Amazon Routes Around Apple With HTML 5 Kindle App

DA Realizes That Gizmodo Didn't Break The Law In Writing About Found iPhone 4 Prototype

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

Thu, Aug 11th 2011 7:03pm — Mike Masnick

You may recall the huge scoop that the site Gizmodo (part of the Gawker family) got a year and a half ago when it got its hands on a prototype iPhone 4 that someone had accidentally left in a bar. The whole thing got weird when police raided then-Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and took all his computer equipment. Many people expected Chen to be charged with a crime, even if the whole thing seemed silly (and, really, what "harm" was caused?). It only took over a year, but the San Mateo County District Attorney has finally announced that no charges will be filed against anyone from Gizmodo. Two others who had the phone were charged, but with misdemeanors. It still seems crazy that they're bothering with this at all, but deciding not to charge Gizmodo employees was a good move, even if it did take over a year.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: gizmodo, iphone 4, jason chen, journalism, liability, scoops
Companies: apple, gawker

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:04pm

they should be charged with receiving stolen goods, since when the guys didn't turn in it at the bar it became stolen property, and when they bought it, they knew they were not buying a legit for sale iPhone you bought down the street

oh but this is something you agree with, so receiving stolen goods doesn't bother you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:54pm
  
  Re:
  Did you read the case? He called the phone, couldn't find it, figured out it was a new model, then put it up to news reporters. The receiving stolen goods is a misnomer, when the guy tried *everything possible* to the phone back to its original owner.
  
  The phone was NOT stolen. It was lost.
  
  There was NO intent to steal here.
  
  There was NO intent to profit, merely report. The case for this, a criminal case where a man could be sentenced to jail, is nonexistent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    " He called the phone, couldn't find it, figured out it was a new model, then put it up to news reporters. The receiving stolen goods is a misnomer, when the guy tried *everything possible* to the phone back to its original owner."
    
    He called about the phone to Apple, couldn't find its owner...
    
    "when the guy tried everything possible to give the phone back to its original owner..."
    
    Dang submit right next to preview!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Oliver, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:42am
  
  Re:
  Not quite right... If someone drops their wallet on the street and there is no reasonable way to determine who's it is, then keeping the wallet does not constitute stealing property or retaining stolen property.
  
  It is also not illegal to buy an iPhone that someone is selling. You might violate the EULA when you try to use the iPhone. It IS illegal to SELL a stolen phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:22pm

so how much will they pay for the illegal seizure?
I bet that's going to be fun in court.

"hey guys, we obtained a bogus warrant via citing CFAA/"possible criminal activity", and the dude's not guilty. Here's your stuff back, broken, illegally copied, etc".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 8:57pm

Jason Chen's computer equipment
Will he even get his equipment back? I've heard too many stories of people being released, but not the "evidence" seized during the arrest.

And even if they give the equipment back, if the government had my computers for a year, I'd want to re-image the machines just in case they left some "presents".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:16am
  
  Re: Jason Chen's computer equipment
  And one needs to wonder if any copies were made for them to dig through at their leisure.
  
  Would be a shame if any "insiders" at Apple happened to get outed and fired for having mentioned something to a reporter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radjin, 11 Aug 2011 @ 9:04pm

You got to be kidding
He made no attempt to return the phone, if so he would have given it to the bar tender as lost and found. Once he found out what he had he made no attempt to contact Apple and return it. Then he and his buddy shopped it around, for profit I might add, and found a buyer for his now stolen goods. A buyer that isn't even worth reading I might add, but this helped to bring this blogger(not journalist) into the light for a bit. This was every bit a crime that most of us would have been thrown in jail for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TechDan (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 9:12pm
  
  Re: You got to be kidding
  For those of us who remember and witnessed the original drama, the guy who found it actually called Apple and told them he had the phone and that he wanted to return it. Apple then denied that such a prototype phone even existed and thus began the shit-storm that followed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Freetard (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re: You got to be kidding
  Well Radjin,
  
  There goes any credibility you had.
  
  Try actually knowing what you are talking about one in a while.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2011 @ 11:59pm
  
  Re: You got to be kidding
  He made no attempt to return the phone...
  
  Not true, fanboi.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:16am
  
  Re: You got to be kidding
  "but this helped to bring this blogger(not journalist)"
  
  journalist: a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.
  
  Wow, the definition of "journalist" sounds a lot lot blogging. You may want to learn the English language before posting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Aug 2011 @ 11:50pm

What harm!? WHAT HARM?!

It was because of this coverage that Samsung was able to make the Galaxy S tablets and infringe on all of the awesome things, like rounded corners on icons, and compete with Apple!

Apple now has to get Samsung devices banned from the planet 1 lawsuit at a time.

THIS, THIS IS THE HARM!!!!!!!!1

for the sarcasm impaired.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:02am

They broke the law...
the DA just decided to be extra ice and give them a break this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:03am

They actually broke the law...
the DA just decided to be extra nice and let them off this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:24am

Yeah of course you leave the critical part out about him knowingly buying STOLEN goods. Of course with your pro-piracy preaching you think everyone is entitled to steal everything, and you have no respect for the creators and how they choose to reveal THEIR product. Of course if you ever produced anything worth a shit in your life you would understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:32am
  
  Re:
  Stolen goods:
  "OHMYGOD, where'd we leave that phone?! The bartender says he hasn't seen it! The police are out searching! OMG!"
  
  Not-stolen goods:
  "What? No, that's not our phone, stop trying to return it to us!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 7:25am
  
  Re:
  If Apple wants to control the reveal of their product, then why was an Apple engineer bar hopping with a prototype? It's not Gizmodo's responsibility to sit on that story, and Apple got A LOT of great, free coverage of the iPhone4. Too bad they lumped in all the negative publicity for being vindictive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  "Yeah of course you leave the critical part out where Apple was notified about the phone but didn't want to pick it up"
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:29am

Man, there sure are a lot of dumb trolls in this thread accusing them of stealing and stuff. I'd expect that after the first one got pounded with the facts, the others would've learned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:37am
  
  Re:
  I think the regulars are all having fun taking turns explaining it, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 2:42am
  
  Re:
  Reading... its fundamental but not a trolling requirement.
  
  After everyone was screaming for felony convictions for having destroyed Apple, I find it interesting the are only filing misdemeanor charges.
  
  Maybe the people who found it cut a deal with Apple to not reveal if you hold it like most people would, it would drop connection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  Man, there sure are a lot of dumb trolls in this thread accusing them of stealing and stuff. I'd expect that after the first one got pounded with the facts, the others would've learned...
  
  True fan boys never learn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 12 Aug 2011 @ 4:10am

From my business law class...
In my business law class, a few too many years ago, we learned that there are two types of lost property. If lost in a place where the loser could backtrack and find it, then it belongs to the owner of the property it was found on. So in this case the bar owner. If it was lost in a place where it wouldn't reasonably be found, then it is finders keepers. At no point did we learn that it would be considered stolen. But hey, it involves Apple so the law says whatever Apple wants it to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whisk3, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:14am

from the link "charged with misappropriation of lost property and possession of stolen property"
Is this one charge or two? If it's two, how can they make the stolen property stick if it isn't considered stolen property?
If they can make it stick on Sage, why are they unable to make it stick on Gizmodo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re:
  If they can make it stick on Sage, why are they unable to make it stick on Gizmodo?
  
  M-O-N-E-Y
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 12 Aug 2011 @ 5:25am

Spin doctor
Nice twisting of the case. Yup, the DA realizes that Gizmodo didn't break the law in writing about the phone. He probably realized that some time before law school. The question at hand (and the presumed potential charges) was re receiving stolen property. The second is not a necessary prerequisite for the first.

Other news sources have stated the DA isn't willing to engage in a long battle (and spend taxpayer money) to fight a well-funded first-ammendment decoy to a case of purchasing stolen property.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18653245

Yeah, not filing charges was probably a good move; the DA's office likely has easier criminal cases with more direct impact on public good.

But Gizmodo are still #@$^&%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Spin doctor
  So, Gizmodo commits a crime and we just let it go because there are "easier" cases to pursue?
  
  Justice at work?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re: Spin doctor
    Sure, look at California pursuing the vendetta against the Cisco "hack"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 6:24am
  
  Re: Spin doctor
  I'm starting to wonder, are these apple fanboys? Nay, even those guys know how to read most times, and we're seeing pretty good grammar and at least passable command of the exclamation mark.
  
  Given that their literacy is, at least, passable, why then are they unable to read the comments, and are conflating 'stolen goods' with 'lost goods'?
  
  Could there be an agenda at work here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 7:20am

Gizmodo seems to have avoided the problem by not holding onto the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Meadows (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 8:29am

The article I read suggested the DA's decision was a bit more pragmatic than realizing Gizmodo hadn't done anything illegal. The subtext I got, reading between the lines, was that they still thought Gizmodo had acted illegally in receiving stolen property, but Gizmodo was prepared to use a first-amendment freedom-of-the-press defense that could drag on into a lengthy, highly-publicized legal battle that would just end up Streisand-effecting them into greater publicity. Even if the DA's office eventually won, it would have been at too great a cost for any possible benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2011 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  Even if the DA's office eventually won, it would have been at too great a cost for any possible benefit.
  
  Exactly, that's just how the legal system works. If you've got the money, you can get away with murder. Meanwhile, prosecutors just love to pick on the poor and the defenseless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 12 Aug 2011 @ 11:25am

It took them a year..
cause they were desperately trying to find something, anything, to charge them with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gizmodo, 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:33am

Blog
Technorati is a search engine exclusively used for blogs where it features the latest updates happening in the blogosphere. It serves as a different world for online users who thirst for more detailed news and facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]