Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Gizmodo Search Warrant Unsealed
gyrogeerloose writes "The same judge who issued the warrant to search Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's apartment has now ordered it unsealed, ruling against the San Mateo County district attorney's office which had argued that unsealing the documents may compromise the investigation."
You can read the entire affidavit here (PDF). It has a detailed description of the police investigation that led to the seizure of Chen's computers. It turns out Steve Jobs personally requested that the phone be returned, prompting Gizmodo's Brian Lam to try negotiating for a public acknowledgment that the phone was real. Apple was tipped off to the man who found/stole the prototype by his roommate.
best of my knowledge.
There's the problem.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Before you let your roommates know you've possibly committed a felony make sure they won't turn you in.
I'm sure getting the house raided and the guy near arrested tops that.
Not according to Steve Jobs ;-)
She did it to avoid getting caught up in the rest of this sht. Seems like she was the only one who thought that this could come back to bite them in the ass. She was right.
Last I checked, $8500 - $5000 is $3500, not $2500.
Calculated on an Intel chip.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Where on Earth did they get $100 US Treasury notes?! Some fives were issued in the sixties, but all I have in my pocket is this Federal Reserve junk.
-Peter
Yea, I think its pretty clear what the journalist did was unethical. But to his defense he can claim he was trying to verify ownership of the item. Just because Apple claimed they wanted it doesn't initially mean it was theirs; it could have been a forgery (which Apple may have wanted, but not necessarily their property).
The worst I ever did was explode vomit in a bathroom then fall into a drunken sleep for my female roommate to clean up.
I'm sure getting the house raided and the guy near arrested tops that.
Prioritees. I would rather be near arrested and have my 15 minutes of fame than clean up your puke.
a lot of assumption in that document.
Seriously, they said it was invaluable? so if the SEC came down on your ass you couldn't get a number?
Please.
Ansd what's up with this:
"I therefor pray that a search warrant be issued so the items..."
Pray?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It only came back to bite him in the ass because she ratted on him
It turns out Steve Jobs personally requested that the phone be returned, prompting Gizmodo's Brian Lam to try negotiating for a public acknowledgment that the phone was real.
Let me make sure I understand this: these guys were in possession of stolen property, and they tried to negotiate conditions for its return? Gizmodo, you run a decent gadget blog, but Jesus Christ you need better lawyers. You are about to be one-two punched by the law, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Gizmodo dropped a bombshell on the gadget world April 19 with a detailed look at the iPhone prototype, which an Apple employee named Robert “Gray” Powell had lost at a bar.
Does anyone else think this whole thing is pretty fucking ridiculous for a lost prototype by a careless worker? A CELL PHONE prototype - not plans for a nuke or plans for a sub or for a stealth fighter - a stupid fucking cell phone.
A young man is in a shit load of legal problems because the cops think A STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE is important. This STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE is more important than the crimes going on in their area. If I were a victim of a violent crime in that area, I'd be throwing bags of dogshit at the cops and at the prosecutor.
Really, does anyone else think this is an idiotic waste of police and tax payer money to "protect" the property rights of some corporation?
There are many people who really need to get their priorities in order.
STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Prioritees. I would rather be near arrested and have my 15 minutes of fame than clean up your puke.
Indeed, this persecution is better publicity than Gizmodo could have ever bought.
Now even the regular apple joe-sixpacks who aren't hardcore fanbois know about Gizmodo.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Read the part where the cops were allowed a warrantless entry into 247 Hillview. Dumb move. Hogan, by cooperating with the cops, ended up getting his own cell phone seized. He also ended up implicating himself. No warrant, no search. No statements unless legal counsel is present, who will tell you to SHUT YOUR F*ING MOUTH! Because nothing you say can be used to help you, but it can and will be used against you, as this case demonstrates.
Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.
Seems to me that her roommates are the ones acting in bad faith here by using her computer while dealing with something that is obviously of shady legal ground.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.
Hey, it's the new 4G iPhone - anything is possible!
If you've followed the story, and read todays affidavit, its perfectly clear that Gizmondo and Hogan both knew full well the phone belonged to Apple. The confirmation demand was nothing to do with establishing the owner for the purpose of return of the device, but to make something else for Gizmondo to post on their blog. Thus, no it's not in the slightest bit reasonable. In fact it may well add the crime of extortion to the list.
Just because the owner doesn't claim an item doesn't mean it's not stolen. If I take your car without you knowing, it's still stealing. If I then abandon your car, and some guy finds it and go to your house to give it back to you, and your drunken uncle says the car isn't yours, that doesn't mean the guy gets to keep it, either.
Are you adequate?
Jobs is going to end up (if not already) looking like a real jerk in this whole case. He just needs to swallow his pride and leave well enough alone. Apple will gain nothing by taking revenge on these people. And it is revenge. Sad.
The cops don't think is important at all. They are ordered to, by people who owe their elections to donations by big business and when you make a low salary it is not wise to question every single order.
Not a single beat officer goes around in the morning thinking: "Geez, what am I going to do today, arrest a rapist or collect a mislaid prototype phone for Jobs".
And if you really don't like this abuse of privilege by Jobs, then don't buy any Apple products. Not even the really shiny ones.
Frankly I amazed that the press ain't all over this... oh wait the press that survives on Apple ads. Freedom of the press and all. The press gets stolen stuff all the time, most leaked documents can be considered stolen and of course there is no proof so far that theft has actually taken place. In a decent country a company calling a search warrant on a lost piece of property would be hounded to death. Bet that ain't going to happen?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
They said it was theirs, they just weren't going to do it publicly. No one should be defending this.
The guy who stole/found the phone doesn't look too good from this report, but remember when Gizmodo was talking to him they didn't have Apple's side, or a full police report. They believed the guy tried to return it to Apple. If he didn't, that's on him, not Gizmodo. In that sense I think the receiving stolen property charge is bogus, they didn't know it was stolen, and indeed, even based on what the guy did I'm finding hard to believe it was stolen. Should he have made a better effort to return it to the police or Apple, probably, but at the root it sounds like he did find it.
However, it's clear to me where the Gizmodo guys went wrong was to disassemble the device. Had they taken pictures of it intact, put it on their blog and said "can anyone help us find the rightful owner" they would be making an attempt to return the device in the same condition they found it. I think the journalism shield laws can and should have protected them from the trade secret charge. But on the damaging the property, they are out there all on their own. There's no reasonable way to think disassembling it would have told you more about who owned the phone, there was simply no reason to do that. Even with pictures of just the outside of the device they still would have had one heck of a scoop.
I do think the most ludicrous claim is that this cost apple millions of dollars in lost sales. This didn't hurt Apple sales one dime. This likely boosted interest in the next generation phone. It's totally made up solely to make law enforcement think the case was worth pursuing, and I wish law enforcement would take a more skeptical eye of such intangible damages.
So, the guy who found it, probably not guilty of theft in my mind, but probably guilty of not trying to return the property, which I'm sure is a crime somehow. Gizmodo, probably guilty only of damaging the device, they shouldn't have tried to open it.
All things considered some very poor decision making all the way around.
Whoever filled out the "Search Warrant Inventory" seriously needs to learn how to type...
I thought you could get warrants thrown out for just that sort of error? Also, they took his "Ipad [sic]"... That's a dick move... Although it does also mean that the iPad is a business device now since it was, supposedly, "used as the means of committing a felony".
There's an app for that.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
A ridiculous semantic argument that detracts from the point. If it was stolen, but not Apple's, they still have no claim to it.
Now even the regular apple joe-sixpacks who aren't hardcore fanbois know about Gizmodo.
Right. But knowing about Gizmodo doesn't mean they'll visit. I know plenty of people who did read Gizmodo, but no longer will after this sordid publicity stunt. As for tipsters and potential leads, they are going to give Gizmodo a wide berth now. Lesson learned: deal with the Giz, you might be in the Shiz.
... and then they built the supercollider.
They did state it was their property. Steve jobs made a personal phone call to the Gizmodo editor. Gizmodo employees knew the name and FaceBook account of the Apple engineer who lost it.
It wasn't a , "Hey give it to me!"
It was, "This is Apple property. We would like it back, please."
Gizmodo's reaction was, "Give us something in return for it"
This "something in return" was a legal letter so they could publish it online. They've even stated it on their their e-mail to Steve jobs that was just released. They wanted something to give them page hits, plain and simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't publicly deny it's yours while simultaneously demanding the return of the phone.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
A prototype that I seriously doubt has any custom tech designed (Apple uses mostly off the shelf stuff, get over it) is more important than finding some missing child.
Gotcha.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Unfortunately, all the people who send out press passes to industry events or who send them expensive review/preview items will also know about this.
It's not unthinkable they'll be blackballed. Even by Apple's rivals.
No. If the circumstances would have led a reasonable person to conclude that the item they were buying did not belong to the seller, nor that the seller was an agent of its owner, then they were buying stolen goods. Whether the owner has claimed it was stolen is just irrelevant--the owner doesn't even need to be aware that they've lost the item.
Think about it. You go on a backpacking trip to Europe, and your uncle the drunk stays at your house in the meantime. Some dude steals your car and abandons it at an isolated road, and your uncle doesn't even notice. Another guy finds your car, finds identification that ties the car to you in the glovebox, and drives it to your home to return it to you. But when they get there, your drunken uncle tells him that you don't have a car, and to fuck off. Does the guy now get to sell your car?
In the end, Gizmodo reported that they bought a phone for $5,000 from a guy that they knew neither owned it nor was an agent of the owner. That's basically an admission of a felony.
Are you adequate?
Obama still supports the PATRIOT act! Why isn't KDawson putting up posts about that daily like he did when Bush was in office? What has really changed? Where is the outrage?
