Authorities seized computers, digital cameras, a cell phone and other items from a technology blog editor who posted pictures and details of a lost iPhone prototype.
A computer-crime task force made up of multiple law enforcement agencies searched Gizmodo editor and blogger Jason Chen's house and car in Fremont, Calif., on Friday, according to a statement and search warrant documents provided by Gizmodo.
The seizure of this man's stuff seems like an abuse of the criminal justice system.
To wit: Person A was trusted by Apple to use a prototype phone and got drunk in public and lost the phone. Person B found the phone which looks like an iPhone but has obvious new technology including a camera on the front for video chat in addition to the normal camera on the back. Person B sold it to Person C who runs a web site ... a web site in the business of reviewing new technology.
Person C, being in the business of new technology, makes an educated guess that this must be a new version of the iPhone, and publishes an online review of the device, suggesting this could be the awaited "4th generation" phone. Person C was then contacted by Apple who claimed ownership of the phone so Person C returned the phone to Apple.
Apple may be angry at Person A for losing the phone, but losing a cell phone is hardly a crime. Apple may be angry at Person C and say he should have known that the review was revealing protected trade secrets.
Apple has a track record of exploiting the legal system for guerrilla marketing to build buzz for new products. Apple lets it be known through rumors that the "next big thing" is almost ready. Every speech by CEO Steve Jobs is analyzed for hints or secret messages about new products or upgrades. Then somebody finds an abandoned package on a loading dock, or at a coffee shop, or now at the bar... and then Apple files a lawsuit which is covered widely by the Apple fanboy media but then ultimately dropped after the product launch. This is the first time that I've heard of them using the criminal justice system.
I don't know if it's one I'd like to prosecute, but you've got a theft if there's unlawful appropriation (ie, without owner's effective consent) with intent to deprive. While you can innocently pick up lost property, if you're notified who the true owner is and refuse to return it, then that's theft. You have the property, you know you don't have the owner's consent to have the property, and you're witholding it either permanently or long enough to deprive the owner of value.
Posts: 1116 | Location: Waxahachie | Registered: December 09, 2004
The guy who picked up the phone was not notified of its owner. The guy who published the review returned the phone when contactd by the owner (Apple.)
The warrant says on its face that it is justified by a felony. I doubt a simple phone is a felony amount so thats why I'd guess they are going with theft of trade secret.
So the guy that found the phone figured out it was an Apple prototype, made a half hearted attempt to return it to Apple, and now claims he didnt sell the phone but rather he sold the exclusive rights to publish the story to the web site... iPhone finder's story
From the article:
quote:It's generally considered theft under California law if one "finds lost property under circumstances that give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner" and yet appropriates the property for his own use "without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him."
Meanwhile, the web site is considering a lawsuit against the Sheriff: lawsuit story
quote:The option of a lawsuit "is available because search is not the appropriate method in this situation," Thomas R. Burke, a media lawyer and partner in the San Francisco offices of Davis Wright Tremaine, told CNET. He said the search warrant violated a California journalist shield law designed to limit searches of newsrooms.
