Police investigating lost iPhone prototype raid Gizmodo editor's home
By Nilay Patel 
posted April 26th 2010 5:23PM
posted April 26th 2010 5:23PM
Update: TechCrunch reports that the investigation is on hold for now following claims by Gawker that Chen should be protected under California's Shield Laws, meant to help protect journalists from revealing sources. The District Attorney will reportedly reevaluate whether those laws do apply, and as such will not go through the seized possessions until a decision's been reached in the coming days.
@BlueSpud45
/cue a bunch of armchair lawyers on engadget talking about how gizmodo broke all the laws.
idiots. ever hear of freedom of the press?
@badasscat people need to stop acting like they're against gizmodo... We all should appreciate gizmodo putting themselves at risk to leak this for us. I know they just did it for page views but would you rather they had never leaked it???
@HotFuzz
Why do you despise MS.
He actually did try to return the phone when he found out it wasn't normal, plus it had been wiped remotely. That being said, Gizmodo buying it was a mistake.
@Eli Haj After two or three weeks, ten massive stories and a dissection. Once they'd done this it was rather immaterial if they gave it back; the damage had already been done. If they gave it back without any stories, publicity etc then fair enough.
The more I look at the comments the more I realize: this one of those rare moments where Apple and Microsoft fanboys unite... and laugh at Gizmodo.
@BlueSpud45 it's not illegal till you get caught!
...oh wait
@badasscat
There's no proof the guy called Apple Care. Just because he said he did doesn't mean he did. It's hearsay.
@Natal
Speaking of idiots, go look up California law regarding the purchase of stolen goods. Do it before you speak again. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for a device that they KNEW did not belong to the person who sold it to them. That is a FELONY in California.
@Darkseider
I can see where you're coming from but think about it this way. Say you accidentally leave your car unlocked when you run into the grocery store. You come back out after realizing you left it unlocked to find that it's gone. It's not considered a "lost car". It's been stolen. Same concept being applied here, I'm assuming. And even in lost item cases, you're still supposed to turn it in so that it can be returned to the owner if they come looking for it. Instead, it was sold to Gizmodo. Sure the employee was an idiot for leaving it in a bar but that doesn't make the person (that found it) or Giz (that bought it), any better.
@weaky6
This isn't a cut and dry case at all. First if the original finder really did try to return it to apple, and was told they don't want it he might be off the hook.
Also I read that in california there's 400$ limit on the lost items. Anything below and it's finders keepers. So what is a bricked phone prototype worth? Hard to say. Giz paid 5k for it, but what people pay and what it is worth are two different things. If somebody pays 5k for shit doesn't make shits worth 5k.One could argue that a nonfunctioning electronic products worth is what the components cost, less than 300$. Maybe even less as the parts are used.
This will be a fieldday for lawyers who get to argue if the phone can be said being stolen or not. And we're in extremely grey area here.
@Natal I believe there is a precedence for this kind of situation. Look up the case: "Finders, Keepers v. Losers, Weepers"
@OlYeller21 You know just enough to be a complete fool.
@OlYeller21
That only protects journalists who are protecting a source of a confidential source of information. That warrant was completely valid.
@newone
Wrong. What Gizmodo paid for it is automatically what it's worth. And the original finder didn't try very hard to return it to Apple, he obviously knew it belonged to Apple, and then he SOLD it to Gizmodo.
Selling found property that you know belongs to somebody else automatically makes it stolen, and buying stolen property is a felony. As people have been saying this entire time, if the guy really wanted to return it to Apple he could have given it to the bartender. Apple did, in fact, call the bar multiple times looking for that phone.
There is no excuse for what happened. Both the guy who sold it and Gizmodo are going down for this, or at least their editors are, since we're talking about a felony here.
@Bakerdk
As was sort of mentioned before, what Giz did that was illegal is not that they posted the pics but that they *paid* for stolen property. That's where they crossed the line. That's why what Engadget did wasn't illegal and was journalism.
@BlueSpud45
of what right did they have to seize his own property
@Jack
"Wrong. What Gizmodo paid for it is automatically what it's worth. And the original finder didn't try very hard to return it to Apple, he obviously knew it belonged to Apple, and then he SOLD it to Gizmodo."
