or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story - Page 6

post #201 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

This thread is everything that's wrong with AI.

(shhhh - you'll give it away)
post #202 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

A person who won't put "Gawker in jail" because he's not in NY holding a phone - getting it?

Who is talking about NY? I am talking about who is holding the iPhone in CA?

This is your third and last chance or you loose the jackpot.

tick tock tick tock
post #203 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

Does this help?

How Checkbook Journalism Gave Gizmodo Its iPhone Scoop

"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."

There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.

Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?

"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."

I think there's a disconnect in there.
post #204 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Who is talking about NY? I am talking about who is holding the iPhone in CA?

This is your third and last chance or you loose the jackpot.

tick tock tick tock

now whose copy and pasting - bzzt - no response for you!
post #205 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?

"He stole it! Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."

I think there's a disconnect in there.

Ah, but now you agree that they actually were involved! Whereas up until now you denied they were at all involved!
post #206 of 393
And predicting your answer, I have a question:

Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
post #207 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

And predicting your answer, I have a question:

Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?

Well that is exactly what the bottom line of his "argument" is.

I think at this point is pretty clear that he is completely baseless.
post #208 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

Does this help?

How Checkbook Journalism Gave Gizmodo Its iPhone Scoop

"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."


page view harvest indeed

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...e-scoop-2010-4
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #209 of 393
the guy who stole the prototype has absolutely no legal defense. he took money for something he in no possible way owned (he "appropriated" it). his legal bills are going to be a lot more than the 5K he got too. what a fool. serves him right.

industrial espionage is a very serious matter in Silicon Valley. the law there is not going to laugh this off. no company there or elsewhere wants its prototypes sold on the black market to rivals or the tabloid media. and no pro media would buy them either, both as a matter of law and of ethics. even the National Inquirer would know better (thanks to experience). they would buy photos and pay the guy for his story, yes, and maybe even have some engineer look at it to figure out its specs that they could then blab. but they would never be so stupid as to actually pay cash for and take possession of the merch itself.

Gizmodo/Gawker is about to learn a very hard lesson. what stupid fools. serves them right too.
post #210 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?

"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."

I think there's a disconnect in there.

You're ignoring the laws in question again. It doesn't matter if you give it back. Buying something you know/suspect is stolen is illegal. That's the act in question for Gizmodo. Can I buy your lost, then stolen car for a couple days, knowing it didn't belong to the guy I bought it from, then take it apart and put it back together hoping it still works (fingers crossed!), and then finally once it's all public, give it back? Cool? Thanks. Leave your keys on the seat. My source will be by in an hour or so.
post #211 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

And predicting your answer, I have a question:

Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?

You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?

Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!
post #212 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Oh I see you turn to humor now that you know how wrong your initial comment was. Based on your logic I can steal stuff from our neighbor state and never worry since I don't live in that state. I am sure you will make an excellent defense lawyer

Thank you. I was reading this whole thread and beginning to wonder if anyone was going to say that.
post #213 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?

Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!

The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that he directly participated into it, whether you decide to ignore it or not, it is irrelevant.

You lost the jackpot, could not answer my final question. You were almost there, perhaps next time as Tekstud or any other of your aliases
post #214 of 393
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?

I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
post #215 of 393
We have a Legal battle on our hands here:

Endgadget Legal Counsel says it's a no go!

Gizmodo's unofficial Legal Counsel Dr.No says it's a no show!

In matters of Information counterfeiting, after all, they both should know...
post #216 of 393
Whole thread: VOID
post #217 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?

Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

page view harvest indeed

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...e-scoop-2010-4

Did you even read that link or the one I quoted above? They both quote Denton admitting that he/Gawker/Gizmodo bought the phone and may have to pay legal fees to defend himself. That's not even in question here.

But of course you didn't read them. You are entertaining yourself by, how did you say it, "pushing people's buttons". Make sure not to give it away again your ban will be forthcoming.
post #218 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouty2 View Post

I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?

I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.

You are correct. I will stop feeding him.
post #219 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouty2 View Post

I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?

I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.

Another sure way to invalidate an argument - call someone a troll and walk away.

Hey whatever echo works best in the echo chamber - knock yourself out.
post #220 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Another sure way to invalidate an argument - call someone a troll and walk away.

Hey whatever echo works best in the echo chamber - knock yourself out.

