4 ms·

This also raised my eyebrow... Chen bought stolen property as defined under California law. Then published evidence of his doing so in a very public manner. App

This also raised my eyebrow... Chen bought stolen property as defined under California law. Then published evidence of his doing so in a very public manner. Apple may have called the police, but they hardly "sent them in". I was with the article until that point.

dutchflyboy 17y ago
Well, I might be wrong, but it's probably not the first time a gadget site gets a gadget before it's released. In many cases, that gadget should have been returned to the original owner, not to a journalist. But, again, as far as I know, no company has actually "sent the police in" (or even asked for any investigation) over such a matter. Apple did, it wasn't wrong of them (I mean, it's still a crime), but they were (one of) the first (only?) to do so.
- catch23 17y ago
  Can you provide other examples where a gadget site pays money to a 3rd party who happens to have an unreleased development model of a future product? I can't think of any...
  - pyre 17y ago
    Don't be disingenuous. The exchange of money here is the least of the transgressions. I would think that someone sending Gizmodo a 'lost' iPhone prototype without the exchange of money would have gotten them into hot water too if they didn't try to return it first (before publishing the internals). In the past, most leaks have been information (specs,photos,etc) not the actual device.
    - ptomato 17y ago
      Except for the bit where money being exchanged automatically makes it "purchasing stolen property".
      - devinj 17y ago
        Right. But the bit where they don't give it to Apple immediately makes it theft. Which is worse, buying stolen property, or stealing property? If they couldn't be accused of the former, they would be accused of the latter. You seem to forget the very basis on which this was declared buying stolen property: the theft itself. The theft itself would have occurred no matter whether it was bought or not, and both parties would be guilty if it was just handed over.
        mistermann 17y ago
        Since when is finding something in a bar "theft"? There was a good article about this topic somewhere, about where journalists used to have balls, and the corporate victims were unhappy, but never before did they call the police and bust the door down. Apple lost a phone. And the police busted someone's door down. I've read many stories of lost phones where the original owner, via software, has given the exact address of where the phone is, and what did the police do?? Nothing. Since when is it the JOB OF THE POLICE to enforce self-inflicted violations of an individual corporations IP? This is not the role of the police in our society, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, they are not supposed to be prosecuting this type of thing.
        ptomato 17y ago
        http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." edit: Also relevant: http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secret-liability http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secr...
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      It's called fencing.
      - pyre 17y ago
        An Olympic sport, no less!

dutchflyboy 17y ago

Well, I might be wrong, but it's probably not the first time a gadget site gets a gadget before it's released. In many cases, that gadget should have been returned to the original owner, not to a journalist. But, again, as far as I know, no company has actually "sent the police in" (or even asked for any investigation) over such a matter. Apple did, it wasn't wrong of them (I mean, it's still a crime), but they were (one of) the first (only?) to do so.

catch23 17y ago
Can you provide other examples where a gadget site pays money to a 3rd party who happens to have an unreleased development model of a future product? I can't think of any...
- pyre 17y ago
  Don't be disingenuous. The exchange of money here is the least of the transgressions. I would think that someone sending Gizmodo a 'lost' iPhone prototype without the exchange of money would have gotten them into hot water too if they didn't try to return it first (before publishing the internals). In the past, most leaks have been information (specs,photos,etc) not the actual device.
  - ptomato 17y ago
    Except for the bit where money being exchanged automatically makes it "purchasing stolen property".
    - devinj 17y ago
      Right. But the bit where they don't give it to Apple immediately makes it theft. Which is worse, buying stolen property, or stealing property? If they couldn't be accused of the former, they would be accused of the latter. You seem to forget the very basis on which this was declared buying stolen property: the theft itself. The theft itself would have occurred no matter whether it was bought or not, and both parties would be guilty if it was just handed over.
      - mistermann 17y ago
        Since when is finding something in a bar "theft"? There was a good article about this topic somewhere, about where journalists used to have balls, and the corporate victims were unhappy, but never before did they call the police and bust the door down. Apple lost a phone. And the police busted someone's door down. I've read many stories of lost phones where the original owner, via software, has given the exact address of where the phone is, and what did the police do?? Nothing. Since when is it the JOB OF THE POLICE to enforce self-inflicted violations of an individual corporations IP? This is not the role of the police in our society, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, they are not supposed to be prosecuting this type of thing.
        ptomato 17y ago
        http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." edit: Also relevant: http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secret-liability http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/540967372/gizmodos-trade-secr...
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It's called fencing.
    - pyre 17y ago
      An Olympic sport, no less!