True, but unless they were 100% sure it was Apple's wouldn't handing it over without verification simply have added to their list of crimes? Just because something looks shiny and has no sharp edges doesn't necessarily necessarily make it an Apple product. Heck it had a slot for an SD card, I wouldn't have believed it was Apple's either.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
This "something in return" was a legal letter...
Receipts are common and sensible when passing items of value. You don't want Apple coming back the day after you gave it to them saying "You still haven't given us the phone..."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
But Gizmodo actions show that they had no doubt at all that the phone was Apple's. They offered to pay more than $10,000 for it, and actually paid some of that money. They wrote a series of news stories explaining how their disassembly of the phone demonstrated that it was an Apple prototype. They published a story detailing all the information they knew about the Apple employee who lost the phone.
Are you adequate?
Apple employee in possession of prototype leaves it on a counter and forgets it.
Another guy finds it, tells Apple that he has a prototype.
Apple says, Nope. We know nothing.
Finder goes to Gizmodo guy and sells it to him for $5000.
Gizmodo guy publishes photos.
Apple goes, Oh Fuck! And calls the storm troopers.
Gizmodo guy, I guess hoping to get some sort of return for the $5000 he spent asks Apple at least to verify that it is a prototype.
Apple refuses, but yet, brings down so much fucking heat that it's obvious that the prototype is in fact something very very important.
The property was in fact offered to Apple. Apple refused. And now is acting like complete retards because of THEIR stupidity.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I had my motor home broken into in Sunnyvale and my possessions stolen. I called the police. They told me "Here is your report number. You have insurance right?" I said "No, not for theft." "Well then, why are you calling us?" they replied. "I thought you might want to come out and investigate. They broke the lock, left their tool, probably left fingerprints everywhere..." "No, we don't do that", said the cop, and hung up.
I guess the cops understand exactly who pays their salaries.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Grats on the selective quoting. It actually reads "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)"
Amazing the extent some slashdotters will go to to side with a criminal, just so long as they are in opposition to some hated company. Hogan knew exactly who the owner or keeper was because the phone was working initially and he established from the data in the apps that it was Gray Powell, anf from an internet search that Gray Powell was an engineer working for Apple.
You can twist and turn all you like to make excuses for criminals. But all that does is identify that your own morality is rather warped too.
just drop it off at the Chinese embassy.
Reading the affidavit, the thing that disturbs me most is that Apple seems to have pet police detectives at their beck and call. The affidavit basically says "Apple wants to search this guy's place and take everything there, right down to any credit cards they find."
We can't even get the cops to investigate half of the violent crimes reported, but we're willing to call in SWAT to keep Steve Jobs' "Oh, and one more thing" moment in tact?
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco, and Steve, for your moment in the Sun, just hold up the phone and say, "Hey, look what we found in a bar!"
It'll be a big laugh, and some bloody victim will thank you for it.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
(yes, I read the entire investigation part of the affidavit)
According to Brian Hogan's room mate (pg 14) an "intoxicated male" gave him a phone believing it was his. Hogan remained at the bar "a little while longer" and no one claimed the phone.
According to Powel (the employee who lost the phone) (pg 16) he states his last memory of the phone was placing it in his bag and then placing the bag by his feet.he was there till closing at 11:00 PM local time. He left when the restaurant started to close and he thinks the phone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.
Brian's room mate called the police because the phone was synced to her computer and Hogan's and was afraid law enforcement could get the ip address and trace it back to her (pg 12). So she was calling to absolve herself from legal issues. Also when she was shown the phone it appeared apple may have already done a remote wipe of the phone.
George Riley says (pg 12) that the phone was invaluable and that the $8500 (yes, supposedly he got $8500 total, no source on the other $2500 though) that Hogan got the phone was worth the price of the phone if not more.
Brian Hogan and someone else (sorry, I'm getting tired of finding this in the pdf) knew the police were investigating and was in the process of destroying/hiding evidence. The police went to hogan's father's house and found Hogan with his girlfriend. He said that the other person had some of the evidence. Eventually they got a hold of him and he placed the other items in front of a church.
Only other gem I found in there is a quote as stated by brian's room mate when she urged him not to sell the phone as it would ruin Robert Powel's image he told her "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone"
But neither does Gizmodo. CA law states that they have to return it to the owner or police if they know it's not theirs.
Nah, never happen -- it's still useful for them all to keep possible small competitors from ever getting out of the gate, so ALL the people who own congress still support it. That means of course, *not* the taxpayers they now even fail to pretend they represent. Beans, Bullion, Bullets -- get ready, people. (I'd add beef and rice, I can't stand beans all the time, and neither can those around me due to the greenhouse gasses emitted)
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
The incredible thing about slashdot is that it has now turned into a place where you get to meet the kind of people that will defend, to the death, a vile corporation, and on a daily basis. people like basil brush, whisper jeff and WrongSizeGlass amongst others.
i'd always thought that such misguided people existed but to hear the rationalizations out loud, as it were, is quite remarkable. I can only liken it to being at the zoo and looking at some strange creatures: i really and truly have nothing in common with them.
the funny thing is that if you knew what was best for "your" company then you really wouldn't take this attitude. you would realize how much it sickens people and understand that in various ways, which will surely add up, people will seek to make sure that apple, their products and their followers are treated with the contempt they deserve, and sidelined.
Villians? Villians is a bit strong. Did they tie Pauline to the train tracks?
Here's my problem. Trade secrets are a game. If you don't patent and publish, then it's up to you to keep your mouth shut and your stuff under wraps. You fumble the ball, feel free to deny, equivocate, disinform, whatever you want, but play the game.
What has me unhappy with Apple right now is that they apparently have a pet police force at their beck and call. Cops in San Jose and San Francisco routinely, constantly cry that they don't have the resources to investigate violent crime. If you get robbed, raped or murdered around there, good luck. Maybe they'll send someone out, if they can squeeze you in. There are literally thousands of backlogged rape kits to be processed.
But, Holy Crap, if Apple loses a cell phone in a bar, the SWAT team is on the way!
It's not so much that I care about the iPhone. I'm angered at the vastly improper set of police priorities.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I'm not sure why Apple apologists think it is the media's responsibility to protect Apple's trade secrets.
It is not reasonable to expect other people to guard your secrets. Don't put them out into the open.
Bringing litigation against Gawker Media for trade secret violations would be an abuse of the legal system and, I think, irresponsible. Apple would essentially be attempting to acquire compensation for misplacing their own device.
Unfortunately Gizmodo has been like this for some time. I had already stopped reading it a few months ago due to some of their policies with regard to comments.
They seem more caught up in making themselves look good to increase traffic on their site than actually present tech in an unbiased way. Half of the stories are pretty much ads these days.
Lesson learned: deal with the Giz, you might be in the Shiz.
...how did anything Gizmodo did in any way cause him to be arrested? They were very discrete about his name, it was his roommate who busted him.
$ make available
if it's so important, why did the guy take it to a bar to begin with? Did he have clearance to remove the device from Apple HQ? if not, has he subsequently been arrested for stealing the device?
I doubt that 100% sure is the legal requirement.
I think that Gizmodo knew it was Apple's. I was just pointing out how completely pointless and pedantic the grandparent poster was being.
So, how do I get something defined as a trade secret so that I can sue people who photograph it? If it's a "secret", then how can a person possibly know beforehand that that they are committing a felony by photographing it? I mean, if the company was denying the existence of this product, how could anyone know that they were doing something wrong until Apple sent the letter stating that the device belonged to them. Once they did that, everyone handed the phone over. Heck, if there's a red-light photo of Grey using the phone in public, does that mean that the State of California is guilty of trade secret "violations"?
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco,
They wouldn't anyway.
Although they should do both.
Qxe4
You might want to check the definition of a trade secret. It is no longer a trade secret once its leaked.
and further
Leaving a trade secret in a bar for anyone to pick up is pretty much the definition of what not to do to maintain secrecy.
"But it's a secret!" doesn't cut it when your own negligence is the ONLY reason it is no longer secret.
Too bad you didn't keep reading. Here's how he made a copy of the phone:
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That seems like a lot of police work, DA work, etc for a piece of shit phone. People will cry about IP and lost sales. Bull shit. Steve Jobs says people will stop buying iPhones because they now know a new one is in development? Are you fucking kidding me Steve? You guys release a new model every fucking year. Only a dipshit retard wouldn't know that July is new iPhone month.
My neighbor beats her daughter and locks her in a closet and we call the Police, children's services, and they blow us the fuck off. To busy with real crimes like a missing iPhone.
Sad. Get a fucking grip people.
Last I checked, if you have $5000 and you sold something for $8500, you don't have an extra $2500 that came from a mysterious source, you lost $3500 somewhere unknown.
All the cops in your town could pay back your contributions to their salary by skipping morning coffee.
For Steve Jobs? Not so much.
For Apple? Even less.
Apple has clout because they are a vital source of jobs, energy and lifestyle to the area. If the community at large was not supportive of them I'd be surprised. Also, if there is a violent crime, the cops do investigate. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it. I'm sure there are edge cases where it doesn't happen, but for the most part investigations happen with much more skill than you argue with.
PS., if unsolved murders fit on a wikipedia page, you probably haven't done your homework.
Love,
Your Mom.
That seems like a lot of police work, DA work, etc for a piece of shit phone. People will cry about IP and lost sales. Bull shit. Steve Jobs says people will stop buying iPhones because they now know a new one is in development? Are you fucking kidding me Steve? You guys release a new model every fucking year. Only a dipshit retard wouldn't know that July is new iPhone month.
My neighbor beats her daughter and locks her in a closet and we call the Police, children's services, and they blow us the fuck off. To busy with real crimes like a missing iPhone.
Sad. Get a fucking grip people.
Are you surprised that the police might receive a nice donation from Apple?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I own an Apple laptop. If it was missing/stolen and someone handed it over to Apple just because it had the logo on it, I'd be pissed. Gizmodo may be guilty of receiving stolen property, but they knew that they were within their rights getting a positive assertion from Apple that it was their phone. Legally, it should have gone straight to the police (along with a FIFA request that they be informed of who claimed it so they could still write their story).
All the cops in your town could pay back your contributions to their salary by skipping morning coffee.
For Steve Jobs? Not so much.
For Apple? Even less
Justice is for those who can afford it?
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Lewis Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
These kinds of responses just baffle me. There's been a few of them here. They're just sort of ... absurd.
First, the Detective wanted to search the guy's place, because he thought the various things would contain evidence of the multiple felonies he had probable cause to believe Chen committed. Detective != Apple. Yes, he's doing it because Apple initiated a complaint -- that's their right. If the police determine no crime was committed, they'll file it away. But here they determined multiple felonies were committed.
Yeah, I blinked a bit when they wanted all ID's and credit cards-- not sure what the point is. Then again several references were talking about identifying the guy, careful to note the Abstract Jason Chen really is the Jason Chen who committed the crime, and that this random human who happens to look Jason Chen-like really is Jason Chen. I have no idea if its standard procedure or not. Seems a bit over the top: but the cop asked for it and the Judge signed off on it.
The cop asked for it. Not Apple. Apple didn't direct how things should go, or what should be done. They filed a complaint. The cop took it, determined it was legitimate and a crime probably happened, and investigated. *Apple* didn't search anything, didn't see anything, can't even *touch* any of the stuff gathered from Chen's house. Its in evidence lockers, sealed up, or being processed by an investigator to try to dig out evidence with a strict chain of custody.
This leads me to Second.
So... violent crime is bad, yes. It has to be prioritized first -- and is! It has more resources and priority then the say, the property divisions. Narcotics is probably right behind. But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
If this guy weren't investigating -this- crime, he would not be investigating a violent crime. He'd be off investigating something else related to high tech crap. There's divisions. The guys who investigate violent crime are over here; the guys who investigate narcotics are over there; the guys who investigate say, murder, are over there. And the people who investigate theft are over there.
Its not like there's some central pool of Detectives and everytime one looks into something, it somehow takes away someone who otherwise would have been working on violent crime.
Sure, the violent crime departments should be prioritized highest-- and get more resources, more Detectives. And maybe an argument should be made for reducing some specialized departments (such as this one, which looks into high tech stuff-- because it requires a specialized training and knowledge-base that the regular Detectives don't have).
But, y'know? As long as there's even one guy in REACT, he'd probably have investigated the case anyways. Maybe not right away, depending on what all the cases they handle are. But a stolen high tech prototype is kinda-sorta one of those things his team was designed for. Nerd or nerd-adjacent crimes.
If you think taskforces like REACT shouldn't get any resources until such time as all violent crime is solved, well then-- start up a referendum. We Californian's can do crazy crap on election day. But doing so would mean a large class of laws and crimes would effectively cease to be crimes, as a crime without someone enforcing it is meaningless. Including things like, identity theft, which have real victims and ruins lives, even if its not violent. Specially-trained cops focusing on certain types of crimes are sort of needed. Or those crimes'll just never get solved.
Cost of development+manufacturing for it. So, probably several million dollars.
Several millions as in a few, a dozen, a hundred? Besides, cost of development and manufacturing are just the tip of the iceberg. There is marketing and potential loss of revenue as well as the potential of trade secrets being exposed to competitors, early picks that can tip potential buyers against the product...
Apple also told the police that the publication of Gizmodo's story was "immensely damaging" to the company, because consumers would stop buying current generation iPhones in anticipation of the upcoming product. Asked the value of the phone, Apple told the police "it was invaluable."
As far as I'm concerned they're both thieves. But, that's just me.
-[d]-
But you think theft(and this is, according to the law, theft-- even if Hogen didn't slip it out of the guys back pocket) shouldn't be enforced until... all violent crime is solved?
Funny, that's exactly what the cops told me. "We can't investigate the theft of your car, we're too busy chasing murderers."
They told a buddy of mine, "We can't investigate the burglary of your house, we're too busy chasing rapists."
They told a woman I know, while she was still in the emergency room, "We can't enforce your restraining order, we're too busy chasing murderers."
Following each excessive force complaint, the cops reflexively claim, "We don't have time to mess around and be polite. We're chasing killers."
So, yeah, the cops exactly argue they shouldn't investigate theft until all violent crime has been solved.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
After reading over the pdf, "Witness Katerine Martinson" seems like a complete and total douchbag / asshole.
Repeatedly calling police to tattle on her roommate, actively trying to "catch them" in the act of "removing evidence" (which wasn't evidence at the time)... taking pictures and sending them to the police! - all total BS behavior. Then letting police officers into their home to search their place, again trying actively to fuck over her roommate. Then providing license and vehicle information to the police about the roommates, so the police can hunt them down. With enemies like that living with you, you're totally screwed.
Then HIS OWN FATHER let the police into his home. Are these people totally and completely insane? Stupid? Brainwashed? I can't understand it.
Immediately after all that, the police office starts seizing his property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Aren't we?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Are you adequate?
SWAT? Oh come on.
This is a computer/tech crimes task force, investigating the possible theft, sale, and damage of a prototype of an electronic device that generates billions of dollars a year in revenue for the company involved.
The detective on the case doesn't deal in violent crimes, he deals in computer and high tech crimes. Not all police work is based on Law & Order.
I do think Apple's ridiculous obsession with secrecy is largely to blame for the amount of media scrutiny they get (and possibly this incident as well). In fact, they probably are getting what they deserve. But that's still not an excuse to commit crimes, and based on the affidavit there was plenty of evidence to pursue it further...
How about this? How about we let the police detectives focus on the mountain of unsolved violent crimes around San Francisco
Policing the violent crimes of other cities is not in their mandate, jurisdiction, or even funding.
If you really do live in San Francisco, and are afraid of the crime there, may be you should just move to Redwood City or Fremont. It would be nice if you could steal the better cops, the better schools, and the better emergency services from other cities that are doing a better job at it than your own, without having to move to those cities yourself, but I'm afraid that's really not how the World works.
...how did anything Gizmodo did in any way cause him to be arrested?
Ummm, by publishing the fact that they had received a stolen prototype iPhone for the whole world to see? By paying for a stolen phone? Pretty obvious I would have thought.
They were very discrete about his name,
They were "consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts" about his name? Sorry, doesn't make grammatical sense.
it was his roommate who busted him.
But only after the publicity from Gizmodo. A long, long time after the roommate's actions (Gizmodo had it for three weeks before publishing).
... and then they built the supercollider.
This is a computer/tech crimes task force, investigating the possible theft, sale, and damage of a prototype of an electronic device that generates billions of dollars a year in revenue for the company involved.
A task force specifically created to investigate crimes against large corporations?
How is that NOT a "pet police force?"
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Actually, one interesting thing I noted from the affidavit is that, at least as far as the detective understood, the roommate didn't seem to realize that Hogan may have been committing a felony. The affidavit says that she tried to convince him not to sell the phone because she was concerned it might ruin Gray Powell's career. If this is true, she seems to have been as ignorant about theft laws as all those Slashdot posters who insist that selling a lost phone you found isn't theft.
Are you adequate?
Anonymous Liar is more like it. You expect us to believe that you just let the "Police" [sic] blow you off, and the kid's still getting beat and locked in the closet? You're a real coward, or a liar, which is it? Call the District Attorney or the Mayor. The "piece of shit" is typing at your keyboard, pal.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
It's a fucking iPhone. They release a NEW one EVERY FUCKING YEAR!
I agree with the previous two responses, but I just have to add one thing: you actually can have it both ways. If you're in possession of the phone, and if you know it's Apple's, you have an obligation to either return it to Apple or turn it in to the police. This obligation isn't conditional on anything else; it doesn't disappear if Apple publicly denies the phone is theirs. Apple are perfectly within their rights to publicly deny that the phone is theirs, and privately tell you that the phone is theirs and demand that you return it. In that situation, you're still required to either return it to them or turn it in to the police.
Are you adequate?
Right. But knowing about Gizmodo doesn't mean they'll visit. I know plenty of people who did read Gizmodo, but no longer will after this sordid publicity stunt.
A certain phrase comes to mind:
"I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right."
--George M. Cohan
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This STUPID FUCKING CELL PHONE is more important than the crimes going on in their area. If I were a victim of a violent crime in that area, I'd be throwing bags of dogshit at the cops and at the prosecutor.
So you're saying that a task force specifically set up to investigate computer related crimes, located in Silicon Valley (where computer crimes and espionage are serious), should better spend its time investigating violent crimes? Great idea. I'm sure they'll reassign all their personnel immediately.
News Flash: There's all kinds of different crimes, and all kinds of independent departments set up to handle them. Just because one is doing its job well, and another is doing its job shittily, isn't reason to get pissed at the one that's doing its job well. This is like cursing out parking enforcement for the same reason. "They can't solve other crimes! Why did I get a parking ticket!?"
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I bet they're trying to figure out how to "thread the needle"?
On the one hand they need to ensure that no one thinks they take this lightly. On the other hand, they're likely sick of the negative press this incident has drawn.
I suggest that they opt for a public apology from Gizmodo as well as a large cash donation from Giz to a worthy charity.
Hmm...
Cheers,
Bruce.
Bruce A. Knack
Silicon Surfers
No, they strongly suspect it belonged to Apple, so they contact Apple. Only after Apple wouldn't confirm is was their [hone did they open it. At that point they may have known it was Apples phone.
Up until that point it could have been the next generation of Chinese knock off of the iPhone.