Sorry NoNo boy. No more food for you today. You've been a bad troll, bad troll!

Until we cross paths again!
post #221 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by talus View Post

Did you even read that link or the one I quoted above? They both quote Denton admitting that he/Gawker/Gizmodo bought the phone and may have to pay legal fees to defend himself. That's not even in question here.

But of course you didn't read them. You are entertaining yourself by, how did you say it, "pushing people's buttons". Make sure not to give it away again your ban will be forthcoming.

Ban threats are another handy way to invalidate those who disagree with you. I saw it on the internet.

"Oh hell - you're so banned - boy are you banned - no sense debating the issue - just going to stamp my feet and yell banned, or call you a child, or Tekstud, or Macsomebody, or a troll....how many pages of this kind of intelligent discourse is there? On how many threads of people playing lawyer?".

This IS like the Gizmodo comments.


(and of course I didn't read the link because you said so - that's proof enough for this place obviously)
post #222 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

Sorry NoNo boy. No more food for you today. You've been a bad troll, bad troll!

Until we cross paths again!

Walking away - after calling me a troll? Way to prove my point. Don't go away mad, you'll have all sorts of people agreeing with you here tomorrow. It'll be a bright sunny day. (the sun will commmeeee out - tomorrrowww)
post #223 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Walking away - after calling me a troll? Way to prove my point. Don't go away mad, you'll have all sorts of people agreeing with you here tomorrow. It'll be a bright sunny day. (the sun will commmeeee out - tomorrrowww)

Nothing of the sort. It is 3am in this side of the world... as much as I enjoy the troll hunting, it is way too late for me.
post #224 of 393
Folks, you went six pages of being trolled by someone who is clearly good at it - and who has been banned for it. The only reason this went on for so long is because you responded to his provocation.

Now yes, he was offside and I went through the thread and warned both him and several other people. If you received a warning for this for being off topic: take it and learn from it. You were breaking the rules (and irritating everyone) just as much as he was.

There is solid discussion to be had around this topic. Please engage in that instead.
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
post #225 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?

"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."

I think there's a disconnect in there.

No, it doesn't "kind of invalidate it." The return of property, even voluntarily, doesn't negate the elements of the crime. I'm an attorney. Either you're a law professor or an idiot, i.e. the only two types of people who would carry such flawed reasoning so far. The former to illustrate a point, the latter because he believes in his flawed logic when reason clearly illuminates the fallacy.

But by all means, keep it up. We're all enjoying this. Don't bother brushing up on jurisdictional prerequisites or the concepts of agency, full faith and credit, etc.
post #226 of 393
Moderator edit: we're done being off topic. Post removed.
post #227 of 393
deleted
post #228 of 393
I have a feeling that apple won't sue Gizmodo. Maybe there will be an out of court settlement. Other then that, I think they will take the incident in stride and Steve Jobs will even make a funny joke about this during the unveil. If they do go after them though I would not be against it, I just have a feeling that it is better to let the whole thing die down then keeping attention on the phone , the theft and so on for much longer.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #229 of 393
Yes, but it bought the phone from somebody in California. If any part of the exchange took place in California, it could be in trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

They (perhaps) broke a California law. Gawker (owners of Gizmodo) is based in NYC. So what.



Hey - I got an idea - medical pot is legal in California - light up a joint in front of a policeman in New York City. Or a DEA office in Washington DC. Let me know how that works out for you, and don't forget to forward me the mug-shots.

post #230 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I have a feeling that apple won't sue Gizmodo. Maybe there will be an out of court settlement. Other then that, I think they will take the incident in stride and Steve Jobs will even make a funny joke about this during the unveil. If they do go after them though I would not be against it, I just have a feeling that it is better to let the whole thing die down then keeping attention on the phone , the theft and so on for much longer.

I tend to agree. While I feel that Gizmodo/Gawker was knowingly in the wrong, I think they likely spoke with their lawyers and were told there are enough loopholes and whatnot to make their actions financially viable.

I also think that any public action by Apple won't be dealt until after they officially announce the next device, so just like with all these corporate patent lawsuits I don't think we should be so absolute with our feelings toward the penalties Gizmodo will face.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #231 of 393
I think everyone here is probably being a little too quick to say it was theft. The police will have to investigate to see if the person who 'found' the phone really found it and if they made a reasonable effort to return it (what constitutes *reasonable* in CA case law?). The police then have to figure out how to prove it was theft and not just a lucky find.

