Forum Moderators: open
Police in California have seized computers belonging to the editor of a gadget blog which was involved in the purchase of an iPhone prototype.
Gizmodo had admitted it paid $5,000 to an unnamed individual for the next generation device, which was reportedly left in a bar by an Apple employee.
Editor Jason Chen published photographs and videos of the phone last week.
Gizmodo may have violated a California law covering the appropriation of stolen property for personal benefit.
After they had called and tried to return it?
I predict the calls did in fact happen, and there are records.
Of course the call system, and general lack of personal investment by employees, at large corporations pretty much guarantees they got snubbed. Personally I'd enjoy the irony.
485. One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Newspapers and reporters profited from the release of tobacco companies' secrets. They received leaked internal memos and published them.
You want them arrested? You want them stopped? Do you honestly believe that reporting a company secret equals theft? Honestly?
You want companies arresting reporters for reporting and *gasp* profiting from reporting company secrets? You think this is good?
I believe professional journalists are protected with special free speech laws. I'm not sure if bloggers get the same protection.
If Gizmodo posted an article that the iPhone causes brain cancer and Apple hid these facts, then I would side with Gizmodo.
There needs to be a level of respect when it comes to trade secrets.
Gizmodo isn't a professional journalist? Really? They report on tech news and tech gadgets, they profit from this, I believe those would be the qualifications for a professional journalist. One who reports and earns a living from doing so.
You think the determining factor when deciding, "Is this theft or is this news" is depending on how worth while you deem the news story to be.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
Why would a reporter respect a trade secret, especially when they have that secret hanging out in bars left for anyone with interest to find.
Stout I am really curious... do you think that it is right for Apple to press charges of theft under these circumstances? Honestly.
Theft of the intellectual property they displayed, sure.
What if it really was stolen though?
Apple wouldn't be pressing theft charges if Gizmodo hadn't put that review online, that's the real issue.
The raids were conducted by the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (React), a Californian computer crime taskforce.
The taskforce was set up on 1997 to address the rising problem of computer fraud and identity theft.
It works closely with the computer industry and Apple is reported to be one of 25 tech firms to sit on the steering committee.
That isn't what they are being charged with now is it. You are making strawman argument. Who said they are being charged with theft of intellectual property?
Doesn't it seem strange to you that a theft complaint would be reported to and enforced by a taskforce who's mandate is to investigate computer fraud and identity theft.
This wreaks of corruption, abuse of power and of position.
without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him
They aren't being charged with intellectual property theft, but that's what it's about.
Did the Apple employee give permission for his phone to be taken from the bar and then sold? No!
"Finders keepers" is, by definition, stealing. Did Chen know the phone was not owned by the guy whom he brought it from? Yes!
If Apple knew they had lost the phone (as evidenced by the fact that they bricked it within hours of it disappearing), then why did they not direct some of their copious resources to manning the phones with operators that were advised of the situation?
Well if that is what this is about then why didn't they charge them with the proper offense? It is highly offensive and illegal to charge someone with a crime that has nothing to do with the action he took.
What does this have to do with Chen's actions? Why not charge the guy who sold it?
Just because he bought it from someone who wasn't the owner doesn't make the phone stolen.
He took steps to find and contact the owner, and he returned the phone.
A gross example of abuse of power and law.
He took steps to find and contact the owner, and he returned the phone.
Absolutely, it's about theft of intellectual property
The question in my mind is whether Gizmodo would get nailed for corporate espionage
[Neither his intentions nor his conduct had much honor here.
a corporation for trying to destroy a reporter for reporting their secrets that they left in a public bar.
That's really what this boils down to, and in the end Apple will have a black eye for trying to squash this guy.
If this was such a closely guarded secret, then what in the world is a guy doing walking around with the device in his pocket?
you are defending a corporation
which by the definition of stolen it was
“California’s penal code, section 485:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.”
