California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor

191012141527

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 530
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macslut View Post


    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).



    I think you quoted the wrong person.



    Good post, though.
  • Reply 222 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).



    Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).



    Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.



    See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......



    I would worry that Apple trying to tell the police to back off will only fuel the theories that it was a controlled leak (which I don't buy - this just doesn't seem Apple's style). On the other end of the spectrum, it could set a dangerous example that it's okay to sell trade secrets on the street for $5,000.



    On consumer backlash, I see it as a possibility, but I'm not sure there will be that much. Most people probably don't care. They want a nice phone, and if the iPhone fits that bill, that's good enough.



    I will certainly continue to purchase Apple's products, as I think they're among the best on the market - just my personal opinion.



    If Apple wants this investigated (which we don't know for sure yet anyway - it could just be police work) that's fine with me. They sunk the time any money into the phone, it should be released on their terms.
  • Reply 223 of 530
    rkrickrkrick Posts: 66member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.



    I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.



    Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.



    A loud mouth? Yes.



    Stupid? No.



    Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.



    And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?



    That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.



    So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.



    Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.



    * Chen was a journalist.

    * He worked out of his home.

    * Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.

    * Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)

    * An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.



    Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply



    What does working from home have to do with anything



    While he might not be able to be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source, he himself may have committed a crime and he was not subpoenaed anyhow, his house was searched for evidence that a crime was committed.



    Section 1070 doesn't apply because they were not only searching for the source



    And the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm
  • Reply 224 of 530
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-felony-2010-4



    Police may allege that Gizmodo committed felony in 4G iPhone imbroglio

    Monday, April 26, 2010



    Henry Blodget writes for The Business Insider, "Online journalists are freaking out that California police appear to have ignored California's shield law when breaking into Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and seizing his computers in connection with the iPhone probe. "Gawker Media LLC, meanwhile, is arguing that CA police violated the shield law and is demanding immediate return of the confiscated property."



    "The search warrant is ambiguous about the specific reason the police gave for the search and seizure," Blodget writes. "Specifically, it's possible--likely, even--that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone ('buying stolen property')."



    Blodget writes, "If that's the 'probable cause' the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply."
  • Reply 225 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    Are you not even reading my posts?



    I have already stated what you did about 10 posts ago.



    I also stated the caveat that whether they bring charges without the behest of Apple, if apple DOES NOT support that the item in question was stolen or that their rights have been violated, be it a public forum or in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney will have difficult time being able to prosecute any type of case.



    Let's go backward:



    Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?



    Now that that is out of the way.....



    No one knows what has occurred, including the police or task force. If they felt they had any case at all they would have arrested Chen and The gawker owner (I know not his name) on the spot.



    They are searching for evidence in order to try to build a case. That borders of a violation of civil liberties, but I won't go into that here.



    And until there is a report stating it is "stolen" it is lost. Period. You can't make that work no matter how hard you try to talk someone into it, and if you can, you should be an attorney, a congressman, or a salesman for Toyota.



    Also, apparently the "finder" did attempt to find the "owner", to no avail, which has also been reported, though many choose to gloss over that.



    If people stopped trying to be right and instead attempted to be observant they would learn so much more.



    Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.



    I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.



    Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.



    You are simply wrong. It happens.
  • Reply 226 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RKRick View Post


    Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.



    * Chen was a journalist.

    * He worked out of his home.

    * Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.

    * Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)

    * An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.



    Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply



    What does working from home have to do with anything



    While he might not be able to be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source, he himself may have committed a crime and he was not subpoenaed anyhow, his house was searched for evidence that a crime was committed.



    Section 1070 doesn't apply because they were not only searching for the source



    And the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm



    I give credit where it IS due. Of ALL the posts I have seen in this thread on this subject, THAT was the most intelligent one.



    And no, that IS NOT sarcasm.
  • Reply 227 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.



    I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.



    Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.



    You are simply wrong. It happens.



    See my response o the post by RKRICK.
  • Reply 228 of 530
    mzaslovemzaslove Posts: 519member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RKRick View Post


    JAnd the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm



    Yeah, that's what you get when you go to your corporate lawyer for advice on criminal law. I've seen this happen umpteen times in Hollywood: guy goes to his entertainment lawyer about a criminal charge. Oops....
  • Reply 229 of 530
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post


    In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.



    Yeah right!



    "Experts warn that the 4G iPhone's front facing camera could cause cancer"



    Bunch of friggin' comedians in this thread.
  • Reply 230 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.



    I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.



    Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.



    You are simply wrong. It happens.



    Actually I am not, by the same code you are so quick to attempt to rely on in attempt to be right.



    As in ANY legal code, it is up to interpretation via circumstance.



