Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Police raid home of Gizmodo's Jason Chen. I'm sure you know why.

Police raid home of Gizmodo's Jason Chen. I'm sure you know why.
Thread Tools
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 09:47 PM
 
Well, well... The fallout from this should prove rather interesting.

Tech editor's home raided over missing iPhone

Police in San Mateo, Calif., seized several computers last Friday night from the home of Jason Chen, the Gizmodo.com editor who wrote about the missing iPhone.

A post on the Gizmodo website says members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Mr. Chen's home while he was out to dinner with his wife on Friday night, reportedly seizing four computers and two servers during the raid and citing "probable cause.... [The computers] were used as the means of committing a felony."

Gaby Darbyshire, chief operating officer of Gawker Media LLC, Gizmodo's parent company, quickly fired back, claiming the warrant the police used to seize the computers was illegal under California's journalist-shield law.

A copy of the search warrant that was posted on the Gizmodo website said police were instructed to seize computers, servers, and "digital photographs and/or video of the Apple prototype 4G iPhone, email communications pertaining to the sale of photographs of the prototype phone and/or the sale of the physical prototype 4G Apple iPhone..."


Some observers are already calling this the first major test case of whether online reporters and bloggers are entitled to the same protections as their counterparts at mainstream media organizations.

In a letter addressed to the police, Ms. Darbyshire argues that because Mr. Chen works from home, his home office is a de facto newsroom, and as a result, it would be illegal under both state and federal law for police to confiscate materials from a journalist.

She also argues that the search was illegal because it was conducted at night when the official search warrant did not give permission for police to search the home at night.


EDIT:

I see this has been posted in the iPhone forum already.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 09:56 PM
 
I don't understand how this can happen if Chen returned the iPhone prototype to Apple... what is this going to prove?
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 09:58 PM
 
Porn will be found.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I don't understand how this can happen if Chen returned the iPhone prototype to Apple... what is this going to prove?
gizmodo knowingly bought stolen goods with the intention to profit from them. In California, that's a felony.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
Porn will be found.
iPhone pr0n!

     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
gizmodo knowingly bought stolen goods with the intention to profit from them. In California, that's a felony.
So finding something and ultimately having it returned is stealing now?
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
So finding something and ultimately having it returned is stealing now?
I suggest reading the full story.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:41 PM
 
I know the whole story. Ultimately Apple got what they lost back. No big deal. Should have been case closed.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:45 PM
 
Gizmodo had the intention to profit from Apple's damage.

If a kid found the device randomly and posted it online, then it'd be a different story. But Gizmodo's in the tech business, they don't have the benefit of being naive. Hell, Gizmodo even said they consulted a lawyer before wh0ring and dripping the news for a week. lol~

classic pwn3d.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I know the whole story. Ultimately Apple got what they lost back. No big deal. Should have been case closed.
you're kidding, right? Gizmodo revealed a trade secret. It's a big deal. The iPhone hardware/IP value represents over 40% of AAPL's current market capitalization.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I know the whole story. Ultimately Apple got what they lost back. No big deal. Should have been case closed.
Apparently you don't:

California Penal Code
485. 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.
gizmodo paid, knowingly, for stolen goods with the intention of profiting from them. End of story.

PS: If I'd be desperate to pick a fight, I sure as hell wouldn't pick it with Apple. They have deep pockets and a vindictive personality. Always a dangerous combination.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
you're kidding, right? Gizmodo revealed a trade secret. It's a big deal. The iPhone hardware/IP value represents over 40% of AAPL's current market capitalization.
And look how much Apple's stock went up. This leak obviously isn't something that's hurt Apple. But if this catches fire (it already has), it'll damage Apple.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Apparently you don't:
You're right, I didn't read the legalise because it makes no sense to me at all, I just read other's interpretations. But again, I don't see how finding something is stealing it. Didn't the guy try to give it back to Apple, but then sold it to Gizmodo? And shouldn't Gizmodo itself be the ones in trouble, not Chen?
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:01 PM
 
That's not legalize, that's pretty plain English. But I'll simplify it even further:

If you find something and don't make reasonable efforts to return it, instead keep or use it for your own profit then you are guilty of theft.
And if you knowingly buy something that you know has been stolen, such as gizmodo did, then you're guilty of handling stolen goods.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
And look how much Apple's stock went up. This leak obviously isn't something that's hurt Apple. But if this catches fire (it already has), it'll damage Apple.
the stock price went up for the hype publicity. but damage has been done because competitions must have been thrilled to look at Apple's latest creation a 2-3 months ahead of debut so that they can start copying early. It'd SUCK big time for all those keeping-it-real-fake chinese clones to launch BEFORE the actual device, right? you know they can come up with the fake copies in no time.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
i have read somewhere that the person who first found it had TRIED to contact Apple to return it.

I wouldn't believe it's simple as that.

