Last week, blogger Jason Chen of Gizmodo published an article after coming in to possession of an Apple iPhone prototype. An Apple employee lost the phone at a bar, and Chen eventually purchased the prototype from an as-of-yet unnamed source.
Gizmodo’s Jason Chen told ABC News technology reporter Becky Worley that $5,000 was paid for the device.
For Chen, the shit has hit the proverbial fan. A computer crimes task force recently seized all of his computers, a server, mobile phone, etc., and he faces possible felony charges.
An investigation appears to be underway to determine whether trade secrets were sold and whether Gizmodo was in possession of stolen property.
Says one ABC legal analyst, Dean Johnson:
“It’s a crime to offer money to obtain an article that contains a trade secret, so just the exchange of money is an element of the crime.”
Chen committed no crime, because crimes involve real victims.
But the law, serving the corporate interests of “intellectual property”, says otherwise. And the agents of the law (paid for by the public at-large) have been used exclusively to the benefit of those corporate interests.
The only crime in this story is the crime which has been perpetrated by the police, against Chen.
The bigger crime here is that the Apple employee left the *intellectual property* on the bar, of all places, and walked off.
Sounds like he’s practicing to be a gov’t employee.
Oh, and as to your title question: Because they can.
Notice if you will that in today’s world armed thugs can kick your door in, kill you, steal all your stuff and reap no repercussions, all while protecting your freedoms and laying their lives on the line everyday.
Why is it that nobody shoots these thugs in the face?
Maybe that’s the next chapter in this continuing saga of “Life in These United States”.
Have you read any of Mike Vandenboergh’s “Absolved”?
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/02/absolved.html
Bits and pieces a year or so ago. I just now grabbed the whole thing and I’ll read it. Have you read it?
I started reading it, I do not think he had posted the complete work at the time. I need to pick it back up wherever I left off. It was a pretty good read, the type that had me coming back for more…
I dearly hope this makes Gawker less liberal.
Apple can only enforce its patents in the OECD, which is a tiny portion of the world, and will become even less important as global economies continue to mature. This is unenforceable.
How is it even vaguely sane for Apple to throw an employee of what may be the most influential new media company in the US against the wall?
Dolts!
Beats me, JC… the only person who ought to probably be reprimanded is the tool who lost the phone in the first place. That is Apple’s problem, and Apple’s responsibility. WHat anyone else does with found property is neither their business, nor should it fall under the purview of the “law”.
What the fuck kind of libertarian defends stealing physical goods? You and Kinsella both have to tilt at an IP windmill that isn’t even there. The physical phone was stolen by any reasonable definition, regardless of how it came to be lost.
Get your head on straight. This isn’t about trade secrets, or IP, or anything else imaginary.
Nowhere in this post have I defended “stealing physical goods”, but thanks for playing.
I haven’t read anything on this story yet which suggests Chen is guilty of stealing the prototype, and I haven’t read anything which suggests the prototype was stolen by the person who gave it to Chen. Every account I’ve read suggests the phone was lost/misplaced. If that’s your definition of “stolen” then you’re an idiot.
And if this really isn’t about trade secrets and IP, then why is he being charged with crimes relating to trade secrets and IP, and not the clearly lesser offense of “receiving stolen property” or something similar?
smfnk srsly rng wf s bois crct bd
At least he concedes that IP is “imaginary”.
I like that. IP = “imaginary property”
They turned breaking a “good samaritan law” into a conspiracy lol. The great 2010 Apple Conspiracy! I’m sure they’ll make a movie about it.
He bought something that was property with questionable title. Where was the force involved? Just about every business has a standing disclaimer that it has no responsibility for property left behind on the premises.
It would be entirely different if it were the result of a home break-in or some kind of industrial theft. If anything, it’s a minor transgression that could’ve been handled by some kind of civil dispute resolution.