Anyone tracking the iPhone 4 story?

Wayne

Wayne

Active Member
Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
757
Anyone following the iPhone 4 / Gizmodo soap opera?

If not, allegedly, one of the Apple software guys went out to celebrate his 27th b'day, got drunk, and left the phone in a bar. Said phone was then allegedly found by someone and sold to gizmodo.com for $5000. Gizmodo then proceded to break down the phone, posting pictures and feature sets on their site, which everyone took off with...

Now, the police and DA in that area have seized the editor's computers/devices and are preparing suit for Grand Larceny, considering that the editor knowingly bought stolen property in the amount greater than $400 for their own use / benefit.

I've noticed three distinct crowds screaming from the rafters on this one;

1) This is all a planned leak by Apple to combat Android. Possible, but unlikely. The only supporting evidence in that case is that the software engineer responsible for losing the phone hasn't been fired.

If get past the idea of a controlled leak, and on to the criminal investigation;

2) Gizmodo is somehow protected by some miracle law which says that reporters are somehow above the law in regards to receiving stolen property.

3) The search / seizure, and resulting charges "are all Apple's fault", which is bullshit. This is a CRIMINAL investigation launched by the District Attorney's office, not a civil action brought by Apple. It's (IMHO) a clear-cut example of a law being broken by Gizmodo's own surrepticious admission (see their blogs on the subject to get the feel of the coverup).
http://gizmodo.com/5520471/the-tale-of- ... e=true&s=i

  • They bought the phone.
    [/*:m:22apou53]
  • They contend that it wasn't stolen, but lost, which is still covered as larceny by CPC 1524.
    [/*:m:22apou53]
  • They knew it was a prototype.
    [/*:m:22apou53]
  • They knew it belonged to Apple.
    [/*:m:22apou53]
  • They dismantled and published it for their own benefit.[/*:m:22apou53]

In the end, I don't know exactly what to think, except that I kinda want the new iPhone.

What do you guys think?

Wayne
 
From a legal point of view, they might be in serious trouble. I really can't say for sure though.

However, Apple shouldn't try to make an example of these guys. Yes I heard of this story when it first broke and I felt the best way for Apple to deal with this would be for Steve Jobs to personally go speak with Gizmodo, kinda give them some kind of exclusive interview and maybe a few tid-bits about the new phone, in exchange for getting that prototype back (which really would have little value as a phone). It would have been great PR for both and Jobs would get his precious phone back (although gizmodo did return the phone anyway). But instead it's come to this which may end up generating some negative PR for Apple.
 
Glaucus said:
However, Apple shouldn't try to make an example of these guys.
Click to expand...

I agree with your ideas of how it could have been better handled, but wonder if doing it that way wouldn't have encouraged future "breaks" in security "since the last guy got away with it".

As for "making an example", we really don't know if Apple has anything to do with the current investigation at all. We can all guess and hypothesize until the cows come home, but the thing that gets me on Apple's side on this ISN'T that I'm a fanboy. It's the simple fact that the investigation is "criminal" rather than "civil", meaning it was launched by the DA's office in that county.

Was he prompted to do so? Is there some sort of sordid back-room conspiracy going on? Only time will tell. My personal opinion is that while the phone may, or may not have gotten out by mistake, Apple is trying to underplay it and regain some momentum for its' loss. Meanwhile, legally speaking, according to California law, a crime (Grand Larceny) has been committed and Gizmodo deserves to go to jail for the crime it committed.

Forgetting the civil laws on Trade Secret protection which were obviously broken (and Apple isn't pursuing them under -- yet) It is a VERY dangerous precedent to say that "the press/media" has the right to commit what is considered a felony (under state law) in pursuit of a story, then hide behind free speech.

(Yes, in California, it's illegal to keep a bag of money you find laying on the ground without turning it over to the cops {for them to steal, erm take their cut} first)...

Wayne
 
Ya, it's just that I would think a prosecutor would have a hard time making a case without Apple's cooperation. If Apple doesn't show up to court it might be a quick trial in favor of Gizmodo. After all, they did return the iPhone and they could claim they never intended to keep it anyway.
 
Wayne said:
Anyone following the iPhone 4 / Gizmodo soap opera?

Wayne
Click to expand...

I only skimmed the initial release of iPhone 4 specs. As to the charges, who filed them. Did Apple file or did the state?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Wayne said:
Anyone following the iPhone 4 / Gizmodo soap opera?

Wayne
Click to expand...

I only skimmed the initial release of iPhone 4 specs. As to the charges, who filed them. Did Apple file or did the state?
Click to expand...
No one has filed charges as of yet. There's just a criminal investigation underway by the DA's office to see if there's enough to prosecute.

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
No one has filed charges as of yet. There's just a criminal investigation underway by the DA's office to see if there's enough to prosecute.

Wayne
Click to expand...

Does that mean that if it is prosecuted then it is a state action rather than a charge brought by Apple?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Does that mean that if it is prosecuted then it is a state action rather than a charge brought by Apple?
Click to expand...

YES... While we will never know if the DA's office were asked (either on, or off the record) to investigate by Apple, the fact that it's criminal and not civil means it's law-enforcement originated. My guess is that;

1) If Apple leaked the phone, the REALLY don't want this.

2) If Apple didn't leak the phone, they will continue to lay low but *may* (or may not) take civil action if there's not enough for a criminal case (or California law lets Gizmodo off).

As it stands though, Apple has nothing to do with the official investigation.

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
Here's an INCREDIBLY well-written synopsis of the whole ordeal.

Guilty..

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-offi ... ase-2010-4
Click to expand...
Wow, a former adversary of Gizmodo thinks Gizmodo is toast. I'm shocked.

Here's Slate's take on it: Don't Prosecute Gizmodo for the iPhone That Walked Into a Bar

In 1971, the New York Times got a hold of a secret Defense Department report on the Vietnam War and began to publish excerpts. The Nixon administration promptly sought to enjoin the Times and stop publication. The leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, was subject to a CIA-aided effort to gain access to his medical files and was also prosecuted for espionage, theft, and other crimes.

These days, we tend to be a little less intense. This week, police raided the California home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen not to seize secret papers but, rather, in search of information about a 4G iPhone that was (proverbially) left in a bar. It is not the Nixon White House but, rather, Apple that is seeking to punish the journalists. The fracas is, of course, about not state secrets but Steve Jobs' secrets.

This doesn't make the iPhone case mere entertainment. There's a real First Amendment question at stake. Gizmodo, an online "gadget guide," published photos and reviews of the iPhone, which hadn't been released, after a tipster picked it up on a barstool. In other words, the site published truthful information about a matter of public interest. Apple wants to enlist the government to punish the supposed miscreant. Can such aggression toward journalists on behalf of private power be justified? I'd say no.

Since trying to pull back something posted on the internet seems pointless, Apple hasn't tried to stop Gizmodo from publishing its stories. Rather, Apple appears to want to punish Gizmodo for its effrontery; perhaps, in its view, police should arrest the site's writers and editors and hurt them with fines or, possibly, imprisonment. Apple has indicated it believes a serious felony was committed. The company appears to regard Gizmodo's acts as larceny, or misappropriation of trade secrets, or both. Here is where the case gets serious: If we accept that journalists can be punished severely for publishing information gained by others in unsavory ways, that's a bad thing for journalism. Nearly every truly big story, from the Abu Ghraib photos on down, involves a leaker of some kind, often one who has broken some law.* If the publishers of such materials—as opposed to the leakers—are treated as criminals, journalism will suffer.

Most of the press coverage and blogging has focused on the narrow question of whether the search of Jason Chen's home was legal or not. But the deeper question is whether a criminal prosecution can be pursued consistent with the First Amendment. That turns, in part, on whether Gizmodo is actually breaking the law. Lots of the commentators have assumed it is, based on a theory of larceny. In California, as in many states, it is larceny when you permanently hold on to property that you have reason to know does not belong to you. But it is not quite so clear that Gizmodo—as opposed to the guy who supplied the site with the prized phone—has committed larceny. The peddler of the iPhone, who got $5,000 for his trafficked good, is clearly a thief of some kind. But Gizmodo, for one thing, says it wants to give the telephone back, and so it may lack any intent to possess the phone permanently. That matters, legally speaking.

And here's why the First Amendment is relevant: The Supreme Court has suggested that the Constitution protects publishers against punishment for another's theft of information. In the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper, a radio show broadcast an illegally recorded cell-phone conversation between a union negotiator and the union's president. The Supreme Court held it illegal to punish the broadcaster. As Justice John Paul Stevens put it for the majority, "a stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern." Justice Stevens also said that "state action to punish the publication of truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards." Read that again, and you'll realize that is precisely what's going on here. Apple is asking for punishment of the publisher of truthful information.

...
Click to expand...
 
what about the moron who left the device in the bar ???

has he been fired?

don't employees have to sign something like a non disclosure statement where they won't let out company secrets?
shouldn't that include letting a prototype get into the hands of others??

what a jackass :roll:
 
cecilia said:
what about the moron who left the device in the bar ???

has he been fired?

don't employees have to sign something like a non disclosure statement where they won't let out company secrets? Shouldn't that include letting a prototype get into the hands of others??

what a jackass :roll:
Click to expand...
The guy who left it in ther bar is still employed, though probably won't ever move up in the company.

Leaving behind the whole "trailer trash journalism" aspect, all of this boils down to;

1) Was the phone "stolen"?
2) Did the guy who "found" it do enough to try and return it to the rightful owner?

In regards to whether or not it was stolen, Apple reported it as such to the authorities. The rest is heresay.

The "finder" -- by his own admission -- never once thought to turn the phone over to the bartender (for their lost and found box), THEN took $5000 for it from Gizmodo, so I'm guessing under California State law, it's absolutely considered a stolen device. Even moreso is the fact that it was -- for all intents and purposes -- a "billion dollar investment prototype". Which puts this on the far extreme of Grand Larceny.

Trying to be objective, I hope the "finder" gets sentenced, and I hope that Apple goes after Gizmodo civilly with enough force to put them out of business forever... I wouldn't feel that way, except for the smug pompous and righteous way that Gizmodo has acted over the entire ordeal.

That being said, I'd expect the guy who "found" it to get bent over. Whether or not Jason Chen and/or Gawker media (the owners of Gizmodo) get anything more than a slap on the wrist remains to be seen. It is the left-coast California after all.

Wayne
 
Wayne, I'm not sure larceny happened. It depends on intent. If the guy who had the iPhone turns it over to Gizmodo and who want to examine it then return it then there is no sale of stolen goods but a payment to a journalistic source and the source turns over the phone to a party who will return it to the owner.
 
Even Jon Stewart gives it to those "Appholes"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart : April 28, 2010 : (04/28/10) Clip 1 of 4

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one. But now you guys are busting down doors in Palo Alto, while commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes. What the {bleep} is going on? It is all mixed up. I don't know which end is up anymore. Black is white. Cats are dogs.
Click to expand...
That's on the Canadian site, so it may not work for everyone. I'm sure you can find it on the US site if you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top