Maybe the guy had indeed contacted (and bargain?) with Apple and the latter refused to negotiate, thought it was a blackmail or hoax?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
And if you knowingly buy something that you know has been stolen, such as gizmodo did, then you're guilty of handling stolen goods.
So then how do you arrive at having all your computers, servers, flash drives, phones, etc being taken by the police? I don't understand how that connection is made. If I stole a car would the police raid my house and take all of my spare oil filters, wrenches and sockets?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:05 PM
 
Personally, I'm opting to wait for *all* the evidence and experts in the matter before judging Gizmodo. So far what I know:

- the guy who found the iPod claims to have tried to return it, but received the cold shoulder from Apple.
- Gizmodo acquired the phone for $5000 and returned it to Apple as soon as they stated it belonged to them. I can only imagine how much trouble Gizmodo would have been in if they had returned it to the wrong party.
- There's no way that Gizmodo would be receiving anywhere near the same degree of public backlash had it been Microsoft that they outed as opposed to Apple.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
So then how do you arrive at having all your computers, servers, flash drives, phones, etc being taken by the police? I don't understand how that connection is made. If I stole a car would the police raid my house and take all of my spare oil filters, wrenches and sockets?
Evidence could be stored in any of those devices.

your analogy isn't very good. a car couldn't be hidden in a filter.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
And if you knowingly buy something that you know has been stolen, such as gizmodo did, then you're guilty of handling stolen goods.
This is clearly what it all boils down to. According to the guy who found it, he *did* try to return it and was ignored by Apple. If that is indeed the case, then the iPhone that Gizmodo bought can't be defined as "stolen".
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
you're kidding, right? Gizmodo revealed a trade secret. It's a big deal. The iPhone hardware/IP value represents over 40% of AAPL's current market capitalization.
It's not illegal to reveal a trade secret unless you are bound by contract not to, or unless you break the law in obtaining it (i.e. break into the place and steal it, then post it on the Internet). So, the revealing of any secrets is not the big deal here. If Gizmodo can somehow prove that their receipt of the device was lawful, then they will be off the hook for everything.
     
romeosc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Memphis, Tn. USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:10 PM
 
The financial loss due to people not buying iPhones waiting for June release will be tremendous. all Apple has to do is show a drop in sales and Gizmodo will be bankrupt for paying the loss sales!
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
Evidence could be stored in any of those devices.

your analogy isn't very good. a car couldn't be hidden in a filter.
What do you mean? The iPhone was returned to Apple. It wasn't hiding in his house. What evidence are they looking for?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by romeosc View Post
The financial loss due to people not buying iPhones waiting for June release will be tremendous. all Apple has to do is show a drop in sales and Gizmodo will be bankrupt for paying the loss sales!
I doubt that at all. History has shown that iPhones come out in June or July anyway... It's not like a release date was attached to this rumour. Remember that the iPhone 3G case was leaked over a month before its release... That turned out just fine
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is clearly what it all boils down to. According to the guy who found it, he *did* try to return it and was ignored by Apple. If that is indeed the case, then the iPhone that Gizmodo bought can't be defined as "stolen".
He clearly didn't try hard enough. An E-mail to Steve would have done the trick. And if you know that a Tech blog will pay money for an iPhone prototype, you probably know Steve's E-mail address.
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:14 PM
 
Did Gizmodo contact Apple after they bought the device?

you can't think "o the guy who picked up the thing told me that he has already *tried* so it's really none of my business."
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
What do you mean? The iPhone was returned to Apple. It wasn't hiding in his house. What evidence are they looking for?
EVIDENCE: how they got hold to the device. how much did they actually pay for. the original person who "picked up" the device. who was involved. did they try to contact Apple. did they have a plan to exploit the finding.

HELLO???
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is clearly what it all boils down to. According to the guy who found it, he *did* try to return it and was ignored by Apple. If that is indeed the case, then the iPhone that Gizmodo bought can't be defined as "stolen".
Indeed. That's why I don't think they should be going after Chen. Gizmodo perhaps, but what about the guy who found it? Or is that why they confiscated his things? To find out who that man is? They should have just asked, seems like Chen and Gizmodo have been pretty compliant with legal and Apple's requests through the process.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
the stock price went up for the hype publicity. but damage has been done because competitions must have been thrilled to look at Apple's latest creation a 2-3 months ahead of debut so that they can start copying early. It'd SUCK big time for all those keeping-it-real-fake chinese clones to launch BEFORE the actual device, right? you know they can come up with the fake copies in no time.
It might be possible to argue that Apple had forfeited their ability to protect any trade secrets around the next gen iPhone by allowing them to be used in the wild where they might get lost.

Unless Gizmodo actually asked someone to steal an iPhone from within Apple HQ, I suspect there might not be much weight behind the trade-secret argument.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
EVIDENCE: how they got hold to the device. how much did they actually pay for. the original person who "picked up" the device. who was involved. did they try to contact Apple. did they have a plan to exploit the finding.

