or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor - Page 6

post #201 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes, but according to many news outlets, Apple has talked to the police. So, Apple told the police something to cause the police to suspect a crime. Apple isn't required to give a public statement about it's thoughts on the matter, anymore then you or I would be if somebody broke into our house and took something. Apple suspects theft. It has told the police so.

Further, neither Apple nor it's engineer has publicly stated that the phone was lost. That comes solely from Gizmodo. Apple's engineer could suspect the phone was taken from him at the Bar, which would explain why the finder failed to tell the bar owner about the lost phone [as any reasonable person would do].

The story reeks set up.

But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.

Please reference these reports.

There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.

So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
post #202 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.

So tell me, why come at me the way you did?

Did we really come up with the same perspective? I will blame it for my inability to convey my thoughts using the English language. And leave it at that.

CGC
post #203 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I agree with Gizmodo that outing Gray may save his job in the end because of the incredible amount of sympathy that he's received. If he was nameless/faceless it'd be easy to march him down to HR and process the exit paperwork like that engineer that allegedly showed Wozniak the iPad early; to his detriment.

That was up to the engineer to decide. Who do you think was in a better position to make that decision, Gizmodo or the engineer who knew what he'd been going through during the previous weeks and where he stood with things?

Gizmodo outed him solely because they're hit whoring douchebags.

Also, being outed doesn't just affect his situation at Apple, it also means that anyone interviewing him for a position in the future will see what happened after just a few seconds of Googling.

If Gizmodo wasn't such hit whoring douchebags and actually cared at all about the engineer, they would've contacted him. They had his Facebook profile from day one...that's how they outed him.
post #204 of 531
We are at the Sports Bar .... lol

Everybody around there knows all the details of the story, everybody is a cop, everybody is a lawyer, everybody is a judge, everybody believes in everything, everybody is so intelligent ... lol

This is no event. This story is ridiculously childish ... as usual it's a f@&รน& buzz.

And once again Apple got an app for that too ....
post #205 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmedia1 View Post

The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!


What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
post #206 of 531
I have only two points to make, both of them as an Apple customer and shareholder, and one who is an ardent fan of the company (you can look up my posts). As to whom the points are addressed to should be obvious.

1) Be careful what you wish for.

2) I hope like hell that Apple had nothing whatsoever to do with this 'search' travesty.
post #207 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.

If there's a nuclear bomb waiting to explode in those iPhone prototype, then maybe Gizmodo has the duty to alert the public.
post #208 of 531
You know, in a twisted way I'm taking some pleasure from this. Even on this site (which IMHO is a cut above the average), the amount of garbage that passes for rational thought is simply mind-boggling. It'll be nice to see the boneheads run pell-mell into the brick wall of reality for a change....
post #209 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.

But the big car company committed a crime by covering up the deadly defect. Did Apple commit a crime by making a prototype phone?
post #210 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.

Please reference these reports.

There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.

So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.

Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.

Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.

The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.

The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.
post #211 of 531
this is total BS. apple needs to wake up and understand that any R&D work has its hazards and GIZMODO was just reporting or tabloid reporting the product. "Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, "


BTW bought a Macbook pro 15 inch. its not as hot as Apple makes out to be. paid AUD 5200 which is roughly USD 4800 with SSD and i7

played command and conquer some old version and it bombed out after 1.4 hours.

nuf said.
Happy DiNo ***MAC Pro*** 2X 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 32GB RAM Mac Pro RAID Card 2 X 300GB 15,000-rpm SAS 2 X 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3GB/s NVIDIAQuadro FX 5600 1.5GB 2X 16x S-Drives AirPort...
Reply
Happy DiNo ***MAC Pro*** 2X 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 32GB RAM Mac Pro RAID Card 2 X 300GB 15,000-rpm SAS 2 X 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3GB/s NVIDIAQuadro FX 5600 1.5GB 2X 16x S-Drives AirPort...
Reply
post #212 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

The "that" which is being fallen back to is precisely the point.

Everyone needs to realize GIZMODO REPORTED THE CRIME. They did so in excruciating detail over and over and over again like the hit whores that they are.

Was an iPhone found?
Yes, see pages and pages of Gizmodo stating this.

Was the iPhone turned into the police, the bar owner, an Apple employee, sent to Apple headquarters or store, or was the engineer contacted (the finder had his Facebook profile)?
No, again see Gizmodo's website.

Was the iPhone purchased?
Yes. And once again we see Gizmodo stating that they did (for $5,000).

Was the iPhone taken under their own usage
Yes. They disassembled it. See gizmodo.com if you're still confused on where this comes from.

