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."

[vhero]

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.

[Monkey521]

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_duong]

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...

[beardpapa]

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.

[darthv72]

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.

[N4Flamers]

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.

[ReBurn]

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.

[KilZoneGeneralStrife]

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

[Christopher]

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.

[AEtherbane]

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

[AliTheBrit19]

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

[ReBurn]

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.

[beardpapa]

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.

[MrWonderful]

is it really stolen when the person that had it tried to return it to its owner and was unable to locate him? does that not give him the right to do what he wants with it. if you turn any thing in thats beenfound after so long its yours or someone keeps it if the owner does not come forward after awhile

[N4g_null]

Stolen property is always stolen property. Imagine this if the gizmodo guys go to a pawn shop with this phone or if they past through airport security and apple has the feds looking for the phone. They would be going str8 to jail then court he got out easy so far. He will be serving time for this unless he has OJ lawyer LOL.

Also if this was a video game he would be up for buying stolen property, selling company ideas to the competition, yes money was made off them posting the article. Black mailing the companies PR to release sensitive info. Then if these guys got any kind of kick back from any of apples competition they could be seen as "spies" for that company LOL... I mean this could get out of hand, the law is a very serious thing,, that is why you always keep your mouth shut about such things!

Rumors are find but pictures put you in jeopardy.

[Premonition]

Apple is the owner of the owner who lost it, so instead of being smart and contacting Apple themselves they didnt try their hardest cause they wanted to show the world the product first etc, so now they are paying for it, I dont understand why people are trying to make gizmodo look like they did something good, i mean come on really?

[The Lazy One]

it could be argued that posting an article is trying their hardest. They sure got Apple's attention darn quick, and because of that the phone was promptly returned.

They could have taken it to a police station in the middle of nowhere, let it sit there for 90 days, and taken it home at the end.

[Monkey521]

Posting an article is one thing, showing the inside workings of the product is another.

[Trunkz]

Big deal, Apple probably payed the police station more for the search then it would cost if they got sued.

[Jihaad_cpt]

America land of confused. The item was Apple's property it was stolen

[Model]

You have some top notch spelling right there bud.

[Jihaad_cpt]

what's wrong with the spelling? Grammatically it's incorrect yes

[jjesso1993]

As much as what i think of apple they had every right to get there property back. Think of this way you lose your phone in a bar you find who has they refuse to give you back without you giving them personal information what do you do ? you ring the police. Gizmodo bought stolen property they took it apart posted this all there website and in the process where making millions of dollars througth adverts. no matter what gizmodo say they broke the law, they could gained respect from apple and got an exlcusive deal of a review of finale product. All they have done now have lost lots of respect from other companys.

[ReBurn]

I doubt they made millions through advertisements, but they probably saw an increase over their normal revenues.

[Domer25]

Its the fact that they dissected it and posted all relevant internal layouts and hardware on the internet. Illegal? i dont know, but tasteless? definitely.

[hatchimatchi]

Good god, i'm glad tax dollars are going towards Apple having the police raid a house in order to get back a bricked cell phone.

[Akagi]

OH MY GOD WHO CARES?

Seriously.

[Revvin]

Gizmondo bought a phone from someone knowing it did not belong to that person. Its since been claimed that the person who found the phone called Apple to talk about returning it but Apple denied its existence. I don't blame Apple for this, they must get hundreds of crank calls every year when a new bit of hardware is due to be released from people trying to get information. All the guy had to do was get their address, pop it in a padded envelope and send it back but instead chose to sell it to Gizmondo who dissected it. This is Gizmondo trying to play the injured party when they know they did wrong. Now they may argue on a legal technicality but there are moral issues here at stake too.

Returning the phone to Apple may well have forged a new relationship between the two parties and benefited Gizmondo in the long run but they chose the quick buck from an exclusive now. Apple could just turn this around and make Gizmondo look bad by dropping the case in return for Gizmondo donating any profit they made from additional ad revenue and any other profits to charity.

[ReBurn]

I don't think the guy had any obligation to return it to Apple. He sure shouldn't have sold it since it didn't belong to him, but at the least he could have just left it where it was and at the most could have turned it over to the police.

Gizmodo shouldn't have dissected it. They shouldn't have paid for it. Freedom of the press doesn't extend to buying illegal property. They probably deserve some sort of sanction for being morons. Too bad being stupid isn't illegal.

[jjesso1993]

hatchimatchi so apple dose not deserve the right that every american has becuase there big company and really dout the iphone is bricked and somthing apples tech team can not fix. you got remember apple pay taxes to so they have just as much right to do this as anyone living in american.

[SKUD]

Gizmodo fails.

[The Lazy One]

It being confidential is erroneous. Gizmodo didn't sign an NDA, and they returned the lost item when it was claimed. They were well within their rights. They didn't really dissect it either. They took off the battery cover *SHOCK*.

Facts: Apple messed up and now they are taking it out on everyone who is not responsible for their F*** up.

[Monkey521]

You obviously don't have an iPhone. There is no such thing as a battery cover on them. He even states on his article that he disassembled the iPhone. Here's a pic for your viewing pleasure.

http://cache.gawkerassets.c...

[itsralf]

Funny thing is that Apple probably would have given him a reward of some sort for turning it in. Probably not $5,000... but at least something. And there wouldn't be all these legal issues to deal with.

Btw, Gizmodo is an idiot for spending that much money on an iPhone... He didn't even find anything impressive. Was it worth it? Doubtful.

He bought stolen property. That's punishable by law.

[hoops]

This is going to get real good...........