Gizmodo editor Jason Chen gets house raided, assets seized

Jason Chen, Editor of Gizmodo.com, came home Friday night to a surprise visit from California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, according to Gizmodo. Following the issuing of a warrant from the Judge of the Superior Court of San Mateo, CA, officers seized four computers and two servers from his residence. Gawker Media LLC is defending Chen and claiming that according to the California Legal Code, such a search and seizure was illegal.

The warrant clearly states that the search was for any material surrounding the controversial iPhone 4G prototype, and that anything deemed related to the iPhone prototype would be brought in and analyzed by forensic experts for any signs of misconduct or felony.

Gawker Media's COO, Gaby Darbyshire, responded to the seizure with a letter stating very clearly that this was illegal on grounds that:

  • Chen was a journalist.
  • He worked out of his home.
  • Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source. 
  • Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
  • An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.

According to Chen's account of the night, when he came back from dinner with his wife, the officers had already entered his house. They encouraged him to stay away from the house while the search was underway, but that he was not under arrest. After about a half an hour, the officers took what they came for and left. They told him he could file for reimbursement for the door they bashed in, and that they had taken photos to prove that no other damage was inflicted on the house. 

Gizmodo has come under fire recently for its behavior in acquiring an alleged prototype of the iPhone 4G from an Apple engineer, due for release this summer. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony updates PS3 internals

Next Story

NVIDIA to unify desktop and notebook driver releases

192 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think everyone is missing something, if this goes to trial Gizmodo will win. If the D.A./Apple elect to go after Gizmodo for grand theft, possession of stolen property etc, this would go to a jury trial. I doubt 12 people would elect to convict Gizmodo of a felony.

From what hes posted of the phone, there really isnt anything that special in the new iPhone, as far as specs. The phone still isnt capable of playing 3d games to the level of a workstation, the iphone dispite what people like to think, still isnt practical enough for a full gaming device, despite the marketing around it. In the end the new IPhone, is just that, another phone.

What he should have done is on a condition of returing the phone, he should have had Apple give him a release of liability. Everyone keeps saying Apple put alot of money into designing the new IPhone, but for what...usableitlity wise, its not going to be able to be used for anything more than what its being used for now.

eviltwigflipper said,
I think everyone is missing something, if this goes to trial Gizmodo will win. If the D.A./Apple elect to go after Gizmodo for grand theft, possession of stolen property etc, this would go to a jury trial. I doubt 12 people would elect to convict Gizmodo of a felony.

Erm, but it seems like they did commit a felony; so why wouldn't the jurors convict them?

Jurors aren't fanboys, they are there to seek the truth and make a verdict upon the evidence presented.

[quote=eviltwigflipper said,]
What he should have done is on a condition of returing the phone, he should have had Apple give him a release of liability. /quote]
So they could add blackmail to the list of offences...

Rodrigo said,
BTW, to all those little Apple fanboys SCREAMING it was [u]stolen[/u] and it was an act of the devil, please, LEARN TO READ:

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

The man never got in touch with Gray Powell despite knowing he was the owner of the phone. Calling various tech support lines expecting to get the phone back to Apple was a pretty dumb move. Selling it was an even dumber move.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 27 2010, 6:55pm :

Rodrigo said,
BTW, to all those little Apple fanboys SCREAMING it was [u]stolen[/u] and it was an act of the devil, please, LEARN TO READ:

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone

No matter what happen, Apple fanboys will say this: "Apple is correct, their action is justified. Apple is the law". Talking to Apple fanboys is like talking to a table, it not going to work no matter how hard you try or what kind of evidence you presented. To the fanboys Apple & SJ is "God" and they are above the law.

A few thoughts:

I am not a lawyer.

I see a lot of people who state that Gizmodo or Jason got what was coming to them. Naming the engineer who lost the phone and shamelessly milking the story for all it was worth, while making a lot of money may be sleazy. However I do not see how those aspects of the story are illegal, nor can I see how they can be the basis to search Jason's home.

As for Gizmodo or Jason Chen aquiring the phone, it is obvious that Gizmodo and Jason Chen are on questionable legal ground, and may be completely in the wrong.

While Law Enforcement may have the right to search Jason Chen's home, I do not see a point to it.

The kind of search described sounds like overkill, better suited to a drug dealer than even the sleaziest of tech journalists/bloggers. It's a phone, not narcotics. Jason is a tech journalist/blogger, not an AK strappin' thug. How about waiting outside for him to come home, and escorting him inside to begin the search?

Finally, regardless of the value of the phone, other commenters are right when they state that Apple's involvement in this has a lot to do with how the Police handled it. Had it been a stolen $10,000 diamond studded luxury cell phone made out of gold, I doubt the police would have responded the same way.

Well...I think this proves that this wasn't a stunt by Apple. If I was Steve Jobs...I wouldn't allow any of my engineers to take anything that is still under development home with them. You think Steve would have learned his lesson when he happily showed Bill Gates his MacIntosh prototype...and then Bill stole the idea with GUI.

texasghost said,
You think Steve would have learned his lesson when he happily showed Bill Gates his MacIntosh prototype...and then Bill stole the idea with GUI.

You mean the GUI from Xerox?

texasghost said,
Well...I think this proves that this wasn't a stunt by Apple. If I was Steve Jobs...I wouldn't allow any of my engineers to take anything that is still under development home with them. You think Steve would have learned his lesson when he happily showed Bill Gates his MacIntosh prototype...and then Bill stole the idea with GUI.

Yeah because Apple has 3 employes and all of them can be personally supervised by Jobs.

Edited by Rodrigo, Apr 27 2010, 6:32pm :

texasghost said,
Well...I think this proves that this wasn't a stunt by Apple. If I was Steve Jobs...I wouldn't allow any of my engineers to take anything that is still under development home with them. You think Steve would have learned his lesson when he happily showed Bill Gates his MacIntosh prototype...and then Bill stole the idea with GUI.
Unfortunately, for a product like this, there's a phase where you have to do field testing.

jebus197 said,
Is it just me, or is Apple much more maniacal that Microsoft could ever hope to be?

Mike Rowesoft anybody? Besides, this is a police investigation. Not Apple. I'm not sure why people don't seem to get that.

I get the impression that Apple are really cheesed off about this and are going to use their full legal team to punish Gizmondo as much as possible.
Maybe if some of you guys who are giving them both barrels, stating this is a good reason never to buy an Apple product had designed something that was going to sell/make millions, organized a launch timetable, promotion/advertising campaign whereby you would be showing off the new features only to have the rug pulled from under your feet (due to a crime), i think you would be pretty annoyed!!!
Most people who turn up to the launch now will be like "allready seen it"

Somehow buying clearly stolen hardware is related being raided in a legal stand point. Logic here confuses me.