So, somebody picks up dog poo, and a passerby pays 5k for it. So now the dog poo is worth 5k, the guy picking it up stole it from the dogs owner, and the buyer has just gotten himself into hot water for buying stolen property?
@slamEVIL I could not agree more. He is pressing charges when they offered to give the phone back. Fuck Apple money grubbing evil bastards
@mattn2 So what do all of his computer systems have to do with anything? Surely they didn't believe that the prototype was at his house. Maybe looking for evidence that they knowingly bought *technically* stolen goods?
I think it is going to come down to 2 things:
1. Did the finder make enough of an effort to return the property before selling it, and can they prove it.
2. What is this prototype actually worth. Gizmodo thought it was worth $5k, apple will no doubt say it was worth millions in trade secrets and whatnot(they really only lost Steve's dramatic reveal), but to the vast majority of people, it is just a bricked cell phone that can't even be used to fix other phones of the same model, so it is worth next to nothing.
@GenericMessage
From what I read, the founder attempted to return it to Apple. They turned him away and told him he has a fake.
@newone Woah, you just called the iPhone 4G dogpoo @Jack.
Excuse me for a minute, I'm gonna go hide under this brick wall.
@Mike
From what I read they originally thought it might be some kind of new Chinese knockoff phone. Apple got contacted and apparently thought the same thing. It was only after they took it apart and posted the guts online that Apple decided it was indeed a prototype iPhone.
Personally I was surprised that it was real. I totally thought it was some weird knockoff.
@BlueSpud45 Yeah, Jobs wasn't happy enough being a New Testament Jesus, he wanted the fear of the Old Testament God in his disciples!
BOW TO THE ALMIGHTY POWER THAT IS STEVE JOBS!!!
@Natal Being a journalist myself I have certainly heard about freedom of the press, yes.
How ever I have also heard, that "freedom of the press" isn't some magical spell that will save my ass from jail if I commit a felony, such as buying stolen goods.
@Mike
ur a dumbass .. bgr posted it was a clone and not real.. so people obviously werent sure..so before they tore it up they didnt know it was legit
@kingofwale *rolls eyes* After literally dissecting and reporting on it. Its like going through someone's wallet to see what they have in there even though the name, address, and phone number are on the outside. Meh. Whatever. None of my business and don't care either way. I would say something about ethics though. *shrugs*
@who said what Actually, if convicted, Gawker (owner of Gizmodo) would have to give back ALL of the money they made off of the story plus a certain percentage more. So it definitely wouldn't be worth it. I have no doubt that the lawsuit would be targeted at Gawker rather than Chen himself.
@Yoda
"The more I look at the comments the more I realize: this one of those rare moments where Apple and Microsoft fanboys unite... and laugh at Gizmodo."
Nothing brings us all together better than seeing Gizmodo roasting on an open fire.
Kumbaya my lord.....
@BlueSpud45
The guy called customer service and they did nothing. Was that the most expedient way to get the phone back to its lawful owner? No. Can you still easily call it theft when he did this? No.
Don't these guys have some CP pervs to bust?
@erik1080 Not necessarily. Conspiracy theorists will argue this is just another step Apple takes to make it look more real. At the end of the day they drop charges and no harm, no foul. Personally though, I don't think it was intentional.
@BlueSpud45
I thought apple asked for it back polity.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100420/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1694
Heres more info:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100423/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1771
@BlueSpud45
What everyone is for getting is that attempts were made to return the iPhone but Apple ignored them. They tried to return the iPhone but Apple didn't want it back. Well, not until Giz posted pictures of their beloved prototype. There is no grounds for theft if the owner refuses to accept their property back! END OF STORY.
@sdettling oh yeah i totally agree with you....but then you get into things like where did the money come from....did it come from his personal account or from the gawker coffers? the latter would prob. be worse.
but yeah, he didn't kill anyone....but by no means does he deserve to profit from it.....like giz most certainly has.