So clearly, we have a felonies here under California Penal Code 485 and 496.

Apple didn't need to report the iPhone stolen. Apple didn't need to do anything for charged to be brought. One could argue that Apple needed to provide proof of ownership, but that's certainly not going to be contested, and it doesn't matter. The finder stole the phone from someone, it doesn't matter who.

If you're going to hate on Apple, hate on me as well...

A few years ago, I had a phone stolen from my car. I never reported it. Police found someone with my phone and they tracked me down through the service provider. I went in to claim the phone and fill out paperwork stating I owned the phone and how much it was worth. It was enough to charge the guy with a felony. He had claimed he had found it, and that was enough to charge him since he admitted that he hadn't tried to return it. The prosecution of the guy had nothing to do with me. And this all happened in the same county as Redwood City.

And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.

I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.

Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.

A loud mouth? Yes.

Stupid? No.

Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.

And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?

That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.

So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.
post #213 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.

This is not that situation though. Your example is completely different.

The same situation using your example would be:

A car company is coming out with a new type of motor. Some guy gets a hold of the plans and decides to make a bit of money selling them to a journalist. The journalist publishes the plans in great detail on the web so all the car companies competitors are now aware of the new motor and how it works.

See? Totally different. In your example the journalist is saving the world from a great evil. IN the real world, both Gizmodo and the purported journalist of the example are committing a crime.
post #214 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Holy Conflict of Interest Batman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795




This is NOT good people. It looks very bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Why does it look bad?

The "lost/stolen" iPhone prototype is technically a trade secret. Apple is only one of the 25 member in the committee. And the steering commitee doesn't even have control over "R.E.A.C.T." They are basically a consultant.

I don't think that looks that bad either. Sure, it's one more thing that Apple's opposition can mention try try to put a few dings in an investigation, but it's probably (I hope) grasping at straws.

The description of the steering committee says there are 25 tech firms on board. Apple is one of many large tech companies in that area, so it makes sense that they'd join the others in supporting REACT.

Some digging may be done, but when it comes to criminal investigations, I would hope Apple is smart enough to stay out of pushing for anything with REACT.
post #215 of 531
That WAS the next iPhone then, given all the prosecution that followed (ie, it's not a 'controlled leak')
post #216 of 531
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).

Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).

Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.

See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......
post #217 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.

Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.

The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.

The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.

Are you not even reading my posts?

I have already stated what you did about 10 posts ago.

I also stated the caveat that whether they bring charges without the behest of Apple, if apple DOES NOT support that the item in question was stolen or that their rights have been violated, be it a public forum or in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney will have difficult time being able to prosecute any type of case.

Let's go backward:

Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?

Now that that is out of the way.....

No one knows what has occurred, including the police or task force. If they felt they had any case at all they would have arrested Chen and The gawker owner (I know not his name) on the spot.

They are searching for evidence in order to try to build a case. That borders of a violation of civil liberties, but I won't go into that here.

And until there is a report stating it is "stolen" it is lost. Period. You can't make that work no matter how hard you try to talk someone into it, and if you can, you should be an attorney, a congressman, or a salesman for Toyota.

Also, apparently the "finder" did attempt to find the "owner", to no avail, which has also been reported, though many choose to gloss over that.

If people stopped trying to be right and instead attempted to be observant they would learn so much more.
post #218 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).

Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), and Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).

Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.

It's like domestic violence, the victim can't stop the police from pressing charges.

unless you run the police department ... even then it's called corruption.
post #219 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).

Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).

Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.

See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......

Agreed.
post #220 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.

Please reference these reports.

There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.

So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.

You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.
post #221 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.

One, you are being obtuse and also wrong. There was no such report in THIS thread.

On this site, maybe, and that was conjecture, but not in this thread.

Also, stating it's stolen is a great way of "distancing" one's self from its exposition.

Something that can be thought about.....though obviously no one has.
post #222 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

It may be hard to prove what damages were caused, but certainly trade secrets were revealed. Here's what was not public knowledge (regardless of speculation or rumors) but was revealed by Gizmodo having illegally paid for the stolen iPhone and publishing it:
1) Front facing camera
2) Apparent doubling of screen resolution
3) 80GB which may indicate two flash modules
4) Consolidation of components
5) Flash
6) Larger camera lens
7) Larger battery
8) Design change

These aren't trade secrets in the sense that a competitor will think, "oh, we never thought of having a front facing camera or more storage", but rather it affects Apple's ability to do several things:
1) Control the release and promotion of the information
2) Make changes without disappointing people...imagine if the released phone doesn't now come with the above things. That wouldn't be good.
3) Surprise competitors with where they're going to be this summer.
4) While there's a pattern of new iPhone releases in June/July, nobody knew for sure and certainly not the details...thus customers may wait on buying existing models or may decide that the upcoming iPhone won't be that great so they'll buy a competitive product (and it may turn out that the actual iPhone is better than the prototype).