I want to know what is the basis of the raid. Because they handed over the phone, they got nothing Apple wants. All else is just assumption that he had private data on the hardware, but isn't that too big of an assumption?

Eddo89 said,
Somehow buying clearly stolen hardware is related being raided in a legal stand point. Logic here confuses me.

I want to know what is the basis of the raid. Because they handed over the phone, they got nothing Apple wants. All else is just assumption that he had private data on the hardware, but isn't that too big of an assumption?

They have information on a potential felony...as well as records that may lead back to the original "thief" who deserves, whole heartedly, to be investigated... even if to just clear him of charges because of a misunderstanding/ignorance of the law.

Gizmodo claimed that he did all his work, including emails, on his personal system and so the police got a warrent to get the info they need. If he knowingly bought "stolen" goods? goods that value over 5000$? He's in trouble himself. it's all about the phrasing of the email to determine the information in the open during the exchange...

again it could all be ignorance and honest mistakes, but the police aren't in the wrong for looking into it.

I was partially outraged but someone else has made a very valid point. The guy knowingly purchased stolen goods.. goods that he KNEW belonged to Apple, and that they'd be very upset about falling into the hands of the public - and then went and splashed photo's, internal pictures, and details about that product. What did he think would happen?!

I don't think it should have come to this but he did deserve this to a certain extent.

Chicane-UK said,
I was partially outraged but someone else has made a very valid point. The guy knowingly purchased stolen goods.. goods that he KNEW belonged to Apple, and that they'd be very upset about falling into the hands of the public - and then went and splashed photo's, internal pictures, and details about that product. What did he think would happen?!

I don't think it should have come to this but he did deserve this to a certain extent.

Excuse me, link to the story you just told?

To all those defending Gizmodo, imagine that you left your own phone behind somewhere. Instead of returning it to you, the finder then (i) sold it to a third party, who (ii) decided to publish all its contents including your private emails, contacts, web history.
That's the nearest analogy to what Gizmodo did with the internal details. Apple was entitled to keep the internal details of its phone private and Gizmodo had no business dismantling it.

...and if you had reason to believe that some but not all of the information in the phone had been published, but the person who had obtained it had still got some other details (and might hide them if warned), then you'd certainly want to get hold of them.

"We can't fire the dude that lost it, it's all over the news, they'll hate us."
"Lets raid that guys house"
"YES! They'll love it!"

they handled goods that were either stolen who obtained by deception, plus journalist is respected less than estate agents and that is saying something.
Throw them in the stocks ...

Apple has murdered people (Google death of Apple factory worker in China), and now has a broken door on it's bloody hands!

Bottom line: Don't frack with Apple.

Just talk to the guy nicely and ask for the return of iphone 4g why use Police? Apple is getting like an powerful evil corporation nowsaday.

satus said,
Just talk to the guy nicely and ask for the return of iphone 4g why use Police? Apple is getting like an powerful evil corporation nowsaday.

they opened the police investigation after it became clear that the blogger violated the law to obtain the device...buying stolen goods is ILLIGAL. and likely has the information to put the police in contact with the actual "thief" who's only crime may be being ignorant of the "if it's worth over $100 it's required to be turned over to the police" statute, but might have a bigger issue at hand. The police don't know. The police have every right to find out as it's a criminal charge of grand theft possible at it's root.

just saw that Apple will lose millions $ because Gizmodo launched the product... that is GOOD.. hope Apple loses more and more.. Apple you are doing a big big problem for a simple phone... hope you can change your mind soon...

acido00 said,
just saw that Apple will lose millions $ because Gizmodo launched the product... that is GOOD.. hope Apple loses more and more.. Apple you are doing a big big problem for a simple phone... hope you can change your mind soon...

So, Apple loses millions of dollars because of a lost prototype, yet it's a "simple phone." Really, you just said that.

Do you have any regard for the actual law involved in this investigation or are you just grasping at straws to defend a hatred?

All this for a effing phone? geeeeeeeez! the dam thing was returned! WTF is everyones problem? Schwarzenegger have a hard on for Jobs?

day2die said,
Apple has the #1 customer satisfaction

Haha. No wonder, you **** them off, and they'll have you hauled off to jail, never to be heard from again.

Frylock86 said,

Haha. No wonder, you **** them off, and they'll have you hauled off to jail, never to be heard from again.


Don't worry dude. Old Steve will sent him a cake on his birthday when he's in jail. Now that's call customer service, wouldn't you agree?

day2die said,

Don't worry dude. Old Steve will sent him a cake on his birthday when he's in jail. Now that's call customer service, wouldn't you agree?

Free cake!? Now that's what I call satisfaction!

Frylock86 said,

Free cake!? Now that's what I call satisfaction!

Ah! But the Cake is a lie.... (Couldn't help my self... )

Just one thought: What would the chances of this happeing be if it was my phone, and not apples that was stolen. Thats what is outrageous in this story. Its way out of proportion, and it just shows what the world has come to. Big corporations have more rights and get better police service then the common man. THAT IS WRONG.

Protect and serve my..... you get the rest.

Dipso said,
Just one thought: What would the chances of this happeing be if it was my phone, and not apples that was stolen. Thats what is outrageous in this story. Its way out of proportion, and it just shows what the world has come to. Big corporations have more rights and get better police service then the common man. THAT IS WRONG.

Protect and serve my..... you get the rest.


Is your phone a possibly multimillion dollar prototype? I mean, seriously. Think about it for JUST A SECOND about what it really means to Apple. It's not just a phone at this point.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 27 2010, 4:10am :

Elliott said,

Is your phone a possibly multimillion dollar prototype? I mean, seriously. Think about it for JUST A SECOND about what it really means to Apple. It's not just a phone at this point.

Apple is not going to lose millions of dollars over this. Instead they just got a whole load of free publicity and generated a ton of hype over their product. And they had nothing to do with it. At the end of the day Apple came out ahead thanks to this.

Sure Gizmodo did something wrong, but lets be honest here; How many times have YOU found something (regardless of value) and kept it? The guy did try contacting Apple but got luck out of it, it was Gizmodo (not him) who found the owner of the phone.

And leaks happen all the time, they aren't just limited to Apple. Most other companies don't go around trying to find the source of the leak and have them arrested.

Think about it, if Microsoft went after the people who leak Windows alpha/beta builds all the time how many of you would be supporting Microsoft? Instead its just going to a be a massive thread about how Microsoft is an evil money grabbing corporation and this poor innocent guy who "stole" software from them should be released immediately.

