Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story - Page 9

I wonder if the guy that "found" the prototype iPhone in the bar has been getting any sleep since the criminal investigation was announced on Friday? I mean, seriously... there's no doubt in my mind that he committed a criminal act based upon what Gizmodo published and my personal research into and understanding of California law. A civil lawsuit is one thing, but serving time in the same cell with "Bubba" is quite a different thing entirely!

Or, have investigators already questioned him and he's sleeping better because he decided to plea bargain and rollover on Gawker? Gawker is the bigger fish that could allegedly end up on the defendant's side of the table and I think the DA would rather catch a bigger fish! Who wouldn't?

It will be disappointing if the DA decides there's not enough evidence to prosecute. Some nice criminal proceedings would be so much fun to watch! But, even if the criminal charges are never filed, I have zero doubt a civil suit by Apple isn't too far off anyway. Maybe we'll be treated to both?

Mark

It will never reach a jury. If the DA does indict, this entire thing has plea bargain written all over it. Starting with the guy that "found" the prototype iPhone. Once he's agreed to testify against Gawker, another plea bargain would surely be forthcoming.

The civil suit that Apple's sure to bring... that may reach a jury. But I'm betting that will get settled out of court too.

Mark

If we're talking about a tobacco company that intentionally and secretively manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked, I'm in agreement with you. But the public's right to know isn't that black & white. There are laws to protect trade secrets. Hell, there are laws to protect secrets in the interest of national security. In those cases, the public can want to know but they have no right to know.

Mark

A bit dramatic don't you think?

More drama. How are these criminal and civil charges you wish from one company to another 'a treat'?

There is no "right to know" for trade secrets. The public has very little "right to know" in cases like this. You have the right to know the ingredients of a food product for instance, but you have no right to know the details of the new factory they are planning to make the food product.

Almost always, the only time a consumer has the "right to know" a company's secrets, is if the company is itself breaking a law. For instance if Kellog's is putting lighter fluid in it's cereal, that would be a company secret the consumer has "right to know."

They've cleaned up their act a bit in the last year for sure.

Personally, I almost stopped reading Gizmodo when they had links in some of their main article linking to their sister hard-core porn site. I actually stopped later when they started reviewing technology by deciding whether it was "worthy of jerking-off over."

I stopped commenting on their articles when I found out that they intentionally delete comments by people who disagree with them on a regular basis (and no, that doesn't happen at any other reputable site). They actually crow about it in the comments too which is a bit much.

The last straw for me though was actually having a bit of email with Brian Lam and Jason Chen. Two of the most insulting, juvenile, puerile, idiots I have ever talked to bar none.

It happens on MacRumors. Except their excuse is that you're mean to the other people - even when you're not.

I never said they were my heroes. They just took a risk and it paid off. The publicity they got is worth a million lost iPhones. Right or wrong, guilty or not guilty we all visited their site. Sometimes doing the wrong thing makes good business sense.

Drama is what Gizmodo sells. Nick Denton's twitter page brags that he is a gossip merchant. So, a little drama in his life seems reasonable and just.

And, as a fan of Apple, including their political and social stances, it will indeed be a treat if Gawker gets squashed by Apple.

I'm no fan of the National Enquirer either.

Mark

Until the men with the shiny metal bracelets show up at the door.

Mark

It's a little to early to know if it paid off.

How many hits on your web site would you trade for 5-10 years in a California State Penitentiary and a few hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses?

There is actually no such thing as the public's "right to know" and this is especially true as it applies to private businesses and individuals. This imaginary "right" was coined by an Kent Cooper, an Associated Press executive director in the 40s, it is not part of our Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act came about in 1966, but this applies to information hidden away in the government's records.

Trust me its not gonna happen. Giz will come out if this unscathed.

The public DOESN'T have a right to know. You are confused in what you believe are RIGHTS. The public has a right to have PUBLIC (government) decisions and processes out in the open.

The iPhone is not part of the GOVERNMENT and therefore doesn't fall into that category.

I keep thinking about all the spy pictures of new automobiles that are in the auto magazines. Are the pictures any different? A d if you know anything about pawn shops, a lot of what they buy are stolen items. The police are always coming in and taking items without charging the shop owners.

Actually, there is a right to know in regards to private industry, but it has nothing to do with this. If, for instance, Apple was believed to be jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the public, then government agencies can in fact force them to divulge relevant information. But there is no such thing as a blanket "right to know" for all corporate information. If there was, we'd all know Colonel Sanders' "secret recipe."

