edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.
While I don't think that Chen requesting a formal letter requesting the phone back was legally any more damning than the rest of the episode, it was a dick move to make during a call from Jobs asking for the phone back. Very likely, if he had simply said OK and returned it, this would have all been forgotten. Getting on Jobs bad side is a good way to have a bad day.
No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.
It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.
In California the law clearly says if you find a lost object and don't make a true effort to return it, you stole it. According to the Gizmodo articles, a half assed at best effort was made, likely utilizing a method no one actually believed would work. On top of not merely leaving it at the bar with or without sending a facebook message (since the guy says he knew whose phone it was because it was logged into the service). Gizmodo then knowingly paid money for something that wasn't this man's to sell, at a level that makes the offense a felony. Admitted to the purchase and the amount publicly etc. They latter tried to recant and say the money was for merely the story but they had already published articles saying they purchased the phone full stop.
And after the Valleywag stunt it should be no shock if it turns out that the DA and this task force have been watching all of Gawker closely and captured every article as it came out as proof of what was said. The raid is merely to see if there's additional confirmation like Chen telling the guy to call AppleCare, the phrasing of the deal being "to buy the phone unit" etc. And to see what else might have been said.
In the end, Gizmodo got stupid and did this to themselves. They can't claim shield laws because it is a confessed criminal act. What they should have done was taken the photos and video with no voices, faces etc attached and posted them as 'provided by a reliable source'. THEN they could make a claim for shield laws.
Now at the least they put their rep and the rep of their parent company at risk. Apple is not likely to provide them with any review materials and might ban them from all media events. Other companies might follow suit, at least in regards to pulling ads etc from Gawker sites. And that could hurt more than any criminal penalties or civil suits.
I see your point about Apple's public perception, but at the same time, 3GS sales may be hindered (at an as yet unknown level) by the fact that people are now holding off on buying a 3GS in lieu of a 4G.
You've also got to consider that all of Apple's competition examined those teardowns and are possibly improving or redesigning their upcoming products as a result, potentially costing Apple months in the Cold War of smartphones. That could potentially result in lost revenue and lost marketshare.
edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.
Well, I don't think additional charges can't be added to that list. But, as I said, I don't have any legal opinion (not being a lawyer) on whether they could actually make a case for extortion.
Hope he doesn't resist arrest when they go to pick him up after the courts close on a Friday evening.
"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".
I don't think so.
We don't even have intelligent trolls anymore. If you take a 'top secret' document from a government agency, and take a picture of it, even if you return the document you have stolen said document.
Please keep your trolling to things you understand, which should really cut down on your posts.
Jail for a very long time! This is one prime example of very unethical behaviour on the part of the media. It is about time somebody be held accountable for this.
Of course being a first offense they will likely walk.
For instance, the first pictures appeared on Gizmodo's website, and then only a couple of days later did the pictures appear of the device "tear down." We now know that Apple contacted them about the phone when they saw it on the web, seemingly immediately.
If the tear-down was done *after* Apple contacted them about the phone, then it's straight industrial espionage and the defence that they "didn't know it was an Apple phone until they opened it" looks specious.
Even if the tear-down was done *before* Apple contacted them, but then published *after* Apple has already contacted them and said it was their phone then it's still clearly illegal. They would be releasing trade secrets about what appeared to be a multi-million dollar secret phone project after being told by the purported owners of the phone that it was in fact theirs and was in fact exactly that.
exactly. And even if they claim they didn't know it was an Apple phone, the story of finding it an a bar tells us that it was NOT Mr Hogan's phone and those only Cali's 'attempt to return' rules, it was a stolen item.
Quote:
It just looks more and more like these guys were just ignorant and acting on a lot of high-school legal advice. Gizmodo's staff has always seemed a bit dim and uneducated to me, but the level of ignorance (seemingly) demonstrated here is just astounding.
egotistic douches that thought they could get away with anything because they are 'journalists'.
Amusing thing, I know a lot of folks that refuse to read the site because Gizmodo has a policy of banning commenters with opinions they don't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickmyface
What site? The only people to report on the direct contact with Apple was Gizmodo, who never once reported that Steve Jobs personally called them.
I don't get why people (aka you) feel the need to make stuff up.
it was in the court papers that Jobs was the one referred to by Gizmodo's report that "Apple contacted us and asked for the return of the phone. Proof positive that it is real"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
No, but it seems that Apple didn't report it stolen until after the story broke.