To make it out that Apple somehow is on the losing side of this is pure fanboyism. If anything this just made more people want the phone, and not to mention they just got a whole load of public feedback for their device. So if people didn't like something, they can change it.

Edited by -Razorfold, Apr 27 2010, 6:43am :

/- Razorfold said,

Apple is not going to lose millions of dollars over this. Instead they just got a whole load of free publicity and generated a ton of hype over their product. And they had nothing to do with it. At the end of the day Apple came out ahead thanks to this.

Indeed. Apple wins no matter what because even the people shouting 'evil Apple' are still talking about their product and that's exactly what they want. They should really be compensating Gizmodo for the publicity but why pay for advertising when you get it for free?

The police raided the house of a journalist who's rights have been violated. The rights of the media are one of the most scared rights in the united states.

anything else is irrelevant.

PeterKD said,
The police raided the house of a journalist who's rights have been violated. The rights of the media are one of the most scared rights in the united states.

anything else is irrelevant.

You mean a blogger, not a journalist.

PeterKD said,
The police raided the house of a journalist who's rights have been violated. The rights of the media are one of the most scared rights in the united states.

anything else is irrelevant.

Rights of a journalist do not extend to laundering stolen goods, my friend.

We are talking about Petty Theft... The phone is worth maybe $500 retail so I don't see the point. Gizmodo clearly didn't break any laws other then receiving stolen property which is also a mis. if the item value is low, which in this case, it was a ****ty bricked cell phone.

What a joke, I hope he sues the state of California and Apple for harassment and unlawful search and seizure.

pjw said,
We are talking about Petty Theft... The phone is worth maybe $500 retail so I don't see the point. Gizmodo clearly didn't break any laws other then receiving stolen property which is also a mis. if the item value is low, which in this case, it was a ****ty bricked cell phone.

What a joke, I hope he sues the state of California and Apple for harassment and unlawful search and seizure.

Actually Gizmodo violated the law by disclosing the phone's internal parts to the mass public. Remember this is not a released product. It sucks... They should have contacted a lawyer before going posting this kind of information online. Now Apple is by the right of law to do press charges.

Item value might be low, but the IP (Intellectual Property) value is not...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-...04000&file=3426-3426.11

Edited by kouhii00, Apr 27 2010, 1:32am :

pjw said,
We are talking about Petty Theft... The phone is worth maybe $500 retail so I don't see the point. Gizmodo clearly didn't break any laws other then receiving stolen property which is also a mis. if the item value is low, which in this case, it was a ****ty bricked cell phone.

What a joke, I hope he sues the state of California and Apple for harassment and unlawful search and seizure.


It's an unreleased prototype of a major product. It's worth a LOT more than $500 in terms of man hours and intellectual property.

he got what it was coming to him .... he thought he was slick ...not no more...in the other hand you're getting his 15 min of fame mr chen

Ok for all you omg his right swere violated people.

Lets say you left your wallet at a bar. A person picks it up and says quietly anybody lose this? Doesnt even bring it to the police station. Then decideds to sell the contents of said wallet to the highest bidder and the returns the empty wallet to you .

Would you then not contact the polcie and say eh i lost it who cares that i just got my identity stolen or would you go to the police and track who took it and why ?

majortom1981 said,
Ok for all you omg his right swere violated people.

Lets say you left your wallet at a bar. A person picks it up and says quietly anybody lose this? Doesnt even bring it to the police station. Then decideds to sell the contents of said wallet to the highest bidder and the returns the empty wallet to you .

Would you then not contact the polcie and say eh i lost it who cares that i just got my identity stolen or would you go to the police and track who took it and why ?

I think you are missing the point. Lots of people on this board hate Apple with an insane passion. Sense and logic can't penetrate their thick skulls. Trying to explain things rationally is just a waist of time. They all just wait for any bit of Apple news so that they can comment "OMG Apple sucks! I hate them so much!!!" Very lame.

majortom1981 said,
Ok for all you omg his right swere violated people.

Lets say you left your wallet at a bar. A person picks it up and says quietly anybody lose this? Doesnt even bring it to the police station. Then decideds to sell the contents of said wallet to the highest bidder and the returns the empty wallet to you .

Would you then not contact the polcie and say eh i lost it who cares that i just got my identity stolen or would you go to the police and track who took it and why ?

Identity theft is a major crime that can ruin your life forever. How is this going to ruin Apple? Also, Giz did not return just the shell and kept the insides. They returned the whole phone. The phone was already remotely wiped.

Edited by RangerLG, Apr 27 2010, 3:57pm :

I have a few issues with this whole thing and believing it was stolen
1) if you were an apple employee, and had a prototype iphone you signed your life away to test, would you admit you forgot it at the bar or would you say you were mugged
2) if you stole an iphone, then found out it was a new prototype, would you admit you stole it or say you found it at the bar
3) if you are stupid and mug someone and just take the iphone and some other stuff, you probably arent smart enough/taking enough time to realize its a never before seen model

SkyyPunk said,
I have a few issues with this whole thing and believing it was stolen
1) if you were an apple employee, and had a prototype iphone you signed your life away to test, would you admit you forgot it at the bar or would you say you were mugged
2) if you stole an iphone, then found out it was a new prototype, would you admit you stole it or say you found it at the bar
3) if you are stupid and mug someone and just take the iphone and some other stuff, you probably arent smart enough/taking enough time to realize its a never before seen model

Since Gizmodo is refusing to say the source then, they are reaffirming the fact that the cellphone was obtained in a shady way.

My bet that the cellphone was obtained via a internal-job, for example some guy that do the laundry or clean the office after hours. To miss a prototype in a bar sound really improbable.

Edited by Brony, Apr 27 2010, 12:02am :

All very good and very valid. Obviously there needs to be an investigation. People shouting on one side or the other need to get their panties out of a twist. An investigation will transpire and we will see what the authorities findings are.

Magallanes said,
To miss a prototype in a bar sound really improbable.

Except for the report saying that the original owner posted to Facebook about being in the bar and that is the last post. Again, just a report but something like that could easily be verified.

Neowin sinks even lower in intelligence stakes.

Apple get something stolen from them, they notify the police and some how the comments are EVIL APPLE.

Seems its ok to steal aslong as its from Apple.

evo_spook said,
Neowin sinks even lower in intelligence stakes.

Apple get something stolen from them, they notify the police and some how the comments are EVIL APPLE.

Seems its ok to steal aslong as its from Apple.


