Police looking into next-gen iPhone theft allegations

updated 04:00 pm EDT, Fri April 23, 2010

Apple may get criminal case against iPhone thief


The process that recovered the next-generation iPhone prototype has triggered a police investigation, an official said on Friday. Apple has reportedly talked to the Santa Clara County district attorney for a preliminary look into whether or not recovering and selling the iPhone to Gizmodo amounted to theft. It's unclear whether the case would target the technology news site itself, the original finder of the Apple prototype, or both.

The CNET source was careful to note that this doesn't equate to actual criminal charges and that a case might not go ahead otherwise.

Most of Apple's legal grounds center around section 485 of the California Penal Code, which declares theft to include any incident in which a finder has an idea as to the actual owner but doesn't take "reasonable and just" steps to return the goods. The anonymous source of the lost iPhone is known to have identified the Apple engineer through the Facebook app but, oddly, claimed to have only called Apple's phone support rather than leave the phone with the bar, visit a retail store or even the Apple headquarters itself.

Gizmodo could face indirect charges if the original attempt is determined to be theft, as state law also forbids knowingly receiving stolen property. The site has repeatedly claimed that it didn't know the iPhone was legitimate until after it had the goods in hand, but it's not known whether it was told about the Facebook evidence or other details before or after the iPhone was in hand.

Neither Apple, Santa Clara officials nor Gizmodo parent company Gawker have commented on the claims, which could have an impact on future leaks at not just Apple but other companies. Pre-release leaks are common at many companies, but few of these ever involve prototypes leaving the possession of those allowed to use the hardware.


Share


By Electronista Staff

toggle

Previous Comments

  1. sonola777

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2010

    +17

    Gizmodo cannot claim innocence...

    here, because regardless of whether or not they thought the phone was a kirf, what they did still amounts to buying stolen goods. It might have been a fake, but is was still a stolen fake. If this goes to court they will have no legs to stand on.


  1. Parky

    Mac Elite

    Joined: Oct 1999

    +13

    Exactly

    Stolen goods are stolen, real or fake. They seem to have overlooked that!


    Comment buried. Show
  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    -15

    except

    If you purchase goods on the assumption and belief they are not stolen, you are not held to be purchasing stolen goods. Otherwise there'd be millions on eBay and Craigslist all guilty and looking at jail time.


  1. nat

    Junior Member

    Joined: Mar 2002

    +7

    except

    what's your point? gizmodo dumps 5 grand on a legit next gen iphone?

    so, a guy offers to sell you a prototype next gen iphone and he tells you it's what? a present from apple? so gizmodo can say, well, he said it was a present and he owned it, we didn't know it wasn't his?

    may well be true in the world at large but for this case that's a stretch by anyone's imagination (except - maybe yours).


  1. eclux

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2008

    +5

    no conspiracy then?

    This would appear to put a big hole in the conspiracy theory. Unless the county DA is in on the purported marketing gag as well, which seems unlikely.


    Comment buried. Show
  1. bauhaus

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2003

    -11

    waste

    This is a waste of taxpayers' money. If this was just "a phone" and not a prototype and if Apple wasn't involved, the police would have told Apple to leave them alone and be happy they got their equipment back. Though a criminal action may have occurred, criminal intent is lacking (unless you believe the common citizen is aware of all the ins and outs of post-loss actions.) Any lawyer would win this in pre-trial motions and I don't believe any DA would prosecute, so the police are wasting their time and money that could be spent elsewhere.

    Apple could pursue civil action against the other parties (and that would relieve any taxpayer spending on this sham of a case.)


  1. luckyday

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2008

    -8

    Stolen goods?

    "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."

    The individual that lost the phone is not the true owner. Apple is the true owner. He contacted Apple, and they even gave a ticket #. They snubbed him. Sounds like he made a reasonable effort to me. My guess is that the Apple rep denied it was theirs (a rep being an agent of the corporate owner).

    Not to mention, Gizmodo returned the product to Apple immediately upon proof that it belonged to them. In fact, I'd argue that all Gizmodo did was advertise a lost product so that the owner could find it ;)

    Apple screwed up. Stop crying about it and move on. The world is a better place now.


  1. bjojade

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2007

    +11

    Realistic pricing

    If they paid $5000 for a phone, they had at least SOME expectation that it was a real prototype. No way they would pay that kind of money for a clone device. That alone proves their guilt in the matter.


    Comment buried. Show
  1. luckyday

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2008

    -10

    Gizmodo

    "(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
    been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
    theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
    or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
    or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
    be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
    state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
    However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that
    this action would be in the interests of justice, the district
    attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of
    the property does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950),
    specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a
    misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not
    exceeding one year."

    The mode of culpability for this crime is "knowingly". In other others, Gizmodo would have to be practically certain that the item was stolen. Since whether or not the item was stolen depends on the actions of the finder (i.e. whether they took reasonable steps to inform the owner) and would not be fully known to Gizmodo, it would be awfully hard to to prove the relevant mode of culpability.

    In other words, Gizmodo thinking that the item may be stolen would not be sufficient. They'd have to be pretty sure. And it's clear that's not the case. Not to mention, as I said before, the returned the item to the rightful owner immediately upon verification.


    Comment buried. Show
  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    -17

    Re: except

    except
    what's your point? gizmodo dumps 5 grand on a legit next gen iphone?


    My point was the first poster stated 'buying stolen goods is buying stolen goods' and you'd have no leg to stand on. That's only true if you knowingly bought stolen goods.

    except
    04/23, 05:19pm close reply

    what's your point? gizmodo dumps 5 grand on a legit next gen iphone?

    so, a guy offers to sell you a prototype next gen iphone and he tells you it's what? a present from apple? so gizmodo can say, well, he said it was a present and he owned it, we didn't know it wasn't his?

    And if they were told it was, how are they supposed to know differently?


Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

10 Most Read

Recent Reviews

Logitech Cube

The world of mice could often be described charitably as stagnant: it's an endless sea of ergonomic shapes that assume you're sitting ...

NewerTech and Targus USB Hubs For Gifts

A useful holiday present to resolve an ongoing frustration is a multi-port hub. Whether as a stocking stuffer, Chanukah present, or an ...

X-Rite ColorMunki Photo

Color calibration is the art of tweaking your monitor so that the colors represented on screen better match real life and your printer ...

toggle

Most Commented

10 Most Discussed

 
toggle

Popular News