Jason Chen’s computers seized
In case you’ve missed it, a working prototype of the next iteration of Apple’s all-conquering iPhone was discovered in a bar a couple of weeks ago made it into the hands of Gizmodo journalist Jason Chen, who blogged about the discovery and the actual impressions he’d gleaned of the product itself before returning the phone to Apple. So far, so ordinary – just another leak of a tech product.
But Apple aren’t your typical tech company. There’s no cosily informal company blog or Twitter feed where Steve Jobs shares his thoughts with the world. Just a steely and impenetrable PR machine that works to keep Apple’s secrets secret and journalists strictly on-message. Witness the blanket silence that preceded the launch of the iPad. Even though most speculators were right on the money as to what the product actually was, Apple’s ruthlessly imposed wall of silence meant that there was no confirmation – not even a hint – until Jobs stepped out on stage with the thing in his hands.
Apple have invested millions of dollars into the design and engineering of this thing so you can imagine how well they’d react to waking up and finding it photographed, taken apart and discussed in detail on a popular tech blog.
Even now there is no comment from Apple themselves on this story.
When Chen returned the new iPhone to Apple he included a little note pleading with the company to go easy on the employee who’d originally misplaced the phone. Subsequently, that employee has been revealed to be Gray Powell – an engineer working on the iPhone’s Baseband Software which enables the iPhone to actually make calls. He is said to have misplaced the phone in a bar while (presumably while using the phone for “in the wild” testing) celebrating his birthday and inadvertently left it on a stool.
Whoops.
Gizmodo, having attempted to return the phone covered the story and waited for Apple to request its return. All of which went quite smoothly until Chen himself arrived home on Friday night to find the door to his house broken in and the police busily confiscating all of his computer equipment.
As Chen is classed a journalist, Gizmodo have claimed that he is protected from Police powers to some degree by the so-called ‘shield rule’ which allows journalists to protect stories and their sources – particularly where the sources may be implicated in criminal activity. As it stands, it appears that Chen is being investigated primarily because Gizmodo bought the iPhone prototype for $5000 and therefore knowingly bought stolen goods. This is, of course, a criminal offence in its own right, and it is by no means clear that the Shield Law would apply in such a case.
After initially thinking “Apple are such bastards,” I’ve come round to thinking that Gizmodo have really played their hand poorly here.
After initially thinking “Apple are such bastards,” I’ve come round to thinking that Gizmodo have really played their hand poorly here. Apple have invested millions of dollars into the design and engineering of this thing so you can imagine how well they’d react to waking up and finding it photographed, taken apart and discussed in detail on a popular tech blog. While the insight this offered to rivals hardly classes as industrial espionage (you try to back-engineer an iPhone from the grainy pictures!) there’s enough clues about features and functionality to wake up the engineers at their competitors .
And Gizmodo’s story of the iPhone’s acquisition is, ultimately, just that – a story. Other than the Apple engineer they hung out to dry and Chen himself, the participants’ identities and the real timeline of events are unknown – leaving just one salient fact: they paid 5 grand to get the phone from someone they knew it didn’t belong to. In order to get a warrant from the judge, the police have to have good cause for thinking that a criminal act has taken place so it seems that the judge either isn’t buying that particular story or that the simple act of admitting paying money is prima facie evidence of buying stolen goods and enough to trigger a warrant.
Right now it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that when this story is finally told in full – probably in a courtroom – the simple tale of a misplaced iPhone prototype will lead to something a whole lot more complicated.
12 Comments
James - http://www.dolphinpromotions.co.uk/
From what I have been reading there is not a great deal that can be done against Gizmodo and Chen. They have clearly weighed up the risk and reward factors and gone ahead with it. Apparently their traffic spiked at about 22mil hits a day or something like that after the story. There are now getting all this extra press.
While it could be argued what Giz has done is not ethical, I would not say they have played their hand poorly.
Tom
Stolen goods? I believe every person who had their hands on it attempted to return it to Apple, with no luck. It was found on a barstool, therefore no theft occurred.
The police have no grounds and Apple is just giving itself a bad image by sicking the police on them.
George Bounacos - http://www.sbmteam.com
Nice coverage and analysis. I had read several blogs & news articles about this, of course, but hadn’t seen the employee identified.
I think I agree that the purchase of the tangible item (rather than information, which some journalists do pay for) is a dangerous practice.
Traffic is wonderful, especially if it converts to some form of rate card adjustment or brand equity. But I’m convinced that were we to sit around a shop having a beverage 2 years from now that a group of online marketers would be hard pressed to remember the details of the case. I can’t imagine the one traffic spike is worth the hassle in that case.
Now, had Chen bought something that showed Apple was operating in some improper way and then ran the story, I would applaud his actions and possibly contribute to his defense fund. But how does any journo-blogger differ from a simple case of industrial espionage in the eyes of the law? Had a Google employee purchased this phone and blogged about its features while his colleagues studied the item, would we view this differently? Does motive matter?
tiny tim
Fuck Apple. Fuck them in their steely corporate ass… but you can’t buy stolen property.
Gizmodo fucked up and someone is going to jail.
Next time you commit a crime, try not bloggin’ about it… if you can’t do the time, STFU
Jason Chen’s computers seized | IT Laboratory - pingback
[…] Jason Chen’s computers seized is a post from: Dave Naylor’s SEO Blog. […]
Andy - http://www.squarerobot.com
I would disagree… the long term effects on Gizmodo will be immense. While all the other tech blogs are invited to product launch events, it’s likely that poor old Giz will be sitting at home trying to scrape together information from other blogs.
Also, if they get a criminal judgement against Chen on this, there’s a good chance they’ll be going after Gizmodo with a civil suit. I’m pretty sure the Apple legal machine is bigger and better than the Gawker team and could keep them tied up in the courts for years. Just because they can.
Clint
From what I’ve been reading Chen committed a felony. If you read the California law, the journalist shield doesn’t apply when there is a crime committed.
Bronson - http://www.bronsonharrington.com
Wow, that seems a little heavy handed to have the guys breaking down your door and seizing equipement.
If that’s how this plays out it sucks for everyone, no win-win situation here.
The moral of the story? Next time you discover a funky new Apple product lying around, throw it to the ground and smash it into pieces so noone gets into trouble. 🙂
Jokes aside, I think that thissituation could definitely have been handled a little more tenderly.
neuro - http://hauntingthunder.demon.co.uk
James.
The problem is in the prissy world of US media behaving like the NOW does in the UK wasnt going to work as J random tech blog doesnt have the political power and cash to ride out the storm and being run by a non us citizen wont help either nor will the terible way the destroyed the poor guy at apples carear and life which has alienated 99.9% of tech pundits.(who have a vested interest in doing down a competitor)
Chis
Doesn’t seem to me to be a great difference in how they obtained the iPhone and how the Telegraph obtained details of MP’s expenses – clearly different countries with different laws, but ethically similar situation as both were stolen material I belive.
Edgewater Isle - http://www.edgewaterisle.com
Just wondering who the judge is. Can’t quite read the signature on the search warrant.
And can’t match up what I can make out of it from the San Mateo County’s court web site to a judge:
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/news/news/2009/120109.pdf
Is it Elizabeth Lee? Don’t know. Shouldn’t we be able to know which judge signed an order to break into someone’s house?
Andrew@BloggingGuide - http://webuildyourblog.com
There was something that was breached here. And I think both guys are at fault. Gizmodo was careless even though he knew the gadget is somewhat important. The journalist should have returned it promptly because it’s not his. Journalists should know when to talk and when not to.