Yea, yea. we get it. You're an obvious apple fanboy.

Blackhearted said,

Yea, yea. we get it. You're an obvious apple fanboy.

Because SURELY Apple has the the San Mateo judges and cops in its pocket. I mean, really?

evo_spook said,
Neowin sinks even lower in intelligence stakes.

Apple get something stolen from them, they notify the police and some how the comments are EVIL APPLE.

Seems its ok to steal aslong as its from Apple.

Fanb.... err dude, NOBODY stole anything from Apple, GET. IT. RIGHT.

Anyway, it's just the same ****ty phone with 4G capabilities and a camera in the front, BIG DEAL.

Unfortunately i can't comment because we know none of the facts... i'd love to say 'Grrr Apple ar**holes" or "well that's what ya get for handling stolen goods" etc etc but we really do not know what is going on here and the chances are we never will!

perochan said,
i guess now Jason Chen could use the $5000 he got from Gizmodo to buy new laptops and servers.

Uhh, Jason works for Gizmodo, and is not the guy who found the prototype and sold it to Giz

This is JUST my "opinion" but, As our country sinks into the abyss of complete and total collapse.. who cares about this 4G phone? think of this. Sometime ago, all phones are required to have GPS on them. So why would i want to allow people to spy where I'm at? I think people are just nuts about cellphones anymore. back in the early 90's and before... there were NO cellphones except those huge units that only the ultra rich could afford. As for Steve jobs, to hell with him. again, in my opinion yet again, Steve Jobs seems more like a modern day Hitler than a CEO.. sorry if this offends anyone.

Amazing this can happen over a stupid cell phone. I mean does anyone really give a rats a$$ about what the next iPhone will have? I can already tell you - it will be a bit more functional then the last. I wish some real news was happening. YAWN

Riva said,
Long live the law. We no longer can control the criminals so we target and bully the innocent

Unfortunatly Gizmodo isn't innocent

Hm. I honestly don't see where Gizmodo went wrong. They acquired the device (they did not know it was 'stolen' when they did), tinkered around with it (like everyone who realized what it is would have done), and when Apple asked for a location so they could pick it up, Gizmodo provided it and gave the iPhone back without any struggle. I don't see why this is necessary. Apple ****ed up, not Gizmodo.

Ambroos said,
Hm. I honestly don't see where Gizmodo went wrong. They acquired the device (they did not know it was 'stolen' when they did), tinkered around with it (like everyone who realized what it is would have done), and when Apple asked for a location so they could pick it up, Gizmodo provided it and gave the iPhone back without any struggle. I don't see why this is necessary. Apple ****ed up, not Gizmodo.

Who pays 5000 for a phone that looks like an iphone. They paid 5000 because it looked like a prototype. Did they think it wasnt stolen?

Mekun said,

Who pays 5000 for a phone that looks like an iphone. They paid 5000 because it looked like a prototype. Did they think it wasnt stolen?

well, reasonable doubt, they bought it, and tried to give it back, apple wouldnt acknowledge there was a prototype or it was lost... hrm, looks like they were dupped in buying a knock-off, opened the phone saw all the Apple® and posted pics and the story of how apple didnt want the phone... and the whole "we know you have the phone, give it back" letter to giz from apple and they did... so the lesson here is never buy anything? or is it keep a tighter leash on your ****?

KnightWolf said,

well, reasonable doubt, they bought it, and tried to give it back, apple wouldnt acknowledge there was a prototype or it was lost... hrm, looks like they were dupped in buying a knock-off, opened the phone saw all the Apple® and posted pics and the story of how apple didnt want the phone... and the whole "we know you have the phone, give it back" letter to giz from apple and they did... so the lesson here is never buy anything? or is it keep a tighter leash on your ****?

You missed the part where they paid 5000. Who pays 5000 for a phone. Maybe apple didnt know it was lost as of yet who the hell knows. But I wouldnt pay 5000 for a phone unless I believed it to be something very special.

Mekun said,

You missed the part where they paid 5000. Who pays 5000 for a phone. Maybe apple didnt know it was lost as of yet who the hell knows. But I wouldnt pay 5000 for a phone unless I believed it to be something very special.


nope didnt miss that, but did you miss the part where they tried to give it back to apple... before all that **** happened? regardless of if they knew it was or not, this is on apple, if they wouldve said yep and the phone was back in their possession there would be no "and here are the insides and they say apple" it wouldve been... hey, apple has a new iphone and it looks neat, and well, does stuff better than iphone3... also, some ppl have more disposable income than others

KnightWolf said,

nope didnt miss that, but did you miss the part where they tried to give it back to apple... before all that **** happened? regardless of if they knew it was or not, this is on apple, if they wouldve said yep and the phone was back in their possession there would be no "and here are the insides and they say apple" it wouldve been... hey, apple has a new iphone and it looks neat, and well, does stuff better than iphone3... also, some ppl have more disposable income than others

They did give it back to Apple. Doesn't change the fact that they paid $5000 for stolen property, sat on it for days, posted articles about it saying "this is the real deal" and THEN gave it back like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. Pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 27 2010, 4:39am :

Elliott said,

They did give it back to Apple. Doesn't change the fact that they paid $5000 for stolen property, sat on it for days, posted articles about it saying "this is the real deal" and THEN gave it back like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. Pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

pretty sure you didnt read how it went down

KnightWolf said,

pretty sure you didnt read how it went down

I read exactly how it went down. Apparently, the guy that "found" the phone called tech support somehow expecting them to know something. He never reported it to the police. He never told the bar owner. There have been varying reports of how quickly the phone was remotely wiped, but from some of the reports, it sounded like the guy was able to look at the Facebook app and see the identity of the person who lost the phone. He never tried to contact the friggin' owner despite knowing his identity.

I don't know where you live, but that's considered theft in my state and I'm pretty sure it is in California too.

Yes, Apple had iPhone OS 4 running on the device. Yes, Find My iPhone doesn't work on iPhone OS 4. It's not exactly Apple's job to find out who had the phone, though. If you can't figure out who stole your watch, does that mean the person who took it isn't a thief?

Edited by Elliott, Apr 27 2010, 4:25am :

YaZoR said,
Hang on, the maths don't quite add up...

4 computers + 2 servers != 1 prototype iPhone

Thats what i was thinking. Apple has their 4g prototype back. And if they were truly worried about an illegal sale of said prototype Jason would have been arrested for purchasing a stolen object. IMHO the reply from Jason's lawyer(s) is valid, as the only information they will receive from the confiscated material would be the source from which he (Jason) received the prototype.

betadan said,

IMHO the reply from Jason's lawyer(s) is valid, as the only information they will receive from the confiscated material would be the source from which he (Jason) received the prototype.
Even then, the confiscated machines constitutes an unlawful search and seizure, and under the law posted in the OP, the source can't be revealed either. I smell a lawsuit against California.