As stated in what document.
Cause all the articles I saw were phrased "Apple and Powell did in fact report the phone as stolen in March but due to current laws, there is little the police can actually do to recover it"
No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.
It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.
Apple hadn't yet filed a report with the police. No report, no case by the DA. If they hadn't taken extra steps to piss off Jobs, it is possible they would have let it stop there. They might have filed anyway, just playing games with him just helped ensure they would.
For some reason I can't find the post from the person who posted the court documents on Scribd...anyway, thank you.
There is some interesting stuff in there, and yes, Jason Chen is hosed.
Highlights:
His property was seized because, and I typed in some stuff from the scans:
X it was used as the means of committing a felony;
X it tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony;
X = there is a check in that box
Further along in the document:
the crime(s) of
496(a) PC - Buy or receive stolen property (a felony)
499c(b)(3) PC - Theft; Without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photograph) of any article representing a trade secret (a felony)
594(b)(1) - Maliciously damages property of another valued at over $400 (a felony)
After Gizmodo paid $5,000 to obtain a prototype iPhone that was lost by an Apple engineer, the company's chief executive personally called the website's editor to request that the phone be returned.
The affidavit in the case was unsealed Friday by Judge Clifford Cretan in San Mateo County, Calif. CNet had a first look at the document, which revealed the phone call between Steve Jobs and Gizmodo editor Brian Lam.
"... after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam," the document reads. "Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the e-mail address...that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple."
I knew it. The affidavit was sealed to protect the identity of the police informant, a certain Steven P. Jobs who had nothing better to do than surf the internet during office hours to read idle gossip published by Apple rumor sites like Gizmodo.
For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record.
A letter from someone saying 'Its mine' doesn't constitute proof that it really is theirs. That's not what the requested letter was for... it was to obtain more web-traffic bait when they published it. I.e. a thing of value in and of itself, i.e. extortion.
In that line of thinking, doesn't that mean that iFixIt's teardowns are also violations of trade secret laws?
iFixit usually tears down commercial products. Once an item has been sold to the public, tearing it down to determine its composition is legal.
To go one step further, even tearing down a prototype is not necessarily illegal. If you believe that you have acquired the prototype legally and that the person who delivered it to you had the right to do so, then Journalistic Shield laws would protect you. The problem in this case is that Chen knew it was stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw
I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.
Depends. In the case of the Lamborghini, there would be no way to establish ownership without looking at the registration in the car and identifying the owner. (Although I would imagine the best thing to do with a Lamborghini would be to leave it alone instead of taking it home because you found it in a parking lot. Even if it mysteriously appears in front of your house, you would almost certainly call the police).
In the case of the iPhone, Steve Jobs is widely recognized, especially to a Gizmodo reporter. If Steve Jobs called and said it was his phone, that would be sufficient for a rational person (especially knowing that it was stolen). It MIGHT have been plausible for him to say "OK, I'll bring it by your HQ this afternoon and give it to you personally" to verify that it really was Jobs calling, but that's about it.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
1) And rolling over for some 2 bit stolen property fencers would be WAY worse for their image and ability to protect their intellectual property.
2) Are you f***ing nuts? I don't know ANYONE who's considering buying before June now, including myself.
3) You overestimate the degree to which the public is conscious of Apple's release cycles, as obvious as it is we who follow such trivia. But I may have upgraded now, thinking that new features don't outweigh my ability to get value between now and then, but if I know that, say, there's for sure a front facing camera that I really want, then I'm definitely holding off my purchase.
Finally, Apple lost more than 2 months lead time over competitors. In this industry, that's an enormous amount of time.
Comments
What's in the list? And how do we know the crimes being investigated are limited to that list?
-Buy or receive stolen property
-Theft; without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photography) of any article representing a trade secret
-Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400
order is here in full
edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.
While I don't think that Chen requesting a formal letter requesting the phone back was legally any more damning than the rest of the episode, it was a dick move to make during a call from Jobs asking for the phone back. Very likely, if he had simply said OK and returned it, this would have all been forgotten. Getting on Jobs bad side is a good way to have a bad day.
No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.
It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.