Apple could've been wrong to not demo and release the specs of the upcoming iPhone a long time ago, but that's their call to make and taking that away from them is revealing trade secrets and is illegal when the methods used are illegal themselves (the felony of paying $5K for a stolen iPhone).

I think you quoted the wrong person.

Good post, though.
post #223 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).

Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).

Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.

See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......

I would worry that Apple trying to tell the police to back off will only fuel the theories that it was a controlled leak (which I don't buy - this just doesn't seem Apple's style). On the other end of the spectrum, it could set a dangerous example that it's okay to sell trade secrets on the street for $5,000.

On consumer backlash, I see it as a possibility, but I'm not sure there will be that much. Most people probably don't care. They want a nice phone, and if the iPhone fits that bill, that's good enough.

I will certainly continue to purchase Apple's products, as I think they're among the best on the market - just my personal opinion.

If Apple wants this investigated (which we don't know for sure yet anyway - it could just be police work) that's fine with me. They sunk the time any money into the phone, it should be released on their terms.
post #224 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.

I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.

Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.

A loud mouth? Yes.

Stupid? No.

Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.

And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?

That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.

So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.

Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.

* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.

Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply

What does working from home have to do with anything

While he might not be able to be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source, he himself may have committed a crime and he was not subpoenaed anyhow, his house was searched for evidence that a crime was committed.

Section 1070 doesn't apply because they were not only searching for the source

And the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm
post #225 of 531
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-felony-2010-4

Police may allege that Gizmodo committed felony in 4G iPhone imbroglio
Monday, April 26, 2010

Henry Blodget writes for The Business Insider, "Online journalists are freaking out that California police appear to have ignored California's shield law when breaking into Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and seizing his computers in connection with the iPhone probe. "Gawker Media LLC, meanwhile, is arguing that CA police violated the shield law and is demanding immediate return of the confiscated property."

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

Blodget writes, "If that's the 'probable cause' the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply."
post #226 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Are you not even reading my posts?

I have already stated what you did about 10 posts ago.

I also stated the caveat that whether they bring charges without the behest of Apple, if apple DOES NOT support that the item in question was stolen or that their rights have been violated, be it a public forum or in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney will have difficult time being able to prosecute any type of case.

Let's go backward:

Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?

Now that that is out of the way.....

No one knows what has occurred, including the police or task force. If they felt they had any case at all they would have arrested Chen and The gawker owner (I know not his name) on the spot.

They are searching for evidence in order to try to build a case. That borders of a violation of civil liberties, but I won't go into that here.

And until there is a report stating it is "stolen" it is lost. Period. You can't make that work no matter how hard you try to talk someone into it, and if you can, you should be an attorney, a congressman, or a salesman for Toyota.

Also, apparently the "finder" did attempt to find the "owner", to no avail, which has also been reported, though many choose to gloss over that.

If people stopped trying to be right and instead attempted to be observant they would learn so much more.

Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.

I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.

Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.

You are simply wrong. It happens.
post #227 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.

* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.

Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply

What does working from home have to do with anything

While he might not be able to be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source, he himself may have committed a crime and he was not subpoenaed anyhow, his house was searched for evidence that a crime was committed.

Section 1070 doesn't apply because they were not only searching for the source

And the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm

I give credit where it IS due. Of ALL the posts I have seen in this thread on this subject, THAT was the most intelligent one.

And no, that IS NOT sarcasm.
post #228 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.

I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.

Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.

You are simply wrong. It happens.

See my response o the post by RKRICK.
post #229 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

JAnd the best one, obviously the attorney does not know the legal definition of a night search which starts after 10pm

Yeah, that's what you get when you go to your corporate lawyer for advice on criminal law. I've seen this happen umpteen times in Hollywood: guy goes to his entertainment lawyer about a criminal charge. Oops....
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #230 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.

Yeah right!

"Experts warn that the 4G iPhone's front facing camera could cause cancer"

Bunch of friggin' comedians in this thread.
post #231 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Sorry dude, my gibberish metre is off the scale on this one. You'll have to figure out all that tortured logic yourself.

I will say your basic assertion is 100% wrong here. You say you "already stated what (I) did," but then you go ahead and try to maintain that prosecution would be "difficult" if Apple doesn't essentially agree that the item was stolen. These are two opposite positions.

