[vtail]

"Journalists are terrified of this company too.

Why? Just ask Jason Chen - the editor at tech blog Gizmodo who got his hands on the next iPhone. Apple's response? They sent in the police, who smashed down Chen's front door, ransacked his house -- while he was out -- and carted off computers and files. When Chen returned home from dinner with his wife, they frisked him too."

This is the kind of argument they are making to support the point????

[wmeredith]

This also raised my eyebrow... Chen bought stolen property as defined under California law. Then published evidence of his doing so in a very public manner. Apple may have called the police, but they hardly "sent them in". I was with the article until that point.

[dutchflyboy]

Well, I might be wrong, but it's probably not the first time a gadget site gets a gadget before it's released. In many cases, that gadget should have been returned to the original owner, not to a journalist. But, again, as far as I know, no company has actually "sent the police in" (or even asked for any investigation) over such a matter. Apple did, it wasn't wrong of them (I mean, it's still a crime), but they were (one of) the first (only?) to do so.

[catch23]

Can you provide other examples where a gadget site pays money to a 3rd party who happens to have an unreleased development model of a future product? I can't think of any...

[pyre]

Don't be disingenuous. The exchange of money here is the least of the transgressions. I would think that someone sending Gizmodo a 'lost' iPhone prototype without the exchange of money would have gotten them into hot water too if they didn't try to return it first (before publishing the internals).

In the past, most leaks have been information (specs,photos,etc) not the actual device.

[ptomato]

Except for the bit where money being exchanged automatically makes it "purchasing stolen property".

[devinj]

Right. But the bit where they don't give it to Apple immediately makes it theft.

Which is worse, buying stolen property, or stealing property? If they couldn't be accused of the former, they would be accused of the latter.

You seem to forget the very basis on which this was declared buying stolen property: the theft itself. The theft itself would have occurred no matter whether it was bought or not, and both parties would be guilty if it was just handed over.

[jacquesm]

It's called fencing.

[pyre]

An Olympic sport, no less!

[czhiddy]

> Apple's response? They sent in the police ...

This, like much of the article, is complete hyperbole (unless you actually believe Apple controls the police force).

[btmorex]

It's hyberbole, but on the other hand, it's ridiculous to think that Apple had nothing to do with it. If Apple remains silent, doesn't file any sort of police report, nothing would have happened.

That said, Apple has been a litigious, heavy-handed company for it's entire history so their actions aren't surprising.

[Tamerlin]

So has Jobs' other company (Pixar).

[guelo]

R.E.A.C.T. is an outrage. Most police departments don’t put a ton of effort into resolving nonviolent theft cases. Obviously big rich Silicon Valley companies like Apple are going to have a lot of political clout in Santa Clara county come what may, but that’s a reality that should be pushed against not formalized. Apple can afford its own lawyers, it doesn’t need the cops working for it.

[wtallis]

It really doesn't matter how much political clout Apple has. The Gizmodo people made the police officers' jobs too easy by publishing all the evidence necessary to convict them. They were low-hanging fruit.

[shawndumas]

I thought it was buying stolen property that brought the police.

[pohl]

"Word, Judge, I didn't purchase no hot item...I just 'got my hands on it', nah mean?"