As most of you know by now, police entered Jason Chen’s home, seizing his computers and gadgets. While the investigation’s in process, we can’t comment much on this. We stand by our colleague and our coverage of the lost iPhone. Here’s the background and some links to the more substantive external reports.
Background information
• This Is Apple’s iPhone
• The Next iPhone, Dissected
• How Apple lost the next iPhone
• A Letter: Apple Wants Its Secret iPhone Back
• Police Seize Jason Chen’s Computers
External Reports
May 2, 2010
• A Lost iPhone Shows Apple’s Churlish Side [New York Times]
April 30, 2010
• Newspaper Guild Executive Council Condemns Gizmodo Raid [Newspaper Guild]
April 29, 2010
• iPhone Finder Regrets His ‘Mistake’ [Wired]
April 28, 2010
• Jon Stewart Slams Apple Over Its Handling of Gizmodo Case [GawkerTV]
• Apple May Have Traced iPhone to Finder’s Address [Wired]
• Gizmodo’s iPhone Saga: Fact vs. Speculation [PC World]
• Keith Olbermann on police raid
• Apple May Have Traced iPhone to Finder’s Address [Wired]
• We did not break into the home of the iPhone prototype seller [Fake Steve Jobs]
April 27, 2010
• Computers Seized From Home of Blogger in iPhone Inquiry [New York Times]
• What is Apple Inc’s role in task force investigating iPhone case? [Yahoo News]
• EFF Lawyer: Seizure of Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Violates State and Federal Law [Laptop Magazine]
• Expert: Invalid Warrant Used in Raid on iPhone Reporter’s Home [Wired]
• Understanding the legal issues that are clouding the Gizmodo iPhone raid [ZDNet]
• iPhone Leak Investigation Pauses As DA Ponders Gizmodo Shield Law Defence [TechCrunch]
• Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Seized Amid iPhone Flap [Bloomberg]
• Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s house raided, computers seized [ZDNet]
• OverREACTing: Dissecting the Gizmodo Warrant [Electronic Frontier Foundation]
• Apple asked for ‘lost’ iPhone criminal probe [San Jose Business Journal]
• Dilbert: That Lost 4G Phone [Dilbert]



















Vinny
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 7:41 AMCmon Guys. You really went too far and messed with Gray Powell – it’s Karma. Now you’re getting owned.
Adam
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 9:28 AMThat’s crap. You know we all come here to find out about new & leaked products, we have all been hoping that one day this would happen. If Giz didn’t break the story someone else would have. Just because it’s the new iPhone, Apple think they can do whatever they want.
Apple don’t have the right to break the law just because someone lost an iPhone that wasn’t meant to be leaked out yet. No other company has pulled this crap when there products were leaked on Giz or Engadget & it happens almost everyday.
Apple just need to get over themselves and move on.
Joshua
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 5:13 PMI am Big Apple Fan for 20 years,
I work in Advertising,
Apple have played this chance for a
great Publicity Stunt all wrong.
Now they really do look like an Evil Corporation.
Apple, have taken so much code and design from Open Source
over the years and rebadged it’s own. Now it’s acting like a spoilt brat because they can’t control their staff.
simulacrum
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 10:48 AMI thought outing Gray Powell was a poor decision (even if it did work in his favour in the long run). But what’s happening now is ridiculous. Apple sits on the steering committee of the special squad that executed the search warrant ffs. And wasn’t REACT started to investigate these new novel hi-tech crimes? .. What are they doing executing a search warrant in a case of allegedly basic theft? Smells fishy
.. Talk about conflict of interest…
Greg
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 11:02 AMI hope Gizmodo takes Apple to the cleaners for instigating an illegal police search of this reporter’s stuff.
Apple should burn for this move. Their desperate tactics just make them look like whiny little children. Hopefully it permanently tarnishes their reputation.
Frank, Brisbane Australia
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 12:09 PMGizmodo did the wrong thing and they know they did. Prior to the purchase of this stolen phone, they knew the owner but they chose the low road, paid for it and splashed it all over the world.
Apple has the right to protect its product and has the right to control how and when it gets introduced to the world as does every other company.
Whomever is on the Gawker legal team made a serious mistake.
dzc12
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 1:22 PMFrank, we don’t live in an eye for an eye world.
Steve
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 12:29 PMIm sorry, are there any real legal reasons why this is being investigated? I mean, what can they charge him on? couldnt he just claim ignorance??
provided he doesnt slip up and say, I bought it knowing it was stolen then there can be no charges, right?
Steve
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 12:31 PMis this going to start a whole new “release mitnick” thing? cos Im not going to use the internet again if it does..
Dunder
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 2:43 PMFact is that he bought a stolen product, which is illegal whether your a journalist or not. He knew it had been stolen, or at least that the person selling it had no right too, and so he should take the consequences.
Adam
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 4:40 PMIf you read all the articles you would know that the guy tried to return it to Apple but the call center thought it was a hoax.
At the time Giz brought the phone there was no way for them to know it was a “real” iPhone or a fake as I’m sure many people have tried claim before.
It still doesn’t give a company the right to walk all over people. I love my iPhone but this is making me think about purchasing the new iPhone or going the way of the Droid, which is the total opposite of Apples philosophy.
