Law.com has revealed that Gizmodo editor Jason Chen has hired a criminal lawyer. I’m glad to hear that he’s finally taking this seriously. Chen’s lawyer says that he does not know if Chen is the target of the investigation or if they are trying to find information about his sources. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is saying that to protect his client.

What’s more interesting is that the finder of the iPhone prototype has been revealed. Wired has discovered the identity of the finder after following some social networking clues.

From the report on Wired:

Brian J. Hogan, a 21-year-old resident of Redwood City, California, says although he was paid by tech site Gizmodo, he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone. Gizmodo emphasized to him “that there was nothing wrong in sharing the phone with the tech press,” according to his attorney Jeffrey

Hogan says that he regrets not doing more to return the iPhone to Apple. Wired also reports that a friend of Hogan called AppleCare about the device and this is all that was done as an attempt to return the device. The iPhone was never returned to the bar and no other type of attempts were made.

In their report Wired also reveals that they were contacted to purchase the device, but not by Hogan. So there was a middleman, which leads me to believe that Hogan knew what he was doing was not only incredibly shady but also potentially illegal.

Adobe’s Kevin Lynch:

given the legal terms Apple has imposed on developers, we have already decided to shift our focus away from Apple’s iPhone and iPad devices for both Flash Player and AIR. We are working to bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP), Microsoft, Nokia and others.

Apple didn’t leave a lot of room for comment from Adobe. Apple’s stance was pretty clear and it would have been difficult for Adobe to argue with it directly. Using this as an opportunity to remind everyone that other platforms will be getting Flash was probably the smartest move they could have made.

HP has announced that they will be acquiring Palm for $1.2 billion.

From the press release:

HP and Palm, Inc. today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which HP will purchase Palm, a provider of smartphones powered by the Palm webOS mobile operating system, at a price of $5.70 per share of Palm common stock in cash or an enterprise value of approximately $1.2 billion. The transaction has been approved by the HP and Palm boards of directors.

The press release also mentions that current chairman and CEO, Jon Rubinstein, is expected to remain with the company.

I see this as a good move for both companies. But, I am still a little worried, this could easily be poorly executed. What keeps me hopeful though, is this little bit from MG Siegler’s interview with HP’s senior VP Brian Humphries in which Humphries says:

WebOS is the best-in-class mobile operating system. Our intent is to double down on WebOS.

The biggest mistake HP could make is to not use webOS for all of their handheld and tablet devices. There has already been word from Michael Arrington on TechCrunch that HP has canceled their Windows 7 tablet. Arrington mentions ChromeOS as a possible replacement OS on similar future tablets from HP, I truly hope this isn’t the case, webOS would be fantastic on a tablet. HP needs to use every resource at Palm to its fullest extent, not doing so would defeat the purpose of this acquisition.

Engadget reports that Microsoft has confirmed that “Courier” was a real project but that it will not be released to the market.

Frank Shaw, Microsoft’s VP of corporate communications:

At any given time, across any of our business groups, there are new ideas being investigated, tested, and incubated. It’s in Microsoft’s DNA to continually develop and incubate new technologies to foster productivity and creativity. The “Courier” project is an example of this type of effort and its technologies will be evaluated for use in future Microsoft offerings, but we have no plans to build such a device at this time.

This doesn’t surprise me all that much. Courier never really seemed like something that would have a broad market appeal. I can see that there would be those that would buy it and love it, but unfortunately the digital journal isn’t something that too many people would buy into. Although there was a lot of great things to demo in those leaked videos nothing really reached out and grabbed me as something I would really need.

Lala has posted a brief message to their website announcing that the service will shut down on May 31. The site will no longer be accepting new users.

This has sparked a flurry of speculation that Apple will be launching their own music streaming service shortly after Lala’s demise. However, none of these rumors seem to be based on anything other than the fact that they own Lala and it is shutting down.

I personally believe that Apple will launch a music streaming service at some point in the future. But I find it likely that Apple is simply moving resources away from Lala to ramp up development of their own service, not to launch it.

My iPad was “prepared for shipment” two days ago. This morning I received confirmation from Apple that it has officially shipped. FedEx says it will be delivered tomorrow.

Thankfully I have the day off and will be anxiously awaiting the FedEx guy all morning. I haven’t been this excited about a new device since I bought the first generation iPhone.

In a rare public letter, Steve Jobs published his “Thoughts on Flash” in which he explained why Apple hasn’t implemented Flash on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad.

Jobs made six points in his piece, all of which have been made by others, but it’s nice to finally hear it from Apple themselves in a concise manner.

On openness:

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe […] Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards.

It’s hard for Adobe to argue that Flash is open, and I’m still amazed by the number of people who believe them. Flash isn’t open because Adobe solely controls it’s future. Just because Flash is nearly ubiquitous does not mean it’s open.