YaZoR said,
Hang on, the maths don't quite add up...

4 computers + 2 servers != 1 prototype iPhone

You're absolutely right. The prototype iPhone cost Apple much, much more than all of those things.

iamwhoiam said,
Even then, the confiscated machines constitutes an unlawful search and seizure, and under the law posted in the OP, the source can't be revealed either. I smell a lawsuit against California.
There's no prior case law for "shield law" protecting a journalist that paid for and acquired stolen property (i.e. they broke the law). If the warrant was given under a valid pretense other than to expose the source, then finding out who the source was through that seized property is a legal and bonus side effect.

Edited by Elliott, Apr 27 2010, 4:43am :

Gizmodo Got what it deserved, they confessed the model was stolen, acquiring stolen property without the intent to hand it over to the owners is a felony its like stealing it with your own bare hands, paying for stolen goods is something serious....

Ultimatum said,
Gizmodo Got what it deserved, they confessed the model was stolen, acquiring stolen property without the intent to hand it over to the owners is a felony its like stealing it with your own bare hands, paying for stolen goods is something serious....

seriously, didnt read anything about it did ya?

What bothers me in this type of story is how people tend to go off on tirades about how things go down.

The only thing Apple did was open a police investigation for stolen property.

Obviously the police, and whoever ****ed up, made some major mistakes. But it's not like someone from Apple was standing outside this guys door ordering the door bashed in. Lets sit back and put a little perspective on things.

I really don't think Apples actual part in events is unjustified. Point the finger at the police/judge/whoever was responsible for the actual wrongdoing.

GarretN said,
What bothers me in this type of story is how people tend to go off on tirades about how things go down.

The only thing Apple did was open a police investigation for stolen property.

Obviously the police, and whoever ****ed up, made some major mistakes. But it's not like someone from Apple was standing outside this guys door ordering the door bashed in. Lets sit back and put a little perspective on things.

I really don't think Apples actual part in events is unjustified. Point the finger at the police/judge/whoever was responsible for the actual wrongdoing.

Point the finger at the police / judge / whoever for what? The guy isn't above the law, nor does the journalist tag protect him if he's participant in the alleged act. This isn't to say he is, but given that none of us have any understanding / knowledge of the details, everyone is pretty much just launching all sorts of assumptions without any fact, and assuming the police don't know how to do their jobs.

and assuming the police don't know how to do their jobs

A bit off topic: The vast majority aren't worth the badge they wear and if they knew how to do their jobs, the crime rates wouldn't be as high as they are.

thornz0 said,

Point the finger at the police / judge / whoever for what? The guy isn't above the law, nor does the journalist tag protect him if he's participant in the alleged act. This isn't to say he is, but given that none of us have any understanding / knowledge of the details, everyone is pretty much just launching all sorts of assumptions without any fact, and assuming the police don't know how to do their jobs.

I was referring to Gizmodo's defense of the matter, that what was going on was illegal. Within that context, the proverbial finger doesn't really have a lot to do with Apple, it has to do with the enforcers.

GarretN said,

I was referring to Gizmodo's defense of the matter, that what was going on was illegal. Within that context, the proverbial finger doesn't really have a lot to do with Apple, it has to do with the enforcers.

You are saying all Apple did as open an investigation? You sure Apple didn't pressure fairly high ranking to have this done? Or use some of there power as leverage to get what they wanted done? Apple is not totally innocent. Their policies and secrecy stuff is utterly insane and probably put many people is serious positions (Chinese guy who was interrogated and then committed suicide) and countless jobs lost because they showed a product off before release. Secrecy can only go so far, Apple needs to get it through their heads that leaks are going to happen and when they do its not going to be the end of the world or even better the death of the company. Apple can move on and will move on and still make money leaked or not.

Kutster said,

You are saying all Apple did as open an investigation? You sure Apple didn't pressure fairly high ranking to have this done? Or use some of there power as leverage to get what they wanted done? Apple is not totally innocent. Their policies and secrecy stuff is utterly insane and probably put many people is serious positions (Chinese guy who was interrogated and then committed suicide) and countless jobs lost because they showed a product off before release. Secrecy can only go so far, Apple needs to get it through their heads that leaks are going to happen and when they do its not going to be the end of the world or even better the death of the company. Apple can move on and will move on and still make money leaked or not.

That sounds rather far fetched, however, even if that was the case, you're still stuck with the people in-between enforcing/allowing it.

If I was a big-wig at Apple and told a police chief "I want you to kick in this guys door and seize his equipment." -- and the police chief does it, does that absolve the police chief of any wrongdoing?

Take the same situation, except Apple tells no one to kick in the door, and goes through normal procedures and paperwork, doing nothing illegal or "wrong". The judge approves it, but not for at night (and the papers are made so that thats not actually allowed), and the police chief does it. Should Apple be chastised for filing a police report for what they believe is stolen equipment when an enforcer isn't doing their job properly regardless of if they thought they were?

Can Apple file a police report, ask to have their data seized in case of theft? Of course they can. Can they use big-wig magical powers to influence how that is carried out and if it is approved? Probably, but I doubt it.

Shadrack said,
Lionel Hutz: It's an authority legal issue, all right, I'll need to refer to the case: "Finders vs. Keepers".

Finally! Some good legal advice on this forum!

I think the method they used to seize this guys stuff wasn't right, however, I can see where they are going with this. At some point there had to have been some wrong doing and they will want to nail Gizmodo over it.

Sounds like the defendant is already all over the wrong-doing of the seizure. Too late now though, they got all his stuff.

Tarrant64 said,
I think the method they used to seize this guys stuff wasn't right, however, I can see where they are going with this. At some point there had to have been some wrong doing and they will want to nail Gizmodo over it.

Sounds like the defendant is already all over the wrong-doing of the seizure. Too late now though, they got all his stuff.

I don't know how it works in the USA, but if the search warrant is invalid is any "evidence" they collected still eligible for court proceedings?


Also generally this forum is full of hypocrites, the media have always been buying trade secrets and illegally obtaining information there is no getting around that, yet people are trying to blame Gizmodo, a media outlet, which relies on obtaining information to maintain it's readership for doing just what everyone else has been doing all along.

