Posted on 04/26/2010 4:17:17 PM PDT by Smogger
Cops break open front door and seize computers in investigation of lost iPhone prototype.
It looks like the police are taking this pretty seriously.
Armed with a search warrant, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team broke into a private home Friday night and seized computers and other electronic equipment, according to a report posted Monday on Gizmodo.
The home belonged to Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who published photographs and videos of a top secret prototype iPhone left at a bar by a young Apple engineer. Gizmodo has admitted paying $5,000 for the device, which it turned over on request to Apple (AAPL), but only after cracking it open and publishing details about its parts and specifications.
It's not clear at this time whether Apple or the local district attorney initiated the investigation. Apple has not replied to a request for clarification.
The search warrant, signed by a San Mateo County Superior Court judge, said the equipment seized may have been used to commit a felony.
"My wife and I drove to dinner and got back at about 9:45," begins Chen's description of the event. "When I got home I noticed that the garage door was half open, and when I tried to open it, officers came out and said they had a warrant to search my house and any vehicles on the property 'in my control.' Then they made me place my hands behind my head and searched me to make sure I had no weapons or sharp objects on me."
Photocopies of the warrant and a list of the equipment seized (including one box of business cards for "suspect chen") are available here. Chen's full statement below the fold.
(Excerpt) Read more at tech.fortune.cnn.com ...
Bingo. Gizmodo exposed the new iPhone ahead of the release. Then the progressive, zen, vegetarian, pacifistic, enlightened, longtime totalitarian Jobs went into his (almost boringly common) two-year-old screaming rage because control of the release of his latest greatest thing was denied to him, and so he demanded personalized, Hillary-level punishment. According to long established communistic principles, he then used his billionaire status to manipulate the government to get a judge to okay a police raid on the innocent person who pissed him off, to not only punish that person, but to warn, through implied terrorism, the same or worse to any reporter who might dare scoop him in the future. Now he'll have Apple attorneys file massive civil suits and pursue this until Gizmodo is destroyed.
Welcome to Silicon Valley, where everyone is happy, peaceful, enlightened and obedient - or else.
A serial number on a $3,000 piece of computer equipment is rather different than a serial number on a $5 bill.
Some people do know the serial numbers of all their $5 bills: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/
A constructive bailment occurs when circumstances create an obligation for the bailee to protect the goods. With a constructive bailment, the bailment is implied by law. In the case of a tenant, roommate, or boyfriend or girlfriend abandoning property, an involuntary bailment might be created. Depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, the landlord or remaining tenants may have a duty to care for the property and return it to the abandoning tenant.
A bailment may also be a gratuitous bailment for which there is no payment. A gratuitous bailment occurs when someone finds lost property and protects it himself or places it in the custody of another, such as the police, until the lawful owner can be located.
If a bailment agreement is set for a fixed term and the bailor fails to claim the property at the end of the term, he may be deemed to have abandoned the property. Alternatively, the voluntary bailment be converted into an involuntary bailment. However, if there is no clear term of bailment agreed upon, the bailor will not be deemed to have abandoned the property unless the bailee gives him notice that he no longer wishes to possess and protect the property.
http://contracts.lawyers.com/Bailment.html
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.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485
Leaving your cell phone on a barstool is not a “bailment agreement” entered-into between you and the bar owner, but at least you’re getting closer to the real issue.
For example, checking your coat at the door probably is (I only say probably) because most places have that “not responsible for lost items or damage” sign.
and # 2, failing to instruct their official switchboard to accept their phone back, in case the honest person that found it, called in and tried to return the phone.
That's just laughable. How many "official" switchboards does Apple have?
We had a case in Chicago some years ago where a bag of cash literally "fell out of" an armored car right in the downtown area. Some guy found it, and kept it (until he was caught). If you listen to some of the "legal theorists" here, if only he had called the bank's 1-800 number in Kansas City and someone blew him off, the bag of cash is rightfully his.
You just gotta keep coming up with these really stupid analogies don't you? No one took Apple's smartphone and used it to shot anyone with it or used it to bash anyone over the haed with it. The phone was supposed to be a secret phone. The moment you leave it openly in some bar, it's not a secret anymore. Anyone in the bar, the cleaners whoever can examine it and see what it's about and let out the secrats about it. It's your fault and your own carelessness and stupidity that made you leave a supposedly secret phone where anyone could examine it. Don’t blame anyone else but yourself for being careless and foolish.
Why don't you tell me?
If a company has lost the secret prototype of their most important current product, and the guy that found it repeatedly calls the company headquarters to try and return it, and the company just keeps refusing to take it back, while denying that they even lost the product in the first place, who's fault is it?
