Apple is at fault here. Gizmodo has tried contacting Apple but to no avail due to their tight security that Apple employees thought Gizmodo obtain a knockoff.

Although, it wasn't the best decision for Gizmodo to post about it either. In my eyes, Apple is not innocent and never really was. They sue left and right for the smallest thing and often bully small companies into giving in due to their size.

I hope this shatter people's view on Apple because they are no better than Microsoft.

Gizmodo has tried contacting Apple? Yea... like after releasing articles and articles of the phone, raking in millions of page impressions over a course of three days, and generated about $150k in revenue? Definitely much more than they allegedly paid for the phone.

I don't know about you, but if you were someone high up working at an American car company and someone working for you lost designs/spec to your next big car only for it to be published for all to see, you'd do whatever it takes to get a [legal police] investigation going. I mean, it's all business and mishaps like this could potentially become a huge setback for a company.

If Gizmodo really had the good-will to return the phone, they wouldn't have taken the opportunity to release so much info on it and especially in the method they chose to do so.

@UltimateIdiot911

Hardly they tried to get an exclusive and official confirmation , disguised as "show us the proof its yours" . They had all the infos they needed from looking at the phone and it's OS over and over .

I'm not launching a "is apple a prick or not" debate . They most certainly are .

However the fault certainly lies here with the guy who sold the phone , and gizmodo .

The guy had no business reselling the phone for 5k , story doesnt even say if he even tried to find back the "legit owner" , and it far more likely he was happy to sell a "scoop" , he might actually have stolen(yet "found" to legally cover his bottom) .

Gizmodo had no business buying it . Hell they wouldnt fork 5k , even if its chump money given their hits , if they werent already pretty sure it was the new iphone or a really great fake .

It doesnt matter if it's activision , EA , apple , microsoft , sony or nintendo involved ... what gizmodo tried to pull was larceny and blackmail

It isnt even the first time they pull some shenanigans , like , once , getting banned from CES , because messing around with scrrens from various booth , with an universal remote .

It was Apples product that was STOLEN.

They asked for it back, formally confirming it is theirs.

Gizmodo chose to publish everything about it, strip it apart and try to spoil as much of the features/new tech as they could, milking every bit of new news etc.

They obviously new the risk and Apple has chosen to hit back, you cant blame them for that!

Baka is right on this. What Giz did was really in the lines of blackmail.

"Gizmodo purchased the prototype from the unnamed party for a sum of $5,000 and posted pictures and video online.

In the days to follow, Gizmodo said that they weren't certain of the prototype's origins but once Apple formally claimed the device as their own, they would promptly return it. Sure enough, Apple issued a request for the prototype's return, thus confirming the device's authenticity. "

From the article itself, the fact is Gizmodo purchased the phone and posted pictures/videos. The next line indicates that Gizmodo had already posted the article BEFORE getting in contact with Apple. Then it clearly shows that Giz would only return the device when formally confirmed by Apple - clearly blackmail and keyword being "only" and "formally".

gizmodo deserved it for whoring it out like they did. but it'll be interesting to see what happens because apparently, you can't confiscate journalist's stuff?

also, why not link the actual article.. you know, from gizmodo.

This has little to do with Apple. This is a seizure of property to determine if a crime has taken place. If evidence is found showing that theft did occur, at that point it would be the People of California pressing charges against Gawker, not Apple.

The situation escalated to this point because of the amount paid by Gawker for the device ($5000). That much money would make the crime a felony rather than a midemeanor, which a very serious charge, with punishments exceeding over a year in jail. At that point, Apple would likely also file a civil case for a return on funds that they lost due to Gawker's theft.

Keep in mind though, as of right now there is no criminal charges. Gawker is still being considered an innocent party, but Jason Chen's property is being examined to determine if any illegal activities did occur.

Gawker purports that they and their journalists are protected under their first amendment rights, and considering the circumstances they may be correct. However, their purchase of the iPhone is a simple business transaction... so it's difficult to dermine whether evidence pertaining to it is protected.

I can't wait to hear more on the story, as it may lead to a lawful discussion on Blogger rights vs. Journalist rights, or if there is even a difference.

That is quite an overreaction by apple, the leak has already been made, the phone was given back to them(after they initially ignored the site), doing this won't change what has been done, if anything it just makes your company look like a bunch of asshats.

In an effort to get hits, Gizmodo was reckless. The probability is higher that the phone was stolen than that it was "found".

Apple requested the iphone back and it was returned. Asking for a statement in writing was legal and justified. The fact is apple lost the phone and it is their blunder. The fact that a journalist got his door knocked down is even more bothering though. I understand if some average guy put it on ebay but not a journalist.

They deserve what they get. Wealthy and educated people can't pretend to be ignorant of the law.

When you knowingly buy something that's stolen you are as guilty as the person who actually stole it.

As for Apple, they would have filed a valid complaint with the police.

Apply ought to be furious. The future of the company rides on this product.

As someone who owns a company that depends on trade secrets, relating to design and utility, I hope these guys get serious jail time and fines.

didn't initially know for sure that it was in fact that it was Apple product until they opened it up.How could you not be skeptical about its validity. After they did that and were convinced they tried to contact Apple. Also If engadget had the opportunity, I would think they would do the same.

1. Yes, hate Apple for investigating the illegal sale of a prototype device.

2. Gizmodo wasn't down, they seized personal computers, not Web servers.

3. As soon as Gizmodo opened up the device and saw it was indeed an Apple product, they shouldn't have posted anything about it and should have contacted whomever they could have to return it. In return it's likely they could have gotten some agreement that Apple would offer up the first details of the new phone to them earlier than others for cooperating, rather than Gizmodo just going ahead and posting what information they want. This is like breaking the embargo date for a review, not good to piss off the people who give you news. Gizmodo burned a bridge big time with this act.

Let's just ask ourselves a question. If you were an apple engineer and your super secret prototype phone went 'missing' what's the more likely story you're going to try and sell to your bosses; A: I got drunk at a German beer bar and lost my super secret prototype iphone or B: Someone stole my super secret prototype iphone while I was enjoying a beer... In moderation of course. Yeah... Anyone who believes this phone was stolen is kidding themselves. Didn't the phone work for hours after it was found. Wouldn't you turn your phone off immediately if it was stolen? Just another big company trying to bully the little guy. F them.

Its a felony investigation, so im pretty sure the computers can be possessed in search of IP belonging to Apple.

Plus didnt gizmodo said they paid about 5 grand or 10 grand to acquire the phone?

They paid $5000 for it.

Thing is whether they realize it or not this was huge in terms of marketing from the story from it, even my friends who don't like keeping up with everything in technology were really interested in it, and unless you're living under a e-rock you've probably heard about the iPhone/Giz saga.

I personally hate the term intellectual property as it basically tries to make you be able to own thoughts, sure they could probably sue him if he tried to tamper with the programs inside it, but if they did that it's contradictory as they'll need to sue everyone whos ever hacked/used the iphone for unintended purposes.

The fact that they paid for the phone gives you more reason to believe what their true intentions were with possession of the phone. They do whatever it takes to get a big story, but unlike professional journalists, they [like the paparazzi] do it in a d-bag way.

There most likely wasnt anything legal about the way they bought the phone .

They were aware it wasnt the seller's phone , nor probably could even get a legal document from it .

That actually has not been proven, which is what the seizure of their computer equipment goes towards proving. But, knowing Gizmodo purchased an item that was not the seller's, meaning it counts as stolen property that can be seized along with any other material items that can lead to finding all parties involved in the illegal sale of the item.