Edited by Ero, Apr 27 2010, 12:58am :

Ero said,

I don't know how it works in the USA, but if the search warrant is invalid is any "evidence" they collected still eligible for court proceedings?
Nope. Murderers have gotten off on technicalities like that.

Ero said,

I don't know how it works in the USA, but if the search warrant is invalid is any "evidence" they collected still eligible for court proceedings?


Also generally this forum is full of hypocrites, the media have always been buying trade secrets and illegally obtaining information there is no getting around that, yet people are trying to blame Gizmodo, a media outlet, which relies on obtaining information to maintain it's readership for doing just what everyone else has been doing all along.


Mapp v Ohio: The Court ruled that prosecutors may not use evidence obtained in illegal searches.

Also he received stolen property I am guessing being a journalist does not protect him from that . They will probably do the normal thing of either reveal your source or we charge you with x.

majortom1981 said,
Also he received stolen property I am guessing being a journalist does not protect him from that . They will probably do the normal thing of either reveal your source or we charge you with x.

Is something that is lost and found by someone else considered stolen? I guess it depends on if their story about the phone being found left at a bar pans out to be true. For all we know this guy could have paid someone to steal the phone for him. That is probably what is under investigation. It probably wouldn't be too hard for someone to figure out who will most likely have an iPhone prototype and target them.

majortom1981 said,
Also he received stolen property I am guessing being a journalist does not protect him from that . They will probably do the normal thing of either reveal your source or we charge you with x.

It doesn't matter if he is a journalist (though they fancy themselves bloggers any other time), if they suspect he played a role in the theft. The journalist tag only helps you for investigation/delivering of information, not participating in the act (which is what they apparently believe him of).

Shadrack said,

Is something that is lost and found by someone else considered stolen?

In California, yes, it is illigal to resell something lost without making the effort to return it to it's owner, and if that fails you legally have to give it to the authorities, who will hold it. Eventually it does find it's way to being "finders keepers" but you need to give the acutal owners the right to their goods.

AgentGray said,

In California, yes, it is illigal to resell something lost without making the effort to return it to it's owner, and if that fails you legally have to give it to the authorities, who will hold it. Eventually it does find it's way to being "finders keepers" but you need to give the acutal owners the right to their goods.

Exactly - I read the article on the 4g with fevour, but morals dictate it **should have been given to the barman / manager of the bar** That is accepted practice.

majortom1981 said,
Well considering they plastered the guys name who lost it all over the place they deserve what they get for buying stolen property.

This. You pay for your sins one way or another.

Where are all the people who thought Apple leaked it intentionally?

It annoys me when corporations seem to be able to get anyone's house raided in an instant, but when the public need real policing to be done like getting thugs off the street they don't do anything about it.

DomZ said,
Where are all the people who thought Apple leaked it intentionally?

It annoys me when corporations seem to be able to get anyone's house raided in an instant, but when the public need real policing to be done like getting thugs off the street they don't do anything about it.

+1. For corporations the police motto seems to be "To Serve and Protect." For the general public, the police motto is "Law Enforcement" (as in, if we can figure out what law you are breaking your ass is ours). **** the police.

DomZ said,

It annoys me when corporations seem to be able to get anyone's house raided in an instant, but when the public need real policing to be done like getting thugs off the street they don't do anything about it.

"At work" likely involves him working from home, and I'm guessing the police also already seized his work files. they gather everthng they have a warrent to for possible use. it's standard procedure and considering he paid for stolen goods that apple has clear implications are VALUABLE and IMPORTANT to company's well being, there's nothing wrong with doing it.

FrostAM said,
It's a phone, is all this really necessary?

It's top-secret. Must protect all prototypes so public sees awesome new products and pays out the ass and they make the most money.

FrostAM said,
It's a phone, is all this really necessary?
Well said...You'd think that they'd be a little frustrated, but going in and "bashing" into somebody's home just isn't right.

FrostAM said,
It's a phone, is all this really necessary?

Yes, it's a phone.. but one of the most popular phones that makes Apple millions of dollars. A lot of Apple's business mindset relies on hype and mystery and if someone is ruining that, then they should feel the need to take legal action if something illegal was potentially done. We'll find out in the end.

itsthenewDC said,

Yes, it's a phone.. but one of the most popular phones that makes Apple millions of dollars. A lot of Apple's business mindset relies on hype and mystery and if someone is ruining that, then they should feel the need to take legal action if something illegal was potentially done. We'll find out in the end.

I don't think this is true. The people who I know with iPhones have had the 2G, 3G and most now have the 3GS.

Once you have an iPhone i'm guessing the whole experience keeps you wanting more. Personally whilst I think the hype is nice, they've sold this thing no matter whether it leaks, is pink with polka-dots or whatever.

FrostAM said,
It's a phone, is all this really necessary?

Doesn't matter what it is. If there is reason to believe something was stolen, and evidence hidden, this is what it takes to prove the case. As for the journalist comments above, I would think law enforcement knows this, and more to the point they believe this individual to be an accomplice or an instigator in the "theft". Now if he isn't, well someone else is going to roast, Apple for fraudulent charges or the police for unlawful conduct.

FrostAM said,
It's a phone, is all this really necessary?

It's a phone that a company has invested millions of dollars producing. It affects Apple more than just "being a phone."

In the same vein: it's just a couple of belongings that, in the end, cost far less to Jason Chen than that prototype did to Apple.

It's not about the phone.


There is a couple different sides to this and I see merit in all of them.


1) The government/police are interested in making an example out of journalists (or news conglomerates) that use unethical and questionably legal means to obtain a story.


2) If they did break the law by not pursuing them the state leaves themselves open to countless law suits (and comments from people like you guys) claiming that the omg massive news outlet Gawker Media LLC (who made over $100M in profit last year, with $60M of that in advertising) is above the law.


3) The ethical standpoint. They broke the law. Police are enacting the appropriate response to that law, as defined by legislation, to the extent that they are allowed. If the police were going outside the legislated response to felony property theft then I could definitely agree with these comments--but they aren't.

Ah, I didn't know it was stolen. I haven't really been following the new iPhone news/hype

Edited by FrostAM, Apr 27 2010, 1:30pm :

Something should happen to Gizmodo - imo the way they got this story was unethical - but targeting the journalist is unfair, and there was no need (in my opinion) to confiscate anything.

Simon said,
Something should happen to Gizmodo - imo the way they got this story was unethical - but targeting the journalist is unfair, and there was no need (in my opinion) to confiscate anything.

I'd guess looking for proof of how it was sold, if it was known during the sale it was a prototype (which gizmodo said they were not sure about etc). It's no worse than naming the guy who "lost" it all over their site.

