iPhone 4

[[AK]Bribo]

It's not like Apple was kicking the doors down. It was a police task for created by the State of California specifically created to address computer crimes. Now, that task force may have overstepped their bounds (although they did have a search warrant).

The real issue is whether Jason Chen and Gizmodo are considered journalists and if they are are they covered by the Privacy Protection Act. It all depends if Jason Chen and Gizmodo knew that the phone was stolen and the fact they paid $5000 for it.

There's a reason why competing website Engadget said "No thanks!" when they were offered it first.

But to paint Apple as the bad guy here I think is a bit disingenuous and ill-informed.

[[AK]Abaddon]

Apple called the police and told them a crime had been committed ... after the phone was returned to them. Whatever transpired afterwards was because of that decision.

[Slaughter]

The guy who found the phone never called anyone at Apple, he shopped the phone around. His friend who had been at the bar with him is the only one that called Apple.

[[AK]Abaddon]

If I recall correctly, Gizmodo also called Apple to tell them that they had the phone.

[[AK]Clay]

If I recall correctly, Gizmodo also called Apple to tell them that they had the phone.

That is how I heard it. I expect Gizmodo's goal was Apple would claim it , and so confirm it was the real deal. Giving Gizmodo a great scoop with a few exterior photos of the confirmed Gen 4 phone. They wanted Apple to claim it. Instead, Apple mishandled this in every way imaginable, and now look like complete jerks. The cops look in their pocket - my nieghbor lost his phone a month ago in a bar - very similar circumstances. Noboby busted doors down arrested anyone, or siezed business assets to get him his phone back. If it was returned, imagine the reaction if he called 911 after it was returned. No body broke into Apple and stole this phone.

As to media protection - if Gizmodo is incorporated, case closed. Though I find that whole clause to be disturbing - why is a citizen not afforded the same rights as the media?

[[AK]Squidly]

They called Apple after they bought the device, took it apart and ran the story.

You guys need to get your facts straight, both about what happened and what constitutes theft in California. I know it's vogue to paint Apple as the no-fun gestapo these days, but they're the victims in this case. When you report a crime, the police get involved. When you are a party to a crime, you risk having the police show up at your door in a bad mood. None of this is a shock.

I like this quote from Jason Calacanis:

"You see a silver Mercedes parked in front of your house. There are keys in it. You get in the car and see that it has a bunch of new features that the standard Mercedes you drive lacks. Oh, and it belongs to someone named Dieter Zetsche. You take the car and drive it home, then call automotive magazines and offer to sell this prototype you found, and know the owner of, for 10x the street value of the car (say, $1M). What are you now? Yes, a criminal! Whether the item is worth $600 or $60,000 is not relevant."

The media thing is irrelevant. This isn't about protecting sources - this is about knowingly purchasing (aka fencing) stolen goods.

[[AK]Abaddon]

Yeah, I realize that in California lost property is considered stolen if the finder does not attempt to return it to the proper owner.

There are a couple of factors weighing against that being the case here:

1) The initial finder apparently called Apple and could not find anyone who wanted to take the phone.

2) Gizmodo called Apple and asked if they wanted the phone back (admittedly with the codicil that Apple had to draft a letter stating it was Apple's property).

Main issue is this ... if your shiny new prototype is left in a public place, seems to me it's a free-for-all as far as media coverage goes. There's no NDA, no formal notice that this is a confidential piece of hardware, and no one broke into Apple to steal it. It's just an unusual iPhone that someone unfortunately chose to leave on a bar stool.

But ... then we have the $5,000 payment. Unless the iPhone is ruled stolen, I think that would be considered a payment to a source for a news story. If the iPhone is ruled stolen, it's payment for stolen goods.

I'm not sure how that will wash out.

[[AK]Clay]

They called Apple after they bought the device, took it apart and ran the story.

You guys need to get your facts straight, both about what happened and what constitutes theft in California. I know it's vogue to paint Apple as the no-fun gestapo these days, but they're the victims in this case. When you report a crime, the police get involved. When you are a party to a crime, you risk having the police show up at your door in a bad mood. None of this is a shock.

I like this quote from Jason Calacanis:

"You see a silver Mercedes parked in front of your house. There are keys in it. You get in the car and see that it has a bunch of new features that the standard Mercedes you drive lacks. Oh, and it belongs to someone named Dieter Zetsche. You take the car and drive it home, then call automotive magazines and offer to sell this prototype you found, and know the owner of, for 10x the street value of the car (say, $1M). What are you now? Yes, a criminal! Whether the item is worth $600 or $60,000 is not relevant."

The media thing is irrelevant. This isn't about protecting sources - this is about knowingly purchasing (aka fencing) stolen goods.

That's not a very compelling analogy. A pocket electronic device abandoned in a public bar is nothing like an automobile parked outside with the keys still in it. No one could reasonably expect a person's behavior towards the two settings to be similar. As to stolen goods, not stolen if Apple denies ownership. The guy who found the phone did contact Apple, he did something. Should he also have contacted the individual (Powell)? You bet! But legal obligation to do so is deniable - he contacted Apple who are the true owners. In any event, not Gizmodo's problem. And they did call Powell.

The timeline is pretty consistent with everything I heard. So before admonishing folks for not having their facts straight, what facts aren't straight? And no, if you're planning on going there, I don't consider hiding behind "it was the police, not us, who broke down the door" to be valid. That whole event is so wrong on so many levels it's just creepy.

I'm sure they have good lawyers - and they're going to need them. Because I bet there are plenty of sharks hoping to make their name pro-bono on Gizmodo's behalf on this mess. In the end, this will blow over - but Apple looks like a bunch of jackasses right now.