Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.
It is as close to the source as you are going to get. Take it as coming from Gray. He is not saying anything else about it, expect that it was Stolen off him, not lost.
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were revealed. Please.
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
Your leaving out one possibility, as stolen and lost are different verbs.
so:
6) the Apple engineer left the phone on the bar and it was found.
If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were reaveled. Please.
Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
You are all missing the point. The search was carried out by California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team. There whole raison d'etre is to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen.
This search was done "pour encourager les autres". (google it if you don't know what it means).
I don't know why they needed to do that, all the evidence is right there on the web for anyone to see. I am in favor of fining them for publishing trade secrets, but knocking down people's doors is a bit extreme.
After this, I guess in future if anyone finds an Apple prototype they will keep their mouth shut and quietly mail it back to them!
If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
If you find someone's wallet in a bar, are you allowed to keep it, spend all the money, and publish all their private info on the web? Or would that change it from finding to stealing? If you quietly hand it to the bartender that is finding.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Theft
Purchase of stolen property
Possession of stolen property
Unlawful disclosure of trade secrets
Damaging stolen property
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Suuuuuurrre.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
Isnt that what everyone is screaming about? Its not like the hid the fact they had it. They promptly returned it when asked for it. It was a lost phone they may or may not have belonged to Apple. Whats the difference of me buying something stolen from a crackhead and then posting pics all over the neighborhood asking if this item belonged to someone?
I'm glad that law enforcement officials are following up on this. I think "Gizmodo" went too far on this one. Rumors are fine, but if they knowingly took possession of property that they knew was Apple's and then went on to disassemble and distribute information about it, I think they should be charged.
Agreed... I think Gizmodo went way too far when they took the device apart.
Do people in America read anymore? How many times does it have to be repeated that this is not about revealing trade secrets, free speech, journalistic freedom or any of that! They payed $5000 for a piece of property that they had to know with 100% certainty did not belong to the person they were buying it from. It has NOTHING to do with Apple! There are probably thousands of these same type of investigations happening every year but you don't hear about it because nobody cares. The only reason why this is making such a big deal is because at least one party involved is well known around the world.
As far as I have gathered, the only one "publishing original text" was Gizmodo - that then got republished and speculated by both internet and print media.
Apple is not exactly talking -- to corroborate or deny the sequence of events, or their validity. While there were reports about the Apple employee that left the alleged iPhone in the bar, all the scenarios were from second hand sources (e.g., the Father). The bar owner indicated that the Apple employee called the bar several times; there was no report of anyone "finding" the alleged lost item.
To my knowledge (mostly from Gizmodo and secondary or umpteenth repetition from other sources):
Gizmodo has identified who was the original holder of the alleged iPhone G4.
Note: "Alleged" because there was no confirming evidence from Apple that it was indeed an iPhone G4. Gizmodo, or anyone else is not yet privy to the technical specifications of the actual iPhone G4 widely known to be released around June 2010.
Gizmodo has not identified the person who got "it" and was not very forthcoming about the sequence of events after.
Eventually the alleged iPhone "magically" reached someone associated with Gizmodo.
Gizmodo admitted to paying $5,000 for access to the alleged iPhone G4.
Gizmodo was certain the "alleged" was actually an iPhone G4 -- the basis of its scoop. For the same reason, Gizmodo must then have realized also that the existence the alleged iPhone G4 remains restricted, as it is not yet released.
As such, the alleged iPhone G4 must be treated as a propriety property under the protection of "trade secrets".
There is no indication that Gizmodo ever contacted Apple to inform the latter that they (Gizmodo) are in possession of a proprietary property that Gizmodo believed to be the iPhone G4 -- not yet released and not readily available to the public -- that belongs to Apple.
In spite of all the aforementioned, Gizmodo decided to take photos, disassemble the alleged iPhone G4 to learn more about how it worked. And published their findings.
I could go on, but we really do not know the full story. What is certain is that the California statutes have definite rulings on how to deal with "lost or stolen" properties.
Gizmodo believed it did not violate any laws. Obviously, the law enforcement offices and officers, at the very least in California, believed otherwise (assuming I summarized the alleged events as dispassionately as I can).
CGC
So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were revealed. Please. Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
It may be hard to prove what damages were caused, but certainly trade secrets were revealed. Here's what was not public knowledge (regardless of speculation or rumors) but was revealed by Gizmodo having illegally paid for the stolen iPhone and publishing it:
1) Front facing camera
2) Apparent doubling of screen resolution
3) 80GB which may indicate two flash modules
4) Consolidation of components
5) Flash
6) Larger camera lens
7) Larger battery
8) Design change
These aren't trade secrets in the sense that a competitor will think, "oh, we never thought of having a front facing camera or more storage", but rather it affects Apple's ability to do several things:
1) Control the release and promotion of the information
2) Make changes without disappointing people...imagine if the released phone doesn't now come with the above things. That wouldn't be good.
3) Surprise competitors with where they're going to be this summer.
4) While there's a pattern of new iPhone releases in June/July, nobody knew for sure and certainly not the details...thus customers may wait on buying existing models or may decide that the upcoming iPhone won't be that great so they'll buy a competitive product (and it may turn out that the actual iPhone is better than the prototype).
Apple could've been wrong to not demo and release the specs of the upcoming iPhone a long time ago, but that's their call to make and taking that away from them is revealing trade secrets and is illegal when the methods used are illegal themselves (the felony of paying $5K for a stolen iPhone).
Comments
Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.
It is as close to the source as you are going to get. Take it as coming from Gray. He is not saying anything else about it, expect that it was Stolen off him, not lost.
Those cost extra for no apparent reason. The white ones are much more affordable.
Maybe they are machined from a solid block of billet aluminum...
Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.
Yes, but hearsay is admissible here at AI.
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
Your leaving out one possibility, as stolen and lost are different verbs.
so:
6) the Apple engineer left the phone on the bar and it was found.
If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were reaveled. Please.
Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
This search was done "pour encourager les autres". (google it if you don't know what it means).
Here are the remarks from Neowin members, for everyone's amusement.
http://www.neowin.net/news/gizmodo-e...eized#comments
LOL
I particularly liked
"Yeah, i never buy anything from Apple... One reason! OVER PRICED! AND RIP-OFF!".
Not to mention expensive.
1. Chen should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
2. Gizmodo and its parent company should be prosecuted for materially benefiting from Chen crime.
- Certainly any revenue generated from page clicks on pages relating to the crime.
- Possibly a fine for knowingly benefiting from a crime.
After this, I guess in future if anyone finds an Apple prototype they will keep their mouth shut and quietly mail it back to them!
The whole 'Law' argument is bullshit.
1. Chen should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
2. Gizmodo and its parent company should be prosecuted for materially benefiting from Chen crime.
- Certainly any revenue generated from page clicks on pages relating to the crime.
- Possibly a fine for knowingly benefiting from a crime.
There fixed that for you
If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
If you find someone's wallet in a bar, are you allowed to keep it, spend all the money, and publish all their private info on the web? Or would that change it from finding to stealing? If you quietly hand it to the bartender that is finding.
Your leaving out one possibility, as stolen and lost are different verbs.
so:
6) the Apple engineer left the phone on the bar and it was found.
If you find $10 on the street, are you allowed to spend it without going to jail?
actually you do not own anything you "found".
You can give it to the police. after a period of time, if no one claims the property, then it's yours to keep.
actually you do not own anything you "found".
You can give it to the police. after a period of time, if no one claims the property, then it's yours to keep.
That's a good point.
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.
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.
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.
Oh give us a break.
Repeat after me: Stolen Property. Criminal Case. Police Action, not Apple Action.
You left a couple out:
Theft
Purchase of stolen property
Possession of stolen property
Unlawful disclosure of trade secrets
Damaging stolen property
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suuuuuurrre.
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.
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.
Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
Isnt that what everyone is screaming about? Its not like the hid the fact they had it. They promptly returned it when asked for it. It was a lost phone they may or may not have belonged to Apple. Whats the difference of me buying something stolen from a crackhead and then posting pics all over the neighborhood asking if this item belonged to someone?
I'm glad that law enforcement officials are following up on this. I think "Gizmodo" went too far on this one. Rumors are fine, but if they knowingly took possession of property that they knew was Apple's and then went on to disassemble and distribute information about it, I think they should be charged.
Agreed... I think Gizmodo went way too far when they took the device apart.
As far as I have gathered, the only one "publishing original text" was Gizmodo - that then got republished and speculated by both internet and print media.
Apple is not exactly talking -- to corroborate or deny the sequence of events, or their validity. While there were reports about the Apple employee that left the alleged iPhone in the bar, all the scenarios were from second hand sources (e.g., the Father). The bar owner indicated that the Apple employee called the bar several times; there was no report of anyone "finding" the alleged lost item.
To my knowledge (mostly from Gizmodo and secondary or umpteenth repetition from other sources):
- Gizmodo has identified who was the original holder of the alleged iPhone G4.
- Note: "Alleged" because there was no confirming evidence from Apple that it was indeed an iPhone G4. Gizmodo, or anyone else is not yet privy to the technical specifications of the actual iPhone G4 widely known to be released around June 2010.
- Gizmodo has not identified the person who got "it" and was not very forthcoming about the sequence of events after.
- Eventually the alleged iPhone "magically" reached someone associated with Gizmodo.
- Gizmodo admitted to paying $5,000 for access to the alleged iPhone G4.
- Gizmodo was certain the "alleged" was actually an iPhone G4 -- the basis of its scoop. For the same reason, Gizmodo must then have realized also that the existence the alleged iPhone G4 remains restricted, as it is not yet released.
- As such, the alleged iPhone G4 must be treated as a propriety property under the protection of "trade secrets".
- There is no indication that Gizmodo ever contacted Apple to inform the latter that they (Gizmodo) are in possession of a proprietary property that Gizmodo believed to be the iPhone G4 -- not yet released and not readily available to the public -- that belongs to Apple.
- In spite of all the aforementioned, Gizmodo decided to take photos, disassemble the alleged iPhone G4 to learn more about how it worked. And published their findings.
I could go on, but we really do not know the full story. What is certain is that the California statutes have definite rulings on how to deal with "lost or stolen" properties.Gizmodo believed it did not violate any laws. Obviously, the law enforcement offices and officers, at the very least in California, believed otherwise (assuming I summarized the alleged events as dispassionately as I can).
CGC
So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.
So tell me, why come at me the way you did?
Can someone please tell me what "trade secrets" were revealed? Was the phone reversed engineered by a competitor? No. A front facing camera, we saw that on the EVO a month ago. Form factor, it looks like an LG Prada of 3 yrs ago. And we all knew a new iPhone was coming out, and what does it look like? OMG it looks like an iPhone. Yeah big secrets were revealed. Please. Makes no difference what got out. What did or did not get out changes nothing.
It may be hard to prove what damages were caused, but certainly trade secrets were revealed. Here's what was not public knowledge (regardless of speculation or rumors) but was revealed by Gizmodo having illegally paid for the stolen iPhone and publishing it:
1) Front facing camera
2) Apparent doubling of screen resolution
3) 80GB which may indicate two flash modules
4) Consolidation of components
5) Flash
6) Larger camera lens
7) Larger battery
8) Design change
These aren't trade secrets in the sense that a competitor will think, "oh, we never thought of having a front facing camera or more storage", but rather it affects Apple's ability to do several things:
1) Control the release and promotion of the information
2) Make changes without disappointing people...imagine if the released phone doesn't now come with the above things. That wouldn't be good.
3) Surprise competitors with where they're going to be this summer.
4) While there's a pattern of new iPhone releases in June/July, nobody knew for sure and certainly not the details...thus customers may wait on buying existing models or may decide that the upcoming iPhone won't be that great so they'll buy a competitive product (and it may turn out that the actual iPhone is better than the prototype).
Apple could've been wrong to not demo and release the specs of the upcoming iPhone a long time ago, but that's their call to make and taking that away from them is revealing trade secrets and is illegal when the methods used are illegal themselves (the felony of paying $5K for a stolen iPhone).