As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

18911131429

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If the $5000 bounty hadn't been disclosed they'd be in the clear, but that's going to be a tough rap to beat. The defense will probably focus on the fact that Chen did not know he was dealing with a genuine piece of Apple property until after opening the chassis of the device, and he complied instantly when Apple requested it back. But man, paying 5 g's for the thing is just sleazy as hell.

    It wouldn't matter though. The guy told them it was a phone he found in a bar. They knew it wasn't his but payed 5k for it anyway. Whether it was a genuine Apple product or not, they knew it wasn't his to sell.

    Quid on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    If the $5000 bounty hadn't been disclosed they'd be in the clear, but that's going to be a tough rap to beat. The defense will probably focus on the fact that Chen did not know he was dealing with a genuine piece of Apple property until after opening the chassis of the device, and he complied instantly when Apple requested it back. But man, paying 5 g's for the thing is just sleazy as hell.

    It wouldn't matter though. The guy told them it was a phone he found in a bar. They knew it wasn't his but payed 5k for it anyway. Whether it was a genuine Apple product or not, they knew it wasn't his to sell.

    Yeah, I'd defend this guy to the death if Apple were charging him with trade secret violations but honestly it's hard to contest the pretty obvious criminal violation represented by that transaction. Pity these reporters didn't have the sense to keep it under wraps, use non-consecutive unmarked bills, route it through bermuda, run it through a laundromat (I have no idea why this would work, but all the pros do it)... er, I'm not much of a criminal, but you get the idea.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, if they'd been smart about it they probably could have just taken the pictures, written down the details, then claimed it all came from an anonymous source.

    Still kinda risky, but better than exclaiming to the world you bought stolen goods and ripped them apart.

    Edit: Actually, if they'd been really smart they would have just contacted Apple and probably would've ended up with some crazy exclusives out of sheer good will.

    Quid on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Actually, if they'd been really smart they would have just contacted Apple and probably would've ended up with some crazy exclusives out of sheer good will.

    Actually, the dude who found the phone claimed that he called Apple but was unable to confirm with their call-center-peons that the phone belonged to Apple. He could have made that up, but it seems like the sort of thing which Apple would be thrilled to provide records to disprove if it were in fact spurious. Where that guy is going to find himself nailed against the wall is in why he didn't deliver the phone to some sort of lost-and-found on the property where the article was lost, and instead chose to sell it for five grand.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Actually, if they'd been really smart they would have just contacted Apple and probably would've ended up with some crazy exclusives out of sheer good will.

    Actually, the dude who found the phone claimed that he called Apple but was unable to confirm with their call-center-peons that the phone belonged to Apple. He could have made that up, but it seems like the sort of thing which Apple would be thrilled to provide records to disprove if it were in fact spurious. Where that guy is going to find himself nailed against the wall is in why he didn't deliver the phone to some sort of lost-and-found on the property where the article was lost, and instead chose to sell it for five grand.

    Or just turn it over to the police, which is the catch all "I can't find the owner" move.

    The defense that some call center dude wasn't aware of the lost or found state of top secret prototypes so he thought it was ok to sell it ought to go over like a lead balloon on Jupitor

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Actually, if they'd been really smart they would have just contacted Apple and probably would've ended up with some crazy exclusives out of sheer good will.

    Actually, the dude who found the phone claimed that he called Apple but was unable to confirm with their call-center-peons that the phone belonged to Apple. He could have made that up, but it seems like the sort of thing which Apple would be thrilled to provide records to disprove if it were in fact spurious. Where that guy is going to find himself nailed against the wall is in why he didn't deliver the phone to some sort of lost-and-found on the property where the article was lost, and instead chose to sell it for five grand.

