Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
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.
Looks like Apple is out for blood.
It looks like an engineer celebrating his birthday was out drinking.
Apple's quest for secrecy has already costed a life.
I'm sure by now Apple has destroyed the tape recording of the conversation that took place when someone called Apple to return the bricked phone.
Receiving stolen property is going to be a crime just about wherever you go, whether it's Apple's phone or anyone else's. I don't know what that guy was thinking; the First Amendment doesn't exempt you from property laws.
"left in a bar" does not equal "theft"
[edited by: incrediBILL at 3:48 pm (utc) on Apr 27, 2010]
If you think this is about theft, you're way off base. This is Apple playing heavy with a blogger who leaked info they didn't like.
[edited by: mcavic at 3:46 pm (utc) on Apr 27, 2010]
I remember the day when if you lost something in a bar and it got returned to you... you said thank you.
The upside here is Apple got a massive amount of free press, you just can't pay for this stuff.
[edited by: StoutFiles at 4:02 pm (utc) on Apr 27, 2010]
What if your phone had classified work information in it that was shown to everyone on the internet as a front page news story? Then returned to you...you'd say thank you?
A while back there was a case where a Coke employee sold secrets to Pepsi, or vice-versa.
Absolutely, it's about theft of intellectual property, which is a more serious crime than theft of physical property.
Huh? Aren't they going to sell the phone to people?
The phone has a better screen and camera - was that completely unexpected? Are Apples competitors going to change their plans based on that secret?
"People, if you get your hands on an Apple product, people will pay a high price for it! Websites, if you show off an unreleased Apple product, tons of news sites will link to you and you'll bank off of it!"Replace "Apple product" with any famous person and you have the paparazzi creed. It's not an exact analogy, but pretty close.
The investigation has already been put on hold as there is a very real possibility that the warrant was illegal as stated by lawyers from both Gawker Media, the parent company of Gizmodo and lawyers from the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).
What if your phone had classified work information in it that was shown to everyone on the internet as a front page news story?
So Gizmodo paid 5,000 dollars for the phone with the intention of returning it without making a profit off it?
It's about setting an example. Gizmodo profited from the release of Apple's company secrets. What's to stop people from trying this in the future?