“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”
During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.
In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
“I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,” he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney’s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?
Gazing into my crystal ball, I see that no charges will ever arise from all of this. Gizmodo may well be less adulatory about Apple products in future.
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?
At best Jason Chen unknowingly bought stolen goods.
At worse Jason Chen personally stole the prototype.
After all he is the only person seen with the stolen prototype on video.
actually there's a catch 22 here. if indeed the police retract the identity of the seller from Chen then he looses all credibility as a journalist as that's what the CA Shield Law is about, protecting your source. However in order to prove his innocence Chen will need the seller's to testify that Chen did indeed was not aware of the iPhone's dubious status.
But i do agree with the previous poster is that the authorities need to be absolutely clear of their purpose for a search warrant as this may reflect negatively to both the district office and Apple. You can't break into someone's property confiscating their belongings then try to justify it after the fact.
"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
WTF?
If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Gizmodo would use anything they possibly could to avoid getting their ass handed to them, I'd think.
Their shield law claim is out and out BS. They just want to try and avoid being investigated for commission of a felony. And the law doesn't extend that privilege to anyone.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
Investigating the commission of an alleged crime certainly cannot be in breach of any rights, otherwise how could the police ever investigate said crime?
Obviously, if the police knew full well that no crime had been committed and continued to investigate the crime we'd have an issue. But in this case Gizmodo had left a lovely trail of evidence pointing to the commission of said crime all of their homepage.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
You're seriously joking right? Seriously? So much of the hatred towards Gizmodo is because THEY totally ignored the right to privacy of the apple engineer who lost the phone in the first place.
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:
In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman’s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. […]
Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, “When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it’s in plain view, which is legal,” but cautioned, “TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.”
Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo’s best defense would be to argue that it didn’t know the phone was Apple’s property when it was shown to them.
Good luck to the editors of a web site that specializes in mobile gadgetry — owned by the same publisher that received this warning (http://gawker.com/5448177/update-app...scavenger-hunt) from Apple just two months prior — arguing that they didn’t know that a heretofore unseen iPhone prototype, for which they were willing to pay $5000, belonged to Apple. And that’s their best defense.
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
well... since they "work" for apple they had to remove every single Apple hardware from the premises... LOL... no more Apple for Chen...
I have to agree that the finder of the iphone 4G did commit theft... he could/should have turned it over to the bar's staff... or he could have walked over to the nearest police station & left it there... instead he took it home & went shopping for the highest bidder...
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
"One possible hitch: newsroom search laws are intended to protect only journalists. And as the Village Voice's blog pointed out, the site's editors have previously said: "We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention.""
Let me get this straight; they are not journalists when they want to break the rules, but they are journalists when they get caught? This is an example of being hoisted by your own petard.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
Actually, it looks as though the 'finder' shopped it around and offered it to a number of sites. Gizmodo paid the most.
Those other sites will be testifying, as well. Won't it be interesting when Wired and Engadget say that the seller contacted them about buying an Apple prototype phone that he 'found' and they refused to deal with him because it wasn't his to sell.
So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
WTF?
If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Are you really that clueless?
The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.
There's nothing nefarious about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
Perhaps they thought it was a Time Capsule. Not that it matters. These are policemen, not techncial experts. They're going to err on the side of taking too much (as long as it falls within the scope of the search warrant) rather than too little. They are not going to get in trouble for taking a router, but if they had left a Time Capsule which had all the important information, the press would be on them like flies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Good points. Moreover, it seems somewhat silly, and a tad unfair -- if ultimately shown that Chen is a 'journalist' -- that the wares that make his livelihood (not just what he types on, but his files, past data, references, sources, notes of work-in-progress, etc) are being sequestered until this is all legally sorted out.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
I predict that the courts will throw this out.
If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have been dealing in stolen property and misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.
The police have every right to investigate reported crimes and, with a search warrant, they have every right to search his home. He can (and did) raise objections later, but that doesn't mean that the police did anything wrong. They have a search warrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
He's probably had to identify the seller of the phone to authorities. Poor guy will probably end up in court to testify when the case goes to trial. At least he was wise enough to not buy the phone though.
That may be where the police found out the seller's name. It does raise an interesting dilemma for Gizmodo.
Gizmodo has a legal right to protect their sources. They could argue that the name of the person who sold them the phone is protected under Free Press laws. The fact that they didn't publish his name supports that. However, the police now know who the guy was, so they don't need that information.
Gizmodo published everything else, so he doesn't have much to protect. The police got most of what they need from Gizmodo's web site, so the information on the computers will only be filling in gaps and corroborating. Gizmodo is sunk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
What kind of nonsense is that?
