Gizmodo considers suing police after iPhone raid

Greg Sandoval of CNET writes:

"A lawyer for Gizmodo says the gadget blog could sue the sheriff's office in San Mateo County, Calif., for raiding an editor's home last Friday as part of a criminal probe into an errant iPhone prototype."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
vhero3000d ago

I hope they take Apple and the law for Millions and more.. Its against there rights to do what they did. It's apples fault it happened and they should have hung there heads in shame and not got the law involved. When I heard what happened I was shocked they were actually allowed under the law to seize Gizmodos stuff.

Monkey5213000d ago

It's one thing to report that you have found the new prototype iPhone, it's another thing if you dissect this object and report confidential material to the public.

Let's say you find a Credit Card on the side walk, you should report that you found this item, or give it to the proper authorities. But instead you buy stuff with this credit card. You will be charged with theft. Sure, it's the person's fault for dropping his/her credit card, but it doesn't make your actions right.

Just because you find something, does not give you the right to use/take apart this item.

anh_duong3000d ago (Edited 3000d ago )

dealing in lost/found goods without reporting it to the police - especially since you have good reason to know who it belongs to (i.e. apple) - is most likely on the wrong side of decent ethical behaviour if not the law..


put yourself in apple's shoes if you fail to understand this concept..

say you lost a mobile phone in the pub/bar..

random person A picks it up, person A guesses that it belongs to you but instead of returning it to you advertises the item on the net

person B sees person A advertising the fact that the phone belongs to you but buys it nonetheless.. person B then advertises the fact the phone belongs to you and at the same time fiddle around with the phone..


do you think what person B does is ethical or right given the fact that he pretty much knew the phone belongs to you??

i think what endgadget did is pretty unethical...

beardpapa3000d ago (Edited 3000d ago )

Hey vhero, I'll take your car keys, steal your car, drive it around for a joyride, bang it up a bit, then return it to you after you formally let me know it's definitely your car. Then you can get the law involved, and I'll sue you and the police for it because it was technically your fault for leaving your keys in the bar.

And if you think that logic isn't sound, then any company has the right to get law enforcement involved when it comes to theft and blackmail.

darthv723000d ago

they knowingly and wrongfully paid for something that did not belong to the individual who sold it. That is strike 1 right there.

Tampering with property that was neither the individuals nor the legal right of gizmodo is strike 2.

Willfully and openly displaying the property of another companies without the expressed written consent is strike 3.

It would be absolutely different if gizmodo went to a store and rightfully purchased the item over the counter and did their autopsy on their own legally purchased item. THEN they would be within their "rights".

This will not the last time something like this happens. Gizmodo just went about it the wrong way as if to say they ran through the streets with a bag of money they knew was stolen from a bank. Proclaiming Im rich Im rich and then trying to deposit into their account at the same bank it was stolen from.

Ok, that last part was a bit strange.

N4Flamers3000d ago

I cant see you breaking down the door if you could just have knocked. That is excessive force if this guy had children or a wife they could have been traumatized. I could see the cops breaking the door down for a dangerous criminal who had a chance of escaping, but in this instance it was a computer nerd who was eating dinner.

I guess the specifics have yet to be ironed out, but the story changes. First I hear apple said it wasnt their phone, then I hear that the person who found it tried to return it by calling apple himself. This will be an interesting case.

@bearpapa you beat me to it. Legaly if you leave your keys in your car it's not stolen. Try it, your insurance company wont even replace it. They consider it your fault.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3000d ago
ReBurn3000d ago

I guess through this we'll see how far freedom of the press goes in comparison to intellectual property rights. I was thinking all along that Gizmodo went a bit too far by dissecting the phone and showing what was inside. This case could have some pretty far-reaching effects.

KilZoneGeneralStrife3000d ago

have it,but belongs to someone else.but raids uncalled for..when will these evil mega corporations stop?

Christopher3000d ago (Edited 3000d ago )

If they have a search warrant, it's not a 'raid'. This is just an article done to shine more spotlight on the situation to make Gizmodo look favorable in the public's eye.

They had stolen property. Apple is utilizing the justice system as it is intended in order to find who sold the device that wasn't theirs to sell as well as who was the one who purchased the stolen property.

I know it's cool to hate The Man, but people really need to understand what went on here.

AEtherbane3000d ago

This is not the journalistic freedom case we want!!!!

AliTheBrit193000d ago

Didn't Gizmodo technically buy a stolen item?............

ReBurn3000d ago

Yeah, they're probably going to be punished somehow for receiving stolen goods. I think that the question for me is whether lost by Apple and found by someone else equates to stolen. Clearly the guy that sold it didn't own it and should have turned it in to the authorities.

I wonder if the police are going to arrest the guy that sold it. Seems like he'd be on the hook, too.

beardpapa3000d ago (Edited 3000d ago )

According to california law, in addition to have contacted apple (according to Gizmodo) the guy that found the phone also had to file a report with the police. A reasonable amount of time had to also pass for people to claim the phone before it becomes legally his right to sell the phone (otherwise it's theft). This applies to any product with a retail value of over $100. Some argue that there is no value to a prototype, but since Gizmodo explicitly wrote that they paid $5000 for a prototype, the product therefore has value over $100 and Gizmodo would have a difficult time convincing the jury (if they go to court) that they thought it was a knockoff.

That's pretty much I what I gathered from reading other forums and people who claim they work as lawyers for a living. The same forum also said other tech sites including Engadget were offered a price for the phone but they backed out of it. I would think this suggests the seller knew exactly what he was getting into.

And ... also a lot of people in these forums made a big fuss that Gizmodo is just a blog and not real journalism (no journalism ethics) and thus shouldn't be protected under the shield laws, otherwise any blogger can claim to be a journalist and be protected under shield - which in a sense is a flaw in the system.

Show all comments (35)
The story is too old to be commented.