    To quote the service people:
    I work for AppleCare as a tier 2 agent and before the whole thing about a leak hit the Internet the guy working next to me got the call from the guy looking to return the phone. From our point of view it seemed as a hoax or that the guy had a knockoff, internally apple doesn't tell us anything and we haven't gotten any notices or anything about a lost phone, much less anything stating we are making a new one. When the guy called us he gave us a vague description and couldn't provide pics, so like I mentioned previously, we thought it was a china knockoff the guy found. We wouldn't have any idea what to do with it and that's what sucks about working for apple, we're given just enough info to try and help people but not enough info to do anything if someone calls like this.
    If the guy could have provided pictures it would have been sent to our engineers and then I'm sure we'd have gotten somewhere from there, but because we had so little to go on we pushed it off as bogus.

    Quid on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010

    All I see is a bunch of whining about how mean Apple is, without any mention of the obvious legal issues with what gizmodo did.

    Doc on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Doc wrote: »

    All I see is a bunch of whining about how mean Apple is, without any mention of the obvious legal issues with what gizmodo did.

    Well, they're the CJR - they're more interested in the legal issues surrounding this related to journalism.

    ZDNet has a pretty good dissection of all the legal issues.

    The major point they make is that while REACT has a right to investigate Chen for a crime, their investigation needs to also protect the freedom of the press - just because the cops suspect a reporter doesn't mean they have the right to walk in and start searching the newsroom, and that's a good thing.

    Edit: There's also the issue that the DA hasn't handed down any charges, which makes the ground the search is on that much more shakier.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • WazzaWazza Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some new stuff, don't know how true it is:
    People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

    “Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,” the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn’t let them in.

    Apple’s vaunted wall of secrecy was smashed wide open when one of its developers lost a next-generation iPhone prototype sometime in March at a bar in Redwood City, California. Another bar patron took the phone home and, having failed to find the owner, gave tech news site Gizmodo exclusive access to the device in exchange for $5,000. Gizmodo eventually returned the phone to Apple, but not before it published numerous photos and details.

    San Mateo County police are now investigating, and they seized computers from Gizmodo writer Jason Chen’s home last week under a search warrant that Gizmodo is challenging as unlawful. Police have also identified and interviewed the man who took the phone from the bar, the San Jose Business Journal reported Tuesday.

    News of Apple’s lost iPhone prototype hit the web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder’s roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. According to the source, who has direct knowledge of the Gizmodo transaction, the group of friends suspected this might be Apple’s new phone, but no one knew for sure.

    “There was no effort to keep it secret,” the source said. “There were a bunch of people who knew.”

    The finder attempted to notify Apple and find the owner of the device but failed, even going so far as to search alphabetically through Facebook, the source said. Thoughts then turned to contacting the press about the device to confirm its authenticity and help locate the owner, but early attempts to drum up interest went unanswered. After a few days with no response, the finder expanded the search.

    “The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?” the source said.

    The finder at one point attempted to restore the phone by connecting it to a roommate’s Apple computer, but was unsuccessful.

    News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

    Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money.

    Apple didn’t return a phone call Tuesday.

    Wazza on
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    Good article. What caught my attention was this:
    In Silicon Valley, trade secrets can be the blood that keeps a company alive - and executives do whatever they can to protect them. Patents take far too long to be issued so some companies take extreme measures - Apple probably being the most extreme of all. A non-disclosure agreement is the Silicon Valley bearhug of secrecy - but even that is an incomplete solution, Goldman said.

    The short answer, he said, is that a company whose trade secrets are exposed by a simple mistake had no true legal recourse. Sure, that company can throw lawyers at it and put the fear into the next guy by showing that they’re not afraid to bust out the wrath of the legal team.

    But, for the most part, a company like Apple is better off trying to put even more safeguards in place to keep something like this from happening again. In the end, though, they can’t do anything to take back the damage that’s been done.

    Outside of potential criminal charges, it seems Apple is up a creek in a civil court. Of course, they can sue someone into the ground (and probably will, no matter the outcome).

    I wonder about a company that is meticulous about it's public image will salvage this.

    3lwap0 on
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wazza wrote: »
    Some new stuff, don't know how true it is:
    People identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype, according to a person involved with the find.

    “Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,” the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn’t let them in.

    Apple’s vaunted wall of secrecy was smashed wide open when one of its developers lost a next-generation iPhone prototype sometime in March at a bar in Redwood City, California. Another bar patron took the phone home and, having failed to find the owner, gave tech news site Gizmodo exclusive access to the device in exchange for $5,000. Gizmodo eventually returned the phone to Apple, but not before it published numerous photos and details.

    San Mateo County police are now investigating, and they seized computers from Gizmodo writer Jason Chen’s home last week under a search warrant that Gizmodo is challenging as unlawful. Police have also identified and interviewed the man who took the phone from the bar, the San Jose Business Journal reported Tuesday.

    News of Apple’s lost iPhone prototype hit the web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder’s roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. According to the source, who has direct knowledge of the Gizmodo transaction, the group of friends suspected this might be Apple’s new phone, but no one knew for sure.

    “There was no effort to keep it secret,” the source said. “There were a bunch of people who knew.”

    The finder attempted to notify Apple and find the owner of the device but failed, even going so far as to search alphabetically through Facebook, the source said. Thoughts then turned to contacting the press about the device to confirm its authenticity and help locate the owner, but early attempts to drum up interest went unanswered. After a few days with no response, the finder expanded the search.

    “The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?” the source said.

    The finder at one point attempted to restore the phone by connecting it to a roommate’s Apple computer, but was unsuccessful.

    News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

    Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money.

    Apple didn’t return a phone call Tuesday.
    News accounts depicting the $5,000 payment as a “sale” are incorrect, this person said. Rather, the agreement with Gizmodo was for exclusivity only. “It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,” this person said. “Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone.”

    Uh-huh...

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I know I regularly give people money for the privilege of finding the owner of some property.

    Quid on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think it's pretty obvious to everyone involved that Gizmodo didn't pay $5000 because they wanted to own the phone, and given that they maintain that they were unaware of its provenance until after opening it and immediately delivered it to Apple upon request, there might actually be some truth to the claim that they would assist with finding the rightful owner.

    EDIT: Replaced "their claim" with "the claim" thanks to Mr_Rose's correction.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think it's pretty obvious to everyone involved that Gizmodo didn't pay $5000 because they wanted to own the phone, and given that they maintain that they were unaware of its provenance until after opening it and immediately delivered it to Apple upon request, there might actually be some truth to their claim that they would assist with finding the rightful owner.
    Truth to whose claim?

    The claim that the $5000 payment from Gizmodo to "the Finder" for the privilege of returning the found phone to its owner was, from what I read, made by an anonymous third party claiming some relationship to the finder, not by Gizmodo.

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It seems ridiculous on its face, I know, but the privilege of returning the found phone to its owner was indeed quite valuable to Gizmodo. The "seller" had hypothesized that he had an Apple prototype in his possession, but obviously the call center didn't get him anywhere. He did not have the technical wherewithal to verify his hypothesis. Gizmodo had that technical ability, and only once they posted their analysis of the hypothesis (including their judgment that it probably did belong to Apple) did they receive confirmation directly from Apple with the request for the phone's return. At that point, if they had done anything except immediately turn the thing over to Apple they would be totally fucked. But given that they complied immediately, and the original finder was not in a position to establish contact with the original owner (he could have showed up at the Cupertino campus and would probably have been promptly escorted right back out) they might not be totally boned here.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think it's pretty obvious to everyone involved that Gizmodo didn't pay $5000 because they wanted to own the phone, and given that they maintain that they were unaware of its provenance until after opening it and immediately delivered it to Apple upon request, there might actually be some truth to their claim that they would assist with finding the rightful owner.

    Do you really believe that any tech blog would pay random stranger #123245932 $5000 for a phone that they said they found in a bar and which they seriously suspected could have been a fake?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't see a judge coming close to believing that story. Especially since it contradicts everything Gizmodo's claimed so far. Especially since it makes no sense that they wouldn't get in to contact with Apple rather than ripping apart the phone and posting it on the internet, saying it is definitely Apple's, and waiting for Apple to contact them.

    Quid on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think it's pretty obvious to everyone involved that Gizmodo didn't pay $5000 because they wanted to own the phone, and given that they maintain that they were unaware of its provenance until after opening it and immediately delivered it to Apple upon request, there might actually be some truth to their claim that they would assist with finding the rightful owner.

    Do you really believe that any tech blog would pay random stranger #123245932 $5000 for a phone that they said they found in a bar and which they seriously suspected could have been a fake?

    Of course not; they paid $5000 for an iPhone that didn't look like any iPhone currently in production (which they seriously suspected could have been a fake). Now, exactly how serious their suspicion was is totally unprovable, and my guess is that it in fact was not very serious at all, but the way that their original post clearly states that they had to open it to decide whether it was real is probably going to be helpful.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Even if you accept the claim absurd idea that Gizmodo "didn't know it was Apple's phone" it would still have been someone's phone that they bought from a guy who was, under California law, committing theft by selling it. They aren't accused of receiving Stolen Property of Apple's, just Stolen Property full-stop.

    It's a non-defense defense.

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    "Hey Bill, why's my lawnmower scattered in pieces across your lawn with a sign saying Mike's lawnmower pointed at it?"

    "Oh, some guy said he found it and was trying to figure out who it belonged to. So I gave him fifty bucks."

    Quid on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm pretty much in full devil's advocate mode here since it's pretty fucking hard to defend paying 5 grand for a phone you know belongs to someone else, but there were mitigating circumstances. The "seller" was clearly under the impression that the phone belonged to Apple (and, you know, he was right) and clearly if Gizmodo had popped that thing open and found that they'd just stumbled upon someone's clever casemod, I have every expectation that they would have proceeded to put up flyers in the bar or something. I mean, does anyone really believe that they would have thought, "mwahaha, we got this sweet custom phone for the low low price of 5 grand, let's call up AT&T and get this baby a data plan!"

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm pretty much in full devil's advocate mode here since it's pretty fucking hard to defend paying 5 grand for a phone you know belongs to someone else, but there were mitigating circumstances. The "seller" was clearly under the impression that the phone belonged to Apple (and, you know, he was right) and clearly if Gizmodo had popped that thing open and found that they'd just stumbled upon someone's clever casemod, I have every expectation that they would have proceeded to put up flyers in the bar or something. I mean, does anyone really believe that they would have thought, "mwahaha, we got this sweet custom phone for the low low price of 5 grand, let's call up AT&T and get this baby a data plan!"

    After buying and breaking open someone else's property, I assume they'd have thrown it in the trash.

    I mean, they were already batting .000 on the ethical behaviour front, I'm not about to assume they were going to suddenly repent and do the right thing

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • JuxtaposeJuxtapose Registered User
    edited April 2010
    It sounds to me like there was a two-part agreement between Gizmodo and the dude who found it that went something like this:

    Part 1: Finder shall turn over the iPhone to Gizmodo. Gizmodo, in turn, shall locate the owner of the iPhone and return it.

    Part 2: Finder shall not provide any information regarding the lost iPhone to any publication that could reasonably be construed as a competitor to Gizmodo. Gizmodo, in turn, shall pay the Finder the sum of $5000.

    That seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation of events, though it does not address Gizmodo's tampering with the phone. If you want to call that vandalism, I'd be sympathetic to that.

    Juxtapose on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    I'm pretty much in full devil's advocate mode here since it's pretty fucking hard to defend paying 5 grand for a phone you know belongs to someone else, but there were mitigating circumstances. The "seller" was clearly under the impression that the phone belonged to Apple (and, you know, he was right) and clearly if Gizmodo had popped that thing open and found that they'd just stumbled upon someone's clever casemod, I have every expectation that they would have proceeded to put up flyers in the bar or something. I mean, does anyone really believe that they would have thought, "mwahaha, we got this sweet custom phone for the low low price of 5 grand, let's call up AT&T and get this baby a data plan!"

    After buying and breaking open someone else's property, I assume they'd have thrown it in the trash.

    I mean, they were already batting .000 on the ethical behaviour front, I'm not about to assume they were going to suddenly repent and do the right thing

    Damned good thing that the law is generally not applied by your standards, then. "Well, he admits that he was speeding, so he's already batting .000 on the ethical behavior front, so I'm willing to take the patrolman's word that he was gibbering drunk at 0.03% BAC"

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The slate article misses the plot entirely -- it's not about publishing photos (hell, Engadget published photos they got off the guy, and nobody is hassling them), it's about buying stolen goods being a fucking felony.

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    The slate article misses the plot entirely -- it's not about publishing photos (hell, Engadget published photos they got off the guy, and nobody is hassling them), it's about buying stolen goods being a fucking felony.

    Except that the San Mateo DA has yet to name Chen a suspect, let alone file charges against him.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    One thing that most of the analyses don't mention and that I think is significant is that Gizmodo actually paid for the phone, instead of simply having it handed it to them. I assume that most leaks occur without any motivation for profit or exchange of currency, but in this case, an actual business transaction was carried out.

    jothki on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    One thing that most of the analyses don't mention and that I think is significant is that Gizmodo actually paid for the phone, instead of simply having it handed it to them. I assume that most leaks occur without any motivation for profit or exchange of currency, but in this case, an actual business transaction was carried out.

    Except that doesn't matter to the relevant point of the law, which is if you want to investigate a reporter's notes and other materials, you have to go get a subpoena.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There are two totally separate crimes allegedly being committed here, and the serious (criminal felony receiving stolen property) one is fairly solid, but that's a matter of criminal law which should be pursued by the state (which doesn't seem to have any interest). The only crime Apple's lawyers have any authority to prosecute him for is the flimsy one: illegally publishing trade secrets. That they were able to get a computer crimes team into his apartment to round up his equipment is somewhat troubling.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I liked the Daily Show bit. I disagree with some of it, but the idea that Jobs and Apple et al should probably try for some better PR is a solid one.

    KalTorak on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    And the seller is discovered.
    A 21-year-old California man was identified by his lawyer Thursday as the person who sold a prototype iPhone to the Gizmodo technology site, which published photos and other information about the unreleased device.

    Brian Hogan, a college student who lives in Redwood City, Calif., was at a local bar with friends when another patron handed him the phone, said Jeff Bornstein, an attorney with San Francisco law firm K&L Gates, in an e-mailed statement. "Brian asked others near him if the phone belonged to them," said Bornstein. "When they disclaimed ownership, Brian and his friends left the bar with the phone."

    Hogan was later paid $5,000 by Gizmodo for the phone, but he was under the impression that the payment was strictly for access to the device so that the site could review it, Bornstein maintained. "Brian believed -- and Gizmodo emphasized to him -- that there was nothing wrong in sharing the phone with the tech press," his lawyer wrote. "Brian has been and is willing to cooperate [with authorities]."

    Wired.com first identified Hogan as the person who found and sold the iPhone by uncovering clues found on social networking sites. Bornstein confirmed his identity to Computerworld .

    Charges have not been filed against Hogan, said Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, in a telephone interview. "The investigation is ongoing," said Wagstaffe, "and investigators are still determining whether a crime has been committed."

    If authorities classify the incident as a theft, Hogan could be charged, Wagstaffe said. "Anyone who was in possession of the phone would be a suspect in a theft case, assuming it's determined that a crime has been committed," Wagstaffe added.

    That also means that Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who purchased the prototype from Hogan, then photographed , disassembled and analyzed the iPhone, could face similar charges.

    Last Friday, California police with the REACT (Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team), a multi-county task force that investigates high-tech crimes in the Silicon Valley area, served Chen with a search warrant and removed several personal computers, hard drives and digital cameras from his home.

    The status of those computers is still being debated, said Wagstaffe. "We continue to discuss the matter with Mr. Chen's attorney and the attorneys for Gawker," he said, referring to Gawker Media, the New York-based firm that publishes Gizmodo. Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker's chief operating officer and the company's counsel, has argued that the search warrant was invalid because it violated California and federal shield laws that prohibit .

    According to Gizmodo's account of the "lost" iPhone, an Apple software engineer left the disguised prototype behind when he departed a Redwood City bar in mid-March. The site later said that the person who sold the iPhone -- identified yesterday as Hogan -- tried to contact Apple several times to return the prototype.

    However, Bornstein only noted that a friend of Hogan's has promised to call AppleCare, Apple's support line, on his behalf. "[Brian] regrets his mistake in not doing more to return the phone," said Bornstein.

    Apple reported the iPhone stolen last week, BusinessWeek said yesterday. Quoting Wagstaffe, BusinessWeek said an outside attorney for Apple and the engineer who lost the prototype sparked the investigation by contacting authorities. Wagstaffe was not immediately available late Thursday to confirm BusinessWeek's report.

    Brian Lam, Gizmodo's editorial director, has acknowledged that the prototype had been stolen, not simply lost. "Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen when we bought it," Lam said in a blog post that described Apple's request for the iPhone's return. Gizmodo later said it had returned the iPhone to Apple.

    Although Apple has previewed its iPhone 4 operating system, it has not revealed details of the next-generation smartphone, or even confirmed that it will launch one this year. Most analysts, however, expect the company to debut a new model this summer, most likely at its Worldwide Developers Conference , which runs June 7-11 in San Francisco.

    Looks like Gizmodo and Mr. Hogan are basically blaming the other.

    Quid on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    And the seller is discovered.
    A 21-year-old California man was identified by his lawyer Thursday as the person who sold a prototype iPhone to the Gizmodo technology site, which published photos and other information about the unreleased device.

    Brian Hogan, a college student who lives in Redwood City, Calif., was at a local bar with friends when another patron handed him the phone, said Jeff Bornstein, an attorney with San Francisco law firm K&L Gates, in an e-mailed statement. "Brian asked others near him if the phone belonged to them," said Bornstein. "When they disclaimed ownership, Brian and his friends left the bar with the phone."

    Hogan was later paid $5,000 by Gizmodo for the phone, but he was under the impression that the payment was strictly for access to the device so that the site could review it, Bornstein maintained. "Brian believed -- and Gizmodo emphasized to him -- that there was nothing wrong in sharing the phone with the tech press," his lawyer wrote. "Brian has been and is willing to cooperate [with authorities]."

    Wired.com first identified Hogan as the person who found and sold the iPhone by uncovering clues found on social networking sites. Bornstein confirmed his identity to Computerworld .

    Charges have not been filed against Hogan, said Stephen Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, in a telephone interview. "The investigation is ongoing," said Wagstaffe, "and investigators are still determining whether a crime has been committed."

    If authorities classify the incident as a theft, Hogan could be charged, Wagstaffe said. "Anyone who was in possession of the phone would be a suspect in a theft case, assuming it's determined that a crime has been committed," Wagstaffe added.

    That also means that Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who purchased the prototype from Hogan, then photographed , disassembled and analyzed the iPhone, could face similar charges.

    Last Friday, California police with the REACT (Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team), a multi-county task force that investigates high-tech crimes in the Silicon Valley area, served Chen with a search warrant and removed several personal computers, hard drives and digital cameras from his home.

    The status of those computers is still being debated, said Wagstaffe. "We continue to discuss the matter with Mr. Chen's attorney and the attorneys for Gawker," he said, referring to Gawker Media, the New York-based firm that publishes Gizmodo. Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker's chief operating officer and the company's counsel, has argued that the search warrant was invalid because it violated California and federal shield laws that prohibit .

    According to Gizmodo's account of the "lost" iPhone, an Apple software engineer left the disguised prototype behind when he departed a Redwood City bar in mid-March. The site later said that the person who sold the iPhone -- identified yesterday as Hogan -- tried to contact Apple several times to return the prototype.

    However, Bornstein only noted that a friend of Hogan's has promised to call AppleCare, Apple's support line, on his behalf. "[Brian] regrets his mistake in not doing more to return the phone," said Bornstein.

    Apple reported the iPhone stolen last week, BusinessWeek said yesterday. Quoting Wagstaffe, BusinessWeek said an outside attorney for Apple and the engineer who lost the prototype sparked the investigation by contacting authorities. Wagstaffe was not immediately available late Thursday to confirm BusinessWeek's report.

