Very nice recap of the important points of the affidavit. A couple other items of note: The detective's summary relates the facts concisely in terms of the cr

Very nice recap of the important points of the affidavit. A couple other items of note: The detective's summary relates the facts concisely in terms of the crimes believed to have been committed, as follows: "Suspect Brian Hogan found or stole a prototype iPhone 4G that was accidentally left at a restaurant by Apple employee Robert 'Gray' Powell. Hogan identified the owner of the phone as Apple Engineer Gray Powell through the contents of the phone and through Internet searches. Rather than return the prototype phone to Powell and/or Apple, Hogan subsequently sold the iPhone [to] Jason Chen in Fremont for $5000. Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com." California Penal Code 499c(b)provides: "Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following . . . (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret." ["Copy" is defined in 499c(a)(7) to mean "any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."] Violation of 499c(b)(3) is a felony. The real damage here consists of revealing Apple's trade secrets to the world, and it was apparently done deliberately for direct financial gain (even if that gain did take the form of hits to the Gizmodo site). The investigation is being led by the San Mateo County REACT unit, which often works in cooperative investigations between the local D.A.'s office and the U.S. Attorney's office. So far, we have not seen any involvement publicly of the U.S. Attorney's office in this case. That does not mean, though, that they are not involved. If the economic harm stemming from trade secret thefts is significant (as it appears to be here), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 might also be used as a basis for prosecution under federal law. It provides in relevant part as follows: "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." A final note on how these sorts of matters tend to unravel for the malefactors. The recitals of probable cause that one or more crimes have been committed, as set forth in the affidavit, concern Jason Chen individually and not his employer (meaning that he personally will be charged in any indictment that is filed). Mr. Chen has retained his own separate criminal defense lawyer to defend himself (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236 http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236). Prosecutors have broad discretion in such cases on how to fashion the charges brought and also concerning any plea deals struck. If the goal here is ultimately to get to Gizmodo/Gawker, who do you think will be the first to incriminate them?