Only then can they look towards Gizmodo to see if they knowingly purchased stolen goods. Even if it was stolen (how would Giz know?), Apple's secrecy could actually help Gizmodo since they can claim that they really had no idea that it was an iPhone since up till now another one hasn't been seen and it doesn't look like any of the other ones out there (actually looks like some of the cheap asian knockoffs).

My guess is that this case isn't going to go anywhere unless they can show the person who 'found' the phone actually stole it directly from the engineer. The problem here is that from all accounts I've seen the engineer was intoxicated so that will be an immediate defense for the person who found it.
post #232 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post

They (perhaps) broke a California law. Gawker (owners of Gizmodo) is based in NYC. So what.

Extradition. I wonder if there are some sort of federal laws in play here too.
post #233 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

California also has trade secret laws that would enable Apple to seek civil damages related to the incident.

There is an analysis here about the civil side of it (found via Daring Fireball).
http://jballer.tumblr.com/post/54096...cret-liability

Apparently, in California, if you find out a company's trade secret, deliberately or accidentally (e.g. an employee lets it slip) it is illegal for you to publish that.

"Therefore, Apple would only have to show that Gizmodo knew or reason to know, before publication, that the prototype was a trade secret."

And given that they published under the headline "The Next iPhone Uncovered," pretty hard to deny.
post #234 of 393
I read the WHOLE thing.

It will be interesting if the California constabulary pursue the investigation, and whether Apple will actively participate, and/or prefer civil charges against Gawker as well. The question is, is there enough evidence and is it illegal enough for the Cali cops/DA to drive successful prosecution, or not. Gizmodo is permanently off my reading and link list, joining ValleyWag and most of the rest of Gawker properties. After Giz pulled their stunts at one of the trade shows - I consigned them to arrested adolescence, and dismissed them as a credible "news" source.
post #235 of 393
That said.... Not sure how deep of pockets gizmo has, apple could probable sue and put a nice dent in their purse with legal fees
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #236 of 393
what i most find offensive in Gizmodo's action is outing the Apple engineer who lost the phone. I really see no benefit whatsoever even in the journalistic sense. Not only do they reveal his name, displayed his photo but also went as far as posting his private messages. Whatever integrity that Gizmodo writers had before this incident they've now been flushed down the toilet.

I do wish for the engineer to file a civil suit on the grounds that his privacy has been compromised.
post #237 of 393
Some stuff I am reading indicates that federal authorities will get involved in cases involving felony theft across state lines.

The gray area is what's considered a felony and/or theft...however if the phone was essentially "fenced" and transported out of California, a federal prosecutor would have to respect California's definitions.

What's unfortunate for Apple is that their support staffers were unable to recognize that the guy who called about the phone was legit. That's clearly a breakdown in their policy and procedure, and one could argue that the finder made an attempt to return the device but the company was too wrapped up in its own red tape to be able to recognize or act upon that.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. I was sorta hoping Apple would let it ride so it drops out of the media spotlight but the finder and Gizmodo may have a bit of a reckoning for their actions.
post #238 of 393
i don't like what they did. It's really beyond stupid. If you have a tech blog you DON'T go against a company like apple. It's like saying "you don't shit where you eat". I'm not a journalist or blogger and i know it! The worst thing is that i remember seeing a photo of the apple guy who lost it. At least don't show his name, you are risking his job, it's somebody's life!. This was really stupid.

maybe nokia, kodak or adobe are paying them :P lol
post #239 of 393
I think Dr.NO was an employee of Gawker....
post #240 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Fortunately, crime is crime, and whether a journalist or a blogger, after being investigated, if they broke the law, they will get their upcommence!

No they wont. It's a blog, run by a company, and as we all know, companies are generally above the law. Will they throw the book at Gizmodo itself? Can't drag a blog into court, the Internet isn't people. Are they going to throw the guy who actually handed the $5,000 to the iPhone finder in jail? No, he was just doing what his bosses told him to do. Are they going to throw the head of Gawker Media in jail? No, because he probably makes too much money to be held to laws the same way Joe Sixpack is.

I rootkit Sony's computer network, I get prison. Sony rootkits people's PC's with their audio CDs, it pays a relatively small fine. See how the system works?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story