considered a news source (according to some), and they are protected by laws dealing with such.

"can be considered"... "(according to some)"...

If there are laws in the US of A protecting every blog as if it was a newspaper, I surely have learnt something today.

If there are no such laws, the journalist claim goes out the window.

[geneven]

Anyway, I guess if The New York Times paid $10,000 for a prototype Volt that it knew was stolen, it would be liable even if the person buying the stolen car had a Ph.D in something.

[Wanker]

Another apple publicity stunt.

[jutl]

"can be considered"... "(according to some)"...

If there are laws in the US of A protecting every blog as if it was a newspaper, I surely have learnt something today.

If there are no such laws, the journalist claim goes out the window.

There are local 'shield' laws in most states, but no federal law. In general they're drafted broadly enough to cover professional bloggers. For example the California example protects:

A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication

from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-protections-sources-and-source-material

Interestingly, that article talks about the precedent in California law for bloggers' protection and look who was involved:

California's shield law protects a person "connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication." In an important case, O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), a California appellate court held that the shield law applies to persons gathering news for dissemination to the public, regardless of whether the publication medium is print or online. In that case, Jason O'Grady operated an "online news magazine" about Apple Computers. He published confidential information he received about a new Apple product. Apple wished to sue the person who divulged the confidential information to O'Grady and subpoenaed him for information about the identity of his confidential source. The court applied the shield law, and O'Grady did not have to identify his source.

Gizmodo is based in New York though (I think). The NY law (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/CVR079-H_79-H.html) seems to only cover contempt of court. Also, as others have said, knowingly buying stolen goods is another matter entirely.

[AlMehdi]

"can be considered"... "(according to some)"...

If there are laws in the US of A protecting every blog as if it was a newspaper, I surely have learnt something today.

If there are no such laws, the journalist claim goes out the window.

I though the US had free speach.. apparently not. Nothing that Apple would like anyway.

[benny1967]

Well, anyone who uses an Apple product in public should be sent to jail...

[geneven]

I though the US had free speach.. apparently not. Nothing that Apple would like anyway.

I think there is no defense for buying stolen property, journalist or not. The defense will be that they didn't pay for the phone but for the information they got by looking at the phone.

The real question will be whether their testimony about the phone can be compelled, say with a $10,000 fine per day of their refusal to testify. They will plead the Fifth and they will be given immunity, and they will have to testify at some point or go bankrupt.

[Techark]

They should have paid the guy for his story on how he got the phone and then had him lend it to them to look at.
Then they would have been OK, but once they paid for the phone they screwed themselves im my opinion.

If someone happened to find a prototype BMW sitting on a street corner and sold it to Motor Mag for $100K and they took it apart and published all the photos about it I am sure most would consider that theft. Doubt Apple will win any fans for having the DA and cops go after them but they did it all wrong.

[JohnLF]

Grey area to me. They are not buying a stolen item because it was found left in a public place, surely?

Once they had bought it and taken all the pictures they wanted, the best course of action would have been to approach Apple, maybe at the same time the details were published, with the fact they had what appeared to be an Apple prototype and offer to return it if they could prove it was theirs.

If Apple accepted, proof is there, then fight a legal case to take the details down, but of course it is too late as everyone will have seen it anyway.

If Apple declined, then not a problem.

If the police are involved because of outing the product, not for buying a stolen item, then surely every single car magazine could be pursued in the same way for publishing pictures of prototypes on test tracks?

[gerbick]

Another apple publicity stunt.

If so, it'll only backfire.

Mind you, I know that they got the phone via dubious methods; however they were interested in bringing a scoop. Just imagine each time a scoop landed in somebody's lap and they got arrested or their stuff seized.

If anything, I wonder exactly what will it take to give Apple zero coverage since they've treated AppleInsider.com as such and now... Gizmodo.

[nermaljcat]

Anyway, I guess if The New York Times paid $10,000 for a prototype Volt that it knew was stolen, it would be liable even if the person buying the stolen car had a Ph.D in something.

The phone wasn't stolen, it was lost/found.

[AlMehdi]

I think there is no defense for buying stolen property, journalist or not. The defense will be that they didn't pay for the phone but for the information they got by looking at the phone.

The real question will be whether their testimony about the phone can be compelled, say with a $10,000 fine per day of their refusal to testify. They will plead the Fifth and they will be given immunity, and they will have to testify at some point or go bankrupt.

Thats true. If they bought a stolen device and knew about it they could be prosecuted for fencing. It can't get worse than that.. a petty crime. If they have profe.. which i don't think they have.

Anything els and the US law system got a big problem...

[Jeffgrado]

A company needs to legally protect their brand. If that means setting a precedent like this for future similar cases, then it's what needs to be done. Apple is a publicly traded company, so it has obligations, even if that means some bad-will for PR.

In other news, Nokia is littering the streets with prototypes in hopes of some attention.

[Dancairo]

Grey area to me. They are not buying a stolen item because it was found left in a public place, surely?


Hi John

I'm no lawyer but my ex GF is, I remember her saying that (in UK at least) that if you find something and you know who it belongs too (even if you don't, you are obliged to hand it in to the police) and do not return it, it's basically (in law) the same as stealing.
Therefore, if you buy something off a person who has found/stolen an item, you would be receiving stolen goods, especially, as in this case, Gizmodo knew it was lost/found/stolen.

There was a case recently of a couple who found a winning lottery ticket and banked the money...They were arrested, tried, convicted and had their bank accounts emptied to return the money...Not quite the same but similar principle.
I would never buy an apple product but i'm inclined to side with them on this...

Of course, this is assuming USA has similar laws...hmmmm!!!

[Lazarpandar]

I agree with this on one level, but on another Gizmodo didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Oh well, ignorance of the law is no excuse.. Gizmodo should have contacted a lawyer to ask what the limits were before posting Apple's intellectual property.

[AlMehdi]

A company needs to legally protect their brand. If that means setting a precedent like this for future similar cases, then it's what needs to be done. Apple is a publicly traded company, so it has obligations, even if that means some bad-will for PR.

In other news, Nokia is littering the streets with prototypes in hopes of some attention.

Well.. Apple = 1984 = true.. This only confirms it.

lol! And.. Nokia = 1968 = True ;)

[Dancairo]

In other news, Nokia is littering the streets with prototypes in hopes of some attention.
:D Excellent Jeff

[SirMuttley]

The way I see it gizmodo broke the law and then told everyone about it online.

I'm no fan of Apple, but I'm not sure why people are having a go at Apple about this.

[SirMuttley]

The phone wasn't stolen, it was lost/found.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

It was lost, until the guy sold it. Then it became theft.

[ysss]

I can understand Shield law being used to protect whistleblowers and other informants that leak information for the benefit of the people, but this whole thing is just about Gizmodo capitalizing on Apple's trade secrets for their own blog's benefit. Nothing more.

[Royalridge]

And in another FAIL, Giz broke the news on a day when they had pre-sold the entire days advertising to Kodak for a fixed fee so they didn't earn any extra from the additional 3.6M visitors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/business/media/26carr.html?ref=business

[nidO]

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

It was lost, until the guy sold it. Then it became theft.

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).

[fms]

heh... they've probably already approached their ad clients about upping fees. :D
You mean they approached Apple and asked for more money? =)

[Ahmed360]

I like the new iphone design

Im getting one...Thanks Gizmodo

Now go and Rest in Peace

[ossipena]

Apple or the police? I think the paperwork starts/stops with the attorney general.

apple. because police can't do a thing unless apple makes its claims. so yes, apple wants gizmodo guys go to jail and that is why police have started their actions now.

[ossipena]

Apply to? No need to apply. Get educated, as in, learn to be a bit objective when relating events, learn how news is reported. Learn that "journalism" isn't editorializing about your pet peeve or favourite product/company.

If you're running a blog, you're not a journalist by that alone. It's not enough to describe your day, what you wore, what you ate and what you happened to read in the newspaper and reacted to to be a journalist. Getting paid to write your pieces is, for example, one way of separating yourself from the rest and actually be able to call yourself a journalist.

Unless you're going for the "a person who keeps a journal" meaning, which in this context would just be odd.

too bad I can name only one magazine that lives by your rules. on an other hand i can name a dozen magazines that cant be categorized as journalism by your rules.


...must ...stop... offtopic

[SirMuttley]

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).

The article says that he found the owner's facebook page on the phone but he didn't try and contact him through facebook. It seems all he apparently did was dial a few apple phone numbers, wait a couple of weeks and then sell it for 5 grand. If he knew who's it was but couldn't get in contact with them why didn't he turn it into the police, wouldn't that be covered under "reasonable and just efforts"?

To quote a calafornian civil law (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/6/4/1/s2080.1)

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it


I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that it's reasonable to sell something they found in a bar when it obviously is worth a fair amount of money.

[ysss]

Actually thats not where it directly becomes theft, but where it becomes rather more unclear.
As was reported, the guy tried numerous times to return it to apple, and the reports say that he was told by Apple what he has is just a knock-off, and not to bother them about it.
Granted, he was probably only talking to monkeys on apple's helpdesk and only got a TR for his trouble, but if theyre the only point of contact apple will provide to him, then by the law you just quoted he clearly did make "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and restore the property" by contacting them, whereupon the owner told him the device wasnt theirs and they didnt want it.
Both the guy and Gizmodo clearly had strong evidence the device was Apple's, so no effort was reasonably needed to locate any other potential owner, and he made all reasonable effort to return it to Apple before selling it (as reported, anyway).

That would be reasonable assertion if the person in question is Joe the plumber.

This guy is knowledgeable. Heknows the ins and outs of the business. He's owned previous gens iphones and are familiar with all sorts of gadgets that his blog covers. He's sure enough of its value to pay $5000 for it.

This guy is connected. I bet he knows 1000 ways to get in touch with Apple internal guys if returning the phone was his true intention. Heck, he can just take a picture of the phone and send it to sjobs@apple.com to get some response. (Yep, that is Jobs' real email address).

Lastly, this guy is motivated. His true intentions were clear. He wrote half a dozens of articles in his blog about it covering just about all aspects you can think about it: the event: the actors and everything to write about the device itself. Including a tear down of the device. If that's not milking something dry, I don't know what is... he's definitely got his $5000 worth.

[jakiman]

yeah. I think he got over 10 miilion hits in like a week or so. Not bad.

[JohnLF]

Woz - inventor of the best computer Apple produced, the Apple II. It all went downhill with the Mac :p

Find him at www.woz.org

[IzzehO]

Maybe Gizmodo will wake up and stop talking out their asses about terrible Apple products.

Who am I kidding? He's probably sucking off Steve right now...

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the police to be pursuing these guys, Gizmodo knowingly and willingly purchased a 'stolen' item and if they are also covering up the person who 'stole' it then they are an accessory.

I say 'stolen' as it wasn't owned by them and they did not report it found, but chose instead to profiteer from its recovery.

[ysss]

Apple strikes back!

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1i4o6maUM1qz4u07o1_r1_500.png

ref: http://topherchris.com/post/551530253

[rmerren]

How insanely insecure are Apple products that this phone--presumably carried by someone who has been given serious lectures on security since he was holding a prototype--could be easily broken into enough to get facebook photos of the owner? If my N900 is stolen (found?), the user gets to know the current time and date, and gets a refresher on the numbers 0 through 9 when they see the keypad. (I really need to put my phone number on the case somewhere...my E62 showed my phone number when turned on, and was returned to me by a streetcorner panhandler due to this feature.)

This should be a HUGE embarassment to Apple, not just because of the lost prototype, but because of how easily the private data inside was accessed.

I really don't want to see any criminality here. I am sick of the idea Apple (and others) promote that it is wrong and illegal simply to look inside their products and understand how they work. I doubt there is an outright theft of property here (i.e. someone pickpocketed the phone holder), but there is definitely the possibility that there was no actual middleman between facebookdude and Gizmodo (or that Gizmodo pre-arranged the deal with the phone-finder), which would be something that would cause the type of investigation where you bust down a door and take all the computer equipment. But it is more likely that it happened exactly like Gizmodo describes it, and that Apple is abusing their position of potential crime victim (within the bounds of the law, but outside the bounds of good taste) to demand investigations and ensure that the Gizmodo dude feels sufficient pain and hardship to avoid pissing off Apple in the future and to be a lesson to others.

By the way...I remember about a thousand pre-release articles on the N900 replete with pictures, teardowns, speculation, etc. It is what made me want to buy the thing (and let me understand what I was getting). Apple has a different strategy, which clearly works well for them (but turns me off their products).

[leetut]

that new iphone does look very nice, and i suppose ill have to commit some cardinal sin somewhere to get hold of one, but its still gonna be running that icrap OS (made for girls and children!)
even if it is v4.0 multitasking (like an 8 year old symbian phone!)
and still no keyboard!
but at least there trying to compete with nokia
who knows in 10 years time they may even be level! (he he!)

[Laughing Man]

Woz - inventor of the best computer Apple produced, the Apple II. It all went downhill with the Mac :p

Find him at www.woz.org

Didn't someone at Apple get fired for showing Woz the iPad before it came out?

[gryedouge]

Well, anyone who uses an Apple product in public should be sent to jail...

:D:D now now...be nice...we can't send all the little kiddies to jail... :p

[woody14619]

Apply to? No need to apply. Get educated, as in, learn to be a bit objective when relating events, learn how news is reported. Learn that "journalism" isn't editorializing about your pet peeve or favourite product/company.

Someone should call Fox News and/or CSNBC to tell them they're not "journalists" if your definition is true. Maybe you should take your own advice and "get educated". According to the laws in the state this happened in, this topic has already been decided in the courts, and blog writers are in fact considered to be journalists. (The case this was decided in is even cited in the article linked to in post 1 of this topic.)

The laws as they're written and applied could in fact mean the warrant used in this case in violation of state and federal laws. That doesn't mean they can't still go after the company or the editor for purchasing stolen goods. It just means they can't use anything found via the warrant as evidence, and local government agencies may be sued for issuing and executing the illegal warrant in the first place.

Personally, I think the Gizmodo chaps could easily see a fine, or possibly some jail time for the charges of purchasing stolen goods. Especially since they basically admitted to doing it to the world just a few days ago. This will just muddy the waters and cause more problems during the trial. I highly doubt any of them will spend time in jail though, and the real winners will be the same as most court cases, the lawyers. :rolleyes:

[maxximuscool]

Shame on Gizmodo guy for supporting apple :D
Now i think he going to hate apple for it :D

[CrashandDie]

apple. because police can't do a thing unless apple makes its claims. so yes, apple wants gizmodo guys go to jail and that is why police have started their actions now.

Wrong. Apple doesn't need to do anything for police to look into theft cases.

The matter of fact is that Gizmodo knew they were purchasing a stolen item, and at best the guy only allegedly attempted to contact Apple (and no proof of this). Even if he was unable to return the item to Apple, he should've gone to the police and leave it there, rather than start a bidding war between Engadget and Gizmodo.

This will also easily be proven by going through the email records (which is why the computers were seized in the first place).

They had it coming.

[ysss]

Good write up from legal perspective:

http://www.technovia.co.uk/2010/04/has-gizmodo-broken-the-law-with-its-iphone-story.html

Seems like Gizmodo is screwed.

Unfortunately this seems like a calculated risk by the higher ups in gawker media (giz's parent company), at the cost of sacrificing their foot soldiers (chen).

I hope they get fined to the fullest extent of the law :D

[Texrat]

I agree with this on one level, but on another Gizmodo didn't know what they were getting themselves into.

I'm skeptical of that. To be in the device blogging business as long as they have and they were all ignorant of probable consequences? That would be one naive staff.

The laws as they're written and applied could in fact mean the warrant used in this case in violation of state and federal laws. That doesn't mean they can't still go after the company or the editor for purchasing stolen goods. It just means they can't use anything found via the warrant as evidence, and local government agencies may be sued for issuing and executing the illegal warrant in the first place.

Please explain further. Have you seen the warrant? I'm betting it was worded to support current police action.

In the end, protection of journalism sources won't be the real issue. It will all come down to the purchase of the prototype.

[maxximuscool]

iphone 4g Prerelease (Dr. Evil), i demand 100 million dollars muahaha

[CrashandDie]

Please explain further. Have you seen the warrant? I'm betting it was worded to support current police action

All the gizmodo protectors, liberals and apple haters are currently hoping that police overstept its bounds by invading Chen's house which is allegedly an extension of Gizmodo's press office. My understanding is that California law protects journalists from having to hand over their sources by having their property seized, however in this case the issue is not revealing sources, but acquisition of stolen goods, in which case the California law protects didly squat.

[twaelti]

This might also very well turn into a case about theft or misappropriation of a trade secret (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1832.html).
Glad someone stops the irreponsible, no-respect, news-at-any-price-faction.

[SirMuttley]

that new iphone does look very nice

Totally, really didn't like the original look but this one looks like my old Sony Ericsson W880i which is a sexy sexy phone.

As you said, shame it'll be running iPhoneOS

[ysss]

lol.. Apple vs Gizmodo on the daily show:

http://www.9to5mac.com/files/u3/Picture%2029.png

http://tv.gawker.com/5526868/jon-stewart-slams-apple-over-its-handling-of-gizmodo-case

[truslack]

Seeing as servers were siezed without him present, what would be the procedure for police removing these? My server is running 24-7, locked, and has no screen attached. Therefore, would the police just pull the power cable out? Does that not constitute damage?

Just wondering!

[CrashandDie]

Seeing as servers were siezed without him present, what would be the procedure for police removing these? My server is running 24-7, locked, and has no screen attached. Therefore, would the police just pull the power cable out?

Technically speaking, they are interested in the data, not your hardware (unless there is an injunction to stop you from doing whatever you're doing, in which case seizing your hardware may be a way to prevent that). Just like any electrical goods, physical access trumps logical access. The power switch, on most computers, will initiate the shutdown sequence -- I expect they use it, and after an indefinite period of time, they'll pull the plug.

Does that not constitute damage?

The reasoning is probably that the likeliness that damage will occur, combined with the factor that the damage that might occur won't be too disruptive is less important than leaving the item under control by the owner. In one word: no.

[ysss]

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/14/details-of-lost-next-generation-iphone-saga-revealed-in-search-warrant-affidavit/


Following on earlier news that a California court would be releasing documents related to a search warrant for the lost next-generation iPhone that ended up in the hands of Gizmodo, CNET has now posted the full documents released by the court. The documents indicate that Gizmodo's Jason Chen was considered in the requests to be a suspect in three felonies, including purchase or receipt of stolen property, theft of trade secrets, and malicious damage to another person's property (the prototype iPhone) valued at over $400.

The documents also include testimony that Brian Hogan, the finder of the iPhone, had received $8,500 from Gizmodo for the device, with an additional bonus payment to be made if Apple releases the expected device this summer.

The affidavit from Detective Matthew Broad outlines a series of events, including a discussion with Apple executives which revealed that Hogan's roommate had contacted Apple after Hogan connected the iPhone to her computer, fearing that the lost or stolen device would be traced back to her. Hogan's roommate cooperated fully with authorities and assisted them when Hogan and an acquaintance removed several pieces of evidence from his apartment. The evidence, which included a desktop computer, USB flash drive and memory card, and stickers from the iPhone prototype, were found in a church, under a bush, and in a gas station parking lot.

Hogan's roommate relates a story very similar to that previously related by Hogan to Gizmodo, suggesting that another bar patron had picked up the iPhone and given it to him thinking it was his. It is unclear exactly how Apple engineer Gray Powell lost the iPhone, although he noted that the last thing he remembered was placing it in a bag he had brought with him to the bar. The bag was later knocked over, and it is possible that the phone fell out at that time.

Hogan's roommate also noted that she and other attempted to talk him out of selling the prototype iPhone by pointing to the effect it could have on Powell's career, but he was unswayed. Hogan reportedly said, "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

The documents also include an email from Gizmodo editor Brian Lam to Apple CEO Steve Jobs in which he offered an explanation for his publication's actions and expressed disappointment that Gizmodo had been receiving less attention from Apple than other media outlets recently.

The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.

Apple also documented damage to the prototype iPhone upon its return, noting that a ribbon cable had been broken, a screw had been inserted incorrectly causing an electrical short, snaps for the back plate had been broken, and several screws had been stripped.

Overall, the investigation remains ongoing and neither Chen nor Hogan has been charged in relation to the case. The entire affidavit is fascinating to read and is available in its entirety (PDF), via Wired.