5 ms·

This does not look good for Gizmodo, and I can say this even as someone who does not practice criminal law. Why? 1. The REACT unit is a dedicated unit establi

by grellas 17y ago

This does not look good for Gizmodo, and I can say this even as someone who does not practice criminal law. Why? 1. The REACT unit is a dedicated unit established to fight tech-related crimes, and I would not take it lightly to know that they were investigating my conduct. 2. California's stolen property laws would appear to apply here and may well have been violated. 3. The much more serious federal Espionage Act of 1996 appears on its face potentially to apply as well - "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." 4. The "intent" element, normally hard to prove for criminal purposes, is strongly bolstered by facts admitted by Gizmodo (payment for the item, intent to get hands on Apple trade secrets, holding the property for an extended period) and is countered only by what appears to be the merest pretext of an excuse (supposed doubt about the genuineness of the item). Maybe the first amendment will shield Gizmodo, or maybe the D.A., after investigation, will drop the matter, or maybe it is a stunt and Apple ultimately will not press charges, but if I were Gizmodo I would be concerned where this might lead.

jrockway 17y ago
I just don't think trade secrets are relevant in this case. It stops being a trade secret when you leave it in a bar. If the Apple employee was not authorized to bring it to a bar, that could be a problem for him. But since Gizmodo made no effort to induce anyone to expose Apple's trade secrets, it's very unlikely that they will be held accountable for doing so. They bought a stolen phone that happened to be a good news story. It's just an unfortunate set of events, not a crime. Now, the "stolen goods", OTOH, could get them in trouble, but that applies to any phone ever left in a bar. I bet if I lost my phone in the bar, no computer crimes unit would be investigating. I'd probably just be laughed at. Apple's phone should be no more special, under the law, than mine. The difficulty there, however, will be proving that the phone is worth $400. If I pay you $10,000 for your toenail clippings, that doesn't make them worth $10,000. That makes me an idiot. My estimate is that no charges will come of this. I also assume the guy at Apple won't be on the "testing our super-secret prototypes" team anymore.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  OK, but UTSC addresses the idea that a trade secret could be acquired 'by accident or mistake'. When the guy found it and popped the cover, he guessed what it was but the general public did not know. So he got that info thanks to the employee's mistake. If he had locked it away or returned it, none of us would know. Gizmodo might be idiotic for paying $5000, but more likely they thought it was a prototype, which would be newsworthy. And nothing forced them to post 20 pictures of the internals after deciding it was real. Up to that point, the internals were secret and not even the finder knew what they looked like. I'm willing to wager $10 on it if you like :)
  - sigzero 17y ago
    They KNEW it was not a prototype.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      ?
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  Again, the only source of the "left in a bar" story is Gizmodo. That may be the story the seller told them, but it hasn't been confirmed by anyone else. If the seller "acquired" it by more overt means, they have plenty of reason to lie about it. Particularly if they "acquired" it after noticing it wasn't an ordinary iPhone, at which point things really do start to drift into trade-secret territory.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Two facts corroborate Gizmodo's story. One is that the iPhone was disguised to be an older model. If it were just a model designed to sit on a test bench, I doubt it would be camouflaged. If it were intended to be tested in bars, however, then that makes sense. Secondly, the identity of the Apple employee was released. He has a great incentive to say, "someone came into my lab and threatened to stab me if I didn't hand over the prototype". But, he has not denied the lost-in-a-bar story, even though he has an incentive to do so. So I think the "story" is probably right.

by grellas 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

I just don't think trade secrets are relevant in this case. It stops being a trade secret when you leave it in a bar. If the Apple employee was not authorized to bring it to a bar, that could be a problem for him. But since Gizmodo made no effort to induce anyone to expose Apple's trade secrets, it's very unlikely that they will be held accountable for doing so. They bought a stolen phone that happened to be a good news story. It's just an unfortunate set of events, not a crime. Now, the "stolen goods", OTOH, could get them in trouble, but that applies to any phone ever left in a bar. I bet if I lost my phone in the bar, no computer crimes unit would be investigating. I'd probably just be laughed at. Apple's phone should be no more special, under the law, than mine. The difficulty there, however, will be proving that the phone is worth $400. If I pay you $10,000 for your toenail clippings, that doesn't make them worth $10,000. That makes me an idiot. My estimate is that no charges will come of this. I also assume the guy at Apple won't be on the "testing our super-secret prototypes" team anymore.

anigbrowl 17y ago
OK, but UTSC addresses the idea that a trade secret could be acquired 'by accident or mistake'. When the guy found it and popped the cover, he guessed what it was but the general public did not know. So he got that info thanks to the employee's mistake. If he had locked it away or returned it, none of us would know. Gizmodo might be idiotic for paying $5000, but more likely they thought it was a prototype, which would be newsworthy. And nothing forced them to post 20 pictures of the internals after deciding it was real. Up to that point, the internals were secret and not even the finder knew what they looked like. I'm willing to wager $10 on it if you like :)
- sigzero 17y ago
  They KNEW it was not a prototype.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    ?
Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
Again, the only source of the "left in a bar" story is Gizmodo. That may be the story the seller told them, but it hasn't been confirmed by anyone else. If the seller "acquired" it by more overt means, they have plenty of reason to lie about it. Particularly if they "acquired" it after noticing it wasn't an ordinary iPhone, at which point things really do start to drift into trade-secret territory.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Two facts corroborate Gizmodo's story. One is that the iPhone was disguised to be an older model. If it were just a model designed to sit on a test bench, I doubt it would be camouflaged. If it were intended to be tested in bars, however, then that makes sense. Secondly, the identity of the Apple employee was released. He has a great incentive to say, "someone came into my lab and threatened to stab me if I didn't hand over the prototype". But, he has not denied the lost-in-a-bar story, even though he has an incentive to do so. So I think the "story" is probably right.