Prosecution seeks to protect informant in Gizmodo iPhone case - Page 2

Completely wrong. They guy who found it said (in his public interview) that he did NOT try to call Apple. He had a friend who said he'd do it - but there's no evidence that he actually followed through. More importantly, that's not a legitimate attempt to return it. If he were really interested in returning it, he could have:
- call the guy who lost it at Apple - he knew his name
- answered the phone when it rang that night - since anyone calling would probably be the owner or a friend of the owner
- looked through the phone numbers for one called 'mom' or 'office' and left a message
- sent a message to the guy's Facebook account
- Call Apple HQ
- turn it over to the police
- turn it over to the bartender or bar manager
- call Apple legal
- call Apple R&D
- Drop it off at Apple HQ
- Mail it to Apple HQ
Instead, he made ZERO effort to return it. His friend MIGHT HAVE called AppleCare - which is the stupidest thing in the world to do. They are there to solve technical problems. If you called and said "I found a lost iPhone", no one would expect them to be able to return it to the owner.

You keep saying it wasn't stolen. Please familiarize yourself with the law in CA and, AFAIK, every state in the country. It WAS stolen by law.

There's no evidence that the rightful owner said that they didn't want it. AT BEST, some support drone might have said he didn't know what to do with it so don't return it to him. That's not the same as the owner saying he didn't want it.

Your values are backwards. It IS a multimillion dollar phone. its early release is going to cost Apple a lot of sales and also give Apple's competition a several month head start. Prototypes are VERY valuable - especially Apple prototypes which are normally veiled in secrecy. Claiming it was worth only $200 is absurd - especially when the guy was paid $5 K for it.



There are rumors, but there are also direct quotes from people involved. You are inaccurately reporting almost all the facts as they are currently known.

You keep stating that it's Apple's fault for leaving it in a bar. That's not correct. The law very clearly understands that people make mistakes and things get lost. BUT THE FINDER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ATTEMPT TO RETURN THEM - which did not happen in this case.

Why would Apple apologize to Chen? Chen admitted to having paid for stolen property and Apple reported a stolen phone to the police. The police were doing their job to get a search warrant (you left that part out) and raid the house. If Chen didn't want his house raided, he shouldn't buy stolen property.

DeGeneres is a different issue and adding it in simply confuses things. The problem in Ellen's case is that she made something that looked exactly like an Apple commercial. Apple must legally defend its trademarks - and her misuse of the Apple trademark could weaken the brand. Given that the Apple brand is currently worth something like $100 BILLION, Apple has a huge incentive to protect their brand.


The EFF is like PETA. They take a good idea and extend it past the breaking point until they become nothing more than radical extremists (my favorite is PETA's demand that Punxatawny Phil (the famous Feb 2 groundhog) be replaced with a robot).


Then what you remember is wrong. If you had done even a modicum of research, you'd know what the CA law says on the matter. It has been posted on AI dozens of times in the past few weeks even if you're too lazy to search for the info online. If someone finds a lost article and doesn't make a reasonable attempt to return it to the owner, it is stolen property.

I "find" a phone in a bar, I give it to the bartender. I know the owner is going to retrace his steps at some point.

There are just too many holes showing up in the prosecution's story here.

First, they raid Chen's home. As a journalist, this is only arguably permissible if they are investigating a crime that he committed. But the information they used to get the search warrant was sealed, with their argument being that there are 2 persons of interested (i.e. 2 persons being investigated) whom they don't want to alert. Since they raided Chen's home, we can assume they are not referring to him as one of those two people. This means they searched his home/office and seized his equipment to further an investigation into other individuals. That starts to get very close to crossing the line of search and seizure of a journalist's professional sources. If the search was to investigate Chen, they could have simply used that to get the search warrant and there wouldn't be a need to attempt to avoid alerting 2 other people by sealing the search request. So it would appear that they searched his home/office in order to collect material gathered in his position as a journalist, to further an investigation against other individuals. Questionable.