"I have this item please confirm it is your before returning it." Seems like a perfect reasonable request to me when returning anything.
Imagine the shit storn if they just blindley gave it to Apple and it turned out to be a difference company's device?
If Apple had said, yes that; our prototype. They would have gotten it and no one would have opened it.No lost trade secrets and Apple could ahve said 'it was an early development prototype. and that would have been the end of it.
This, coupled with Apples behavior over the last 2 years indicates to me there is some change coming to Apple. Like SJ retiring.
If it wasn't for there BAD behaviors n the last year, I would have gone out and gotten a new Mac the day steam released a mac version with Valves games.
now I'll go build two PCs myself.
Oh, and you trhink asking someone to confirm that something is there is extortion?
Fuck, that';s great.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"People that would have otherwise purchased a currently existing Apple product would wait for the next item to be released, thereby hurting overall sales and negatively effecting Apple's earnings," Riley said, according to an affidavit prepared by a police detective made public on Friday.
So Apple would have been unhappy that their sales could be hurt by some users waiting a couple of months to buy a better phone that they'd be locked into for two years. I guess it's not surprising that they're more interested in their share price than in making sure their users make an informed choice of buying now or waiting for a better phone.
Yeah, that is why they go after pot heads, hassle kids laying on the road with broken spines, and tazer invalids, diabetics and little kids. Clearly that all helps make the world a better place.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Do you mean the police and children's services refused to investigate your allegation about your neighbor or that they did investigate but did not do enough for the safety of the child in your opinion? If it is the former, I doubt your police department would perform any better at most crimes, including a lost iPhone prototype.
If you had a valuable prototype (full of trade secrets) that was lost, and then knowingly sold to the press in a manner contrary to the law, by someone who know what it was and what it was worth, without any actual effort to return it to you (despite immediately tracking down the owner's profile on two social media sites), would you just sit back and say "c'est la vie!"
Nope. And if you did, you'd be a pretty shitty CEO.
Yes, it's Apple's employee's fault, and Apple's fault by extension, that it was lost. However, all the matters beyond that are still crimes, and worth investigation.
Think of it this way: If you left the keys to your car in your car, and it was stolen, yes, it would be your fault. The police would certainly lecture you out on that, and your insurance company would laugh at you... BUT, the police would still try to find your car for you, and prosecute the guy who stole it to the full extents of the law.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Just to point out the most obvious nonsense in your post, the exact text of the request from Gizmondo to Apple is contained in TF Affidavit, and it wasn't "I have this item please confirm it is your before returning it." Nor anything slightly resembling what you describe in your post.
Is it that you don't read the fucking articles, or that you do read them and then just make shit up anyway?
And just like the majority of apps on the iphone, it doesn't actually do anything useful at all. It does however look really really sexy while it sits there burning electricity.
Wow.
I sure hope you NEVER complain about the number of lawyers in this country, because you just highlighted exactly why so many of them have jobs.
Hogan and Warner knowingly broke quite a few laws, and you're suggesting they use every avenue to stonewall the police instead of doing the right thing and turning the evidence and themselves in. It was a very smart move on the father's part to let the police in. Why we he want to appear complicit in this idiots crime? I know if the police showed up at my house about my kid, I'd roll out the red carpet for them so they can do their job.
Son? You fucked up. Time to pay the piper. Here's the police.
It looks like at least some parents (and people) still know how to act in this world. I can't say you're one of them.
You keep using the word "copy" incorrectly. You can copy a paper document, and have 2 of that same document. Making PICTURES of a phone is NOT a copy of that phone. It has NONE of the functions that phone has, and, the pictures can't even be used to make a physical copy of the phone, because you can't photograph code as it exists inside the phone.
You can't reproduce a physical object with photographs or facsimile. You can reproduce INFORMATION in this way, but not a physical object. I realize most of you can't tell the difference, but there is one.
It's not just Apple And Steve being butt hurt about the stole/found phone. It's about the law enforcement groups being butt hurt too. People get in trouble for posting the stupid things they have done on youtube, facebook, etc all the time. Gizmodo posted a story about what it might be a stolen iphone and on top of that said they paid for it. Very retarded of them. The news was all over the world. Now the "law" has to save face and demonstrate that if you do something illegal you will pay for it. Else, what's the point of having punishments for doing illegal stuff if you are never going to be punished. Of course, this doesn't mean that what happened is really illegal, but since it kinda seems like it might be this is why the police is investigating.
If your neighbor would make a post like gizmodo about it and it would make news around the world, I bet the police and chidren's services would be there in no time. Said that, I kinda not believe you that children's services is not doing anything. Here in Texas, even parents that do nothing wrong and love their children are afraid of them. If you are really wanna do something about it, tape your neighbor and call your police. If that doesnt work, call your local TV station and/or newspaper. Once it's news the police wont have another choice than investigate. Just like they are investigating Gizmodo.
No, if you found it and returned it to the bar, you wouldn't be stealing. If you honestly find somebody else's property, keep your use of it to a reasonable minimum necessary to identify the owner, honestly try to give it back in a reasonable amount of time, and failing that turn it in to the police as lost property, you've committed no crime at all. Really, the key words here are honest and reasonable; your actions have to be consistent with a desire to respect other people's property, which means returning stuff to its owner promptly, and not using things you don't have permission to use.
The law only starts asking whether it's theft when there's evidence that you're not being honest and reasonable in those regards. So, if on the contrary, after you find the phone, you keep it for a long time without trying to locate the owner or turn it in to the cops, use it for your own benefit or sell it to somebody, well, then you probably have committed theft.
There are very few exceptions. For example, if the lost item is a perishable good and is in danger of spoiling, you may sell it and then give the money to the owner.
Are you adequate?
Umm...didn't you know pot makes you unproductive and messes up your DNA? Nice try, but these fellas are doing their jobs and doing a heck of a job at that.
Apple are perfectly within their rights to publicly deny that the phone is theirs, and privately tell you that the phone is theirs and demand that you return it.
You're arguing for the right to lie while initiating a legal proceeding, which is problematic at best. If corporations have a right to lie in a public forum, then NOTHING they say should be trusted and pretty much every other office should be filled with a regulator to prove every nickel and track every bit of industrial waste.
But I can see the argument that you have the obligation to return found property to the police.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
"People go into police work cause they want to see the world a better place, not cause they want to become rich."
Nah, that hasn't been my experience. Given that police have no legal requirement to protect people (as ruled by about 10 different level courts,) you basically join up to serve as armed money-makers for the government.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Are you fucking retarded?
Apparently Dangitman is having a hard day. :-)
Could someone grab him a blanket, a teddy and a nice warm spot of cocoa?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Well, not exactly. The value to Gizmodo is some fraction of their expected revenue from their expected marginal increase in web advertisement sales from the exclusive "scoop" (based on previous estimates I've seen about ad revenue for sites that get a million or two hits on something like this, they could reasonably expect to make between $20k and $200k for such a scoop, those with more experience in this area could easily narrow the range of this 10x estimate). It's hard to support the notion that Gizmodo considered the potential liability costs, here. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask an attorney for advice, before purchasing property which is clearly considered stolen under California law, so they saved a couple hundred bucks there.
The value to Apple includes many things of much greater value, some of which are undoubtedly difficult to estimate. It's not simply the potential of lost sales from the Osborne Effect of an announcement a few months too early. Apple's revenue and stock price are due partly to making good products, but also partly to careful management of information release about new products. The leaked prototype phones might have features which don't make it into the final phone. The enormous value of free publicity from the previously unreleased information about a new product might be worth literally billions of dollars for the 2010 iPhone -- that value greatly exceeds the cost of an equivalent media buy, because the readers are driven by the perceived information vacuum which precedes the announcements. Then there's the value of advanced knowledge about the next iPhone becoming available to Apple's competitor phone makers. What's an extra three months of lead time on that worth? Suppose the front facing camer is really in the plans, and Apple was in the middle of negotiating some sort of related exclusive network arrangement for iChat based video conferencing with AT&T? Now their competitors have a heads-up and might be able to pressure AT&T to scuttle such a deal. What's that worth? Potentially billions, but again difficult to estimate.
Now, what if the loss of that lead causes Apple to lose traction in the smart phone market, and their market share flattens out or declines over a multi-year period? Are they going to sue Brian Lam for that loss? No, they're going to beg a judge to help them get their prototype phone back, before Brian Lam finds somebody smart enough to do a better analysis on the device and discover more about it, and leak that, too. Only then, once the phone has been recovered, will they consider wether or not to sue Gizmodo out of existence. Heck, they don't even need to win, they just need to engage Gizmodo in a protracted and expensive legal battle.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Did you even read the article you are replying to? The finder knew who the owner was, made no attempt to return it to him, and turned around and sold it to the highest bidder!
Too bad you don't understand a trade secret isn't a secret once it's out.
Guess where the iPad was 'found?' Out in public view. Too late it's no longer a secret.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You haven't done a very good job of processing that stuff, then. The specific details of the relevant California law have been widely published. The property would be considered stolen by any competent judge, particularly after Gizmodo paid a party which didn't own it to obtain possession for themselves.
Why are all the Anonymous Cowards idiots? Where are the whistle blowers?
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Gizmodo knew that the device did not belong to the person who sold it to them.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
He didn't make a copy of any trade secret. Trade secrets are no longer trade secrets once they've been leaked.
The owner of a trade secret must take reasonable precautions to preserve secrecy. In other words, don't leave your trade secret behind sitting in plain view in a bar. Whether it's an iPhone or the recipe of Coka-cola, once it's known by anyone in the general public, thanks to YOUR negligence, it no longer is a trade secret.
So no, there was no copying of trade secret material.
It has been clearly established to anyone following this story that under applicable California law and case precedent, this phone will be considered to be stolen the moment Gizmodo bought it from a person who didn't own it. "Finders Keepers" is not the law. Furthermore, it's really not clear that the Apple employee wasn't the target of a sting. There's enough shady behavior going on here that one certainly shouldn't rule out the possibility that somebody bought him a few drinks and lifted his phone.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I went over there and blew those motherfuckers up since the police didn't do shit. Shoved grenades up there in their colons told them to kiss their asses good bye!!
WHooooo Hooooo!! Who's the chicken shit now motherfucker?!?!
Yeeeeee HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
"Sewell [Senior VP at Apple] told me [the detective] that 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. Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the email address blam@gizmodo.com that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple. [...] Sewell said that after the letter confirming the ownership of the phone was sent to Lam, Lam responded via email that the phone was in the possession of Jason Chen at [address omitted]."
My emphasis, which I fear might not be enough.
Are you adequate?
geekoid routinely makes shit up.
There are a bunch of window lickers around here today, aren't there? It's hard to keep up with the spewing random garbage. Simple facts don't soak in with these people, who want desperately to believe that the Gizmodo is the hero in this story.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I'm another AC, not the one you replied to. About an year ago, I just rented an apartment with my wife. A day later, when we came back home, some neighbors waited for us and beat the crap out of us. We called the police, they came, identified them and calmed them down. Apparently they thought we were the previous couple that stayed there, which they have NEVER SEEN BEFORE, but which made a lot of noise. The police simply LEFT without saying anything to us, except that "everything will be fine." I had to take two days off work to finally reach someone (the police chief!) who actually did something about what had happened. We sued them and we're still not done with the fucking trial, which has been lasting for six months now.
Welcome to the real world, dickhead!
When Nick Denton couldn't resist showing off how cool he is and twittered that gawker paid $5K. I'm sure gawker legal counsel suggested he go right ahead and do that.
Apple can tell Gizmodo privately that the phone is theirs, yet deny publicly that any such conversation took place, or that they lost the phone. That public denial does nothing in this case, because Gizmodo knew that the phone was Apple's, as shown by their actions and statements elsewhere. They can't justify keeping the phone on the basis of that public denial, because they know that the denial is false.
Yeah, except that when you're dealing with the press, there's no such thing as "off-the-record" unless the reporter agrees it is. Under your plan "publicly deny, privately demand," Apple is free to take the phone and then sue the publication for libel. Apple is well-known for aggressive, punitive lawsuits.
Apple's filing would go something like this. "By claiming we lost a billion dollar prototype, the publication is suggesting our R&D department is irresponsible and untrustworthy and is therefore harming our stock price..."
Since truth is the ultimate defense against libel, the publication is well within their rights to document all of their transactions with Apple, including the return of the phone. Cameras on.
"Here's the phone. Would you like us to give it to you?"
"Yes, give it here."
"Is this your property?"
"No, that's not ours."
"OK. Fair enough. We'll keep our shiny new phone."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I'm occasionally guilty of being rude, too, but in myself and others I expect rudeness be justified on some reasonable basis (such as the persistence of a counter party do a discussion in failing to acknowledge simple objective facts which refute their argument). In your case, your attitude isn't justified.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
did you even read the pdf?
page 12, second paragraph, last sentence:
'the definition of "copy," includes "any facsimile, replica, photograph, or other reproduction."'
Who the hell is George M. Choan?
It was a very stupid move. The kid cooperated, and got penalized for it. Even the cops and JUDGES will say you shouldn't talk to the police.
You don't know that additional trade secrets might yet be discovered from the prototype device, or from photographs made of it. Consider that somebody smarter than Brian Lam might eventually have got their hands of the device.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
First of all, I haven't seen anything that says that Gizmodo or Hogan ever talked to Powell. Citation, please.
But that's not my main point. The main point is that, god, I feel like we're talking to second-graders here. Here's some very elementary moral rules that we adults teach kids in, um, elementary school:
This is all part of basic respect for other people's property. People who follow those rules don't run into trouble with the law when they find other people's lost property. Such people, finding a lost cellphone, would look through the contents of the phone to try and identify the owner or somebody who knows the owner, and then try to return within a couple of days. If they were unsuccesful in their attempts to return it, they wouldn't claim it for their own before consulting the law. What they wouldn't do is start using the phone for their own personal calls for a whole month before returning it, because that's wrong.
If Hogan and Gizmodo had followed those elementary rules, well, they'd be clear. Hogan might have started like that on night 1 (using the phone to find out the name of the guy who lost it), but it's becoming pretty clear by this point that as he realized the value of the prototype, he stopped following those rules, and his priority became how to benefit from somebody else's property, not how to return it to them.
Are you adequate?
I don't think it was Apple's property. Wasn't it someone else's property? I believe like it was given to a third party doing business with Apple. And it became that businesses property or something like that. Something that others have pointed out before.
It was in connection with making copies of trade secrets (the phone). It's not a trade secret any more when you negligently expose it to the world by leaving it in a bar. To be classed as a trade secret, the owner has to take reasonable precautions against exposing it. This is akin to leaving the formula for coka-cola in a bar and then claiming that someone who makes a photocopy of it is making a copy of your trade secret. No, they're not, because while they ARE making a copy, it's no longer a trade secret thanks to your negligence.
This move looks to be intended to deflect some unwanted attention from the court - the judge got some bad information that he based the search warrants on and now he wants the truth to be known. While the existence of the crimes alleged are arguable - some of the items listed on the search warrant aren't remotely related to any crime; they're intended to cause the suspect as much inconvenience as possible. Yeah, grab his credit cards and driver's licence while you're at it.
Normally, the corporate / police connection would trash the suspect's life and see him convicted on a whole laundry list of crimes - mess with Apple (or a number of other SV corporations) and they'll teach you a lesson you'll never forget. But this time the press got involved; the target was a reporter and a whole bunch of other reporters felt insecure because of it and now they're going to defend themselves and their occupation - and they won't stop until they feel they've made a difference.
This is going to be interesting to watch as it plays out - as the truth emerges the police and the folks at Apple are going to be revealed as the lying assholes they really are and it'll be reported by the media over and over again. That "say something negative and you'll never get another press release from us" stuff only works when you're targeting one reporter. When the whole news media turns against them, they won't have anything to use to defend themselves.
What Jason Chen and the other players in this little drama did was a little less than ethical - but Apple screwed up big time when they decided to attack a reporter. That corporate arrogance that leads to great products also produces a big blind spot that doesn't let them see that they're just a small part of a big system. Now they'll get to come to the understanding that the media's opinion of them does indeed matter and they'll get to measure the losses as their education proceeds. They were worried about the marketing loss from the premature showing of the new phone? That's nothing compared to what they bought for themselves when they overreacted. We'll just have to wait and see how long it takes them to realize their stupidity.
Maybe when Steve has his big reveal of the new products and the media doesn't slobber over them he might get a clue? Or maybe it'll take longer for him to realize that in the big picture he's just a bit player and there's others that have even more power than he does - and he's pissed them off. It won't be blatant but Apple's luck has changed for the worse and all the marketing money they can throw at it won't change a thing.
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
[Gizmodo] can't base their refusal to return the phone to Apple on a statement that they know is false.
Yeah, here's our problem. If Apple is allowed to lie, then so is the publication. If Apple can lie and so the phone is not theirs, then the publication can lie and say they take Apple at their word. The phone is not Apple's.
Of course, here's the real problem between you and me:
Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it.
When did we lose the battle so badly that we don't even think corporations have an obligation to be truthful?
Corporations, enjoying special tax considerations and the corporate veil that are given to them at the expense of the public, do not have the right to lie to the same people they owe their very existence to.
"Apple is still allowed to lie to the public about it," is the sort of thinking that floods the Gulf of Mexico with oil.
Both people and corporations have an obligation to be truthful in their public lives.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
That's the biggest heap of steaming BS I've seen on Slashdot in a while, and that's saying a lot. There are some really big, steaming piles laid here every day, but yours takes the prize.
by posters and /. "editors"
Like anyone can even know that
I agree with the GP. You, sir, need counseling.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
That is your personal definition of the word copy, which has no application in this context.
The definition of "copy" under Penal Code section 499c is the only definition that is relevant to this case or discussion.
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(7)
"[...] any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."
Before you argue that this is an iPhone and not an "article"...
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(2)
"[...] any object, material, device, or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype , model, photograph, micro-organism, blueprint, map, or tangible representation of a computer program or information, including both human and computer readable information and information while in transit."
Needs to be modded +1 +1 +1
This is why I own a XD40 and a Kimber 1911. You can call the cops, they'll be here in an hour. I'll defend myself right now.
Hogan, Warner and Chen are all morons who didn't consult lawyers when it would have been overwhelmingly advisable. They should have all determined whether their actions could be construed as illegal before they took them, but (as the Parent points out) Hogan, Warner and their associates further engaged in a pointless orgy of voluntary mutual incrimination.
.02 (something he wouldn't have had to do if he didn't incriminate himself in the first place), having been cited only for failure to obey a traffic signal. I was in the passenger seat, so I know firsthand exactly what a colossal fuckup it was (I even attempted to subtly communicate this during the event, but was unsuccessful). It also occurred to me (from my comparatively uninvolved vantage) that bullshit like telling people to say the alphabet backwards (I don't know about you, but I can't do that sober) is merely a tactic to fluster suspects and get them to feel trapped into making more explicitly incriminating statements. A police officer appears in the night, shines a flashlight into your face, starts bemoaning the lawlessness of society and demanding that you comply, and somehow an otherwise intelligent person believes that some legal obligation exists to answer his questions, even to the extent of self-incrimination (which in that situation is pretty much everything). A traffic stop may not be (legally) a custodial interrogation, but it seems pretty fucking coercive in practice.
