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."
Thread beginning with comment 421055
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Makes sense
by Morgan on Tue 27th Apr 2010 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes sense"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

There's no reason to assume that Apple gave anyone permission to take it off company grounds.


Last I read, Apple still had not fired or otherwise disciplined the employee who lost it. Given they recently fired an engineer for showing Steve Wozniak a 3G iPad for two minutes after being given explicit written permission to show said device...I'm inclined to believe the guy who lost the iPhone had been told to take it off campus, perhaps for testing. If that is the case, by law it had to be FCC approved, and therefore it is no longer a trade secret as it would now be in their database in detail.

On that note, has anyone bothered to check out its certification (or lack thereof)?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Makes sense
by nt_jerkface on Tue 27th Apr 2010 20:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Makes sense"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Last I read, Apple still had not fired or otherwise disciplined the employee who lost it.


So what is your point? Does this in any way negate the fact that this phone contained trade secrets? Was this a product purchased at an at&t store? No, it was a secret prototype that they were keeping from their competitors.

How Apple handles this internally is irrelevant. This was an internal prototype that Gizmodo purchased under dubious circumstances. If you're looking for a reason to hate Apple then look elsewhere and you can find plenty of reasons. In this case Gizmodo is the guilty party, they shouldn't have bought property that they knew belonged to Apple.

Apple had every right to contact the authorities. Gizmodo not only illegally purchased Apple property but also profited from it through increased ad revenue. They wanted a breaking story and were willing to step outside the law to get it. The shocking thing is how they made no attempt to cover their trail.

Hey guys look at this Apple prototype we purchased from some random guy for 5000 dollars! Neat-o! Here's my picture with it!!!

Oh but we shouldn't be arrested cuz they guy we bought it from says Apple doesn't care.

So freaking stupid, I just can't believe it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Makes sense
by Morgan on Tue 27th Apr 2010 21:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I've already stated more than once in this discussion that I hold Gizmodo equally at fault along with Apple. I never said I thought Gizmodo did the right thing. My comment was strictly regarding whether Apple is being consistent with their policies, and when they cease to be consistent they resort to intimidating anyone involved. It's disgusting.

Just so you are clear on my position: Gizmodo is in the wrong for buying the phone and if found criminally liable they should pay. Apple is in the wrong for using local police to intimidate Mr. Chen when he was merely breaking the story. The police and the judge were wrong for allowing Apple to seek a search warrant with no charges filed, instead of a subpoena which would be more logical (not to mention saving a lot of face with the public). Should criminal charges be filed, I would expect the outcome to be in Apple's favor given what little info we have to go by.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Makes sense
by chris_l on Tue 27th Apr 2010 21:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense"
chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14


How Apple handles this internally is irrelevant. This was an internal prototype that Gizmodo purchased under dubious circumstances. If you're looking for a reason to hate Apple then look elsewhere and you can find plenty of reasons. In this case Gizmodo is the guilty party, they shouldn't have bought property that they knew belonged to Apple.

Apple had every right to contact the authorities. Gizmodo not only illegally purchased Apple property but also profited from it through increased ad revenue. They wanted a breaking story and were willing to step outside the law to get it. The shocking thing is how they made no attempt to cover their trail.

Hey guys look at this Apple prototype we purchased from some random guy for 5000 dollars! Neat-o! Here's my picture with it!!!

Oh but we shouldn't be arrested cuz they guy we bought it from says Apple doesn't care.

So freaking stupid, I just can't believe it. [/q]


Exactly. This isn't about the guy who found the phone anymore.

This is now about Gizmodo knowingly violating local,state and quite possibly federal laws dealing with stolen property

Reply Parent Score: 1