A theft DID occur - under CA law. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, the person who 'found' the phone is guilty of theft under CA law unless the owner gave it to him. So theft DID occur. And since Gizmodo purchased stolen property, there is every reason to investigate them for that crime.
The police are simply doing their job - investigating a very public crime.
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:
In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman?s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. [?]
Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, ?When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it?s in plain view, which is legal,? but cautioned, ?TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.?
Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo?s best defense would be to argue that it didn?t know the phone was Apple?s property when it was shown to them.
Good luck on that. First, he paid $5 K for it. Why would he do that unless he knew what it was? Does he pay $5 K for any unknown phone that people call him about? If so, I probably have some very old phones in my garage that I no longer remember where they came from.
Equally important, the 'finder' shopped it around various web sites and sold it to the highest bidder. What happens when those other web sites testify that it was offered to them as a prototype Apple phone? So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
If you lost a prototype, unreleased phone worth many millions of dollars and the thief was very publicly telling the world that he had it, I would venture that the police would help you. Please stop with the 'it's just a phone' nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.
Nothing gives them the right to illegally search and seize. They have a valid search warrant based on the information available to them which makes the search legal.
Now, Gizmodo can later challenge that and the search warrant may be withdrawn or declared illegal, but that doesn't mean that it was illegal at the time it was executed. The police were clearly acting in good faith. When you have a search warrant and someone says 'you can't do that', you don't go away and find a lawyer - all the evidence would be destroyed when you got back. You secure the evidence and THEN see an attorney - which is what the police did.
And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.
The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
I don't think the question is about the legality of the search. They reasonable suspicion that a crime had occured* and they had a search warrent. The search was legal.
The question is: will the evidence be admissable in court. Contrary to your inference, this would have to be hashed out by lawyers whether or not the computers were seized.
Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money.
.
*I'm assuming that your position is NOT that they have to be positive that a crime was committed to undertake a search of private doccuments and such. Some posters do seem to be taking this rediculous stand...
If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have bee..... misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
seriously, does it seem like that have lawsuits and criminal investigations all over the place, or is it just me?
Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.
Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.
If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.
Comments
“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”
During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.
In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
“I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,” he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney’s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?
At best Jason Chen unknowingly bought stolen goods.
At worse Jason Chen personally stole the prototype.
After all he is the only person seen with the stolen prototype on video.
However you put it, the prototype was stolen.
But i do agree with the previous poster is that the authorities need to be absolutely clear of their purpose for a search warrant as this may reflect negatively to both the district office and Apple. You can't break into someone's property confiscating their belongings then try to justify it after the fact.
"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
WTF?
If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Gizmodo would use anything they possibly could to avoid getting their ass handed to them, I'd think.
Their shield law claim is out and out BS. They just want to try and avoid being investigated for commission of a felony. And the law doesn't extend that privilege to anyone.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
Investigating the commission of an alleged crime certainly cannot be in breach of any rights, otherwise how could the police ever investigate said crime?
Obviously, if the police knew full well that no crime had been committed and continued to investigate the crime we'd have an issue. But in this case Gizmodo had left a lovely trail of evidence pointing to the commission of said crime all of their homepage.
My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.
You're seriously joking right? Seriously? So much of the hatred towards Gizmodo is because THEY totally ignored the right to privacy of the apple engineer who lost the phone in the first place.
Tell me you were kidding... pot... kettle... sigh
Good Luck Feigning Ignorance
Daring Fireball 10-04-28 2:16 AM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:
In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman’s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. […]
Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, “When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it’s in plain view, which is legal,” but cautioned, “TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.”
Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo’s best defense would be to argue that it didn’t know the phone was Apple’s property when it was shown to them.
Good luck to the editors of a web site that specializes in mobile gadgetry — owned by the same publisher that received this warning (http://gawker.com/5448177/update-app...scavenger-hunt) from Apple just two months prior — arguing that they didn’t know that a heretofore unseen iPhone prototype, for which they were willing to pay $5000, belonged to Apple. And that’s their best defense.
★
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
well... since they "work" for apple they had to remove every single Apple hardware from the premises... LOL... no more Apple for Chen...
I have to agree that the finder of the iphone 4G did commit theft... he could/should have turned it over to the bar's staff... or he could have walked over to the nearest police station & left it there... instead he took it home & went shopping for the highest bidder...
No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.
However you put it, the prototype was stolen.
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
"One possible hitch: newsroom search laws are intended to protect only journalists. And as the Village Voice's blog pointed out, the site's editors have previously said: "We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention.""
Let me get this straight; they are not journalists when they want to break the rules, but they are journalists when they get caught? This is an example of being hoisted by your own petard.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.
Actually, it looks as though the 'finder' shopped it around and offered it to a number of sites. Gizmodo paid the most.
Those other sites will be testifying, as well. Won't it be interesting when Wired and Engadget say that the seller contacted them about buying an Apple prototype phone that he 'found' and they refused to deal with him because it wasn't his to sell.
So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' argument.
"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
WTF?
If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Are you really that clueless?
The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.
There's nothing nefarious about it.
Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?
Perhaps they thought it was a Time Capsule. Not that it matters. These are policemen, not techncial experts. They're going to err on the side of taking too much (as long as it falls within the scope of the search warrant) rather than too little. They are not going to get in trouble for taking a router, but if they had left a Time Capsule which had all the important information, the press would be on them like flies.
Good points. Moreover, it seems somewhat silly, and a tad unfair -- if ultimately shown that Chen is a 'journalist' -- that the wares that make his livelihood (not just what he types on, but his files, past data, references, sources, notes of work-in-progress, etc) are being sequestered until this is all legally sorted out.
I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.
I predict that the courts will throw this out.
If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have been dealing in stolen property and misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.
The police have every right to investigate reported crimes and, with a search warrant, they have every right to search his home. He can (and did) raise objections later, but that doesn't mean that the police did anything wrong. They have a search warrant.
He's probably had to identify the seller of the phone to authorities. Poor guy will probably end up in court to testify when the case goes to trial. At least he was wise enough to not buy the phone though.
That may be where the police found out the seller's name. It does raise an interesting dilemma for Gizmodo.
Gizmodo has a legal right to protect their sources. They could argue that the name of the person who sold them the phone is protected under Free Press laws. The fact that they didn't publish his name supports that. However, the police now know who the guy was, so they don't need that information.
Gizmodo published everything else, so he doesn't have much to protect. The police got most of what they need from Gizmodo's web site, so the information on the computers will only be filling in gaps and corroborating. Gizmodo is sunk.
Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.
What kind of nonsense is that?
A theft DID occur - under CA law. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, the person who 'found' the phone is guilty of theft under CA law unless the owner gave it to him. So theft DID occur. And since Gizmodo purchased stolen property, there is every reason to investigate them for that crime.
The police are simply doing their job - investigating a very public crime.
http://daringfireball.net/
Good Luck Feigning Ignorance
Daring Fireball 10-04-28 2:16 AM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:
In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman?s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. [?]
Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, ?When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it?s in plain view, which is legal,? but cautioned, ?TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.?
Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo?s best defense would be to argue that it didn?t know the phone was Apple?s property when it was shown to them.
Good luck on that. First, he paid $5 K for it. Why would he do that unless he knew what it was? Does he pay $5 K for any unknown phone that people call him about? If so, I probably have some very old phones in my garage that I no longer remember where they came from.
Equally important, the 'finder' shopped it around various web sites and sold it to the highest bidder. What happens when those other web sites testify that it was offered to them as a prototype Apple phone? So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' defense.
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
If you lost a prototype, unreleased phone worth many millions of dollars and the thief was very publicly telling the world that he had it, I would venture that the police would help you. Please stop with the 'it's just a phone' nonsense.
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.
Nothing gives them the right to illegally search and seize. They have a valid search warrant based on the information available to them which makes the search legal.
Now, Gizmodo can later challenge that and the search warrant may be withdrawn or declared illegal, but that doesn't mean that it was illegal at the time it was executed. The police were clearly acting in good faith. When you have a search warrant and someone says 'you can't do that', you don't go away and find a lawyer - all the evidence would be destroyed when you got back. You secure the evidence and THEN see an attorney - which is what the police did.
And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.
The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.
So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?
I don't think the question is about the legality of the search. They reasonable suspicion that a crime had occured* and they had a search warrent. The search was legal.
The question is: will the evidence be admissable in court. Contrary to your inference, this would have to be hashed out by lawyers whether or not the computers were seized.
Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money.
.
*I'm assuming that your position is NOT that they have to be positive that a crime was committed to undertake a search of private doccuments and such. Some posters do seem to be taking this rediculous stand...
seriously, does it seem like that have lawsuits and criminal investigations all over the place, or is it just me?
If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have bee..... misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
Apple Computer ---> Apple Inc ---> Apple Legal?
seriously, does it seem like that have lawsuits and criminal investigations all over the place, or is it just me?
Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.
Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.
If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.