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.







Fresh-Faced Recruit
Joined: Mar 2010
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.