Come take a look at the next iPhone

[Wiglaf]

Right. They are investigating and building a case to charge him with grand theft. To do that, you need details on those computers, like an IM saying "HAY GUYS LETS BUY THIS STOLEN IPHONE THAT WE KNOW IS STOLEN"

Note please: You don't even need to know the source to make this case, though it would help to charge the source as well.

[Asher]

Considering he didn't steal anything, I'd be interested in hearing how he could be charged with grand theft.

[Wiglaf]

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but “appropriates such property to his own use” is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

The incompetence on display here is staggering. Hot fuzz have a legitimate reason to want to see the computers (proving theft) that doesn't have anything to do with the source. They are not compelling anyone to disclose anything. They are investigating grand theft, and if that incidentally implicates another conspirator, he's not excused just because he also provided information that was used in a story.

[Asher]

So what you are saying is if you have in your possession a stolen product in a manner in which you are completely disconnected from the owner of the device, you fiddle around with it and take pictures, but give it back as soon as the owner makes a request...it's grand theft?

So if you lost a $500 gold-plated condom at a gay bar in DC, my tranny friend Francesca picks it up and gives it to me...I examine it and take pictures but give it back to you when you request it -- that's grand theft, too?

If this is true, then the USA is obviously a huge nanny-state. That's absurd.

[Wiglaf]

Taking a few pictures isn't really appropriating it for your own ends. Publishing a blockbuster story that makes you thousands of dollars while exposing another company's trade secrets, NOW WE'RE TALKING.

Also, what the hell does this mean?

in a manner in which you are completely disconnected from the owner of the device,

[Wiglaf]

More fat Chen , note the 'Im a Douchebag' LiveStrong bracelet: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/jasonchen.jpg

[Asher]

Gizmodo is considering suing the police for their raid: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...dStoriesArea.1

[Wiglaf]

I'm considering suing you for being so far up Gawker's ass you can't see how dumb their lawyers are.

[Asher]

It's all over now, Wiggy.

Jon Stewart takes Apple to task over the Gizmodo thing.

http://digg.com/television/Jon_Stewart_Slams_Apple_Over_Its_Handling_of_Gizmodo_Case

[Asher]

And it gets creepier.

Apple visited the original finder of the phone before the police did, and wanted to search the guy's home. WTF.

And additionally, we now know that the original finder DID contact Apple to try to return the phone AND searched Facebook to try to return the phone. Gizmodo paid $5000 for "exclusivity" to look at the phone, not to possess it.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/

Apple May Have Traced iPhone to Finder’s Address

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.

[Wiglaf]

It's all over now, Wiggy.

Jon Stewart takes Apple to task over the Gizmodo thing.

http://digg.com/television/Jon_Stewa...f_Gizmodo_Case

http://www.iphoneqna.com/consumer-electronics-iphone/the-official-verdict-in-the-stolen-iphone-case

Boom

[Asher]

I stopped after I read both "I am not a lawyer" and the site name it's coming from.

If I wanted wet dreams from Apple fanboys with a God complex on Steve Jobs, I'd PM Agathon and ask him to come back.

[Asher]

I'd love to see a jury convict a guy for theft for buying an object from someone, publicly announcing he has it, then immediately returning it to a guy who says "hey, that's mine".

A little common sense, people.

[Wiglaf]

I stopped after I read both "I am not a lawyer" and the site name it's coming from.

If I wanted wet dreams from Apple fanboys with a God complex on Steve Jobs, I'd PM Agathon and ask him to come back.

This is amazing. Amazing BECAUSE IF YOU READ IT you'd see how unbeleevably wrong you are. This guy IS Fair and IMPARTIAL. OH WHATS THIS? You are NOT A LAWYER EITHER???? No you do not even have a graduate degree in ANYTHING Do you not listen to yourself? Sick bastard. .mad:

[notyoueither]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/steve-jobs-personally-demanded-return-of-lost-iphone-court-documents-reveal/article1569612/

Steve Jobs personally demanded return of lost iPhone, court documents reveal
San Francisco — The Associated Press
Published on Friday, May. 14, 2010 5:45PM EDT
Last updated on Friday, May. 14, 2010 6:12PM EDT

Brian Hogan's world closed in fast almost as soon as he sold the next-generation iPhone he found in a Silicon Valley bar to a popular technology website for a stack of $100 bills, according to court documents released Friday.

By April 19, Mr. Hogan's roommate was co-operating with investigators, Apple's top lawyers were meeting with police to press for criminal charges and Steve Jobs himself was personally demanding the iPhone's return.

The saga began March 25, when Apple engineer Robert “Gray” Powell left the iPhone prototype in the bar area of Redwood City's Gourmet Haus Staud restaurant, according to a sworn statement by San Mateo Sheriff's Detective Matthew Broad that was unsealed Friday.

Detective Broad's 10-page statement was used to obtain a search warrant for the home and car of Jason Chen, an editor with the technology website Gizmodo.

It said Gizmodo paid Mr. Hogan $5,000 for the device, cracked it opened and posted images of it on April 20 despite a phone call from Mr. Jobs the day before demanding website editors return the gadget. Gizmodo promised Mr. Hogan an additional bonus of $3,500 if Apple formally unveiled the device by July, according to Detective Broad.

Now, Mr. Chen is under investigation for theft, receiving stolen property and damaging property, according to the affidavit. The affidavit also suggests Mr. Hogan and a third roommate, Thomas Warner, may also face criminal charges, and alleges the two panicked and attempted to hide evidence when they caught wind of the criminal investigation.

Shortly before midnight on April 21, the affidavit said, Mr. Hogan's roommate Katherine Martinson called investigators and told them that Mr. Hogan and Mr. Warner were removing evidence from their apartment. Investigators found Mr. Hogan at his father's Redwood City house and he directed them to nearby Sequoia Christian Church, where they recovered Mr. Hogan's computer and monitor.

Nobody, including Mr. Chen, has been charged with any crime, but the investigation has prompted ethical debate over whether he should be shielded from prosecution by California's so-called shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over to police unpublished notes and the names of anonymous sources. But the shield law doesn't immunize journalists from breaking the law.

The investigators themselves have come under fire as well for apparently launching the investigation at Apple's behest. Detective Broad belongs to a special high technology task force called the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, which is comprised of investigators from several jurisdictions and investigates crimes against technology companies.

According to Detective Broad, task force investigators met with two high-ranking Apple executives and outside lawyer George Riley on April 20, the day Gizmodo published the images. Mr. Riley told the task force that Gizmodo's actions were “immensely damaging to Apple,” because consumers would hold off buying iPhones until the new version was released. Mr. Riley didn't estimate a dollar figure, but said losses were “huge,” according to the affidavit.

San Mateo County prosecutors had argued to keep the affidavit under seal to protect the identities of witnesses and the ongoing investigation. But The Associated Press and several other media companies convinced a San Mateo County superior court judge to make the document public, arguing disclosure was necessary to ensure that the raid of a journalist's home was proper.