WilliamG seems to keep selecting his own "facts" rather than facing reality, such as when he spent multiple comments insisting that universities were banning iPads even when the same universities posted clear denials of bans on their own websites.

You really should try to learn something about the law.

As for spy pictures, you're allowed to take pictures of something that appears in public. You may not trespass to take pictures. So, if a car company drives their car on a track that's within sight of the public, there's nothing they can do (except plant trees, perhaps. That's why so many of those auto spy photos are taken with very long lenses. If someone had simply seen a 4G iPhone in use in a public area, they could have taken a picture without any problems. That does NOT, however, give them the right to take the phone itself.

As for things taken from a pawn shop, the proprietor has no way of knowing that those things do not belong to the person who brings them in, so the proprietor isn't guilty of anything. In THIS case, however, Gizmodo clearly knew that they guy selling an Apple prototype 4G phone did not own the rights to it. Even if they didn't know what it was, they knew it was valuable enough to be worth $5 K. Furthermore, WHATEVER its value, it was clear that it was stolen (under CA law) simply from the story that the 'finder' told. So Gizmodo KNEW they were paying for stolen property. Quite different from a pawn shop where the owner has no way of knowing.

But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.

Compounded with allowing your employees to join in festivities with said "super secret" prototype on their birthday, presumably drinking. Since he represents the company and their interests I have to think that any claim to stealing trade secrets or espionage would not easily be upheld.

Since a pawn shop has no way of knowing if property is stolen so therefore he allowed to buy stolen property? ¿Que? As it's been stated many times, Giz may have suspected it was the G4 prototype but they also surely suspected it was a knockoff. Read the reviews after the first pics hit, going back to February's Twitter pic; the most common response was that it wasn't real, and rightly so as finding a prototype iPhone lost in a German bar is pretty much the most unlikely scenario of this whole ordeal. I had my doubts until I took a gander at the internals. everything else just looked to sqaurish for Apple's previous iPhone line. Even Andy Ihnatko stated as much based on the flat backing which is un-Apple and easier to fit components into, á la Chinese knock offs.

We have no idea what the paid the $5k for. It could have been for the "finder's" trouble, not for the prototype itself. If got him to sign a release for it, which I would expect they would have, they could easily have written in a great many things to protect themselves. Like, "if device turns out to be an Apple prototype we will gladly return to Apple immediately upon written proof", which they did.

They didn't rip into the thing as much as they could have. They could have removed the heatshield to reveal the chips or at elast x-rayed it, which are the parts I want to know about, and which iFixit will surely do.

The argument that any and all phones you don't recognize should be given to the police or that bartenders are upstanding people in which to entrust corporate prototype is simply not a very good argument. I personally think Gizmodo is in the wrong, but I also don't care enough to never read their site again at my own expense. If I did that every time a company was ethically or legally in the wrong i wouldn't be able to own anything. I also think they had their lawyers look at this before they bought it and before they published anything. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

Non - sense is what you are speaking. Don't take what isn't yours. Simple idea. Simple to execute. Encoded in law. Should be encoded in your moral being.

Can't help the past. Can behave better now. I can only hope other sites would act in a legal manner.

Acted and spoke. Thinking expressed in speech.

Or perhaps empty heads with no brains. It would explain behaviour

So your point is that you can't tell the difference between something being displayed in public vs taking something that isn't yours, taking it off the premises, and selling it for $5,000?

You REALLY can't see the difference? I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.

Including yourself now, I presume..... ok, go sulk now.....

No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.

Wrong again. Look up misappropriation of trade secrets. It's still illegal.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that the method by which the item has been reportedly lost could be a defense against a claim regarding trade secret theft.

As I've repeatedly stated, I believe Giz/Gawker is guilty but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves they can be punished for it. Unfortunately, in this case, if you aren't against Gizmodo then you must be against Apple. I guess I'm just not one to swing an air gavel without a criminal or civil filing.

If that's what he's saying, he's 100% wrong. PLEASE make some effort to learn something about the law before spouting off any further.

Actually, the manner in which it was lost isn't particularly relevant.

What MIGHT be relevant is whether Gizmodo knew it was an Apple trade secret. Since they spent $5 K on it AND took it apart AND identified it as a prototype 4G phone on their web site, they knew what it was - and therefore knew it was a trade secret.

Under NY AND CA law, they're guilty. It's about as close to a slam dunk as these things get.

CA:
http://www.ndasforfree.com/UTSA.html

NY:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...s-law-new-york

Sorry, they're almost certainly guilty - their $5 K payment, immediate disassembly, and publishing that it was a 4G phone is about 99% of the proof needed. It won't be hard to get the rest.

Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone. Trade secrets are considered misappropriated even if they were revealed by accident.

I agree, but I also don't think the situation is going to be that simple and that Giz/Gawker's lawyers first ran this through before giving the go ahead.

Sitting on the sidelines with pitchforks and torches screaming how everyone should ban Gizmodo after getting limited information is silly... and hypocritical if these people are still buying and using Apple et al. products.

Actually, even that isn't particularly relevant.

If he had been carrying an undisguised iPhone 4G into the bar, other patrons would have been able to legally take pictures of the phone and distribute the pictures as widely as they wish. Taking the phone into a public place eliminates the expectation of privacy AT THAT LEVEL.

But it does NOT give someone permission to pick up the phone and sell it - or to buy such a phone from the 'finder'. If you know that the phone is a trade secret, publication of non-public information about it is illegal in both CA AND NY.

Besides, I strongly suspect that there's far more involved than we've heard. Look at the sequence of events:

Gizmodo offers a large reward for info on iPhone 4G.
Someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple employees.
That person just happens to strike up a conversation with an Apple employee who has one of a small number of iPhone 4G samples.
The iPhone 4G owner happens to leave it on a bar stool (who leaves things on a bar stool, anyway? The bar or a table, sure, but the bar stool????)
The 'finder' can't figure out that the person calling the phone is either the owner or knows the owner. They can't be bothered to post a message to the facebook page. They don't call Apple HQ to ask to speak to the owner (since they know his name). Instead, they call AppleCare - probably the LAST department in Apple who would know about it.
Now, that same person who isn't smart enough to figure out how to get the phone back to someone in Apple just happens to call Gizmodo - hardly a household name, and just 'coincidentally' the site that has offered a large reward.

Do you really believe that it happened that way? There are far too many 'coincidences' for that to make ANY sense.

we all like to know all the new features the next generation iPhone is going to have, and although Mr. Steve Jobs is good at keeping things a secret, and the anticipation was killing me, the wait would have been more thrilling.
So all I can say to Gizmodo, thanks for nothing, and all action taking by law inforcement agencies is well deserved.
Hasta Nunca Estupidos De Gizmodo

Pictures of prototype cars are allowed because they are taken/acquired in the public domain. If you are on public property, you are allowed to snap as many shots as you want within sight, even if said car is on private property. Same with celebrities. The line is drawn when snapping shots inside a private residence.

Pawnshops are required, by law, to gather identification info from the person he receives the property from and gives the "loan" to. The pawnshop is not required to check ownership, just retain the identification of the person with whom he is doing business with. The main line of business of a pawnshop is to loan money based on the value of collateral. They make their money via interest earned from the loan.

Pawnshops are friends of the police. Lots of crimes are solved in conjunction with pawnshops.

You have a point that's trying to come out, but you're giving bad examples.

I am a stockholder. I don't think it will hurt the stock at all, honestly, if anything it will cause a false elevation in the price temporarily before it begins climbing as normal.

I was quite happy to see the new phone, what I wasn't happy about was the smug, arrogant manner in which those hacks at Gizmodo lied about every facet of this story from the beginning (and it does not take a rocket scientist to detect the BS) and then top it off by throwing this poor kid under the bus.

See, whatever epic, foolish mistake the kid MIGHT have made (and we still don't know the if phone was really stolen from him or not) Gizmodo wrote an article for the sole purpose of throwing him under the bus to save themselves.

They used him to draw attention away from themselves, to distract, and in the process, ruined any chance at a career for him in the future by plastering his name and face everywhere they could in an attempt to either make him look like the bad guy of the year, or the idiot of the year. They mocked and insulted him, and frankly, what they wrote tastes of libel to me.

Before you suggest that he IS the idiot of the year for losing a prototype iPhone, tell me first that you've never left a phone somewhere yourself.

Apple didn't disclose his identity. Neither did he.

Gizmodo did.

It was nine kinds of wrong, and if there is one thing I have come to despise with every fiber of my being, it is seeing people do things that are mean and nasty to others for self-serving reasons.

That's what Gizmodo did, and that's why I hope those idiots are fired.

It being disguised seems to be irrelevant since it was out in the public. The employee that took it from the Apple facilities, was acting as an agent of Apple and was authorized and instructed to remove it from the facilities. That is the same as it having been "brought out by Apple". It wasn't 'brought out' as in announced, but it was brought out into the public by an employee of Apple at Apple's request.