Hogan and his friend Thomas Warner attempted to conceal evidence in front of witnesses, then Hogan's father allowed a warrantless entry into the house (thanks a lot, Dad!), Hogan implicated Warner and himself, Warner implicated Hogan and himself, and there was Miranda-waiving all around. Need a lawyer? Naaaaah. "Everything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." "Officer, I waive those rights, and I'd like to implicate myself spontaneously, because I'm using some fucked up logic known only to other suspected petty criminals."
Perhaps we should contemplate a change to grade/high school civics curricula? I think I have good grounds for believing I am both more intelligent and more educated than the average American, but I also once implicated myself. Some years ago, the first time I was pulled over by the police (for speeding), in an (incredibly inadvisable) attempt to be clever I put myself on the hook for another $50 violation and additional $85 mandatory surcharge (thank you, New York). Since then, I have not been charged with or interrogated in connection with any misdemeanor or felony, but I have been pulled over for more traffic infractions. Severely chastened and deeply humiliated by my past spontaneous admission of guilt (unexpected contact with the police turned me into a drooling moron), I never made such a mistake again (and never paid such a fine again), and instead acquainted myself much more deeply with the laws of various states, and with criminal procedure. That is the only reliable antidote to drooling idiocy.
The Supreme Court wasn't just making things up when they decided that custodial interrogation was de facto compulsion. That was the legal expression of the drooling idiot principle. It is a rare person to whom the principle does not apply. Hell, one of my relatives, who is substantially older than I, to whom the same intelligence/education disclaimer applies, and who had never received worse than a speeding ticket, once was pulled over for driving straight through a left turn signal (it was dark, he wasn't wearing glasses, and he was quite surprised at being pulled over until I mentioned the signal). He then unaccountably went out of his way to establish reasonable suspicion for DWI, which was a misdemeanor, not a violation. He was eventually and reluctantly released (from the traffic stop) after blowing a
We don't accept "secret" evidence in this country. If you make a complaint to the police, and they get a warrant based on that complaint, then both the complaint and warrant should be a matter of public record, as the judge just affirmed.
Apple, legally, isn't allowed to demand the return of "stolen" property without publicly stating the phone is theirs.
Which is exactly why the judge unsealed the warrant.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
This wasn't *just* a stupid cell phone, it's also the embodiment of several million dollars in R&D, and a trade secret. Granted, the Apple employee who lost it didn't exercise due care. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it was a valuable object, beyond its intrinsic value as a communications device.
What's likely going to send at least a couple of idiots to jail will be testimony and evidence showing that everybody involved knew this wasn't *just* a cell phone. From the property crime aspect, it's not much different from finding a cruise missile prototype, and selling it to Aviation Week.
Luke, help me take this mask off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
"The San Francisco Bay Area, also commonly known as the Bay Area, is a metropolitan region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California. It encompasses the metropolitan areas of San Francisco (12th largest in the country) and San Jose (31st largest in the country), as well as four other smaller, surrounding metropolitan areas. "
But yeah, I get your point. You think Oakland shouldn't enjoy the same protection of the Law that Marin does.
One, that makes you a lousy American and a low human being, and Two, fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you:
"Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists...it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."
Lewis Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
It's not that "Life isn't fair." It's that people like you make it unfair.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Apple is conducting tests of an unlicensed cellular radio and other radios in this prototype, it is not supposed to be out in the open only in a test lab as submitted to the FCC.
I'd like to hear them explain that.
You're absolutely right. And certainly, if you don't feel that you're free to go, it sure will feel like a custodial interrogation.
Years ago I reported a couple for child abuse. No good deed goes unpunished, so one of them made up some pretty awful accusations against me. Word got to me that the police wanted to question me, so I went down to the police station, armed with a pen and paper. When they asked me to give a statement, I took out my pen and paper.
Cop: "What are you doing?"
Me: "Same as you - I'm taking notes."
Cop: "You can't do that!"
Me: "Then I have nothing to say."
Cop: "I can arrest you!"
Me: "Then I CERTAINLY have nothing to say, except go ahead, you're making a mistake and you'll lose in court/"
Yes, I purposefully goaded the cop into doing an arrest. It was the best way to get back at the idiot making the accusations and forcing them to put up or shut up. I had the time of my life cross-examining the two "witnesses" over several days as they repeatedly perjured themselves, digging their holes deeper and deeper, until they finally started screaming - at the judge! Bad move :-) I guess they thought they could get away with it because I went head-to-head with the judge rather loudly for several minutes on a point of law (he finally saw the light - that the witness had in fact NOT answered the question, had done everything except answer the question, and had tried to pull a fast one over him).
I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for the faint-of-heart, but it sure beats watching Law and Order on TV.
After reading that document I'm convinced Hogan lifted the phone from Gray's bag. He knew from the moment he had it that it was stolen, he told his roommate as much and that's the reason she turned him in because she didn't want to be convicted for being involved. The warrant also lists that when lost the phone was actually inside a 3GS case, a case that was removed and discarded by Brian Hogan along with some stickers indicating the serial number. Something he no doubt removed to conceal the origin until sale. He got $8500 for the phone from two separate organizations. And the best part is the "friend" Brian Hogan called to throw away all the evidence of the crime (also a crime) had two warrants out for his arrest.
Next Gizmodo takes the phone apart and rips a ribbon cable in half, strips the screws and shorts the phone out by putting a screw in wrong and hitting the circuit board. So not only did they pay for stolen property, publish trade secrets (and admit to as much in an email to Jobs) but they destroyed the prototype.
It gives me a rich satisfaction to read this warrant as it's clear right now that at least two people are going to be convicted. Hogan and Chen are going to be convicted and they can probably get the Gizmodo editor (for involvement in the transfer of stolen property and blackmail) and Hogan's friend that helped dispose of evidence (nice big felony conviction). The best part is Hogan's roommate is going to be testifying against him. Not only do they have all the physical evidence and likely all the email and stuff but they also have personal witness testimony. It's pretty much a slam dunk case to convict Hogan.
As for all the people saying the cops wouldn't do this if it wasn't Appl,e really don't understand stolen property cases. When the police are handed slam dunk cases like this they always follow through. You want the cops to investigate your stolen property case have the thief admit to the theft to a witness who goes to the police, have him sell the stolen property to someone who then publishes all about the theft in public and sends then evidence of the crime to owner. That's what happened in this case, it's a damn near perfect case and that's why it's being investigated so heavily by the police, it's a guaranteed conviction, being Apple is involved plays a small part but the biggest factor is how easy the evidence collection is. The funny thing is property theft cases are usually concentrated in a small number of individuals, I personally wouldn't be surprised if in the search of Hogan's apartment they find other stolen property and find out he goes to bars and lifts people's property quite frequently and end up solving many theft cases.
From the cop's affidavit, I'd say it's mixed. Point in her favor: she thought it was wrong to sell the phone because she was worried it might ruin Gray Powell's career. Points against her: (a) it's not clear that she understood clearly that keeping somebody else's phone for three weeks in order to sell it is theft; (b) she only acted to stop it when she feared that she might be blamed for the situation.
Are you adequate?
his maniacal laughter will soon follow as no amount of millions in marketing will have people as interested in his newest trinket as this. Apple 1, Ex-Apple Employee 0
>>> stealing a cell phone *is* a crime.
Unless Apple were using only their stealthy and awesome ninjas to exact justice noone would give a hairy shit. Where were the skyscraper leaping authorities for this guy?
http://www.evanwashere.com/StolenSidekick/
That's the diff. When it's on my dime those niggas better be triangulating and renditioning the barbarian that stole my shiny Schwinn.
Since in this case the prototype was acquired by Gizmodo illegally, they must face the full consequences of the law.
People go into police work cause they want to see the world a better place, not cause they want to become rich.
Most people go into police work because they get a kick from the artificial power and authority and because they don't have any real power or authority.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Hogan: took pictures of the phone intact, and return phone to owner ASAP.
Gizmodo: buy said pictures from Hogan, publish story.
Everyone is happpy, well, except Apple - but then, all of the above steps are legal so there wouldn't be anything they could do.
Some people just don't think with their brains.
So if I make a photograph of a CD, I'm copying music?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Being discrete:
"A reliable source sent us some pictures of what appears to be the gen next iPhone"
Not being discrete:
Using 6 pages of text and pictures to detail how they acquired the stolen property.
yes, I see the law as written, I saw it the first time. I'm not arguing the law, as I have no idea if it applies here or not (and we'll need a judge to decide). I'm arguing reality. You can't COPY, CLONE, or otherwise duplicate physical objects using photographic means. If this law is applied in such a way that says you can, and it's a crime, then I will help lobby to change the law as written. Just as I am lobbying here to change minds as they sit.
So, your district got suck/lazy police, so other people are not allowed to have a police force that actually take the effort to fight crime?
You do realize that dealing in stolen property is a crime, right?
Oliver.
she seems to have been as ignorant about theft laws as all those Slashdot posters who insist that selling a lost phone you found isn't theft.
To use the terms from another /. post I remember -
It seems that American youths' and /.er's sense of property rights is very "situational".
Do you read the posts that you're replying to? I said that Gizmodo received stolen goods and was within their right to ask Apple for proof that it belonged to them. I didn't mention the douche who sold them the phone at all. It's pretty clear that he's in trouble for selling goods that he didn't have the right to sell. TFA was about the warrants for Chen's apartment as well as the seller's. So, did you read the article or my post? Or did you read them but just not understand them?
He still works at Apple, and we have been given no reason to believe that he will be fired.
>>Reading the affidavit, the thing that disturbs me most is that Apple seems to have pet police detectives at their beck and call. The affidavit basically says "Apple wants to search this guy's place and take everything there, right down to any credit cards they find."
Actually, the thing that disturbs me the most reading over the PDF is the sheer number of misspellings in it.
"Exsternal Hard Drive"
"Coffee Tabel"
"Canon Reblel digital camera"
"HP MediaSmart searver"
etc.
If this is all the best-of-the-best REACT team can do, I'm really worried about law enforcement in America.
Most of them are just your traditional right wing republicans who have some differences of opinion with the party (as must be the case when there are only two parties) and prefer to call themselves something else.
I'm pretty confident that these people have no qualms about the government paying a lot for police department, military, border control and the like, even though they don't want it to pay for healthcare, etc.
Protip: People go into police work cause they want to see the world a better place, not cause they want to become rich. See also: Education, Social Services, etc.
Maybe that's why YOU went into it (though I'd be hard pressed to believe it).
No, people tend to go into police work because they like pushing other people around and acting like big shots.
Maybe your policemen are under pressure from higher ups like these guys were?
When someone stole my car I was told to file a report, never heard another word and was told not to expect to. This is despite VIN numbers being indelibly etched in four different places, removal of those numbers being illegal, operation of the vehicle requiring registration with those numbers, state inspections required once a year again referencing those numbers and ownership of the vehicle being registered with the state.
Without political power or great wealth it seems you should expect justice and real protection for property every bit as often as you win the lottery.
I like the comment in the affidavit about how cellphones are used to communicate for criminal activity. It makes it sound like cellphone usage is prima facie evidence of such activity.
umm with tech being a a major industry in SV yes I would expect that some industry's like the Nucelear industry have its own police force. And other idustrys do have specialised police forces the Fraud squad in the City of london for example.
If you really do live in San Francisco, and are afraid of the crime there, may be you should just move to Redwood City or Fremont. It would be nice if you could steal the better cops, the better schools, and the better emergency services from other cities that are doing a better job at it than your own, without having to move to those cities yourself, but I'm afraid that's really not how the World works.
They have an easier job in Redwood City and Fremont. Are they actually better cops, or is it just inherently a better place to live?
My lady and I were just badmouthing San Francisco yesterday evening. Some guy whose sandwich shop got Yelped suddenly developed a line that stretches around the corner, so he opened two new shops and he still has these crazy lines. Well, his neighbors are suing him and it looks like he's going to lose his lease because he was too successful. And the really offensive part is that he's being held responsible for the actions of his potential customers, some of which are not customers; they won't even make it in the door before he closes! I used to go regularly to a club held at the Trocadero at 4th and Bryant. It was IMO the best club in San Francisco; certainly it was one of the largest and best-loved. As other SF neighborhoods filled up, people with money started to move into that one, then they sued to have the club closed for noise abatement. Basically, you are not permitted to succeed in San Francisco. I realize there's a lot of opportunity there anyway, but I can't imagine any business owner not eventually being ground down to paste by their ridiculous bullshit.
This is also sort of the story of all of California writ large and with very dark ink. But that's another rant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why did Steve Jobs get personally involved in this? Is he out of his f*cking mind? The man has gone from being a hero, to a loose cannon, an embarrassment, and now, perhaps Apple's own worst nemesis. Is his new liver being rejected? Does he have blood poisoning? Has his monstrous id finally burst all restraints? WTF indeed.
Seems to me that her roommates are the ones acting in bad faith here by using her computer while dealing with something that is obviously of shady legal ground.
Seems to me that she only turned her roomie in when she thought she would get caught. She didn't turn her roommate in when he announced to her that he had a stolen phone, only when it was plugged into her machine and she thought she would get in trouble. Thus, she is scum just like the thief is scum. She doesn't give one tenth of one shit about the crime, only about her personal involvement. At least, if your summary is correct! Cops often write whatever they want on the report to make you look like a bigger asshole than you are. They think it's the right thing to do if it produces the result they want.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What also scares me is this quote from the detective: "Based on my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email and/or text message." I don't know if I'm alone here, but "someone may have been involved with an unusual case that could technically be theft" + "thieves use 'phones" + "this person has a 'phone" => "we should seize the 'phone and any other 'phones we see" seems a little dodgy to me. Particularly when a bit later the detective uses the same logic to seize a couple more. The conclusion may be valid, but surely the correct logic is "a witness stated that the individual had one main mobile 'phone and no fixed 'phone" => "any record of 'phone conversations related to the incident would be on this 'phone" => "it should be seized"
Now, I can understand the point of view that you want as much potential evidence as possible, but surely that doesn't mean you get to seize absolutely anything?
Also, I am somewhat amused by Apple's claims that the leak will cost them "huge" damage financially because people won't buy a current iPhone because they know another version is coming out soon... so instead of buying a cheapish current one, they'll buy the more expensive, brand-new release in a few months. Yes, that sounds like "huge" damage to me.
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Anyway, I know that you USians like locking people up (with the highest ratio of inmates per person in the world) but I wonder if that is appropriate here. What do people think should be the punishment (if any) for the three people concerned if we assume the evidence provided is accurate?
So Apple doesn't have the right to have their property protected, but you do?
They don't get to have their property protected because people know a new one is coming?
Get a fucking grip moron.
They get the same protections you do, like it or not.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The same cops that were investigating the iphone were the ones that would've responded to your call? What an amazing coincidence!
Looky here, pa. An internet tough guy!
I find it difficult to believe that you are such an expert on human nature that you can generalize about the motivations of people who decide to become police officers. Especially when all that generalization really amounts to is nothing more than insulting people who risk their lives to protect you so you can continue to be a dick who doesn't have a clue.
Are their bad cops? Of course there are. But the vast majority of police officers are just like everyone else. They want to go to work, do their jobs, and then go home and be with their families.
Followed by this signature:
Is very rich irony. But okay, I'll play too:
Most people who hate cops do so because they are immoral people who frequently break the law knowingly, and resent the fact that police make them nervous.
See? I can generalize like an asshole too!
Yes, you are absolutely right. It was less than 3 years ago that I last broke the law and got a speeding ticket.
I've also been pulled of the road numerous times for looking too young an a too expensive car or driving late at night with friends in the back.
I've also had a previous car vandalized and had a few bicylces stolen from me; none of which I ever heard back from the cops.
I don't hate cops, I just base my judgements on my experience. There are certainly cops out there that actually want to do some good. There are also certainly plenty of cops that simply don't care.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
They may be aware that cars are being stolen to chop up, rather than being put back into use. Of course, that's not always the case, but it may be a while before you see it again.
I've heard of stolen cars being found, sometimes the same night they were stolen, stripped clean of any valuable parts, or sometimes of everything but the frame.
I knew someone in Los Angeles who had her SUV stolen. It was found two months later, being used to smuggle illegal aliens up from Mexico. Border patrol checked their records, and it had come across twice a day for almost the entire time. When she got it back, it had cheap steel wheels on it, rather than the factory alloy wheels, anything valuable (radio, etc) had been removed, etc, etc.
With all that said, good luck, I hope you get your car back in the same condition it was when it disappeared.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I didn't fault Gizmodo for publishing the piece about the phone. But I lost any stomach for their "reporting" when they outed the guy who lost the phone, and I was disgusted by the flip tone of their email to Apple Legal when they returned the phone.
Now we come to find out that Mr. Lam misreported HIS OWN EMAIL to Apple Legal by editing what they reportedly said not once, but now apparently - twice. The original post he put up had the crack about "I don't think this guy likes anything as much as Apple, and maybe beer." That was later edited to strike the "and maybe beer" reference from the Gizmodo website.
Reading these recently-published documents, it's clear that their original post was an edited version of what was said, as well - the original email, as reported in the legal documents, has the beer quip, and follows it with, "Maybe spankings."
Given this evidence that Gizmodo clearly alters the actual transcript of written communication, why would you ever trust a single other word they've written? They're claiming journalistic protections while behaving like grade schoolers. This whole mess has guaranteed that I won't read gizmodo ever again.
No - the first disclosure of the trade secret was to the person who found the phone in the bar. What happened after is irrelevant - by then it was already no longer a trade secret, since Apple's employee had negligently exposed it to a member of the public. Once a trade secret is exposed to ANY member of the public by the trade secret holder's negligent actions, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Gizmodo making copies or photos cannot qualify as exposing a trade secret, even if they obtained the device illegally, since someone else already had obtained the trade secret legally - through Apple's negligence.
They get the same protections you do, like it or not.
You are sadly moronic. Never in the history of the world has a person gone to the police and said I lost my cell phone at a bar last night and have them do a god damn thing about it.
No, most likely the judge simply released them because the information in them is no longer time-sensitive. The burden is on the prosecution to convince the judge that the documents should still be sealed; the default is to allow third parties to see them. There was a legitimate concern when the warrant was issued that Chen might be tipped off about the search and destroy evidence--like Hogan and his friend actually did.
Are you adequate?
Your judgements are - by your own admission - based on anecdotal evidence, and as such are completely insufficient to draw the sweeping generalization you did in your original post.
I had to comment because I found the irony of your original statement, followed by your sig, to be too delicious to not point out.
Perhaps you meant to be more accurate in painting with that broad brush, and should have said: "Some cops are bad, and some cops are good?"
Before you argue that this is an iPhone and not an "article"...
I didn't read the article but if he only took a photo of the exterior of the phone and the phone had ever legally been in public, the mere exterior image of it wouldn't be protected anymore, would it?
Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.
A copy of a trade secret, not of a phone. See California Penal Code Section 499c(b)(3):
(b) Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:
(3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret.
(With the explanation before) (a) As used in this section:
(7) "Copy" means any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article.
(2) "Article" means any object, material, device, or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, micro-organism, blueprint, map, or tangible representation of a computer program or information, including both human and computer readable information and information while in transit.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
So, how do I get something defined as a trade secret so that I can sue people who photograph it?
