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)
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.
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).
I prefer not to live with people who have no problem with "finding" other peoples' property. You have to invest in big locks.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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
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!
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.
Please tell how you would go about putting a value on a prototype.
Well, Gizmodo paid $8500 for a _stolen_ prototype, opening them up for all kinds of risks. How much would Apple have received if they had started an auction for one iPhone prototype to the highest bidder? There were offers from other outfits for $10,000 (which were retracted when these guys figured out the phone was stolen). So obviously Apple had no intention to sell that prototype, but they could easily have sold it for say $20,000 to $50,000.
Or lets say Apple has a big event when the next iPhone is released, and one lucky journalist in the audience wins a real iPhone prototype (no trade secret anymore because it is the event of the actual release, just the rarity). You could probably sell that prototype for a few thousand.
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
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?
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 thief, Brian Hogan, was asked by his friends to return the phone, because the loss would likely destroy the career of Gray Powell. His answer: "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone." So to Brian Hogan I would say "Sucks for you. You stole the phone. Shouldn't have stolen the phone".
Apple are doing quite well so far.
Their only communications regarding this are through legal documents. They've not released any statements thus, they're not getting into a war of words. As time goes on, the only extra information coming out is details of the crime.
It's possible a public trial will force them to start publically laying into the people involved though.
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)"
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.
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.
How much was it worth to Apple's competitors (such as RIM, Samsung, Nokia, etc.) to find out that Apple's next phone had a front facing camera? That it had a flash? Getting an extra 2 or 3 months head start on that information could be very important. It could be the difference between their next models coming out with the same features, or having to wait an extra product cycle to match Apple's new features.
And that difference, those phone sales, could easily run into the millions.
It's one thing with an analyst says "I think Apple will do X". It's quite different when someone finds an Apple device that does X just two to three months before it will be released (based on Apple's summer iPhone release pattern).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Manufacturing cost is a good place to start. It's not like this is a one of kind prototype that took years to make and there are no schematics to build a replacement. Like most device companies, they sent an NDA and schematics to a manufacturer in china. I wouldn't be surprised if they had hundreds of these prototypes passed out for QA purposes.
You haven't done much R&D and product development have you?
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.
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]-
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Um, fuck you.
the room-mate was the only individual to come out of this with integrity. Good on her, is what I say.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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?
If I find the formula for Coka-cola in a bar because an employee of Coke left it there, it's no longer a trade secret due to Coke's negligence. I can't be convicted of subsequently selling a trade secret because I obtained it legally, and it lost its "trade secret" status forever at that moment.
So person B making photos of the iPhone after it lost its "trade secret" status because it was divulged to person A through Apple's negligence is not "copying a trade secret."