Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Apr 2010 23:11 UTC, submitted by UglyKidBill
Legal Well, this is unexpected. The iPhone 4G saga just got a whole lot crazier - dare I say it, a whole lot more ridiculous. Have you ever reported anything like a phone or something similarly small stolen to the police? What was their reaction? Did you ever get the device back? Did they send an army of officers to get your device back? No? Odd. They raided Jason Chen's house, and took four computers and two servers. Update: And thus our true colours reveal. "The raid that San Mateo area cops conducted last week on the house of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen came at the behest of a special multi-agency task force that was commissioned to work with the computer industry to tackle high-tech crimes. And Apple Inc. sits on the task force's steering committee." Update II: According to TechCrunch, the investigation has been put on hold while the DA ponders Gizmodo's shield defence. Update III: Some legal insight from a constitutional law and first amendment expert and a law professor. The gist? The DA has said no one has been charged with anything here, making this just an investigation - however, this makes the search and seizing of material worse. "If the police are literally just gathering information, with no suspect targeted yet, then a subpoena against a journalist would have probably been smarter than a search warranted that resulted in the front door of Chen's home being bashed in."
Permalink for comment 421093
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by clhodapp
by nt_jerkface on Tue 27th Apr 2010 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by clhodapp"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

They have an abridged phone transcript on their website in which Powell acknowledges their email and states that Apple as a company is aware of the situation.


And that is supposed to be a defense? A confirmation from the person selling it? That is supposed to exonerate the purchaser? The guy selling it swore to me that the company doesn't care about their missing prototype? No need to confirm this with the company?


Also at what point did we establish this prototype as "stolen"? Everyone seems to be assuming that, but it certainly seems to have been lost.


Given the fact that it is a prototype shows that it is company property. Both the seller and purchaser are guilty of exchanging stolen property. When it comes to stolen property charges knowledge is a major factor. It was clear in this case that they knew that it was a prototype from inside the company which is why they paid $5000 for it.

Edited 2010-04-27 20:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2