Every reasonable effort was made to return this phone. It was Apple which insisted on not taking the phone back.
True. Nevertheless, I still don't know the serial November of even my laptops, let alone my cell phones.
And I sure as heck have never noted the serial # of any banknote I have owned. It doesn't spend enough time with me for me to bother noting down the serial number of bank notes I use.
If I drop a banknote on the street while taking something from my pocket(and I have), I know I'll never see the money again(and I don't), and whoever finds it, is probably going to keep it.
No one took Apple's smartphone and used it to shot anyone with it or used it to bash anyone over the haed with it.
Selling something that does not belong to you is illegal behavior*, much like shooting someone with a gun that was negligently left behind by someone else. And it doesn't matter if the cops failed to exercise a search warrant during regular business hours, or how much you hate Smith & Wesson.
_____
And that is what a court must determine one way or the other--and I will remind you again, claiming that you called a 1-800 number is not an affirmative defense.
comment below the line was meant to have the second asterisk
was there a “taking with intent to deprive”?
There is no “intent to find and publish a review” law.
nobody said he owned it. when he paid 5k he mere bought the found item with all the rights and duties thereon. He had an obligation to attempt return the item per calif law. This was done. He had an obligation to return the item when the legit owner requested it, that was done.
The real question here: was that a “no review” law violated?
Not even close.
Shooting somebody at random is a crime, whether it's your gun or someone else gun. The ownership of the gun has nothing to do with whether it's a crime or not. The one who pulled the trigger is committing a crime even if he has a license to the gun.
Selling a phone you own is not a crime(unlike shooting someone with a gun you own). Selling a phone you found after some guy had left it behind, when your attempts to return the phone to the presumed owner, have been repeatedly rejected by the presumed owner, who continued to insist he never lost any phone in the first place, is a totally different matter.
You really crack me up. You first of all compare some phone to America's nuclear secrets, then you graduate on to comparing this me-too phone to America's Abrams tanks, now you say its like someone shooting someone else in the head?
Say, do you have violent dreams when you go to bed at night?
1. property law,Have I missed any?
2. tort law, and
3. simple analogies.
# 1. Apple smart phone is as important as the secret codes to America’s nuclear arsenal.
# 2. Apple's smartphone is like the Abrams tank
# 3. Shooting some innocent guy with a stolen gun(which is a crime whether you own the gun or not), is the same as finding a phone that someone left in a bar, then refused to take back when the finder tried to return it to him.
Any more “wisdoms” you care to share with us?
Yes, thanks for asking: I can tell by the points you have ignored in your list the number of points for which you have no response, other than to talk nonsense.
And I must admit, hanging you hat on the argument that "he tried to call Apple" is a novel approach to the law that I had not considered. Please let me know if you ever try to make that argument before a judge. I'll fly in for the laughs.
(The gun wasn't stolen, by the way, nice try).
In other words, you are not even going to try to defend your ridiculous “Apple smart phone is like stealing US nuclear secrets” meme, I take it?
“”he tried to call Apple” is a novel approach to the law that I had not considered”
When you find a product, and identify who the product belongs to, with a phone number, you call the owners and try to return the product(if you are honest), which is what the finder this in this case..REPEATEDLY, all to no avail. Apple just wouldn't take their phone back. They had no problem calling the cps to go break some guy's doors down though.
“Please let me know if you ever try to make that argument before a judge.”
Now why don't we see how far Appple gets with this case in court eh? Especially with the guy that found the phone. Should be a lot of fun in court when the trial starts(if Apple is ready to go to trial that is). These Gestapo tactics have done wonders for Apple's PR so far. Let's hope the case goes to full trial. Google Android phone makers(who are busy grabbing market share even as we speak) will be chuckling with glee at the free PR bonanza.
“(The gun wasn't stolen, by the way, nice try).”
Ummm..you implied it was, just like the phone was left behind by someone..as in right here, in your post # 132:
“much like shooting someone with a gun that was negligently left behind by someone else”
When you find a product, and identify who the product belongs to, with a phone number, you call the owners and try to return the product(if you are honest), which is what the finder this in this case..REPEATEDLY, all to no avail.
"I found this gun and called S&W repeatedly, but . . . ."
They had no problem calling the cps to go break some guy's doors down though.
There, there . . . that is the reason you're upset, I know. Can you see me next week? We can talk about it some more. The Apple Gestapo won't bother you.
Ummm..you implied it was, just like the phone was left behind by someone..as in right here, in your post # 132: “much like shooting someone with a gun that was negligently left behind by someone else”
So the Apple phone was stolen the moment the other guy found it on the barstool. I wasn't even arguing that, but thanks for admitting you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.