Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers

Originally posted by Aggie Man


Like I said...I don't know ALL the details. However, he should have never taken possession of it...he should have contacted Apple and notified them that someone was trying to illegally sell it.

en.wikipedia.org...

In truth no one stole anything if the story is correct. It was mislaid property. Yes one has a "duty" to return it but it is incumbent upon the owner to return for it. Apple got the phone back, if they had never asked it would rightfully be Chen's property.

I don't see how it's theft on his part or the other guys. Don't leave your phone at the bar if you want to see it again. It's common law.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I don't know all the details of this story, but...

From what I understand, this phone was left at a bar....someone discovered what it was....Gizmodo bought it from the person who found it (someone who wasn't the owner and had no right to sell it)....the rightful owner, Apple, asked for it to be returned....request was ignored (that makes it stolen property)....law enforcement gets warrant, with probable cause, to search premises for stolen property and proprietary software...

Where did the law enforcement go wrong?

Nowhere!

It was more like:

- Apple guy goes to bar
- The iPhone gets lost somehow
- Some random dude finds it, says "oh look! an iPhone, i'm not really into tech, nor i'm a programmer, but clearly this is not a regular iPhone, sure it looks the same and everything looks ordinary except for a few details here and there, but clearly this is the top secret prototype for the next iPhone generation, great!"
- Random dude contacts Apple, they refuse to listen or investigate
- Random dude calls back, nothing happens again
- Random dude calls Gizmodo, they give $5000 to random dude and get the iPhone
- Apple calls Gizmodo after noticing the articles on the site, Gizmodo returns the iPhone, this goes on some weeks later after Apple lost the iPhone.
- Apple hires the police to raid the home of the Gizmodo editor because of no reason at all.
- And so on...

Who exactly was the injured party here. People do more damage to a movie by releasing spoilers. If anything Apple got free advertising. I don't see why at any rate it was needed for the police to seize this journalists computers. And I'm paranoid?

finding something doesnt mean you get to keep it. once he knew what he had and didnt return it it became theft. then chen bought stolen merchandize and recieved it. could mean Deep poo poo for chen

Yeah well he tried to return the phone and apple didn't take it. That by definition doesn't make it stolen. Guy found the phone and it was his to do as he pleases.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah well he tried to return the phone and apple didn't take it. That by definition doesn't make it stolen. Guy found the phone and it was his to do as he pleases.

Well thats what he says and all we have to by for now. However Im sure there is more to this than meets the article.

Originally posted by Barkster
finding something doesnt mean you get to keep it. once he knew what he had and didnt return it it became theft. then chen bought stolen merchandize and recieved it. could mean Deep poo poo for chen

Uh no, according to common law (which is the operative law at play here), if you find something and no one steps up to claim it in a reasonable amount of time then it is rightfully yours. Reasonable is pretty subjective. That could be 5 minutes or 5 hours.

Finders Keepers. Remember that old line? Finding something someone left at a bar does not equal stealing it. Mislaid property=different rules. Stealing equates the intent to take something from someone KNOWING it is theirs. The party that sold the phone had attempted to return the phone to Apple. He did his duty, they refused to follow up and as such it's his property to sell.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


Unfortunately, due to the nature of the item as a prototype containing patented technology unreleased to market, there is much more at play here. This will not go well for chen, for which I am glad. hopefully he sits in prison for a few years.

Originally posted by antonia
Finders Keepers. Remember that old line? Finding something someone left at a bar does not equal stealing it. Mislaid property=different rules. Stealing equates the intent to take something from someone KNOWING it is theirs.

You're right, apple has to prove that the iphone is stolen by someone, and chen awares that it is stolen. Besides, the raid is probably illegal. A subpoena is suffice, a raid is not necessary.

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by antonia

 

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the item as a prototype containing patented technology unreleased to market, there is much more at play here. This will not go well for chen, for which I am glad. hopefully he sits in prison for a few years.

Nope, there are no distinctions for the type of item in question. If the item is clearly labeled then yes, you might be right but, it did not say "Prototype: Property of Apple". As for the patent issue, they are not reproducing this technology so that doesn't apply. A patent just gives one the exclusive right to produce a certain technology in a specific way.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


Chen knowingly cracked open a prototype and published the internal and external details on the web blog Gizmodo. As the prototype itself may in fact be stolen, this constitutes an unlawful reveal of trade secrets that may provide an unfair advantage to its competitors and thus be detrimental to Apple.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but what Gizmodo did was illegal, and I sincerely hope that they pursue this in the courts. I'd love to see that biased tripe-rag get shut down.

