iPhone & Gizmodo
 

I haven't followed this too closely, but it looks like the curious case of the missing/stolen new iPhone prototype showing up on the Gizmodo website has taken a turn for the worse:


At first, the scuttle was that perhaps this was all a marketing ploy to leak some of the details to the public. Uh... NOT! I hope Gizmodo thinks this will be worth all of the publicity they are getting out of it.

It probably will be worth it for Gizmodo. Also this shows how f'ed up Apple is.

From the reports I've seen, Apple wasn't the one that pushed for the search.

Not that it matters. Lots of folks (like ISiddiqui and, admittedly, me) will jump to the same conclusion.

Apple has enjoyed a great deal of mainstream consumer love and trust, much like Google does. Things like this can generate hard feelings (even when not based in fact)...more the way people feel about, say, the RIAA.

And Apple really doesn't want the mainstream thinking, "Fuck Apple - I'm going to do what I want with their hardware/software/IP. They're bastards anyway."

Even if they're not behind this, some sort of placatory public gesture toward Chen would go a long way.

So Gizmodo engages in what is basically corporate espionage and folks are okay with this?

Is it really corporate espionage? I ask this sincerely. The phone was left in a public place, and they simply obtained it and reported on it.

The new iPhone is a news story.

Hardly espionage.

From reading didn't they pay money for it? If I'm misreading stuff and they just picked it up, my opinion MIGHT change, but even then picking up something that does not belong to you and using it for personal gain isn't exactly legal / ethical.

I understand and applaud journalistic freedom of speech, but I'm sick and tired of journalists thinking they can do anything they want to because "it's their job".

Correct. They paid $5,000 to get the phone.

Forget that it's a 4G iPhone. If a phone is left in a public place, you pick it up knowing it's not yours, and you take it, I'm pretty sure that's theft. They took it one step further and took apart the phone too.

While one might question the morality of what Gizmodo did, here's the breakdown from what I understand.

1 - Apple Engineer Gray Powell goes out to celebrate his birthday and consequently forgets his iPhone 4.0 prototype on the chair next to him when going home.

2 - Person X, not a member of the Gizmodo staff from what I have read, finds the phone and decides to take it with him with the intent to try to find the owner the next day.

3 - Person X, realizing this is not just any iPhone when waking up the next morning, contacts Apple who don't take him seriously when he says he's got a prototype of the next iPhone.

4 - Not getting through to Apple, Person X turns around to Gizmodo and sells the phone for $5000 * immoral part *.

5 - Gizmodo investigates the phone, finds the name of the owner, writes articles, takes pictures and before contacting the owner publishes all the information * immoral part* .

6 - Gizmodo returns the iPhone

7 - Gizmodo's editor Jason Chen, who wrote the articles, has his home searched by police with a search warrant stating that they have a right to search fo all information regarding the theft of the iPhone.

You can find a copy of the search-warrant as well as a letter from Gizmodo's lawyer here: Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers - Iphone 4 leak - Gizmodo

------
I can't help but wondering, if someone stole MY phone, and I found out who stole it through a blog or a newssite, how willing would the police be to go through all those hoops to find the thief? Especially if I had the phone back already. Seriously. The warrant is only made out to find out information about a THEFT, not industrial espionage. <-- this is my only opinion in the matter that sympathizes with Jason Chen, I still think it was a stupid thing to do to "get some exclusives"...

Unless it's all a huge hype-machine for the next iPhone of course..

Edit: I had missed step 4, and I definately agree it should be in there. Thank you to DanGarion and lordscarlet for pointing that out.

How is it different than, say, finding a draft of a speech that Sarah Palin is planning to give and reporting on that? Would that be considered the same crime?

They cracked open an unreleased device with propriatary hardware, software, and information on it. The theft can become much more than just a phone at that point.

There are some bits missing in Coders snapshot of the story. The person that found the iPhone, attempted to return it to Apple, but they refused his calls and wouldn't speak with him. Also he couldn't contact the owner of the phone because it got wiped via MobileMe.

How is that any different then cracking open a released device with propriatary hardware, software, and information on it?

I mean, isn't everything important patented? Or, if not, they why the fuck are they giving these out to idiotic employees who will leave them in bars?

That's the part that is currently stopping me from thinking "espionage."

Yeah, I forgot about him trying to contact Apple. However, there is something fishy about the entire wipe-part. If the phone was wiped, how did they manage to find out it was Grey Powell's phone?

To add: Gizmodo has claimed that Person X attempted to contact Apple and return the device, but they didn't take him seriously.

I'm thinking because he was able to find that out before it was wiped in the morning. I'm not sure. But you would think if this was a super secret phone it would have been locked with a passcode that would have made that nearly impossible as well.

Yeah...

The story is the guy who found it was poking around that night it was lost the guy who found it was poking around and saw it was his facebook page. It was then bricked in the morning.

You have to admit that the given facts don't really give a clear picture of the events that happened leading up to the actual sale. There is _something_ weird there, I am certain of it.

I still think the search warrant is bullcrap though.

I'm sure that gizmodo is not being entirely forthcoming about the whole thing.

For me, it's just when I hear "corporate espionage" I think of Mission Impossible-style infiltration of secret areas, not some idiot leaving the prototype in a bar.

California has laws protecting journalists from obtaining information for a news story. That's why the investigation is on hold currently as that gets sorted out.

Isnt knowingly buying stolen property a a crime, possibly a felony depending on the items value?

That's one of the keys here, because the amount they paid was enough to bump it to felony territory.

Is it stolen if the person in possession of the item has made reasonable attempts to return it to the owner but the owner was not interested?

If you're going to sell it to the press for $5,000, I sincerely doubt you made "reasonable attempts to return it". Do we know if he did more than call the front desk? A better deal (and more honest) would have been to contact the Gizmodo guys and put up a front-page ad with a headline saying "Apple, Want Your Phone Back?" and include a picture. Make a mockery of Apple that way to get their attention to give it back to them.

When you decide to make $5K off of it, I think Apple has every right to question your motives.

But that doesn't give you the right to keep it, go through it or sell it. But I can't see the story about every effort to return it as being fully accurate. Someone's doing a lousy CYA if they think people will believe that.

Finding something does not equal stolen.

I think the issue is how overboard they've gone. You own a wine business, and if you lost your recipe or whatever for a new wine, they would not be busting down doors and seizing computers. In fact, they'd probably just tell you to fuck off.

I think a better comparison would be what happens when a much anticipated movie gets stolen before its finished, like Phantom Menace did. That was definitely not a cheap investigation because what was stolen was SO valuable.

I think it's a horrible PR move from Apple. The leaked phone wasn't that bad and it drummed up a ton of publicity. Enough publicity that people thought the whole thing was a hoax. So why not just smile and move on and let the world buzz about your new phone coming out soon?

I don't think that's a good comparision. This stolen item would not cause you to avoid buying an iPhone, but seeing the movie early would.

I just think the whole thing is funny. Gizmodo seemingly worships Apple, they have 10 stories on them a day. Their site pretty much revolves around it with some other tech news thrown in. Now they are getting busted by Apple.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I saw somewhere (gizmodo?) that in California, the property still belongs to the owner for 3 years after the item is lost. After that, it defaults to the property of the owner of the premises the item was found on. (in other words, it still belongs to the Apple dude until 3 years have passed, then it belongs to the owner of the bar)

NOTHING WAS STOLEN!

Unless youre following the laws of California, in which case an Iphone prototype was stolen, sold, and dissected.

No where in the law does it say it was stolen. Apple doesn't even claim it was stolen. Finding something regardless that it's still property of the owner for 3 years does not automatically make it stolen. Until Apple comes out and claims it stolen I think we need to stop claiming it was as well. I really don't care either way. It just bugs me seeing people saying it was stolen when it wasn't.