@AppleDrank I agree - when I read what Giz did on CES (the stupid remote control stunt) I decided I will not visit their site again and since then I have been reading only Engadget... Engadget FTW!
@OlYeller21
"issuing a warrant to seize the property of a journalist "
"journalist"
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
@Evan What guy? there was no guy. he never worked at Apple. I was told he never existed. ( and i was told to believe that or the same would happen to me)
@SteveyAyo
thats kind of harsh dont you think? The whole story is getting ludacris by now. Guy loses phone, another guy finds it, sells it to make a buck, blog posts pics, wouldnt you tear it open as well to see whats inside!? Come on, enough with the Gizmondo bashing, they did what any of us wouldve done. (and no I DONT read gizmondo other than the posts that are reposted on engadget and TUAW so dont call me a fanboy, I just think its gone too far and people like you should stop rooting against them)
@erik1080
Worth it? Except for the CA laws about Apple getting damages that are equal to the gain the Giz got (among other damages).
They're iFucked.
@BlueSpud45 Gizmodo may want to search for some better legal representation, I'm not sure an email with a cut and paste job is the best way to help get Chen his crap back.
@Jack
Does CA law equate lost with stolen though? There is no indication that this was a stolen item. All signs point to this being a lost and found item. Despite whatever CA law might say about trying to find the rightful owner of a piece of property, I doubt that failing to do so automatically converts the property to stolen property such that one could be charged with receiving stolen property.
@badasscat World of pain, Smokey. World of pain.
@Vaio
dude, NOBODY would. Everyone is being so hypocritical about this. Tops to bottom. I'm disgusted by everyone calling out gizmondo about this. nobody had a problem re posting it and talking about it. And seriously, Apple should chill, all it did was create AMAZING buzz about a potential new iPhone for the summer. They should be thanking Gizmondo instead of making it such a big deal. And as far as the cops getting involved, CA is in such a deficit and crime is pretty bad there, but mr Chen is a threat to society and needs to have agents raid his home. Puhlease, everyone needs to take a chill pill and let this go already.
@HotFuzz Oh please. Because the police have nothing better to do than to read Gizmodo or Engadget all day right? They just happened to find out about this and go after the guy all on their own right? And because going after a guy who (might have) stole 1 (ONE!) cell phone is clearly the best way for them to spend their time and resources, right? And no, Apple, that highly secretive, multi-million dollar company had absolutely NO influence on this whatsoever right?! Gimme a break!
@BlueSpud45
I would normally feel some degree of sympathy toward the raid victim, but in this case, I simply cannot muster any compassion for Jason Chen and Gizmodo.
Hopefully this teaches them a lesson to at least attempt to be more professional and less asshole in the future. Though I wouldn't count on it.
@BlueSpud45
The funniest thing about this, is that Giz has their comments turned off on this story. Censorship at it's best, way to go Giz.
@OlYeller21 First of all, they are not journalists by a long shot. There is a difference between blogging and being a journalist. Some journalists blog, some bloggers may become journalists. But a true journalist, would never buy stolen goods for the sake of reporting.
Make no mistake, that prototype was stolen in the legal sense. I walked down the street and see your car with the keys in it and drive away. Then send you an email saying I have your car and then call a used car dealer and sold it to him. He buys it, knowing it is not really mine. What would you do?
What if that car was made by you and you were planning on making gabillions of dollars selling it to the masses? What would you do? Now.....what if I was a journalist and wrote a story about it and said it was all in the name of reporting? Would that make a difference?
@joe23521 I think Gizmodo are misinterpreting the law as "you can't issue a warrant against a journalist" which is a fairly terrible mistake. The law says you can't seize a journalist's belongings to prosecute an informant, so this is confirmation that they are going after Chen and not the guy who "found" it.
@BlueSpud45 That's what you get when you pay for something stolen then publish it shamlessly. As unethical as this may sounds, the officers has the right to do it. Let this limewire kid be a sample. http://j.mp/p2p-kid-jail
@fourzero40 All or nothing!
@knwldg0010 seriously.....I mistakenly give people $5000 for stuff that I don't actually want all the time. anyone that says it doesn't do the exact same thing is a liar and a fanboi.