Now they change their story to claim that they want to sealed in order to protect a confidential informant. So, who was this informant? Some one from inside Giz/Gawker? Unlikely. More likely, it was someone associated with the finder or the finder himself. This would imply they are going after Chen and Gawker, with the 2 other people of interest are possibly Denton and whomever else was involved at their end.

If this is the case, it would seem the DA would be throwing away a case that is almost a slam dunk against the finder. Whether he sold the phone or sold access to the phone, he benefitted from it which would be illegal. Chen on the other hand could argue that he did not buy the phone, but paid for the chance to give it a look over. Whether this would stand up in court is questionable, as to whether there is a difference between buying the phone and paying to look at it for a few days. If court determines that there is a difference and that letting Giz look the phone over was not criminal on Giz' part and if the material gathered in the search show emails/records of Chen offering the finder money to look at the phone then it would seem the DA might have thrown away a fairly solid case against the finder in order to lose against against Chen. If the court says paying to look at the phone is the same as buying the phone, then Chen et al are looking at a difficult case, thoughI don't expect the sentence, if convicted to be very harsh. The seizure of Chen's equipment might have been to find information that could show Chen's intent...to buy the phone or access to the phone.

OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??

You forgot to add that he gets his car back in pieces.

Since leaving the premises with the car would automatically be theft, whereas leaving with the phone is not automatically theft, that is a really bad analogy. I don't understand why people keep comparing the two. Your analogy would better if you left it at the keys. If you took keys home, you would not automatically be a thief. You would be a dick, but not a thief. What you do with the keys after that point would determine whether you committed theft.

Why? That does not appear to be the case with the iPhone. At all. The stores indicated it was fully reassembled. In fact, they said they did not complete the disassembly in order to avoid damaging it.

So, I guess we could correct you statement to:
"You forgot to add that he gets his car [keys] back in [essentially the same state he lost them]"

There you go. More accurate and honest. That wasn't too hard after all.

I'm sorry. but your analysis is clear, and is dead-on target.
It, therefor, makes no sense in this forum.

Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.

Truths, facts and context will eventually come out in the open. Apple's fate doesn't rest on petty grievances. Industrial espionage and control over products development cycles are keys to unlocking the mystery.

There might be a lot more actors in this Drama than the Blogosphere and the Medias care to look for.

I guess the Legal Authorities are on to something beyond the chattering noise of the wishful thinking crowd. But, of course, I wouldn't know for sure. While hindsight is 20/20, insight is fuzzy and mainly self-serving.

Well put. I might also add that the salient point is that this is now officially about FELONY THEFT. "However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."

Not too many ways to sugar-coat that....

Honesty and accuracy do come into play when someone is trying to make an analogy to demonstrate the issues at play. I could make up some really stupid analogy comparing the case to someone breaking into Jobs home, holding him hostage at gun point, ransacking his home until they found the prototype, killing Jobs and the then stealing the phone. I mean, that analogy would bear many of the same story points, intentionally included to inflate the issue and dishonestly imply greater similarity than actually exists.

No, the car theft analogy has been demonstrated to be a very week analogy. As weak as an armed robbery and murder analogy. Taking someone car is covered by different laws than found property. It is intentional misdirection and it gets very tired. It shows either laziness or dishonesty. But it keeps coming up. At least they aren't comparing it to rape anymore. That seemed to be very popular for a while.

Back dating of stocks in of itself is not illegal.

Quite right and that is what any reasonable person would do.

Umm, receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Depending on how much the value of the property. If apple puts a ridiculous price on the value of their prototype, he may get charged with a class C felony.

I don't think he should get anything other than probation. Seems silly to send someone to prison for this. But Chen really didn't think things through.

IDK about you, but I certainly don't have $200,000 in readily available cash.

Please show us the CA law that supports that interpretation.

In fact, according to CA law, they're BOTH theft, so the analogy is quite accurate.


There are pictures of it in pieces all over the web. Where is the evidence that it was reassembled? Furthermore, it can be damaged in disassembly - which is why what they did would have voided the warranty if it were a for-sale iPhone.


Your first paragraph and second paragraphs contradict each other. If it was a serious felony, he needs to be seriously punished. I think the person who took it and Chen deserve jail time. They KNOWINGLY sold a stolen phone (under the law) and used it to deprive Apple of something that is very valuable (Apple's secrecy). It's really that simple. If these guys get off the hook, what's to stop someone from breaking into Apple HQ to steal other prototypes?

You asked this once before and I took the time to explain it to you and posted and contrasted the differences between a stolen car (California Vehicle Code) and lost property statutes. I won't post them for you again. You often claim to be a lawyer (or paralegal or whatever) so you shouldn't need a layman like me to explain them to you again. Suffice to say, for anyone that wants to read them, taking a car under any circumstances, unless you are a person authorized by the state, is immediately considered theft. Taking a found item (not a car for those being obtuse) is not considered theft. Period. Only if you then fail to meet the obligations assumed by taking responsibility for the item does it them become theft.

If the poster had left his original analogy to the found car keys, then it would be a better analogy. The Lost Property Statues (as opposed to the Vehicle Code) would apply. Like I said, taking those keys home would make one a dick, but not a thief. Failing to return them at all or selling them would make one a thief.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, please never be my lawyer.


Ahh, but your implied it was returned in pieces. But that would be a lie. Most electronic devices can be disassembled with care without damage. For the technically challenged, this is actually how they repair them. It is entirely possible to take it apart and reassemble it without damage. You implied it was returned disassembled. Just not an honest analogy. Hence, my correction of your faulty analogy.

<edit> All we have are the giz stores for the most part for 'evidence'. The last line in their story about the disassembly is "After subsequently putting the phone back together, I really feel sorry for the factory workers in China who do this all day."

Might not be true. Might be true. Certainly, no reason to assert categorically that it isn't. </edit>

Between these asinine analogies and your insistence that we will find out that the entire episode was a scripted theft by agents of Gizmodo to obtain the prototype, it is really getting weird. The DA seems to feel there is a case here. Why do people feel the need to artificially bolster the 'evidence'? It is especially strange to do in an informal forum, as we have here, where twisting and spinning the facts won't actually accomplish anything. These aren't the Salem Witch Trials. No need to convict before trial, make up 'evidence' or burn anyone at the stake. No need for Samuel Parris here, thanks.

My first paragraph only states that it could be a felony by law. My second states that I don't hope he isn't charged with a felony, my opinion. But yeah, if gets 10 years for being overzealous, then so be it.

Chen is not going to go to jail, that's just ridiculous Apple fanboy talk.

What I want to know is what role, if any, Apple played in getting the REACT taskforce involved. Did the REACT group get involved by the request of Apple? I think the prosecution wants to delay the release of the search warrant as long as possible because they know it's going to make both the court, REACT and Apple look really bad.

That is, of course, BS. Your 'explanation' of why my analogy didn't apply boiled down to "I don't want to believe it".
I love your silly rationalization at the end of your first paragraph. Let's even assume that you're right. Now, try to follow:

1. You admit that taking a car is theft.
2. You agree that taking a phone is theft if you don't follow through on your obligations.
3. The finder clearly did not follow through on his obligations.
4. Therefore, it is theft - no matter how many foolish rationalizations you try to come up with.

Trying to get back a stolen prototype of a mulit-million dollar product is gonna make Apple look bad?

Not a fanboy either.

Good Jebus, you broke my Irony-o-Meter with those words.

It took a second, but I got it. Correct use of the word Irony as well.

Love it!

That will be my only comment on this subject.

No, it boils down to what is reasonable and what does rational thought tell us. Oh and the law.


I love how you write off the parts of the statute that you don't like as 'rationalization'. So, what's the constitution? A distraction?


Yup.

Do you not see the difference here? Taking the phone is not theft. It is not theft. It is not theft. (Does repeating it more often make it more true? Trying to learn from your example) Actions (or lack of) taken after you took possession of it would make it theft. Contrast with simply taking a car. That is theft.

Chen breaking into Job's home, killing his dog and stealing the television would also involve theft. An intelligent person might, however, see that as a really, really poor analogy. Others might not.