Even if we ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that Apple might not think it was stolen, (they do and have apparently said so to several people), it still doesn't matter. It's "stolen" by legal definition (based on the events as reported by Gizmodo). Period.

You are simply wrong. It happens.

Actually I am not, by the same code you are so quick to attempt to rely on in attempt to be right.

As in ANY legal code, it is up to interpretation via circumstance.

I sat in court and watched an attorney ask an officer on the stand how he knew the person he accused of not having a valid license, who was a chinese immigrant, had knowledge that was true.

The officer stated the other english speaking person in the car said so.

The attorney said that was hearsay and as it was dark when the stop happened he could not be 100 percent sure the person (who was sitting in the court room, but not ever called as a witness) was the same person sitting in the gallery.

The attorney won the case. The immigrant walked with no charges.

Learn the law, but also learn it is malleable.
post #232 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Yeah right!

"Experts warn that the 4G iPhone's front facing camera could cause cancer"

Bunch of friggin' comedians in this thread.

Good one....
post #233 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-felony-2010-4

"Specifically, it's possible--likely, even--that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone ('buying stolen property')."

Now that would be interesting. In that case the warrant wasn't about trade secrets, or journalistic sources. It was about buying a stolen object, which could have been any object really.
post #234 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

I will say this slowly:

IT
WAS
NEVER
REPORTED
STOLEN,

as in

NO
POLICE
REPORT
HAS
BEEN
FILED
STATING
PROPERTY
WAS
STOLEN.

No back up from Apple Computer Corporation.

Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.

likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.
post #235 of 531
Maybe they are giving Jason a break.
The evidence they took may be deemed useless (and the charge dismissed) because it was taken improperly.
It's very obvious that they did a night search, which the warrant clearly disapproved.
How could they make such a mistake?
post #236 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

One, you are being obtuse and also wrong. There was no such report in THIS thread.

On this site, maybe, and that was conjecture, but not in this thread.

Also, stating it's stolen is a great way of "distancing" one's self from its exposition.

Something that can be thought about.....though obviously no one has.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=149
post #237 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Actually I am not, by the same code you are so quick to attempt to rely on in attempt to be right.

As in ANY legal code, it is up to interpretation via circumstance.

I sat in court and watched an attorney ask an officer on the stand how he knew the person he accused of not having a valid license, who was a chinese immigrant, had knowledge that was true.

The officer stated the other english speaking person in the car said so.

The attorney said that was hearsay and as it was dark when the stop happened he could not be 100 percent sure the person (who was sitting in the court room, but not ever called as a witness) was the same person sitting in the gallery.

The attorney won the case. The immigrant walked with no charges.

Learn the law, but also learn it is malleable.

I'm thinking I must have learned the basics of the legal system when you were only a kid. I can only guess that you're refusal to believe simple legal facts has to be down to you just not knowing any better.

The example you have given above is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. You are still wrong. Crimes are determined by the law. Action on criminal behaviour is decided by the cops (within reason, they mostly *have* to act). Guilt is determined by a judge.

None of this has anything to do with whether the victim considers a crime has been committed. The law simply does not work that way. Your original assertion, that Apple has to consider the prototype stolen for it to be so, is just made up junk. It's not true. You are simply wrong.
post #238 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALUOp View Post

Maybe they are giving Jason a break.
The evidence they took may be deemed useless (and the charge dismissed) because it was taken improperly.
It's very obvious that they did a night search, which the warrant clearly disapproved.
How could they make such a mistake?

In California a night search starts at 10pm not when the sun goes down.
post #239 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.

We're not trying them publicly with facts that have yet to be determined.

Gizmodo, as reported on their site, claim they purchased an iPhone which they, as reported on their site, knew, as reported on their site, was stolen.

They may have lied about some of this, but by their claims, they would be guilty of felony charges, and I don't see why they would lie against their self-interest and how they could've not committed any felonies (barring any fantasies that Apple gave them the iPhone).

Oh, and they're douchebags for outing the engineer.

If they got full legal consultation regarding everything as it pertained to what they claimed in their reporting and the lawyer didn't tell them they're were violations of California Penal Codes 485 and 496, then their lawyer is an idiot. Really though, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up those Penal codes as well as Civil code 2080 or to look at previous cases where people were prosecuted for purchasing items which were found but not properly reported.
post #240 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by aga View Post

Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.

likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.

Good luck with that. Perhaps you should appoint Mr Quinn as your lawyer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor