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 7

post #241 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

In California a night search starts at 10pm not when the sun goes down.

I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
post #242 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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

...

My appreciation for many of your sanity posts, perspective, and patience (and to a few others, as well).

On the Gizmodo topic, I've just been sitting back shaking my head for a few days, restrained by disappointment to comment at the abundance of adolescent hyperbole, flawed reasoning, rationalizations, projection, strawmen, false equivalences, etc. I'm mind-numbed by the mindless' identification with egregious behavior (legal outcome notwithstanding).

In any event, I'd be curious whether the sometimes unpleasant head of reality has begun to erode Mr. Chen's mask of bravado.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #243 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.

Exactly.

That goes into no one knowing what's really happened and that is what may be revealed soon enough.
post #244 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.

I disagree, I don't think too many people would have sympathies with the engineer if he did get fired, and even if that were the case it doesn't justify anything on Gizmodos part. They could have called him and asked him if they should out him - I'll bet they didn't do that. And I bet if they had, he would have said "no thanks".


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Nice strawman. I guess because I'm this forum while engaging in other things I can't possible be concerned about other things.

Yeah - I agree - thats why I facetiously said that in response to your post. To refresh your memory, you said "Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday?" Context, my friend...


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So your argument is now "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance"? Excellent! There are too many cases so you can just google Apple and lawsuit for plenty of examples. I really don't care if you stand on your soapbox all day spouting how awful Gizmodo is and how we should never contribute to their pagehits. I'll still read their articles if they interest me.

You're putting words in my mouth - I don't recall saying any of that; "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance" - I have no idea what that has to do with my post either.

Personally, I'll occasionally read Gizmodo when I'm bored and it's a slow day on the good tech blog sites. It's pretty far down on my list (even after TUAW) for editorial content. They churn out a high volume of low quality material, but thats just my opinion. The entire way they played this iPhone prototype story was just sleazy from start to finish, and it sounds like they violated the law I the process. Time will tell how criminally and civilly responsible they are, and how deep their pockets are to afford a good defense. You can tilt the scales of justice a lot with a lot of cash; I'm looking forward to watching a good drama play out.

You still haven't mentioned any Apple lawsuits that are even remotely similar to this one. If you think of any, let us know. You mentioned it, so why should we do the googling. If it's so obvious, surely you can name a few.

Rob
post #245 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?

Because it was all for show in the land of Hollywood and no substance.
post #246 of 531
Quote:

I stand corrected.

That having been said, in court that is inadmissible as hearsay.

Mistrial and case dismissed.
post #247 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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.

What facts?

You have stated none. Only one person in this entire thread has stated a factual and reasonable interpretation of the law and that person was not you.

Until you can do such, you are just as credible as the owner of gawker.

Also, you responses, including this one, border on personal attack.

Let's keep this adult, or are you the age you accuse me of being?
post #248 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

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.

Exactly, so barring hiding behind the defense they are "reporters" why out the phone and the engineer in the manner they did when the legal backlash could destroy them?

I leave you to think about that.
post #249 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

What facts?

You have stated none. Only one person in this entire thread has stated a factual and reasonable interpretation of the law and that person was not you.

Until you can do such, you are just as credible as the owner of gawker.

lol like the things Gizmodo published didn't incriminate the person who sold them the iPhone enough already.
post #250 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALUOp View Post

I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.

I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.
"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 #251 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Good luck with that. Perhaps you should appoint Mr Quinn as your lawyer.

or yourself, since you clearly know the ins and outs of the criminal legal system......
post #252 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.

Another intelligent interpretation of the law. Why couldn't the other 129 posts have been this informed?

I mean that in all honesty. The rest of the romper room could learn a lot of they read things like this rather than speaking.
post #253 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALUOp View Post

I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.

From the California Penal code:

"Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m."

He was physically served at 9:45pm
post #254 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

lol like the things Gizmodo published didn't incriminate the person who sold them the iPhone enough already.



If there is actually record the phone was "purchased".

I will not make an opinion one way or another on that piece of vapor.
post #255 of 531
Meanwhile... Chen's neighbour to the right is drunk and pounding his wife in the face - while his neighbour to the left is cooking meth...

Chunk of Chinese plastic and electronics > human condition \
post #256 of 531
Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion. It cannot ever be a victim. It's called Handicapping creative talent to level the playing field. The Corporate Media calls it as it should be: Apple's brilliance trumps common business practice and therefore must be slowed to allow fairness to alleviate tip scaling genius.

Gizmodo went to the Court of Public Opinion and its spin apparatus to take on Apple. They broke the law and bragged about it because it helped them make their case in a court of corporate spinmeisters. You flood the anti Apple blogs with hateful rhetoric and let it sap their Will to seek Justice for harms done.
Business and Politics dread straight arrows. Success stories are better expressed in past tense; it makes for a better template to free riding mediocrity.

Will this Case ever be judged on its own merits? If Apple has no business standing out of the crowd, it therefore has no merit; so how could it possibly be?
post #257 of 531
Let the wild rumpus begin!
post #258 of 531
if gizmodo wins this contretemps, i'm going to call dick nixon and tell him to appeal.
post #259 of 531
*points*
*laughs*
>>< drow ><<
Reply
>>< drow ><<
Reply
post #260 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri3 View Post

Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.

I am surprised that they didn't perform the search early in the morning when they probably would have been home. Would have saved the tax payers a little money on the damage they did.

Normally a Search Warrant has a specific time that the search may occur. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. This Search Warrant seemed pretty broad.

A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.

The statute says any time between 7am and 10 pm.
post #261 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

Let the wild rumpus begin!

Use the Taser!!!1!1!1!1!! the Taser!!!!111!111!!111!!11!!!!!!
post #262 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

I stand corrected.

That having been said, in court that is inadmissible as hearsay.

Mistrial and case dismissed.

Yes, but, if that report is accurate, it won't be that report that is admitted as evidence.

I don't know if you're just here as a troll, or as a Gizmodo apologist, but you aren't really doing a good job as either.
post #263 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion ... will this Case ever be judged on its own merits? If Apple has no business standing out of the crowd, it therefore has no merit; so how could it possibly be?

I'm not quite sure, but you might just be guilty of some original thought there.

That said, do you have enough faith in our judiciary and the rule of law to hope and possibly even believe that this case may just be tried on its merits? We've gotta know that the outcome will be independent of our Internet passions here on AI, right?
post #264 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't know if you're just here as a troll, or as a Gizmodo apologist, but you aren't really doing a good job as either.

C'mon.

Stop calling people names, and stick to the substance of his comments.
post #265 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

If there is actually record the phone was "purchased".

I will not make an opinion one way or another on that piece of vapor.

once again, Gizmodo said they paid for it.

I am just going by the story told by Gizmodo, since it's the only story right now.

Like if you tell a police you have cocaine, you will most definitely be searched. Why should anybody believe otherwise?
post #266 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


SOL, I hope they take it one step further and show us what he has on his hard drives. Maybe they will find something embarrassing for Gizmodo's editor. Freedom of speech, right?
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #267 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.

An alternative would be that any company represented on the "steering committee" gets no protection from law enforcement. Would that look better or would that be absurd?
post #268 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?

Which warrant are you looking at, the indication is that the search was approved. And night search is usually in addition to daylight searches.
post #269 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by min_t View Post

This just in. Across the street from Gizmodo, Engadget staff are seen opening bottles of champagne and lining up chairs in front of their windows. Is this a coincidence?

I doubt Engadget gives a crap what Giz does. Half of Giz is leeched directly from Engadget anyway.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #270 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Me, too. If the issue is with potentially doing something illegal then these same people should also hate Apple and boycott their products. Apple has actually lost court case while this Gizmodo case is still mostly speculation.

Personally, I enjoyed seeing the G4 iPhone, don't think it will hurt the stock or company, and outside of that I'm indifferent, though am interested to see what will happen. No Schadenfreude here, but I do like conflict. Conflict is drama is entertainment.

Well, speaking for myself, although I'm not fiercely hating on Gizmodo, I would like to see a message sent that this sort of behavior on their part crosses a line on the other side of which are serious negative consequences, and for entirely rational and self interested reasons.

Although they are not a competitor of Apple's, Gizmodo's report amounts to industrial espionage. It's not the same as rumor sites reporting speculation based on this or that, or even rumors from "inside sources", which always involve a certain amount of uncertainty as to their truth and or are based on relatively public information. Things like this can affect Apple's ability to compete effectively, on a level playing field.

And, since there aren't many companies in the tech sector today continually producing outstanding, groundbreaking products, I want them to be successful, very successful, so they can continue doing that. This one incident probably won't, in the long-run, have a significant impact on that, but a series of incidents like this could. If people think they can profit without consequences by "finding" Apple prototypes and selling them to the highest bidder, we're likely to see a lot more of this, which will be bad for Apple, and, ultimately, I think, bad for me.

So, I say, make an example of them. It's not like the world will be a lesser place without Gizmodo.
post #271 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple 1984 View Post

Why? Because someone may have broken the law and stole an Apple prototype and then sold it to 2-bit trash?

Problem reading? I quoted the post I was responding to.
post #272 of 531
Going to be difficult to convince a jury that you would pay $5000 for something you weren't sure was real.

On a more happier note: according to an Apple sales rep at the Fairview Toronto store they will start taking pre-orders for the iPad on May 10th.
post #273 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

C'mon.

Stop calling people names, and stick to the substance of his comments.

What "substance"? Crack?
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #274 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I bet they disassemble the computers before they give them back



That would be AWESOME.
post #275 of 531
Note to Chen: Whenever you need the services of an attorney....you're already screwed!
post #276 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Gizmodo's report amounts to industrial espionage. It's not the same as rumor sites reporting speculation based on this or that, or even rumors from "inside sources", which always involve a certain amount of uncertainty as to their truth and or are based on relatively public information. Things like this can affect Apple's ability to compete effectively, on a level playing field.

TRUE and well stated. The quality of Giz is irrelevant here. If Appleinsider or TIME Magazine did the same thing to the prototype, they would be just as guilty.

Corporate espionage obviously has far more sinister intentions than Gizmodo did, but the fallout could be WORSE in the Giz case because now every iPhone counterfeiter and competitor KNOWS what Apple has in the pipeline.

Thanks for the heads up, Giz. Signed, Samsung, HTC, Ericsson, LG, BlackBerry, Nokia, Microsoft, etc.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #277 of 531



I wonder... you think Woz will be the next to fall victim to the Apple Law... err I mean CA Law Enforcement Agencies?
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #278 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

What "substance"? Crack?

Very adult.

Apparently it follows the same logic of people that saw us go through a major real estate crisis, and then began to bid for homes again before the market has completely dropped.

In other words, incapable of learning and repeating the same mistakes all over again.
post #279 of 531
To me it's pretty obvious that gizmodo expected this. They are going to portray themselves as victims of the apple machine and do a ton of giz vs apple articles. It's what I'd do if I were them. Engadget passed after talking to their lawyers. I'm sure gizmodo lawyered up immediately. There was no way apple was not going to file charges.
post #280 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

SOL, I hope they take it one step further and show us what he has on his hard drives. Maybe they will find something embarrassing for Gizmodo's editor. Freedom of speech, right?

I wish I could take credit for it. I got the image from Tumbler.
http://topherchris.com/post/551530253
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor