
The Official Verdict in the stolen iPhone Case (Calacanis) - rpledge
http://www.iphoneqna.com/consumer-electronics-iphone/the-official-verdict-in-the-stolen-iphone-case
======
milkshakes
For the tl;dr crowd:

The opening:

 _I am not a lawyer and I do not have all the facts about the stolen iPhone,
but I'm not going to let that stop me from passing judgement on this case._

The end:

 _In summary:

a) Gawker/Nick Denton = guilty b) Jason Chen = guilty (of being gullible) c)
iPhone seller = guilty d) Using Shield Law defense = lame e) Gestapo Cops =
very lame _

~~~
jasonmcalacanis
Everyone is entitled to their opinion... and to having it slaughtered on HN!

------
rtrunck
Others (e.g., techcrunch.com) have said that they would have published about
the iPhone prototype but not have paid for it. This wouldn't make any
difference. The California statute includes buying, acquiring, POSSESSING, or
Concealing stolen property a crime. Money need not have changed hands, at all.

~~~
anigbrowl
There's a little room for flexibility here. Engadget published the finder's
photos of it on 4-17 - apparently he sent photos to several media outlets in
hope that one would reward him for it. Although it would have been more
appropriate to forward any such communication to the police, if Gizmodo had
got it, taken some pics or video that did not go any farther that what was
already published, and then sent or brought it over to Apple HQ - the same
county Jason Chen lives in - they could legitimately argue the $5000 was for
the story of how the guy got it, the legal doctrine of prior restraint gave
them the right to publish, and they had carried out their duty to reunite
Apple with their property. And I think they'd have been legally and ethically
OK.

It's the dissection, its publication, and the withholding of the device from
its owners - even after they called to request its return - that has gotten
them into real trouble.

------
zaidf
Isn't a "leak" technically also stolen information? Someone decides to give
out information that is meant to be private.

And Jason, you would have _really_ turned down this opportunity if it knocked
on your door while you were running Weblogs?

~~~
alanh
Legally this is covered by "trade secret" law, not theft. (IANAL)

------
absconditus
Official?

~~~
bravura
I do not think that word means what you think it means.