Easy, RTFLaw:
(9) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
At least in California.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You might want to check the definition of a trade secret. It is no longer a trade secret once its leaked
It wasn't leaked until after he copied the trade secret so he could leak it. Losing something isn't leaking it, especially when it's concealed to look like something that is not a trade secret.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Ignorance of the law is no defense.
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
One small problem - the concealment bit went out to lunch within 24 hours - to the finder - LONG before any pics were made.
To compound this, not only did Apple leak their trade secret by their own negligence - they then went on and confirmed it by letting it be known that they had "lost a prototype". At that point, the existence of the phone was not a trade secret by any reading of the facts, all due to Apple's actions.
To put it back into the Coca-cola analogy: You negligently leave the secret formula for Coca-cola in a wallet, and leave the wallet in a restaurant. I look in the wallet, hoping to find contact information so I can return it to you - and I find the Coca-cola analogy. You cannot argue that it was secret because it was concealed in a wallet.
Same thing with the prototype - you cannot argue that it was successfully concealed when it looked different enough from a regular iPhone that people were thinking it might have been a cheap knock-off.
Trade secret only remains in place if the original act of leaking it was criminal. It wasn't. It was negligence on Apple's part. They knew it, which is why they went all Gestapo.
This could have all been avoided by, instead of bricking the phone, calling the phone and asking for it back, perhaps along with a finders fee. "Hi, I lost that phone, I might get fired if I don't get it back - can we work something out?" Even ten grand would have been less than what Apple's already spent - and they probably could have got it back for the price of a few beers and a thank-you.
The minute they bricked the phone, they screamed "this is not a regular phone!!!"
"Exposing trade secrets" - there's an App for that.
Leaving a trade secret in a bar for anyone to pick up is pretty much the definition of what not to do to maintain secrecy.
The maintenance of secrecy is still in play since Apple had the gen4 iphone, disguised to look like a gen3 iphone.
The took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy and still allow for testing of the phone in real world, outside of apple corporate campus.
The issue that Gawker and Jason Chen will have the most trouble with is their decision to receive stolen property.
They better get good legals, and pray for sympathetic jurors.
Actually, his father let the cops into the house. And to be honest, I don't blame him.
Once the cops were in, Brian probably co-operated because he knew he had no hope of winning in the impending suit against him, and decided to appear co-operative to lessen the sentence (I do believe courts do that?)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I think he was being pedantic, and implying that thinboy00 should have said "discreet". Two different meanings.
Ergo, Spelling Nazi!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
we call the Police, children's services, and they blow us the fuck off.
Really? You called the Police? Did it occur to you that they might have been on tour at the time, or doing a gig at a local bar? They're not, you know, Wrapped Around Your Finger or anything.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Makes sense. Hogan was trying to reload the firmware. The first thing iTunes would do in that case would be grab the model identifier from the device, and ask the iTunes store whether the iTunes account has access to download firmware for that model. Since the model identifier would be something like "iPhone 5,1" - which Apple knows is the prototype, they could easily tell that someone has attempted to connect it. And worse, they presumably know what iTunes account it was attempted with. And since iTunes accounts have your address attached...
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
One small problem - the concealment bit went out to lunch within 24 hours - to the finder - LONG before any pics were made.
Sure. Exactly like it had been if he had stolen it from within Apple. I have a hint for you: YANAL, DPOOS.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I'm rather entertained by this story despite the bullshit arguments that this will damage apple. The real losers are the two guys destroying evidence, Jason Chen buying stolen property, and Gizmodo. You have two people with no regard for the law answering to the law. Jason Chen is now the poster child of Internet bloggers who have watched too much Nancy Grace and came under the delusion that bringing out the worst in people and bashing cops on a *gadget blog* makes them more than sorry aspiring journalists. Gizmodo knows they're tucked in this. Did you read their first statements after Chen was searches? They cited a finders keepers law that didn't even apply to the situation. It not only showed a desperate attempt to defend themselves but they also read at a mediocre gradeschool level! To all taking the heat: nicely done, sirs!
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Total bullshit response. REACT is a major crimes task force. This investigation was pursued for the purposes of fucking Gizmodo. They had the fucking phone back. They had the phone returned, period. They are trying to end run around the first amendment.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I find it difficult to believe that you know the vast majority of police officers. Come to think of it, I find it impossible to believe.
The police officers I have known have often been fine people. In addition to my personal experiences with police officers, my best friend was a police officer many years ago (I am in my 50's). He is a fine human being. And has told me many stories about 'tuning people up'. There's a lot more to it than you imagine.
Your opining about the vast majority of police officers is ignorant and offensive.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Never forget what a man says to you when he is angry." -- Henry Ward Beecher
So, you agree with somebody who will let the child next door continue to be beaten, because the cops didn't immediately solve the problem upon his first complaint? And you support the position that he can whine to Slashdot about it, anonymously, rather than act? And you think it's fine that they include in that whining a thinly veiled attempt to pin the responsibility for the child abuse on a corporation that's not involved in any way?
Really? Are you sure about that? Take this discussion thread to a psychologist and see what they think about your own need for counseling.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
After reading the whole thing, I believe this Detective has put way too much time into this, compared to the time they will put into many other cases.
The only thing I'm surprised they didn't do was to attempt to get video surveillance at the store, find out if it was stolen?
Although that doesn't matter to this detective by the looks of it, the only thing he's assuming it being stolen, rather then lost is that Apple said its stolen not just lost.
I bet martinson is not so impressed by the fact she is now involved in this issue largely by giving evidence (what a snitch :P)
Warner seems like a shady character 2 outstanding warrants? What for? Maybe if its stealing phones or secrets.
So, assuming you're not the same Anonymous Coward, and assuming your story is true, it's not clear why you're calling me names. Your situation also involves the police ignoring a serious situation, but other than this tangent it's not related. Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone who favors police incompetence or injustice? The direct implication of my comment to the previous Anonymous Coward is that he cannot claim the moral high ground in the situation he described unless he takes action, and persists in an effort to help the victim, rather than whining to Slashdot, anonymously. Your situation is unfortunate, and the police response pathetic. You shouldn't go around assuming that people are not sympathetic to your plight and calling them names, however. It's likely to undermine your case.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Yes, his father let him in - a very bone-headed thing to do.
You've been watching too much TV.
Any lawyer would have told him "You're saying that there are no charges yet? In that case, my client has absolutely nothing to say." The "yet" means that charges ARE coming, so SFTU. People too often interpret that the exact opposite - as an implied promise that, if they cooperate, the police will put in a good word. The police have NO say in the matter - they cannot "put in a good word" for you.
The proof is in the pudding - look how they used his call - that THEY asked him to make - as the excuse for seizing his cell phone.
Stop being so naive - you're making geeks everywhere look bad.
But don't take my word for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
"An law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police."
Listen to what the cop says ... decades of experience count for something. They have plenty of experience trolling people.
Next time that a cop asks "do you know how fast you were going?" - you're not obliged to supply an answer that question. STFU.
No. If he had broken into Apple and taken the phone, then trade secret would still apply. He made the initial discovery because of Apple's negligence in leaving the phone where anyone could just pick it up.
And btw, I've argued (and won) enough cases in civil, criminal, and regulatory boards to know how to read the statutes. Go spend a thousand hours in court and win a few cases, and maybe your opinion might be better-informed.
Hmm. Apparently your court system sucks more than ours. Over here, co-operation actually counts for something.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Especially when all that generalization really amounts to is nothing more than insulting people who risk their lives to protect you so you can continue to be a dick who doesn't have a clue.
No cop has ever (and likely never will) "risked his life to protect me" unless he happens to be my uncle. In fact, it's been repeatedly confirmed as a matter of law that they are not -- and cannot be -- EXPECTED to do so. It's "not their job."
Please stop being naive. The video in question (did you even watch it???) deals with the American court system - which is where the whole phone thing is taking place. and where cooperating with the cops counts for nothing. Unless you have a deal with the DA, you have NOTHING. Watch the video. Listen to the cop with 2 decades of experience, and the law professor, both tell you why you should not talk to the police. The police simply have no authority to make any such decision, or to tell the judge that you should receive different treatment because you cooperated. And your refusal to answer questions can never be held against you, not when talking to the cops, not even when being questioned in court (see 5th amendment issues, among others).
The 5th amendment recognizes that innocent people can refuse to answer any question, on the grounds that it may tend to make it look like they're guilty, and it cannot be used to imply guilt. So no more "do you still beat your wife" questions, no "trick questions". And you are never required to do more than identify yourself to the police. If you're in a store and the cops ask "is that your car out there" you don't have to answer.
BTW - one of their references is a supreme court judge, who says that he would not talk to the police.
And how do you read this?
(9) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
You are not only arguing that the efforts weren't reasonable enough, but also that Gizmodo didn't pay several times the will-be selling price of the next-gen iPhone - which clearly proofs that (A) still fully holds.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
How the fuck is it being naive to recognise there are differences between our two countries?
Please stop being obtuse.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It's only a "trade secret" as long as reasonable means have been used to keep it a secret. The instant Apple handed it to employees to carry outside the office it ceased to be a trade secret. Hiding it in a fake 3GS case is a nice try, and may work in passing. However, it's instantly outed upon inspection -- even from across the room.
No one is pointing out how the chain of custody is broken, and evidence tampered with, w.r.t. to Apple "inspecting" the phone before handing it over to the police.
Last weekend at a barbecue, my neighbor, a cop, told me he absolutely hated having to deal with dicks who just wouldn't listen or learn, who would give him attitude and try and chest-pound while he's just trying to politely gather information at the request of his boss and the public.
So, allow me to pass this on, from him: Fuck you.