HELLO???
That's what I wanted to know.. No reason to become cross.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Indeed. That's why I don't think they should be going after Chen. Gizmodo perhaps, but what about the guy who found it? Or is that why they confiscated his things? To find out who that man is? They should have just asked, seems like Chen and Gizmodo have been pretty compliant with legal and Apple's requests through the process.
I don't think they *are* going after Chen. Gizmodo COO clearly stated that the computers at Chen's house where used as part of Chen's work for Gizmodo. They may even be property of Gizmodo. If you wanted to find evidence proving that Gizmodo purchased stolen property, the computers at Chen's house would probably be the best place to look.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:21 PM
 
California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team
What the what?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
He clearly didn't try hard enough. An E-mail to Steve would have done the trick. And if you know that a Tech blog will pay money for an iPhone prototype, you probably know Steve's E-mail address.
To be perfectly honest, we don't know *how* hard he tried or what he tried. I'm opting to wait for the evidence before pronouncing judgment.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
To be perfectly honest, we don't know *how* hard he tried or what he tried. I'm opting to wait for the evidence before pronouncing judgment.
I'm not waiting. In the court of Dork., you are guilty until you are proven to be uninteresting.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:28 PM
 
you've never heard of CRACT? Well now that you know, be wary of black SUVs.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
I'm not waiting. In the court of Dork., you are guilty until you are proven to be uninteresting.
Fair enough
     
Sealobo
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
you've never heard of CRACT? Well now that you know, be wary of black SUVs.
it's actually Cali REACT. And, Apple is on the steering panel.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2010, 11:52 PM
 
From what I have read it was found a few weeks before Gizmodo ran their big story. The guy who originally "found" the phone had sent emails to both Engadget and Gizmodo asking them to pay for the device. He claims to have known the name of the person who lost it and had access to his facebook page. He never tried to contact the guy, never tried to contact the bar and CLAIMS to have called Apple. Yeah, I don't buy it. He sure didn't have a problem contacting Gizmodo or Engadget.

The fact that the guy who lost it still has not been fired leads me to assume that maybe the phone was not lost in the bar, but was in fact, simply stolen.

Oh, and I'm still annoyed that the original thread about this got moved to the iPhone board to die.

This is one of the most interesting Apple stories in a long time and is more then a simple iPhone story...

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I know the whole story. Ultimately Apple got what they lost back. No big deal. Should have been case closed.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
And look how much Apple's stock went up. This leak obviously isn't something that's hurt Apple. But if this catches fire (it already has), it'll damage Apple.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
You're right, I didn't read the legalise because it makes no sense to me at all, I just read other's interpretations. But again, I don't see how finding something is stealing it. Didn't the guy try to give it back to Apple, but then sold it to Gizmodo? And shouldn't Gizmodo itself be the ones in trouble, not Chen?
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
So then how do you arrive at having all your computers, servers, flash drives, phones, etc being taken by the police? I don't understand how that connection is made. If I stole a car would the police raid my house and take all of my spare oil filters, wrenches and sockets?
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
What do you mean? The iPhone was returned to Apple. It wasn't hiding in his house. What evidence are they looking for?
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
I doubt that at all. History has shown that iPhones come out in June or July anyway... It's not like a release date was attached to this rumour. Remember that the iPhone 3G case was leaked over a month before its release... That turned out just fine
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Indeed. That's why I don't think they should be going after Chen. Gizmodo perhaps, but what about the guy who found it? Or is that why they confiscated his things? To find out who that man is? They should have just asked, seems like Chen and Gizmodo have been pretty compliant with legal and Apple's requests through the process.
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
That's what I wanted to know.. No reason to become cross.
Shhhhhhhhh!
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
...
PS: If I'd be desperate to pick a fight, I sure as hell wouldn't pick it with Apple. They have deep pockets and a vindictive personality. Always a dangerous combination.
Vindictive?

Hardly.

Extremely protective of their trade secrets?

Hell yes!
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 12:34 AM
 


Originally Posted by msuper69 View Post
Vindictive?

Hardly.
Apple fires employee for showing iPad 3G to Woz.

The Apple co-founder has claimed that an Apple employee was fired after showing Wozniak an iPad hours before the device was rolled out to the public earlier this month, according to Gizmodo.
"I can tell you that the test engineer who showed me an iPad after midnight, for (two) minutes, during the iPad launch was indeed fired," Wozniak wrote to the blog.
Wozniak said he did not learn that the "test engineer" was fired until later and he speculated in his e-mail that he thinks the engineer wasn't supposed to show anyone an iPad 3G version or that he showed the device before he was allowed. "And I'm an Apple employee who he was showing it to," Wozniak wrote.
"In my opinion, Apple was not hurt by my being shown this iPad," Wozniak wrote. "I did describe this to Steve Jobs the night of the iPad introduction and he said 'so it's no big deal.'"


Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

iPhone Leak Investigation Pauses As DA Ponders Gizmodo Shield Law Defense

I just spoke to Stephen Wagstaffe, Chief Deputy at San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, who told me that nobody has yet been charged in the case, and at this point it is “just an investigation”. He says the investigation is “looking at any hand that touched or had something to do with this phone” but that the investigation is not currently targeting either Gawker or the person who originally found the phone — rather, police are collecting every fact they can to present to the DA, who will then make a decision.

With respect to the removal of Chen’s property, Wagstaffe says that the prosecutor on the case felt that the shield protection laws did not apply, so the raid was executed. However, after Gizmodo’s attorneys suggested some reasons why they believe Chen should be protected, the investigation has come to a bit of a pause. The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry).

When I asked if it was typical for the DA to evaluate the relevance of these shield laws after removing evidence, Wagstaffe did concede that it was unusual. Which makes the situation extremely odd— it should have been readily apparent that Gawker would defend its actions using this shield law defense, why put the brakes on after the fact?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 03:55 AM
 
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 06:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
So finding something and ultimately having it returned is stealing now?
The damage to Apple in the form of lost iPhone3GS revenues and profits (which represents close to a third of the business) for this entire quarter(April to June) is probably in the millions. Those responsible for that did so illegally by trading goods that did not belong to them.

This almost qualifies as industrial espionage. IMHO
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 07:46 AM
 
First of all, let me say clearly, I'm not against legal repercussions of Chen as an individual and Gizmodo's parent company. But it's not all black and white.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
The damage to Apple in the form of lost iPhone3GS revenues and profits (which represents close to a third of the business) for this entire quarter(April to June) is probably in the millions. Those responsible for that did so illegally by trading goods that did not belong to them.
Gizmodo has certainly violated laws and Apple certainly has a case.
But lost revenues and profits are, IMO, not one of the reasons: the refresh cycle of the iPhone is well-known and this new prototype just confirms that development is right on track. People who know the refresh cycle know when to buy and when not to buy.

Gizmodo has knowingly purchased stolen goods. That's what they are guilty of. Regarding trade secrets, I'm not an expert on law, American law no less, but it's not at all clear what crime that may constitute legally. Plenty of trade secrets are revealed on sites such as theregister or theinquirer, but I seldomly hear of legal repercussions.

The raid and seizure of Chen's property is another thing: it's a question whether the raid in this manner was justified and whether Chen's rights as a journalist have been sufficiently taken into account. As he has published everything about the iPhone prototype online, I doubt it was necessary to kick down his door instead of waiting for his return. Secondly, he's also a journalist and journalists enjoy special protection in this regard. In the worst case, the DA may not use any of the evidence they have seized during the raid.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But lost revenues and profits are, IMO, not one of the reasons: the refresh cycle of the iPhone is well-known and this new prototype just confirms that development is right on track. People who know the refresh cycle know when to buy and when not to buy.
Maybe people delaying purchases is not that much of a problem, but copycats now having a 2 months headstart certainly is. If cheap phone knockoffs come out with the same design around the time of the new iPhone that will harm Apple a lot.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 08:45 AM
 
Given that the charge centers around Giz *knowingly* purchasing stolen goods, or at least failing to take basic measures to verify that it wasn't, and that Giz' defense is basically to claim that they had no way of knowing until after they spent the money, I think it's fairly sensible to confiscate any machines he may have used to communicate with his higher-ups, to determine/prove that they did, in fact, both know it wasn't the guy's to sell, and that they made no efforts to prove otherwise.

There is, AFAIK, no protection for journalists against the felony of purchasing stolen goods.

Stolen *information* is a completely separate matter, and it seems that this is the road through which they're trying to shoot the case down (I'd be surprised if that works).

IANAL.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 09:18 AM
 
What's the difference between a "popular blogger" and a "journalist"?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
What's the difference between a "popular blogger" and a "journalist"?
I'm guessing ethics.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm guessing ethics.
I tried to find if Chen went to school for journalism. There's so much noise on Google now that I can't find anything, no matter how many keywords I tell Google to remove from the search.

Ethics? I would hope that people would have a built-in sense of decency when it comes to something like this. Would someone who's a journalist, by definition, NOT pull this stunt? I don't know. All I know is that Gizmodo will always be, in my eyes, the jokers that turned off the TVs at the 2008 CES. I can't take them seriously anymore. Now they pull a stunt like this.

I wonder if they're all thinking if it was all worth it.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2010, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm guessing ethics.
Oh, I'm sure a number of journalists have made off quite well by being swine.

There are entire "newspapers" (small articles, big headlines) dedicated to sustaining them and their "ethics".
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,