In California the law clearly says if you find a lost object and don't make a true effort to return it, you stole it. According to the Gizmodo articles, a half assed at best effort was made, likely utilizing a method no one actually believed would work. On top of not merely leaving it at the bar with or without sending a facebook message (since the guy says he knew whose phone it was because it was logged into the service). Gizmodo then knowingly paid money for something that wasn't this man's to sell, at a level that makes the offense a felony. Admitted to the purchase and the amount publicly etc. They latter tried to recant and say the money was for merely the story but they had already published articles saying they purchased the phone full stop.
And after the Valleywag stunt it should be no shock if it turns out that the DA and this task force have been watching all of Gawker closely and captured every article as it came out as proof of what was said. The raid is merely to see if there's additional confirmation like Chen telling the guy to call AppleCare, the phrasing of the deal being "to buy the phone unit" etc. And to see what else might have been said.
In the end, Gizmodo got stupid and did this to themselves. They can't claim shield laws because it is a confessed criminal act. What they should have done was taken the photos and video with no voices, faces etc attached and posted them as 'provided by a reliable source'. THEN they could make a claim for shield laws.
Now at the least they put their rep and the rep of their parent company at risk. Apple is not likely to provide them with any review materials and might ban them from all media events. Other companies might follow suit, at least in regards to pulling ads etc from Gawker sites. And that could hurt more than any criminal penalties or civil suits.
that would worry me a lot as a shareholder.
I see your point about Apple's public perception, but at the same time, 3GS sales may be hindered (at an as yet unknown level) by the fact that people are now holding off on buying a 3GS in lieu of a 4G.
You've also got to consider that all of Apple's competition examined those teardowns and are possibly improving or redesigning their upcoming products as a result, potentially costing Apple months in the Cold War of smartphones. That could potentially result in lost revenue and lost marketshare.
Think about it.
-Buy or receive stolen property
-Theft; without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photography) of any article representing a trade secret
-Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400
order is here in full
edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.
Well, I don't think additional charges can't be added to that list. But, as I said, I don't have any legal opinion (not being a lawyer) on whether they could actually make a case for extortion.
Hope he doesn't resist arrest when they go to pick him up after the courts close on a Friday evening.
"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".
I don't think so.
We don't even have intelligent trolls anymore. If you take a 'top secret' document from a government agency, and take a picture of it, even if you return the document you have stolen said document.
Please keep your trolling to things you understand, which should really cut down on your posts.
Please wake me when someone goes to jail.
Jail for a very long time! This is one prime example of very unethical behaviour on the part of the media. It is about time somebody be held accountable for this.
Of course being a first offense they will likely walk.
Dave
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/
For instance, the first pictures appeared on Gizmodo's website, and then only a couple of days later did the pictures appear of the device "tear down." We now know that Apple contacted them about the phone when they saw it on the web, seemingly immediately.
If the tear-down was done *after* Apple contacted them about the phone, then it's straight industrial espionage and the defence that they "didn't know it was an Apple phone until they opened it" looks specious.
Even if the tear-down was done *before* Apple contacted them, but then published *after* Apple has already contacted them and said it was their phone then it's still clearly illegal. They would be releasing trade secrets about what appeared to be a multi-million dollar secret phone project after being told by the purported owners of the phone that it was in fact theirs and was in fact exactly that.
exactly. And even if they claim they didn't know it was an Apple phone, the story of finding it an a bar tells us that it was NOT Mr Hogan's phone and those only Cali's 'attempt to return' rules, it was a stolen item.
It just looks more and more like these guys were just ignorant and acting on a lot of high-school legal advice. Gizmodo's staff has always seemed a bit dim and uneducated to me, but the level of ignorance (seemingly) demonstrated here is just astounding.
egotistic douches that thought they could get away with anything because they are 'journalists'.
Amusing thing, I know a lot of folks that refuse to read the site because Gizmodo has a policy of banning commenters with opinions they don't like.
What site? The only people to report on the direct contact with Apple was Gizmodo, who never once reported that Steve Jobs personally called them.
I don't get why people (aka you) feel the need to make stuff up.
it was in the court papers that Jobs was the one referred to by Gizmodo's report that "Apple contacted us and asked for the return of the phone. Proof positive that it is real"
No, but it seems that Apple didn't report it stolen until after the story broke.
As stated in what document.
Cause all the articles I saw were phrased "Apple and Powell did in fact report the phone as stolen in March but due to current laws, there is little the police can actually do to recover it"
No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.
It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.