On the “full web”:

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. […] YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices […] Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

I can think of a lot of web video sites that are still not available on the iPhone or iPad, but you’d be hard pressed to find a video that isn’t available on one of Steve’s listed sites. When the iPhone was first released I would often come across a video that wouldn’t playback on the iPhone. But, this happens less and less often — I can’t even remember the last time I had to go to my computer because a video was only available in Flash.

On reliability, security, and performance:

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. […] We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it.

The best way to keep your browser from crashing is to install ClickToFlash or FlashBlock. You’ll be amazed at how stable the web can be. It’ll also surprise you how quiet your computer is once Flash is turned off, even the simplest Flash apps seem to kick my MacBook’s fans into high gear whenever they’re loaded in the browser.

On battery life:

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software.

Steve says that an H.264 video played on an iPhone can play for 10 hours when decoded in hardware, but using a software decoder cut that time in half. That’s certainly not the kind of battery life I want on my mobile device.

On touch and mouse-based interfaces:

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover.

Because of this discrepancy in interfaces, many Flash websites would have to be rewritten with touch in mind. So, why not just rewrite in HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript?

On cross-platform compilers:

The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Apple wants you to develop using tools built specifically for the platform. It is the only way they can be assured that enhancements to the platform are adopted in a timely manner. Any feature that is specific to the iPhone won’t be a priority to the developer of a cross-platform compiler. Why spend time implementing a feature that’s only supported by one of the many platforms that your compiler supports?

Apple wants the applications in the App Store to shine when compared to their Android and Flash counterparts. Blocking cross-platform compilers is their best bet at making sure App Store apps shine. Native tools have always produced the best quality applications.

The final dig at Adobe comes in Steve’s conclusion:

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Anyone who understands why Apple is keeping Flash off their touch devices has been wondering why Adobe hasn’t invested more in building HTML5 tools. I’m glad someone this high-profile has finally told it to them straight.

I have already claimed to have published my “final thoughts on Gizmodo” but as it turns out, I have little bit more to say. When I wrote that piece I suspected that the story was over, Apple had been given their iPhone back and I didn’t expect them or the district attorney to do anything about it. Of course this was silly of me, especially since I know next to nothing about lawsuits and police investigations.

Gizmodo reports that last Friday night, California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home and seized four computers, two servers, and a few external hard drives. Gizmodo has chosen to publish the search warrant documentation with Jason Chen’s personal details pixelated. Gizmodo doesn’t seem to have any problem publishing the Apple employee’s details, but when it comes to their own they’ve decided to pixelate them. I guess I don’t understand that at all.

The folks at Gizmodo are arguing that journalist shield laws protect them from search and seizure. However, Henry Blodget argues that shield laws are beside the point.

From Henry Blodget’s recent piece on Business Insider:

The search warrant is ambiguous about the specific reason the police gave for the search and seizure.  Specifically, it’s possible–likely, even–that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone (“buying stolen property”).

If that’s the “probable cause” the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply.

Shield laws are put into place to protect sources who may have committed crimes, it doesn’t protect journalists who have committed crimes. Especially ones who have openly admitted to purchasing something that, under California law, is stolen property (which in this case happens to be a felony).

The question is whether Jason Chen or the finder of the iPhone is the target of this investigation. If it is the finder of the iPhone than Gizmodo could argue that the search warrant is invalid and they instead should have issued a subpoena to try and obtain information from Jason Chen. But, if Jason Chen and Gizmodo or Gawker Media are (and I suspect they are) the target of this investigation than shield laws are irrelevant.

But, Gizmodo’s argument hasn’t seemed to hold up the investigation for too long. CNET is reporting that the investigation is “poised to expand.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the editors at Engadget will be the target of a subpoena in an attempt to gather information about the finder of the iPhone. Engadget was offered the unit. However, after consulting their lawyers they decided against purchasing it.

It’s clear that Gizmodo got themselves into a sticky situation and I have little faith that they’ll manage to come out of this unscathed.

Apple has responded to Adobe’s Mike Chambers’ recent piece in which he claims that Flash is an open platform.

Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller speaking with CNET:

Someone has it backwards–it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary.

Mike Chambers also mentions that Flash CS5 will still be shipping with the ability to target the iPhone and iPad, but Adobe is not planning any additional investment in the feature.

Greg Sandoval reporting for CNET:

Apple has spoken to local police about the incident and the investigation is believed to be headed by a computer crime task force led by the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office, the source said. Apple’s Cupertino headquarters is in Santa Clara County, about 40 miles south of San Francisco.

I’m starting to think that Apple may not pursue a civil lawsuit against Gizmodo however California’s district attorney may file charges against them.

Greg Sandoval explains California’s law very simply:

dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but “appropriates such property to his own use” is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

It sounds like Gawker Media better get their lawyers on the phone.