Once it is out in public, trade secret protection won't seem to apply. For the same reason that car makers lose trade secret protection when they take their vehicles out in public for testing. They might disguise it, but that make no difference. It is also irrelevant that someone knows that it is considered a trade secret. Anything someone can discern from observing the vehicle, while it is in the public, is fair game. If this was not the case, you would have the car makers suing every publication every time pictures and info of test vehicles that are seen in public are published, especially if they took steps to disguise the vehicle. The publication knows it isn't meant to be public yet, but because the information was discovered as a result of the vehicle being in the public, it is fair and legal.

Does this cover all of the pictures that Giz published? Probably any of the exterior. Once they disassembled it, that might change the equation. They could argue that they intentionally disassembled only as far as a technician would without causing physical harm to it and intentionally did not expose parts that Apple has used extra precautions to prevent being seen. But, they did not simply take and publish information that was readily discoverable simply by the phone being in the public. They had to take the extra steps of disassembly and this is what might bite them in the ass.

Actually, skimming the links you posted, how it was lost becomes very important. Critical in fact.

from the UTSA:

How the finder came into possession is important, because it is the key factor in the very first definition. Did he come into possession of it through 'improper means'?

Since the definition of 'misappropriating' depends on how it was acquired, it would seem you are quite wrong in dismissing how it was found (acquired).

Also in your links, they discuss efforts to keep it secret. This is up to a court to decide, but it seems that an argument could be made that slightly tighter restrictions on the usage of the prototype phones could have prevent this fiasco and still been reasonable. There is no need for an employee to bring the phone to a bar where he intends to drink. It would have been reasonable to prohibit this. There are other steps that could have been implemented. The argument would be, were reasonable steps take to ensure its secrecy was maintained? Maybe. Maybe not. If not, no trade secret case, period.

You are 100% wrong. I do this for a living.

You lose protection ONLY ON THE VISIBLE ITEMS when you take it out in public. If a car manufacturer takes a new car out in public without designing it, you are free to take pictures.

If, however, that car has a Micro-Fusion reactor driving the wheels which is not visible from outside the engine compartment and they do not disclose it, the fact that they drove it in public is 100% irrelevant.


Stick to your day job.

The fact that they disguised the phone AND have a written and enforced policy regarding disclosing information (look at the guy who got fired for showing the iPad to Woz) is more than sufficient.

As for your definitions, read the relevant part of the NY law:
"Under New York law, misappropriation consists of use or disclosure of a trade secret that was acquired through a relationship of trust (such as employment), or through fraud or other improper means, such as theft, bribery, or hacking. This definition appears to include publishing a trade secret while knowing that your source obtained it through improper means or in breach of a confidentiality agreement."

Gizmodo knew it was Apple's prototype phone at the time they published the article. They knew that they paid someone $5 K for a phone that was allegedly found on a bar stool - which clearly fits the definition of theft in both CA and NY. More importantly, they knew 100% that the 'finder' did not have the authority to sell an Apple prototype phone. Yet they published trade secret information, anyway (the inside of the phone, for example).

Even a C- law school graduate right out of school could win this one for Apple. And you can be sure that if they decide to prosecute that they' won't be using a kid right out of school.

You do what for a living? Take partial quotes from people to misrepresent what they said? Nice job, must be fun. Let's look at what I actually said.


I mean, really, at least try to keep your argument honest.

As I said, the disassembly would be in question. But pictures of the exterior, after it was left in a public place? You honestly consider an leaving an item in a bar to be a reasonable effort to keep it secret?


Could I try for yours? Using reason and logic can tiring. Yours seems like more fun.



yeah, just look at the guy that got fired. And then use your brain and look at the guy that didn't get fired. he didn't get fired, which by your logic means he didn't violate those 'written and enforced' policies. Polcies which then allowed teh device to be observed in public?
(You really do this for a living? Really?)


Oh, so then how it was acquired does matter. Gotcha. (really, you do this for a living?) So then we agree, regardless of what you previosuly said. (for a living?)

Huh? The concept of theft is pretty universal and most western countries reciprocate with each other for criminal offenses. Even if you were to or ran to some place like China I don't think you would automatically be "safe".

I was listening to Merlin Mann on the 5by5 podcast and he made an excellent point - Apple has up to three years to prosecute. So, wait until June or whenever the next iPhone update is and then I think Apple will whack them. And whack them hard. They have them criminally, and under the CA trade secrets law they have them civilly. They are so blatantly in the wrong, and they admitted it in their own statements on multiple occasions! They are (and should be) toast.

But not until after the next iPhone gets released. Right now I'm sure Apple just want's this to blow over.