Originally Posted by ihxo
You are swearing off apple products because someone stole an Apple prototype?
You mean someone stole AND FENCED an Apple prototype. And then the purchaser broke all sorts of trade secret laws.
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.
Not relevant. The courts have already ruled that being a journalist does not allow you to break the law.
Originally Posted by Tri3
Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.
Is your phone a valuable prototype that's worth millions of dollars and your competitors would love to get a look at it? If not, your phone is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by GQB
Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.
You left a couple out:
Purchase of stolen property
Possession of stolen property
Unlawful disclosure of trade secrets
Damaging stolen property
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
the DA will respond that the issue is simply receiving stolen property, and what chen/giz did with the info about it after they did that - the journalism part - is irrelevant. a separate civil matter. and so there is no journalist shield applicable here.
of course this is legally arguable. maybe the case will go all the way to the supremes. but look at the scooter libby precedent ... even where is was just pure info about a crime and not the stolen hardware itself, the subpoena was upheld. so good luck with that one, giz.
It's not arguable (well, technically, it's arguable, but they'll lose). No one has EVER won a case on the basis of a journalist in this country where they did something like this.
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out?
The state (California) is being gregarious where they really have no need to be. Apple did not report the item stolen, therefore they never reported a crime.
How do you know that Apple never reported a crime? Do you have the police logs?
More importantly, Apple didn't have to report it. Gizmodo did that. Gizmodo published what amounts to a confession of theft of stolen property and misappropriation of trade secrets. The police had sufficient knowledge of a crime to get a judge to order a warrant. Apple didn't have to do anything. If the police know of a crime being committed, they're supposed to take action - particularly when the criminal is so public.
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I see things from both sides here.
The burden of proof lies with California to prove that Gizmodo knew the item was stolen and also prove that Gizmodo/Gawker media should not have the same protections and rights that other media companies enjoy.
Both statements are false.
Gizmodo's published story says that the phone was found in a public place and sold to Gizmodo for $5 K. Under CA laws, that is a theft. Actually, given the price paid, it's grand theft.
Whether Gizmodo is a journalist, a blogger or a high school newspaper reporter is irrelevant. Being a journalist does not give you protection against theft charges.
Originally Posted by jonnyboy
i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo
Yeah, we should all LOVE someone who so openly breaks the law--and then brags about it.
Want to bet that the confiscated computers indicate that we don't have the whole story? Like the unnamed 'finder' was actually sent by Gizmodo or contacted Gizmodo in advance saying he thought he could get a phone? I really suspect that there's a lot more. Look at the timeline:
- Gizmodo offers a large reward for info on the new phone
- Someone just happens to be in a bar where Apple engineers hang out.
- Someone from Apple just happens to leave their phone on a bar stool.
- The person who 'finds' it just happens to ignore all the rational ways to return it and calls AppleCare instead
- The person who 'finds' it ignores the ringing phone all evening - which would almost certainly be the owner or someone who knows him.
- The person who 'finds' it just happens to call Gizmodo - hardly a household name. Why not the police? Apple HQ? Steve Jobs? The person the phone belonged to (his name and facebook page were on the phone)? The bartender or bar manager? Time Magazine? San Francisco paper? CNET? Out of all those options, he just 'happens' to call Gizmodo.
Originally Posted by ihxo
There are many possibilities.
1) the gizmodo editor bought the iPhone prototype without any idea that it was stolen
2) the gizmodo editor knew it was stolen
3) the gizmodo editor stole the iPhone prototype
4) the Apple engineer actually sold gizmodo the iPhone
5) Steve Jobs sold gizmodo the iPhone.
The police needs to get the evidence. Breaking the door might be a bit over the top, but that's probably regular procedure in order to preserve evidence.
they might actually find emails like
The place your argument falls down is that Gizmodo publicly announced that someone found it on a barstool and sold it to Gizmodo. Under CA law, that's felony theft.
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Sorry, under CA law, it is theft. If the guy had continued to try to get it back to the owner, you could make your argument. But the minute he sold it to Gizmodo, it became theft - and Gizmodo became the knowing recipient of stolen property.