Apple hadn't yet filed a report with the police. No report, no case by the DA. If they hadn't taken extra steps to piss off Jobs, it is possible they would have let it stop there. They might have filed anyway, just playing games with him just helped ensure they would.
The only people who come out ahead in situations like this are lawyers, which, by the way, is why I went to law school!
Once u need the services of a lawyer ur already screwed!
Heard of the 'rat race?' Well the rats (lawyers) have already won!
There is some interesting stuff in there, and yes, Jason Chen is hosed.
Highlights:
His property was seized because, and I typed in some stuff from the scans:
X it was used as the means of committing a felony;
X it tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony;
X = there is a check in that box
Further along in the document:
the crime(s) of
496(a) PC - Buy or receive stolen property (a felony)
499c(b)(3) PC - Theft; Without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photograph) of any article representing a trade secret (a felony)
594(b)(1) - Maliciously damages property of another valued at over $400 (a felony)
was/were committed by Jason Shao Chen
GOOD LUCK IN COURT LOL
After Gizmodo paid $5,000 to obtain a prototype iPhone that was lost by an Apple engineer, the company's chief executive personally called the website's editor to request that the phone be returned.
The affidavit in the case was unsealed Friday by Judge Clifford Cretan in San Mateo County, Calif. CNet had a first look at the document, which revealed the phone call between Steve Jobs and Gizmodo editor Brian Lam.
"... after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam," the document reads. "Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the e-mail address...that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple."
I knew it. The affidavit was sealed to protect the identity of the police informant, a certain Steven P. Jobs who had nothing better to do than surf the internet during office hours to read idle gossip published by Apple rumor sites like Gizmodo.
Once u need the services of a lawyer ur already screwed!
Heard of the 'rat race?' Well the rats (lawyers) have already won!
Once you need the services of a lawyer, I'll bet you change your mind.
Much as I like and admire the guy, Jobs is not law enforcement.
Yes, and your point is?
Are you saying that if something is stolen from you you don't have a right to call the police?
(And the thing stolen was not just the physical phone, but the proprietary information leaked to competitors via the teardown and even the photos.)
This is an interesting piece (via Gruber):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/
Thanks for the article; now that is an example of REAL journalism.
It also corroborates a lot of what we have believed all along, but now we have actual facts instead of speculation.
http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/jesus_diaz
For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record.
A letter from someone saying 'Its mine' doesn't constitute proof that it really is theirs. That's not what the requested letter was for... it was to obtain more web-traffic bait when they published it. I.e. a thing of value in and of itself, i.e. extortion.
In that line of thinking, doesn't that mean that iFixIt's teardowns are also violations of trade secret laws?
iFixit usually tears down commercial products. Once an item has been sold to the public, tearing it down to determine its composition is legal.
To go one step further, even tearing down a prototype is not necessarily illegal. If you believe that you have acquired the prototype legally and that the person who delivered it to you had the right to do so, then Journalistic Shield laws would protect you. The problem in this case is that Chen knew it was stolen.
I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.
Depends. In the case of the Lamborghini, there would be no way to establish ownership without looking at the registration in the car and identifying the owner. (Although I would imagine the best thing to do with a Lamborghini would be to leave it alone instead of taking it home because you found it in a parking lot. Even if it mysteriously appears in front of your house, you would almost certainly call the police).
In the case of the iPhone, Steve Jobs is widely recognized, especially to a Gizmodo reporter. If Steve Jobs called and said it was his phone, that would be sufficient for a rational person (especially knowing that it was stolen). It MIGHT have been plausible for him to say "OK, I'll bring it by your HQ this afternoon and give it to you personally" to verify that it really was Jobs calling, but that's about it.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
1) And rolling over for some 2 bit stolen property fencers would be WAY worse for their image and ability to protect their intellectual property.
2) Are you f***ing nuts? I don't know ANYONE who's considering buying before June now, including myself.
3) You overestimate the degree to which the public is conscious of Apple's release cycles, as obvious as it is we who follow such trivia. But I may have upgraded now, thinking that new features don't outweigh my ability to get value between now and then, but if I know that, say, there's for sure a front facing camera that I really want, then I'm definitely holding off my purchase.
Finally, Apple lost more than 2 months lead time over competitors. In this industry, that's an enormous amount of time.
This was mentioned from some site awhile back. Apparently Jobs called and abruptly said, "GIVE ME BACK MY PHONE!".
What would you say?