Byron_Hinson said,
I'd guess looking for proof of how it was sold, if it was known during the sale it was a prototype (which gizmodo said they were not sure about etc). It's no worse than naming the guy who "lost" it all over their site.
Obviously they did know it was a prototype during the sale, why on earth would they have paid 5000USD (or more) for a regular phone?

More to the point, they were very aware they were buying a phone from a person who was not the rightful owner. Which is receiving stolen goods.

I don't care much for apple at all, I have owned 0 Apple hardware products in my life and don't even have Apple software installed on any of my PCs at the moment. But Gizmodo got what they deserved.

Menthix said,
Obviously they did know it was a prototype during the sale, why on earth would they have paid 5000USD (or more) for a regular phone?

More to the point, they were very aware they were buying a phone from a person who was not the rightful owner. Which is receiving stolen goods.

I don't care much for apple at all, I have owned 0 Apple hardware products in my life and don't even have Apple software installed on any of my PCs at the moment. But Gizmodo got what they deserved.

+1 but they haven't got what they deserve yet. Wait until the investigation is done and charges are laid on someone(s). I don't know if you go after the journalist to press charges against since it was the company that authorized the sale and bought the phone but they should and do have the right to raid his house because the evidence is there.

Menthix said,
But Gizmodo got what they deserved.

Did the journalist really deserve to have his front door bashed in and house searched for proof of something that happened at work, which he does not do at home?

dogmai said,

+1 but they haven't got what they deserve yet. Wait until the investigation is done and charges are laid on someone(s). I don't know if you go after the journalist to press charges against since it was the company that authorized the sale and bought the phone but they should and do have the right to raid his house because the evidence is there.

There is a good chance that since the Search and Seizure was most likely highly illegal by the 5 or so bulleted laws. Everything they took from his home will not be able to be used as evidence since obtained illegally.

Why is everyone crying so much about a lost/stolen phone?
I work for for Asurion, About 1/4 of the calls I get a day are Lost/Stolen phones. Yeah it sucks, but what makes this iPhone so much better than everyone else's cell phones? Oh I forget it is Apple's Cell phone. If I ever lose my Cell phone I will be sure to have some persons house raided for buy my cell phone from the thief.

Apple thinks they are a million times better than anyone else. This secrecy s*** is gotta stop. Chinese people committing suicide, and now an illegal search and seizure over another on of these over priced phones. I like the touch screen on the iPhone but I rather spend my money on a Droid or HD2.

This is almost to the point if not already insanity.

fmorel90 said,

Did the journalist really deserve to have his front door bashed in and house searched for proof of something that happened at work, which he does not do at home?

"At work" likely involves him working from home, and I'm guessing the police also already seized his work files. they gather everthng they have a warrent to for possible use. it's standard procedure and considering he paid for stolen goods that apple has clear implications are VALUABLE and IMPORTANT to company's well being, there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Also? the second this guy paid for stolen goods he stopped being a journalist. Ethics have a place, even in crappy tech blogs.

fmorel90 said,

Did the journalist really deserve to have his front door bashed in and house searched for proof of something that happened at work, which he does not do at home?

Yes--Gawker Media LLC tried to invalidate the warrant by claiming that he works from home (and that his property is therefor protected by journalism laws--which, mind you, are designed to protect WHISTLEBLOWERS and people SAVING LIVES, not people pumping stolen property) they bit themselves in the ass.


They can't on one hand claim that his home is his work to gain immunity and on the other cry foul for raiding his home.

kizuran said,
Anyone else smell Apple's influence in this witch-hunt?

Obviously they are, there was even a news post that Apple opened a police investigation about it. This is a result of that investigation.

SHoTTa35 said,

Obviously they are, there was even a news post that Apple opened a police investigation about it. This is a result of that investigation.

The talk was they actually opened a police investigation before the story came on Gizmodo - so...heck the guy was trying to sell it around to the highest bidder

Yeah but this is going a little far. They raided the guy's house over a stupid iPhone prototype? We're not talking about national secrets here. Or even some amazing clever gadget the world has never seen. Everyone knows what an iPhone is and this is just a new revision. Big deal. This police investigation has gone too far. I can just imagine Stevie down there pounding his fists on the counter at the PD demanding someone does something to fix this "injustice".

Tim Dawg said,
Yeah but this is going a little far. They raided the guy's house over a stupid iPhone prototype? We're not talking about national secrets here. Or even some amazing clever gadget the world has never seen. Everyone knows what an iPhone is and this is just a new revision. Big deal. This police investigation has gone too far. I can just imagine Stevie down there pounding his fists on the counter at the PD demanding someone does something to fix this "injustice".

The police could raid a house for a stolen mars bar if they felt the need. The raid in this case is justified. Gizmodo overstepped their bounds, and have broken many laws in doing so.

jmc15john said,
I wonder if Apple is behind all of this. Just another reason I'll never by anything from Apple.
I never bought anything in my life from Apple either, but buying stolen goods is a crime whether you are a 'journalist' or not.

Menthix said,
I never bought anything in my life from Apple either, but buying stolen goods is a crime whether you are a 'journalist' or not.

Yeah, i never buy anything from Apple... One reason! OVER PRICED! AND RIP-OFF!

Menthix said,
I never bought anything in my life from Apple either, but buying stolen goods is a crime whether you are a 'journalist' or not.

True, stolen property is stolen property whether you bought it from someone or not.

Sebianoti said,

Yeah, i never buy anything from Apple... One reason! OVER PRICED! AND RIP-OFF!

That's two reasons .

bguy_1986 said,
only apple........

Or any other company who believe prototypes were stolen. It isn't just apple. MS etc would all want the same done.

Byron_Hinson said,

Or any other company who believe prototypes were stolen. It isn't just apple. MS etc would all want the same done.

You mean like how over and over Win7 was leaked? Nobody there had their house raided.

Rape, murder, nah, don't investigate those. We have a lost iPhone that we need to investigate.

nohone said,

You mean like how over and over Win7 was leaked? Nobody there had their house raided.

Rape, murder, nah, don't investigate those. We have a lost iPhone that we need to investigate.

I think stolen hardware and pirated software are a fair bit different, even if you truly want to believe otherwise.

itsthenewDC said,

I think stolen hardware and pirated software are a fair bit different, even if you truly want to believe otherwise.

Yes, they are different - one was "stolen" from Apple, the other was "stolen" from Microsoft.

Today Woz said on Giz that shortly after midnight, an Apple employee showed him his iPad. That employee was fired - for showing it to Woz. What class, Apple.

nohone said,

You mean like how over and over Win7 was leaked? Nobody there had their house raided.