Geoff
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 2:58 PMAll this weighs against Apple when I come to replacing my current iPhone.
marie
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 4:14 PMShowed my 12 year old son your iPhone scoop a few days ago – extraordinary to read the latest re this today in Australia’s major daily. The power of the big corporations, their preparedness to utilise it and the bureaucrat’s zeal to enforce it. Plain wrong.
Darin Collison
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 4:19 PMUmmm… I’m not overly familiar with US law. However, in Australia, there are literally hundreds of pawnshops selling thousands of phones. Many of which are quite possibly of ‘doubtful’ provenance. When was the last time a pawnshop owner was raided and had a lifetime of records confiscated?
I don’t think that Apple is the problem here. The problem is a police system that actually went ahead and made that raid! It’s a mobile phone, for chrissakes’ – surely there is some kind of enormous overreaction going on here?
Stephen
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 9:59 PMThe phone wasn’t the finder’s to sell, Gizmodo knew that it wasn’t the finder’s to sell but yet they still bought it.
If there’s such a thing as “receiving stolen goods” in the California like there is in Australia, Gizmodo and the iPhone’s finder are (quite rightly) in trouble.
dcash
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 3:38 PMseriously dude, have you not read anything? The finder tried to return it to Apple but they didn’t want a bar of it. The phone had no owner at that stage, finders keepers. Gizmodo bought a phone, which could of turned out to be a Chinese knock off, no harm done. Unfortunately for Apple, they didn’t recover it and its turned out to be pretty spot on.
Mordd
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 5:11 PMIf I needed one more reason to never buy an Apple product in my life this is it. The fact that police blithely violated shield laws in the seizure of items from Jason Chen’s home is appalling enough, but the fact that Apple lodged this allegation with law enforcement AFTER gizmodo has returned the phone to them is just absolutely malicious and desperately pathetic of Apple. The phone was never stolen, it was lost, found, someone tried to return it to Apple and couldn’t, so they sold it to Gizmodo, only weeks later did Apple actually claim the property as theirs. I would think that considering Apple initially refused to claim the found iPhone as belonging to them, then you can’t claim a theft has occured.
Terry dactyl
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 11:09 PMThe search warrant was legal. Read the lawyer’s letter – journalists are exempt from “contempt” not the commission of a felony as cited in the warrant.
US definition of Contempt of Court reads as:
Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom. Courts have great leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about the distinctions between types of contempt. Generally, however, contempt proceedings are categorized as civil or criminal, and direct or indirect.
Civil contempt generally involves the failure to perform an act that is ordered by a court as a means to enforce the rights of individuals or to secure remedies for parties in a civil action. For instance, parents who refuse to pay court-ordered Child Support may be held in contempt of court under civil contempt. Criminal contempt involves behavior that assaults the dignity of the court or impairs the ability of the court to conduct its work. Criminal contempt can occur within a civil or criminal case. For example, criminal contempt occurs when a witness or spectator shouts or insults the judge during a trial. A civil contempt usually is a violation of the rights of one person, whereas a criminal contempt is an offense against society. Courts use civil contempt as a coercive power, wielding it only to ask that the contemnor comply with the courts’ actions. Criminal contempt is punitive; courts use it to punish parties who have impaired the courts’ functioning or bruised their dignity.
A direct contempt is an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court. Shouting in the courtroom or refusing to answer questions for a judge or attorney under oath is a direct contempt. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, but its intention is also to belittle, mock, obstruct, interrupt, or degrade the court and its proceedings. Attempting to bribe a district attorney is an example of an indirect contempt. Publishing any material that results in a contempt charge is an indirect contempt. Other kinds of indirect contempt include preventing process service, improperly communicating to or by jurors, and withholding evidence.
Andy
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 7:45 PMAs each day passes Apple appears less like a tech company and more like some weird (and paranoid) sect or cult.
Ladder
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 8:09 PMI hope Gizmodo gets sued to oblivion.
Michael
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 10:35 PMShame on you Apple! I own many Apple products as does my business. It does not feel right owning Apple products now. If Apple can force the police to break the law, how are we protected from them snooping on us ………
Jack
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 10:48 PMI’m so sick of reading “OMG GIZ YOU TOTALLY HAD IT COMING” posts… Gizmodo reported on what may or may not even BE the next iPhone to grace our presence, and they did it tactfully. Sure, Chen may have used checkbook journalism, however thats hardly out of place these days. When apple asked for their device back, Giz handed it over without question. This brow beating by law enforcement who want in on the action is both illegal and, well… downright stupid. Gizmodo did NOT step out of line, in my mind they further solidified their standing as a “real” journalistic source of information in the world. They don’t have to be the new york times to run in the world of cut throat news and online media cycles.
ij
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 12:58 PMGizmodo purchased a device they had no right to purchase, and the seller had no right to sell. They knew this when they handed over the money. They then admitted to doing so. They are getting exactly what they deserve.
MDolley
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 12:10 PMI think Gizmodo did the wrong thing by purchasing the phone. If they had met with the person who found the phone, interviewed him and even taken pictures of it I don’t think there would be an issue and I think those events would have been covered under the shield laws.
The problem is that they purchased a device that they believed to belong to Apple, “Why we think it’s definitely real” was a section of the original article
I would also question the legality of disassembling a device that doesn’t belong to them
Matt
Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 3:28 PMYes.. But is is a Phone… Huge over reaction. Well done Giz of getting this Leaked. Apple = Owned