MacDailyNews Note: According to everyone involved, the police had a search warrant.
The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal continues, “Wired on Tuesday reported about a visit by people who said they represented Apple to the home of a college age person who is said to have found the iPhone at a Redwood City beer garden. Wired didn’t name the purported finder nor the source who it identified as somebody involved in the find.”
MacDailyNews Take: iPhone OS 4’s latest undocumented feature unmasked: Find My Top-secret, In-disguise, Fourth-generation, Beer-soaked iPhone.
The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports, “The source said the purported Apple representatives were turned away from the Silicon Valley home of the finder after asking for permission to search the premises. The San Mateo County district attorney’s office said on Tuesday they have identified and interviewed the person who took the iPhone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt in Redwood City on March 18. Police say they became involved in the matter after lawyers representing Apple reported the iPhone as having been stolen.”
“Wired said its source also disputed characterizing the $5,000 paid by Gizmodo.com as a sale. Instead it is said to was an agreement for exclusivity,” The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports. “‘It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,’ the source reportedly said. ‘Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone [to its owner].’ Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple last week after dismantling it and publishing stories, photos and video about it.”
More info and links int he full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “JES42” for the heads up.]
@maclouie: “finders keepers” only applies to the playground. It doesn’t apply to cars parked at the curb, cell phones in bars, or lost children in the supermarket.
So Apple gave the finder a chance to return the stole goods before they called the cops on them. That sounds generous to me.
The police didn’t involved until the victim of the theft reported the crime. I’ve never heard of the police getting involved before they become aware of the crime. If this is newsworthy, their next breaking story will be that the letters of the alphabet are in alphabetical order.
Now Gizmodo is asserting that there is a first-amendment right to commit felonies, fence stolen goods, and violate intellectual property rights. If they prevail with that argument, anyone whose poses as a journalist could break into my house and steal my stuff with impunity.
There is a difference between a police state and the state police. This is the latter.
@breeze
good to see you are still fresh after yesterdays marathon debate…
feral:
At areal keyboard today – Can do…- ;
Maybe one of the legal scholars who frequent MDN can enlighten me a little ..
Ok.. earlier reports say the “finder” called Apple first
to try to return the iPhone.. and was told that no iPhone was reported missing …
Does this action constitute a “good faith” effort to return
it ?
If so.. then the “theft” wasn’t his… right ?
And if I am understanding this correctly– the “theft” happened when Gizmodo paid the 5 grand for it– right ?
Even though, (it could be argued) — that Gizmodo didn’t actually know it was the genuine article until Apple demanded the return of the iPhone –right ?
The National Enquirer has been practicing “checkbook journalism” for many years without legal hassles– so, from a legal standpoint — what’s the difference here ?
And for those astute in California law— can a judge in Santa Clara County issue a search warrant to be executed in Alameda County ?
Either way— this case has the potential to reach the US Supreme Court, judging from all the coverage.. and should that happen, I wonder how Apple will fare in the long run ? —
Apple might win the legal battle, but, in the end– will they win the battle for public opinion ?
Which is more important ?
@breeze
lol , and you will, i have no doubts…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
If my iPhone was misplaced, I would use “Find My iPhone” to locate it and go to the location to try to get it back. If the person who had it would not return it, I would inform them that I would be contacting the police to file a report.
I would assume that Apple would do the same.
@maclouie
In California Finding + Selling for a huge sum almost immediately = Stealing The law here requires you to make a reasonable effort to find the owner. If you ‘find’ a car abandoned on your property in California you can indeed keep it or sell it after going through a defined process to find and notify the owner. A case can be made that it was stolen from the bar where the property was left by the patron. ‘Abandoned’ items become be the responsibility of the property owner to disposition. The bottom line is that If the finders had just tossed the phone in the garbage no one would have cared. It was the $5K changing hands and the possible divulgence of trade secrets that makes this a case.
so that I dont live by another wives’ tale can someone quote the statute about keeping something you find as a criminal offense. I live in CA and never heard this.
@Just
>>And for those astute in California law— can a judge in Santa Clara County issue a search warrant to be executed in Alameda County ?<<
Damn right he can. He is a superior court judge and can issue a warrant anywhere in CA. But in fact it was a San Mateo not Santa Clara. And it does not have the chance of reaching the supreme court. This is a simple case of thievery, there are not consitutional questions here. Chen was not protecting a source, he was involved in transactions with a stolen item under CA law. That is what the warrant was founded on.
So, Apple activated the MobileMe find your iPhone service and located the iPhone in the apartment of some college student and when they asked for the iPhone, they were refused? Now, they are telling us they were trying to get the iPhone back to Apple?
Gizmodo was going to pay 5K to someone who knowing stole a phone to help bring it back to its rightful owner (but in the meantime opened it up and took pics of it).
Riiiiighttttt…..
Isn’t that a little like paying 5K to someone to get a kidnapped woman (or man…I am a contemporary person after all) back in order to return her to her relatives but in the meantime…loosening your belt and saying….well before I bring you back…….
Ken
Where did you get the idea Apple used find my phone? I have not seen that in any news article. If they had seems to me if would not have worked since Giz had already dismantled the phone by then had they not?
@Bitjockey
Thanks for the detail explanation. Seems like CA is full of criminals as a lot of cell phones are stolen.
The detail about Apple asking for it’s property back at the door of the college student does not bode well, either.
OK, I’ll flip-flop again and vote yes, a crime was committed.
just wondering:
Does this action constitute a “good faith” effort to return it ?
A cold call to a front line customer service clerk, would have to be referred for follow up . Not a real good faith effort unless it was a “real effort”( ie: leaving a phone # and name for follow up ) We don’t know the details… And if I am understanding this correctly– the “theft” happened when Gizmodo paid the 5 grand for it– right ?
Again, we don’t know how and exactly when that phone was lifted. Its reasonable to assume that it was not forsaken…just maybe left momentarily unclenched or unattended…so there’s one instance of theft…
Even though, (it could be argued) — that Gizmodo didn’t actually know it was the genuine article until Apple demanded the return of the iPhone –right ?
Gizmodo took Apple on and in it’s zeal to penetrate Apple secrecy and expose it’s new products before the company itself, they published a challenging offer of cash for any Apple IP, secret info, or prototypes. They went even brazenly further in their initiation and instigation of Apple theft/piracy ( which was directed at Apple employees particularly) by publishing a “no questions asked” This is a brazen invitation to steal Apple’s IP – it was bragged about and published countless times like a bounty offer. If you don’t see the connection maybe you have no intellectual anything let alone panties. How does a little mind like you know what secrets were or weren’t revealed and to who?
Intent is 99% of the law – Gizmotron’s bounty offer shows unquestionable intent.
The National Enquirer has been practicing “checkbook journalism” for many years without legal hassles– so, from a legal standpoint — what’s the difference here ?
Inquiring minds? – lights are on but nobody’s home… And for those astute in California law— can a judge in Santa Clara County issue a search warrant to be executed in Alameda County ?
The police must have cleared that one before embarking on orders. Either way— this case has the potential to reach the US Supreme Court, judging from all the coverage.. and should that happen, I wonder how Apple will fare in the long run ? —
Gizmodo hasn’t a leg to stand on. Argument to the supreme court costs a fortune in legal fees and requires merit, Gizmodo doesn’t have a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in. This won’t even get close to the supreme court. Apple might win the legal battle, but, in the end– will they win the battle for public opinion ?
Apple has NOT sued anyone. Apple has not commented publicly on ANY of this – Until it the details are known there’s nothing to even suggest a lawsuit here.
Apple is not only within its right to report this theft and attempt to recover the phone, it’s fiducially bound to do so and protect it’s IP.
When there is a terrorism threat made publicly, it needs to be pursued and dealt with.
Gizmodo’s ” bounty offer” is tantamount to a terrorism threat against Apple. Gizmodo has dug it’s own grave with just this threat.
Apple will not loose the public opinion needs to be with substance, or else it’s just like all the other noise – NOISE
No Apple users, investors or fans expect Apple to protect themselves and thrive. Which is more important ?
A healthy thriving Apple product line, customer service and existence by merit.
@buster
exactly what I think Gizmodo will try to say in court.
If that flies then I think Gizmodo is in better situation legally then the guy who found it. Specifically if it is true that Apple reps went to the apartment and asked for it back but were refused – at that point it is hard to argue it is not theft.
And of course when you give your analogy it shows the completely low morality of the actions of all involved. However as we well know low morality does not necessarily mean breaking the law
Does this action constitute a “good faith” effort to return it ?
A cold call to a front line customer service clerk, would have to be referred for follow up . Not a real good faith effort unless it was a “real effort”( ie: leaving a phone # and name for follow up ) We don’t know the details…
And if I am understanding this correctly– the “theft” happened when Gizmodo paid the 5 grand for it– right ?
Again, we don’t know how and exactly when that phone was lifted. Its reasonable to assume that it was not forsaken…just maybe left momentarily unclenched or unattended…so there’s one instance of theft…
Even though, (it could be argued) — that Gizmodo didn’t actually know it was the genuine article until Apple demanded the return of the iPhone –right ?
Gizmodo took Apple on and in it’s zeal to penetrate Apple secrecy and expose it’s new products before the company itself, they published a challenging offer of cash for any Apple IP, secret info, or prototypes. They went even brazenly further in their initiation and instigation of Apple theft/piracy ( which was directed at Apple employees particularly) by publishing a “no questions asked” This is a brazen invitation to steal Apple’s IP – it was bragged about and published countless times like a bounty offer.
Intent is 99% of the law – Gizmotron’s bounty offer shows unquestionable intent.
The National Enquirer has been practicing “checkbook journalism” for many years without legal hassles– so, from a legal standpoint — what’s the difference here ?
Inquiring minds? – lights are on but nobody’s home… And for those astute in California law— can a judge in Santa Clara County issue a search warrant to be executed in Alameda County ?
The police must have cleared that one before embarking on orders.
Either way— this case has the potential to reach the US Supreme Court, judging from all the coverage.. and should that happen, I wonder how Apple will fare in the long run ? —
Gizmodo hasn’t a leg to stand on. Argument to the supreme court costs a fortune in legal fees and requires merit, Gizmodo doesn’t have a leg to stand on or a pot to piss in. This won’t even get close to the supreme court. Apple might win the legal battle, but, in the end– will they win the battle for public opinion ?
Apple has NOT sued anyone. Apple has not commented publicly on ANY of this – Until it the details are known there’s nothing to even suggest a lawsuit here.
Apple is not only within its right to report this theft and attempt to recover the phone, it’s fiducially bound to do so and protect it’s IP.
When there is a terrorism threat made publicly, it needs to be pursued and dealt with.
Gizmodo’s ” bounty offer” is tantamount to a terrorism threat against Apple. Gizmodo has dug it’s own grave with just this threat.
Apple will not loose the public opinion needs to be with substance, or else it’s just like all the other noise – NOISE
No Apple users, investors or fans expect Apple to protect themselves and thrive. Which is more important ?
A healthy thriving Apple product line, customer service and existence by merit.
@ DLMeyer
“TT, the owner was not at home when the police entered the premises. Even if the door were left open, they had no inherent “right” to enter the property. Ergo, they “broke in”. Their warrant, in theory, gave them the legal right to do so.
Macromancer, that could be a tough sell. But, they could squeek by with it. The woman(?) who picked it up could, with such an explanation, claim she was attempting to return the item to its owner. Not significantly different from passing it to the bartender for no money. I, like you, am skeptical of this explanation.”
That is the second stupidest comment I’ve ever seen on here. rwahrens did an excellent job of explaining. I was going to do so my self if they hadn’t beat me to it.
Turning into a real Soap Opera.
This story sure beats the crummy who slept with who and who’s had who’s kid soaps on daytime TV.
Guess it’s a geek soap.
Thank you HughB and breeze for the clarification..
Since I don’t frequent Gizmodo, I was unaware of the bounty they offered for any Apple IP–
And, you’re right– this DOES change the nature of this case !
I once helped return a lost puppy to its owners, of course I took it apart and posted photos on my blog first. That’s just what you do when you find something that DOES NOT belong to you.
—-“‘It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,’ the source reportedly said.—
That’s a crazy statement. If an expensive item is found, it’s the job of the local Police to locate the owner. Even the finder’s mother knew the ans. to that one I’ll bet. That’s one of the typical Mom Rules to kids. That happened to us with a bicycle someone left on the side of our house. We reported it to police, it wasn’t claimed, and I had my first bike.
They’re all guilty. Lock’m away for good. Let’m blog about the joys of prison life.
The other thing that isn’t going to help Gizmodo’s case, is that they put a “bounty” (I think $100,000 or some insane figure) to get a glimpse of the iPad before it launched. Apple’s lawyer’s took care of that “contest”. But most likely this will be used to establish a history that Gizmodo was willing to break the law to get a scoop.
Bob:
Without doubt
I still think it’s a publicity stunt gone wrong.