Rape, murder, nah, don't investigate those. We have a lost iPhone that we need to investigate.

Good job using a poor example. MS has tried to fight pirating for years. Not like pirated software and, possibly, stolen hardware should be compared anyway. It is quite possible that the prototype was indeed lost. There's Gizmodo's story, there's Apple's story, and then there's the truth.

asdavis10 said,

Good job using a poor example. MS has tried to fight pirating for years. Not like pirated software and, possibly, stolen hardware should be compared anyway. It is quite possible that the prototype was indeed lost. There's Gizmodo's story, there's Apple's story, and then there's the truth.

It was quite a good example. So if somebody is stealing from MS for years, MS is fighting that for years, it is OK to continue doing it? But somebody "steals" from Apple, and now we need to go out raiding houses? Why don't they raid the houses of every single suspected Windows pirate?

Once again - the double standard. Don't compare pirated software to "stolen" hardware, that is not fair. After all, Apple is special, right?

Tekkerson said,
Sounds about right!

Microsoft would do the same, even worse. I don't know why you defend Microsoft so much, because all they give you is crappy buggy software?

Andrijan Apostoloski said,

Microsoft would do the same, even worse. I don't know why you defend Microsoft so much, because all they give you is crappy buggy software?

Crappy, buggy software? Are cheap shots really necessary?

Anyway, whatever happened to this guy saying he would give up the device if Apple asked for it? Didn't Apple ask for it?

Andrijan Apostoloski said,

Microsoft would do the same, even worse. I don't know why you defend Microsoft so much, because all they give you is crappy buggy software?

You need to stop watching Apple commercials, and realize that Apple buggy produces hardware and software. I know, I have many of their devices.

bguy_1986 said,
only apple........

Since when does the police work for Apple? If that's the case something's terribly wrong in the US...

nohone said,

You need to stop watching Apple commercials, and realize that Apple buggy produces hardware and software. I know, I have many of their devices.

fanboys cant handle the truth, that apple is just as bad in every way, and better than none
Theyre both evil
As for crapp/buggy, my win7 runs great, cant say the same for my friends using Macs. One had a guestaccount ruin his pc, another had his macbook die, and anothers keeps crashing. MMMM Apple

Neoauld said,

fanboys cant handle the truth, that apple is just as bad in every way, and better than none
Theyre both evil
As for crapp/buggy, my win7 runs great, cant say the same for my friends using Macs. One had a guestaccount ruin his pc, another had his macbook die, and anothers keeps crashing. MMMM Apple

Amen to that!

Microsoft has done the same and a little bit of research would reveal this. Microsoft, in almost all countries, have an entire team dedicated to exploring law enforcement opportunities available to them to punish people who pirate software--the fact of the matter is that in almost all jurisdictions the legal recourse a company has for stolen or pirated software is essentially nill. This is not the same for hardware--hardware CAN be considered stolen property in all jurisdictions whereas logical software does not fall under this category (YMMV).


For the record I have referred people selling pirated Microsoft software to their anti-piracy team in Australia and that person was subsequently approached and questioned by police--while it is a grey area in Australia the local LEO's felt obligated to alert the person prior to Microsoft serving them with a C&D (and requiring him to sign contracts stating he would never repeat the incident).


The way Gizmodo handled this incident was at best questionable. They defamed, slandered and acted greedily at every step--making light of the situation through 'funny' and disrespectful tweets ('proud practitioners of checkbook journalism!') and they are now paying for it. Everyone said Apple had legal recourse from day one--everyone said it was a bad move for Gizmodo to act so cavalier in their utter disrespect for journalistic integrity and they are now paying for it. I hope this move takes out Gawker Media LLC who have had questionable practises for years.


Comparing the situation to rape and murder is absurd. The teams that handle computer crime are entirely different to those that handle violent crimes--that's what the violent crimes units are for. I don't know about you but I would rather the nerd handle the computer forensics instead of stamping around a murder crime scene.


They have, at best, tarnished Gary Powell's reputation with all future employers and, at worst, cost him future revenue for their troubles. Why? For a few million hits (and the $$ that comes with it). If you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.

Edited by ascendant123, Apr 27 2010, 6:11am :

ascendant123 said,
Microsoft has done the same and a little bit of research would reveal this. Microsoft, in almost all countries, have an entire team dedicated to exploring law enforcement opportunities available to them to punish people who pirate software--the fact of the matter is that in almost all jurisdictions the legal recourse a company has for stolen or pirated software is essentially nill. This is not the same for hardware--hardware CAN be considered stolen property in all jurisdictions whereas logical software does not fall under this category (YMMV).

Can't help but agree there. In Bulgaria, we had an issue where the police raided the biggest game club chain (at the time) and took something along the lines of 1,200 computers simply because of the fact that the EULA didn't allow the software (Windows 98) to be 'rented out'. The software wasn't what was being rented out, it was computer time, but eh, go figure. Of course, never mind the fact that MicroSoft's daughter company in Bulgaria had the second largest game club chain in the country. Where do you think the customers went when they discovered they could no longer visit the place that they normally play at? Yeap, you guessed it... and MicroSoft's daughter company was using Windows 98 for at least two years after that incident. Sure, those guys got their computers returned eventually when it was discovered that they weren't breaking any laws... oh, some two years later at which point those computers were useless for gaming.

ya really, Apparently apple sent Gizmodo a letter asking for it back (a scan is on gizmodo) and he agreed, and they still raid his home?

Fck em. Its a god damn phone. I have owned all of them so far, but now - will not purchase one again. Can CA Officer's seize livers?

Edited by Ryanlm, Apr 27 2010, 1:29am :

It's the matter of moral vs legal. The people at Apple has no moral.

When I was walking to school, I saw a girl bleeding on the ground. The she always seem to make up rumors about me. I guess she somehow consider herself a perfect girl or something. The law stated that I am not required to report a crime, yet I carries her all the way to school and an ambulance came and pick her up.

Could I just leave her there? Absolutely. Did I? No.

day2die said,
It's the matter of moral vs legal. The people at Apple has no moral.

When I was walking to school, I saw a girl bleeding on the ground. The she always seem to make up rumors about me. I guess she somehow consider herself a perfect girl or something. The law stated that I am not required to report a crime, yet I carries her all the way to school and an ambulance came and pick her up.

Could I just leave her there? Absolutely. Did I? No.

Under some circumstances you could face criminal charges for not helping someone. I think calling 911 (or 112) counts as helping so you could call the ambulance and still leaver her there methinks.