I reread the story as it appears on Gizmodo, and I don't think I even agree now that selling the phone to Gizmodo was an immoral action. According to the article on Gizmodo the guy that found the phone made several attempts and calls to Apple and only until weeks later did he sell it to Gizmodo because no one from Apple would take him seriously.

Except California law is pretty clear on the finder's responsibility:


It became stolen the moment the finder sold it to Gizmodo.

Article 1. Lost Money and Goods - Sections 2080-2080.10 - California Civil Code - California Code :: Justia

DOLA, even more clearly stated:

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485

Thanks.

My exact thoughts. Apple is effectively attacking its biggest fansite. I don't care about it apart from that, I think Gizmodo saw a scoop and went for it, morality be damned. I'm not personally disgusted with it, I don't think it cost Apple millions...but I guess that depends on how much importance that initial dissemination of info is.

Gizmodo took a risk and might end up paying for it. In the end regardless of right/wrong I think Apple looks like the bad guy. I'm thinking the media love affair with Apple might be about to go away.

Alright, we've determined a crime has been committed, no argument there.

However, we're talking about theft. Again, if your or my phone had been stolen, do you think these kind of resources would have been spent investigating if the stuff had been returned?

The laws of California also have a journalist exception.

For purchasing stolen property? seriously? interesting.

No, we haven't. There is a big question here, and it lies within the law where it states "without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." According to Gizmodo, the person that found the phone made several phone calls attempting to return the phone. If that is true (and I have no idea how true it is), then the question is where that was a "reasonable and just effort".

While I still think corporate espionage is a bit of hyperbole, it doesn't seem to me like Chen has a leg to stand on with this. The journalist exception doesn't apply if the evidence is meant to prove the journalist committed a crime, and it certainly looks like he received stolen property here.

There is a reason the DA halted the investigation to investigate Gizmodo's claims that this warrant violated California's Shield Laws.

If anybody here actually thinks that Apple is pushing the investigation, they are completely out of touch with how Apple operates. Trust me, the last thing that Apple wants is to open itself up to being sued because they pushed the police department to raid someones house.

In these cases, all Apple will do is ask for it's property back since it is a prototype. If the person doesn't return the property, they get sued, Apple doesn't send in the police for christs sake.

How do I know this? I worked there for almost 5 years and dealt with prototypes and other than in instances where the prototype has to be tested in real world environments, that prototype does not leave the campus and a lot of times does not even leave the specific building it resides in. Prototypes have been lost before, they will get lost again in the future and Apple will do the same thing...ask for it back.

I just think since it was RETURNED, they should leave the guy the fuck alone.

Not so fast, Master Jedi:


And more evidence:

I highly doubt that Apple suggested a Elian Gonzalez style raid on the guys house from Gizmodo. :)

Real life story: The building I was in was broken into and laptops and other items were stolen out of peoples' offices, however, I don't know what happened with all of that and I assume it was handled by the sheriffs department. The big difference though, this was on Apple property and I could see where it would make sense if Apple did push for an investigation in that instance.

I do find it odd though, that Apple's own attorney was not aware that Apple was already a part of the task force (REACT) that the DA referred them to. I wish I could find it, but, I heard on the radio this morning, that it was not Apple that asked for the investigation, but, the employee who lost the iPhone asked for the investigation. It was a very short blurb and they didn't say if Apple had 'suggested' he do it or anything else like that.

So, we'll see. If Apple did indeed spear head the breaking into the Gizmodo dudes house, then that's a first that I've heard of something like that.

Actually now, reading back, I want to be clear as to what I'm arguing about...I'm arguing that Apple did not led/spear head the storming of the reporters house, however, I can kinda see where they would ask the REACT team to investigate the matter, even though (to me) it seems to be a clear case of profiting on lost/stolen property and trying to get the scoop before some other website did. If Apple did indeed ask for that guys house to be raided, that is just wrong in my opinion and they have everything coming to them, if they do get sued.

My favorite summary of this comes from The TechReport: Apple giveth, and Apple breaketh down the door to taketh away - The Tech Report