Source w/ video

Jon Stewart'* Show was always a favorite of mine before I puled the plug on my TV several years ago, but unlike what seems like a majority of Americans who cant tell the real world from news based satire, I know what is and treat it for what it is.

The whole IPod thing still isn't unraveled. Was it lost? Why does the editor say he pay $5000 for it? Why would the dumbass do something that illegal on the net??? Wherever he got the phone and the circumstances, he clearly committed a felony under California Law and I don't see the retrieval of their property or the arrest of Gizmodo'* Editor as extreme. The phone has proprietary mechanisms and software worth Millions of Dollars. This wasn't just an internet gimmick and I agree with Apples decision to use their legal rights to the fullest extent of the law. BTW, here'* the Law that gave the DA'* office the right to recover the property.

I cite CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485.

"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 Staff of Gizmodo knew what they had, and decided to get some publicity for themselves and ignored the Law. They put the property on public display and got what they deserved.

The iPhone was returned to Apple per Apple'* request. It had been stolen when a techie from Apple had one and accidentally left it lay at a bar. I'm assuming that Gizmodo then purchased it from the thief for 5k. There wasn't absolutely any reason though to raid the editor'* house, the phone had been returned. Apple just wants to flex it muscles.

Read the rest of my post above you. It all didn't take the first time. They committed a felony with property worth Millions. They got what their unthinking lame butts deserved. That phone had proprietary info and not yet released electronics in it. I'd flex my muscle to if I spent all the money of R&D to create it to have some punk internet site do as they please, against the law, with it.

Still no reason to raid his house. He returned the product. What do they think he did, manufactured a clone of it? The pictures and videos he had were already on the internet, and knowing how people are (especially from 4chan) they were all downloaded and splattered to every end of the earth immediately. Not like they could prevent those from getting out.

It was the proprietary software in the phone Apple was concerned with. Which Chen was more than capable of removing. He committed a felony regardless thinking he could get away with it under a California'* Journalist'* "Shield" Law. Guess the State Judge that signed the no knock order felt otherwise. So, you commit felony theft, splash it all over the internet, do who knows what with it afterward and then cry because your house is raided? Gizmodo'* Parent Company Gawker has been smearing Apple for some time using quasi legal tactics that has them into several lawsuits with Apple. What this boils down to is a Internet Company that operates online versions of "The National Enquirer" thinking they can operate rougely and above the Law under the guise of Journalism. As I read tonight the plot thickens. According the lawyer for the person now identified ad the one who found it, Chen and Company assured him he wasn't violate Law "leasing" it to them for "technical review". He and his lawyer are cooperating fully with the authorities. LA'* finest are going to cover their bases and prolly throw conspiracy into the mix. And now Wired.com has notified them that Chen had offered them and others a chance to get it on it for cash. You can veil this anyway you want, Gizmodo has been on a track of cheap journalistic harassment, and elevated it to accomplices of property theft, tech theft, and industrial espionage. And trying to sell their combined crimes for a profit. Wired.com'* claim pretty much rules out a journalistic defense. It will be interesting to say the least how all involved spin it and the end result.