Yeah except all that depends on the phone being stolen which it wasn't. Apple screwed up by not taking the phone back, it's their mistake all the way. No crime by Chen or the founder but money speaks more than the rule of law.

reply to post by PsykoOps


You'd be interested to know, then, that Apple likely has nothing to do with this.

It is the courts investigating on their own. Apple could refuse to press any charges, and the courts would still investigate due to the suspicion the phone can be considered stolen goods.

And I really hope they find Chen guilty and throw him in the slammer.

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by antonia

 

Chen knowingly cracked open a prototype and published the internal and external details on the web blog Gizmodo.

That's not a crime.

As the prototype itself may in fact be stolen, this constitutes an unlawful reveal of trade secrets that may provide an unfair advantage to its competitors and thus be detrimental to Apple.

Except it was not stolen according to the person who sold Chen the phone. That person got in contact with Apple and tried to give them the phone. When they refused to take it they had no more claim to the item. that's how mislaid property works. It's ridiculous they even raided Chen's house.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but what Gizmodo did was illegal, and I sincerely hope that they pursue this in the courts. I'd love to see that biased tripe-rag get shut down.

I'm already shown you the law regarding this (scroll up). It's quite clear, if you lose it and don't go back to get it then it's not yours anymore. Theft is KNOWINGLY taking an item that belongs to someone else. The original finder of the phone did not "knowingly" take it (as in stealing it). Apple hasn't even accused that man of stealing it. Considering he called them and they brushed him off I get the impression they just didn't care if he had it or didn't believe him. Either way their response meant they didn't care what happened to the property therefore he could rightfully keep it. if you found my shoes then called me and I said I essentially didn't care you could rightfully keep my shoes and I couldn't charge you with anything.

As for it being a prototype, it doesn't make a whit of difference. Unless the guy had started making phones using the same technologies they had patented. Somehow I don't see this guy making phones in his basement. It's not a question of liking or disliking Apple. The case law for this kind of crap is pretty clear as it's actually happened before. They had no right to take Chen or his property.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by antonia]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah except all that depends on the phone being stolen which it wasn't. Apple screwed up by not taking the phone back, it's their mistake all the way. No crime by Chen or the founder but money speaks more than the rule of law.

Unless theres a video from the establishment it was lost in of someone actually swiping it from the apple guy then its another story. Also if there is some doubt the police may investigate and if they find ties to chen and the so called finder than what you got is a very bad situation. But hey I hope it is all that everyone thinks and that chen is not guilty of any crimes and apple seduced the pooch and everyone is cool. We'll see

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by antonia

 

Chen knowingly cracked open a prototype and published the internal and external details on the web blog Gizmodo. As the prototype itself may in fact be stolen, this constitutes an unlawful reveal of trade secrets that may provide an unfair advantage to its competitors and thus be detrimental to Apple.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but what Gizmodo did was illegal, and I sincerely hope that they pursue this in the courts. I'd love to see that biased tripe-rag get shut down.

You can only unlawfully reveal trade secrets when you have stolen (which this is not) or you have signed an agreement that you would not disclose trade secrets (which he did not). He is not bound to any secrecy.

If he goes to jail over this, then it signifies that the America that our forefathers fought and died for is dead. Facism will have finally won out.

Perhaps the US would do better to amputate the gangrenous state of California and prevent its spread?

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Considering Gizmodo banned me for questioning the journalistic integrity of the detailed article they wrote on the guy who lost the phone (They even took snapshots of his facebook for christsake), I couldn't care less.

Gizmodo writers are not journalists, in any sense of the word. You'll note they are not allowing any comments on their article regarding the warrant. They are simply bloggers who close their platform to anyone that does not agree with them or questions them.

In this case, I couldn't care less about this. Gizmodo is not protected under the law they are trying to be, and I sincerely hope they are firmly reprimanded, if not arrested.

ahhhh...now this makes sense. I started on page 2, and was trying to figure out why you had it in so badly for Gizmodo when it is obvious that they not only didn't break the law, but have had the rights of Chen violated.

So i come back to page 1 to see if you explain yourself any better. I will be darned if you didn't.

That is among the most childish things I have ever seen from an ATS staffer (no, you aren't a mod, but an archivist and wear an ATS badge).

Shame on you. Shame on you for being willing to sell this mans civil rights out just so you can find some revenge for them ignoring you.

Absolutely, shame on you.

He'll be set up using the "he had a massive amount of porn on his computers and..." ploy.

reply to post by antonia


Nothing will matter in your debate with this person. He isn't being ruled by reason and logic. He is being ruled by hate and vengeance. Don't waste your breath.

Originally posted by mikelee
He'll be set up using the "he had a massive amount of porn on his computers and..." ploy.

Not if The People pre-empt it by getting the word out about this newfound tactic.