    Brian Lam, Gizmodo's editorial director, has acknowledged that the prototype had been stolen, not simply lost. "Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen when we bought it," Lam said in a blog post that described Apple's request for the iPhone's return. Gizmodo later said it had returned the iPhone to Apple.

    Although Apple has previewed its iPhone 4 operating system, it has not revealed details of the next-generation smartphone, or even confirmed that it will launch one this year. Most analysts, however, expect the company to debut a new model this summer, most likely at its Worldwide Developers Conference , which runs June 7-11 in San Francisco.

    Looks like Gizmodo and Mr. Hogan are basically blaming the other.

    Hardly surprising, really.

    KalTorak on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited May 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    One thing that most of the analyses don't mention and that I think is significant is that Gizmodo actually paid for the phone, instead of simply having it handed it to them. I assume that most leaks occur without any motivation for profit or exchange of currency, but in this case, an actual business transaction was carried out.

    Except that doesn't matter to the relevant point of the law, which is if you want to investigate a reporter's notes and other materials, you have to go get a subpoena.

    You are wrong. According to some experts -- roughly half of them, actually -- the shield laws make a clear distinction between receiving information and receiving goods. Receiving information is protected, regardless of how it was obtained. Receiving goods is not. Especially if those goods were obtained illegally, i.e. buying stolen property.

    This is why it was very smart of Engadget to buy the photos of the stolen iPhone, whereas Gizmodo were fucking idiots and they bought the actual device.

    Perpetual on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    One thing that most of the analyses don't mention and that I think is significant is that Gizmodo actually paid for the phone, instead of simply having it handed it to them. I assume that most leaks occur without any motivation for profit or exchange of currency, but in this case, an actual business transaction was carried out.

    Except that doesn't matter to the relevant point of the law, which is if you want to investigate a reporter's notes and other materials, you have to go get a subpoena.

    You are wrong. According to some experts -- roughly half of them, actually -- the shield laws make a clear distinction between receiving information and receiving goods. Receiving information is protected, regardless of how it was obtained. Receiving goods is not. Especially if those goods were obtained illegally, i.e. buying stolen property.

    This is why it was very smart of Engadget to buy the photos of the stolen iPhone, whereas Gizmodo were fucking idiots and they bought the actual device.

    Amazingly, Perpetual, a reporter could be working on more than one story. And in your scenario, an unscrupulous law enforcement officer (say, for example, a certain Maricopa County sheriff) could whip up a bogus crime against a journalist who has information that is...inconvenient to them, then use that to get a search warrant and seize all their materials.

    If you can't see the problem in that, you are a very silly goose.

    Again, nobody is saying that Chen shouldn't be investigated. And if the DA presses charges of knowingly purchasing stolen goods against Chen (something that wasn't done when the search occurred, mind you), then yes, Chen doesn't get to hide behind the shield law. But there's a clear and very serious danger to allow police to just search the office of a journalist because they're investigating a crime, which is why the federal laws in this case say that you have to get a subpoena, which the journalist can then argue against and ask to limit in order to protect materials for other stories they may be working on.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited May 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »

    After buying and breaking open someone else's property, I assume they'd have thrown it in the trash.

    I mean, they were already batting .000 on the ethical behaviour front, I'm not about to assume they were going to suddenly repent and do the right thing
    This is Gizmodo they were batting .000 on the ethical behaviour front long before the Iphone incident.
    Amazingly, Perpetual, a reporter could be working on more than one story. And in your scenario, an unscrupulous law enforcement officer (say, for example, a certain Maricopa County sheriff) could whip up a bogus crime against a journalist who has information that is...inconvenient to them, then use that to get a search warrant and seize all their materials.
    Whooppeee.... That is all ready happened.

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    So, remember when Apple cleaned up the App Store by getting rid of "questionable" apps?

    Turns out it was because of pressure by the Parents Television Council.

    Way to cave, Steve. And go get fucked, Bozell.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    It also seems that Steve is trying to play the PTC off against Google with his recent comments. Which if is the case, then he deserves all the blowback his danegeld to the PTC will generate.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
Sign In or Register to comment.