    I sat in court and watched an attorney ask an officer on the stand how he knew the person he accused of not having a valid license, who was a chinese immigrant, had knowledge that was true.



    The officer stated the other english speaking person in the car said so.



    The attorney said that was hearsay and as it was dark when the stop happened he could not be 100 percent sure the person (who was sitting in the court room, but not ever called as a witness) was the same person sitting in the gallery.



    The attorney won the case. The immigrant walked with no charges.



    Learn the law, but also learn it is malleable.
  • Reply 231 of 530
    rkrickrkrick Posts: 66member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Yeah right!



    "Experts warn that the 4G iPhone's front facing camera could cause cancer"



    Bunch of friggin' comedians in this thread.



    Good one....
  • Reply 232 of 530
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-felony-2010-4



    "Specifically, it's possible--likely, even--that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone ('buying stolen property')."



    Now that would be interesting. In that case the warrant wasn't about trade secrets, or journalistic sources. It was about buying a stolen object, which could have been any object really.
  • Reply 233 of 530
    agaaga Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    I will say this slowly:



    IT

    WAS

    NEVER

    REPORTED

    STOLEN,



    as in



    NO

    POLICE

    REPORT

    HAS

    BEEN

    FILED

    STATING

    PROPERTY

    WAS

    STOLEN.



    No back up from Apple Computer Corporation.



    Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.



    likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.
  • Reply 234 of 530
    aluopaluop Posts: 57member
    Maybe they are giving Jason a break.

    The evidence they took may be deemed useless (and the charge dismissed) because it was taken improperly.

    It's very obvious that they did a night search, which the warrant clearly disapproved.

    How could they make such a mistake?
  • Reply 235 of 530
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    One, you are being obtuse and also wrong. There was no such report in THIS thread.



    On this site, maybe, and that was conjecture, but not in this thread.



    Also, stating it's stolen is a great way of "distancing" one's self from its exposition.



    Something that can be thought about.....though obviously no one has.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=149
  • Reply 236 of 530
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    Actually I am not, by the same code you are so quick to attempt to rely on in attempt to be right.



    As in ANY legal code, it is up to interpretation via circumstance.



    I sat in court and watched an attorney ask an officer on the stand how he knew the person he accused of not having a valid license, who was a chinese immigrant, had knowledge that was true.



    The officer stated the other english speaking person in the car said so.



    The attorney said that was hearsay and as it was dark when the stop happened he could not be 100 percent sure the person (who was sitting in the court room, but not ever called as a witness) was the same person sitting in the gallery.



    The attorney won the case. The immigrant walked with no charges.



    Learn the law, but also learn it is malleable.



    I'm thinking I must have learned the basics of the legal system when you were only a kid. I can only guess that you're refusal to believe simple legal facts has to be down to you just not knowing any better.



    The example you have given above is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. You are still wrong. Crimes are determined by the law. Action on criminal behaviour is decided by the cops (within reason, they mostly *have* to act). Guilt is determined by a judge.



    None of this has anything to do with whether the victim considers a crime has been committed. The law simply does not work that way. Your original assertion, that Apple has to consider the prototype stolen for it to be so, is just made up junk. It's not true. You are simply wrong.
  • Reply 237 of 530
    rkrickrkrick Posts: 66member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ALUOp View Post


    Maybe they are giving Jason a break.

    The evidence they took may be deemed useless (and the charge dismissed) because it was taken improperly.

    It's very obvious that they did a night search, which the warrant clearly disapproved.

    How could they make such a mistake?



    In California a night search starts at 10pm not when the sun goes down.
  • Reply 238 of 530
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post


    So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.



    We're not trying them publicly with facts that have yet to be determined.



    Gizmodo, as reported on their site, claim they purchased an iPhone which they, as reported on their site, knew, as reported on their site, was stolen.



    They may have lied about some of this, but by their claims, they would be guilty of felony charges, and I don't see why they would lie against their self-interest and how they could've not committed any felonies (barring any fantasies that Apple gave them the iPhone).



    Oh, and they're douchebags for outing the engineer.



    If they got full legal consultation regarding everything as it pertained to what they claimed in their reporting and the lawyer didn't tell them they're were violations of California Penal Codes 485 and 496, then their lawyer is an idiot. Really though, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up those Penal codes as well as Civil code 2080 or to look at previous cases where people were prosecuted for purchasing items which were found but not properly reported.
  • Reply 239 of 530
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aga View Post


    Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.



    likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.



    Good luck with that. Perhaps you should appoint Mr Quinn as your lawyer.
  • Reply 240 of 530
    aluopaluop Posts: 57member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RKRick View Post


    In California a night search starts at 10pm not when the sun goes down.



    I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
Sign In or Register to comment.