And yet, there were obligations. This is because taking the phone was not theft, until those obligations are violated. Taking a car is theft, nothing further required. Apples ain't oranges, but they are both fruit. Armed robbery is theft too, but holy shit would that ever be the weakest analogy ever. I am sure you would try to make it fit.


Or statutes, laws, codes. Son, you might not like the laws, but writing them off as rationalizations is weak. A lawyer should understand that. Even a junior associate or paralegal.

You asked why simply leaving with the phone was not theft but leaving with a car is automatically theft (actually, this is the second time recently you have asked the same question). No rationalization required, just explaining the facts of the law to you again.

If my lawyer had to ask me to explain the law to him, I would fire him. Quickly.

I'm not arguing that what the guy did wasn't illegal, but this situation is taken completely out of proportion here. Why is a guy's apartment being raided over a lost phone? Just because this phone is a company secret doesn't warn't such harsh reaction. It was a complete blunder for the Apple employ who "lost" it in a bar, its ridiculous, completely Apple's fault for not keeping better tabs (or any tabs) on their million dollar secret. And the guy getting his apartment raided and prosecuted only makes it look worse that Apple is so up tight about it.


Excuse me? I've owned several Apple products, an original iPod touch, an original iPhone (I bought it within the month it came out), an iPhone 3GS, and multiple mac mini's and macbooks. I'm also a shareholder with a lot of interest in how this company works, the direction its going in, and the media it receives. The point of an internet forum is to exchange knowledge and ideas, I completely misunderstood the situation and a member was able to correct me and give me the actual story, as otherwise a simple google search only leads to contradicting and uninformative rumors. Its fine to disagree with me, but the fact that you went through the time to look through all post is very pathetic and immature. My post was not factual but a member was able to correct me, your post however is just spam and flaming.

And you are still following the well established pattern of forum trolls. That second paragraph is textbook troll deflection. I own... device(s), stock, love, karma... Out of proportion reaction... what's next a mention of jackboots.

If you aren't a troll man up and subject yourself to a quiet period where you will do more to help your reputation than continued defense in absurdium will do.

The only thing that is blown out of proportion in this case is the media interest. A couple dudes broke the law and got caught doing it because they shout their mouths off (or more accurately blogged about it). This happens all the time and nobody cares about it. But steal from a successful company that is now having a backlash against it's success and suddenly the media loves it. The dudes are in deep legal trouble and the only thing keeping them from having already spent their evening in jail after being booked is that at least one of them can be considered a journalist in some fashion. The DA is being overcautious, but he wants his big splashy conviction and unless he really screws it up he'll get it.

You don't actually have the right to say that. only a Mod does, and the mod has no problem with his post, just as he has no problem with yours.

....Until someone complains....of course.

So, basically, the same could be said about you, no matter how many posts you have.

Oh wait! The prosecution is only allowed ONE reason to seal the files. Silly me! And it is SO OUT OF THE ORDINARY for one judge to defer to another in cases like this. Yep the quintessential legal mind at work here!

I have every right to comment on the contents of his posts and the tone they take. I did not ad-hom, I commented on the posts and his failed attempt to position himself as something other than a troll. I was even nice enough to suggest a specific and very reasonable technique for rehabilitating his poor reputation of his posts should he be merely misguided.

I'm really not going to argue with you. It is what you would like, but it is not what you are going to get.

You made an unfit label, which in print can actually be said to be libel. You are playing the same game used against tekstud, labeling someone as a troll and getting others to gang up on him and I really have no margin for it.

Did the OP he was responding to message you and ask you to come to his defense, or did you just see he was defending himself against one of your friends and you all defaulted to your MO? I really don't care either way.

Your entire statement was unfounded, based on opinion alone, and was a thinly veiled personal attack, and your response to me suggest mayhap you should consult a mirror.

That is all I will say on the subject, to you or anyone.

Good evening, sir.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/12/...totype-iphone/

I like one of the comments which is to the effect of: What are apple going to do now? Invade Vietnam? Lol

Is that what I said? Nice to see a rational mind at work.

However, if they have multiple reasons and are trying to explain why they asked for it to be sealed, presenting those reasons together would help make them more plausible. Trickling them out, days apart, as though they forgot some of them makes it sound like the are grasping a bit. As far as the judge, well, when one judges makes a decision that a party finds to be questionable, it isn't unusual to bring it to another judge or court to review the decision. Sort of part of their job. You might not understand these concepts, so I apologize if I have confused you.

So, then it would be ok if someone suggested that you take a break from posting, as you are coming off as a thoughtless cheerleader (as opposed to you calling him a troll)? They might suggest that it would help your reputation as someone who unthinkingly parrots the party line, even if the party line doesn't make sense? I guess if someone was to do that, they might be trying to rehabilitate your reputation. I, however, would think they would make these suggestions to you because they are unable to participate in reasoned debate and instead simply try shut you down. I would disagree with anyone telling you to shut up simply because they don't like what you are posting (whether it was fact or fantasy). They would be out of line. What fun would these forums be if we only had mindless posts from one side of an issue? Sounds about as fun as attending a Scientology convention.

What is particularly funny, is that you and others are acting like questioning/criticizing the actions of the DA or the police or the court somehow is criticizing Apple and so take it as a personal insult to you. In most cases, in this thread, that isn't the case. I see many more posts that question the case or even point out glaring holes in the assumptions and analogies that others are making, but you somehow relate this to an attack on Apple. Beyond the issues with someone so strangely entangling their sense of self with a corporation, it gets more bizarre that some have managed to now project these blind loyalties onto the police and DA.

Please say all that rather than hypothesize. I called it straight up, no pussy-footing around or wishy-washy fake what-ifs. We all have opinions on your posts and their reality already, you'll only serve to reinforce opinions that are already there.

I am sure you do have an opinion Hiro, I am sure you do.

You didn't really call anything straight up, as much as having defaulting to the same old, tired, worn out "if you disagree with the party line then you are a troll, so shut up, nyah, nyah, nyah". No pussy-footing or what-ifs, just nothing really of any value. Seems to be par for the course for your posts.

What is it you would like me to say? I thought I was quite clear that saying those thing about you and then using them to justify telling you to shut up would be rude. You don't get that? It is a childish and weak minded to seek to shut down opposing discussion. Why would I opt to do that? I enjoy reading opposing, well thought out discussion. I dislike people that instead tell people with opposing views to shut up. This isn't kindergarten, we can all have and state our opinion. The point of my post was to explain that to you. You missed the point, again. My bad, I guess.

Between you and Robin huber, I swear half of your posts are telling other people to 'just shut up'. Not the best contribution to informed conversation, but to each his own.

True to form... Thanks for the confirmation, although I really didn't require it, thanks anyway.

What is it I'd like you to say? I really don't have an agenda for you. Sorry, but it's just not a priority for me.

What would I like for the world? For people to actually read more than micro-chunks and then actually understand what they read. To be able to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion. If the people of the world could actually do that we might have a future as a species.

No problem Hiro, always willing to help those in need. BTW, I just noticed your very first post in this thread was to call someone a troll and tell them to stop posting. Talk about true to form. Nice.



Hmmm...perhaps you shouldn't have asked it of me then. Not a priority for you, but certainly something you asked for. Puzzling line of thought you have.


Wow, would that ever make the world a better place. High hopes indeed. We ought to all strive for such loftiness in our global vision It seems though, that perhaps we share a common ideal. While this might be your ideal for a perfect world, for me the scope is somewhat less. I would like to see that behavior right here on these forums. Much better than seeing people take the easy route and telling others to shut up. We learn as children (hopefully) that is not conducive to mature conversation and interaction. If those lessons of childhood can't be expected here, how can we expect to realize the grand dream of seeing it on a global, international scale?

Baby steps Hiro, baby steps.

MacRumors
I guess we will see who the confidential informant was (unless redacted) and who else is being investigated that the police thought were unaware (and living under a rock).