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 12

post #441 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Gaby Darbyshire

Take a close look at the pic.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

If they reported how they received the phone accurately and she's their council, they are screwed.

....like a deer in the "headlights" screwed.

Goodbye Giz...
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #442 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:

Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).

This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.

And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.

Kindly don't confuse the issue with common sense!

Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.

California Evidence Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...2000&file=1070

2006 appeals ruling granting weblogs "periodical" status: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ap...es/H028579.pdf

Federal Law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html

Quote:
Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize documentary materials, other than work product materials, possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication,


There are exceptions, none of which validate the execution of the warrant. Right now, we have this:

--Gizmodo probably committed a crime by purchasing the phone:

Quote:
Under a California law 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 any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.


--The warrant was likely not supposed to have been served during the night (already addressed--minor issue).


--Searching and Seizing with a common search warrant was very likely a violation of California and Federal Law.


What a soap opera, hmmm?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #443 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.

After all this, you cannot possibly still believe this all a marketing stunt from Apple. -It isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?!

I would expect a 27 year old employee to be responsible (and potty trained).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.

If Jonny Ive and Steve Jobs are the only 2 people who have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G then it is "truly magical." I think you are forgetting all the designers and engineers and others who help make the next gen iPhone a reality.
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #444 of 531
post #445 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

But the big car company committed a crime by covering up the deadly defect. Did Apple commit a crime by making a prototype phone?

Nope. No crime. The analogy works if you substitute "costly repairs". Don't niggle the edges. Deal with the meat of it.
post #446 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

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.

True, but without a witness, the prosecution has a big problem.

There is no legal need for a victim to "press charges", just as you say.

However, there is often a practical need for the victim to do so.
post #447 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......

As you may know already, it is the District Attorney's Office that decides whether to file a criminal case. Apple at some point may decide to file a civil case or not.

The press has a protection because of free speech, but they cannot use this shield to commit an illeggal act.

The issue here is whether a felony was committed. If a felony was committed, the wheels of justice must roll on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

Nope. No crime. The analogy works if you substitute "costly repairs". Don't niggle the edges. Deal with the meat of it.


A prosecutor, judge and jury -- all rolled into one.

CGC
post #448 of 531
Didn't Steve Jobs sign a statement to a court declaring he was sterile and infertile and thus could not possibly be the father of his daughter Lisa?

A statement later proved to be false. So much for moral high ground.

All those chortling with glee over Chen's misfortunes - would you be equally gloating if it were Kasper this was happening to?
post #449 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Kindly don't confuse the issue with common sense!

Seriously, it just depends on the law. Right now, it's apparently illegal to execute a warrant on a journalist in California...it must be done by subpeona. It's also illegal under federal law.

California Evidence Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...2000&file=1070

2006 appeals ruling granting weblogs "periodical" status: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ap...es/H028579.pdf

Federal Law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html

You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post

Why is it so scary? Quite a few convicted criminals go to jail. Our legal system is pretty damn good and Gizmodo can afford competent counsel. I don't think the fact that someone's accused means they're probably guilty, but I do believe if they're convicted that means they're probably guilty. Let's wait and see if they're convicted and sentenced. If they are, then so be it.

I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?

Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.

The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.

And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:

Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it.

Wrong.

First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.

What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.


There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:

- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?

Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?

The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #450 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, I say, make an example of them. It's not like the world will be a lesser place without Gizmodo.

True. But if journalists stop telling secrets to the public in general, the world will be in big big trouble.
post #451 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences.

No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!

EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.

Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!

So which is it people?

- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?

..OR..

Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?

Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #452 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post

And that is very, very disturbing.

I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.

It's not Apple's fault the police did their job. They don't work for or answer to Apple. If a crime was alleged, by Apple or any other news source - and several did ponder the legalities of what Gizmodo did, then the police, FBI or whomever has jurisdiction have an obligation to investigate.

Do I think Gizmodo had malicious intent, of course not. It's more likely, as some stories suggest, that Gizmodo could not have known for certain that they were purchasing an authentic, stolen prototype. It could have been a Chinese knock-off just as easily.

Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.
post #453 of 531
I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...
post #454 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

This is a very important development. For a while I've thought there has been a legal wrangle developing over what constitutes a journalist and whether or not a blogger can realistically claim to be a journalist, with the associated protections that entails.

It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.

This is wrong. Shield laws in general and specifically the shield law in CA come into play when a journalist is asked to identify a source. The idea is that a journalist cannot be compelled to identify a source by authorities and this includes seizing property which could then be later used to identify a source.

Of course this bears no relevance to this situation. In this case, a person (who happens to be a journalist) is accused of buying stolen property. This is a felony. It is not relevant that Jason Chen is a journalist. Gawker's COO/legal representative is arguing that ALL warrants served against journalist are invalid (no really.....go read her letter again). This is simply laughable.

No one is compelling Gawker/Jason Chen to identify a source. The felony here (that Jason Chen is going to be charged with) is purchasing stolen property.

Disclaimer: I am an attorney although not licensed in CA.
post #455 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by beakernx01 View Post

Do i think they could have handled the situation better, of course. But to blame Apple for the actions of a drunk employee, a thief and Gizmodo is not fair. Apple did send a letter and request it be returned - basically authenticating Gizmodo's story. Seems like Apple did everything right except put a "no drinking" clause in the NDA for testers.

Until and if we hear the true facts of this case, I don't think it was ever definitively established that the Apple engineer was "drunk". Sure, he probably had a beer or two, but that doesn't necessarily equal being drunk. Maybe the guy can hold his liquor. As many have said, we've only heard one side of the story.
post #456 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.


.

/SNIP

Thank goodness someone else understands this.....
post #457 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

True. But if journalists stop telling secrets to the public in general, the world will be in big big trouble.

Please, tekstud, or igenius, or whichever banned troll you are, there is no "public interest" involved in engaging in industrial espionage. There's a very clear distinction and line that was crossed here.
post #458 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post

I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...

Do they not teach civics anymore?

Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.
post #459 of 531
The whole point of this as far as Apple is concerned is not to actually see them go to jail. It is to send a message to anyone considering a similar thing:

"If you do this, we will come after you and and it will be expensive and scary!"

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #460 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by makisupa123 View Post

Do they not teach civics anymore?

Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.

Nicely stated.
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #461 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by makisupa123 View Post

Do they not teach civics anymore?

Apple did not "file charges" -- those would be civil. Apple needs not "press charges" -- this is something that the county prosecutor's office/grand jury does on their own. Apple's only possible involvement here is cooperating with prosecutors.

Sorry, in today's America, many people equates civics as something antiquated like the model T. Now, it basically My rights , MY rights without the responsibility and the consequences. When those two returns to bite them . You get the response similar to what pondosinatra posted. Sad but true.
post #462 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmg007 View Post

The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.

You would be wrong. "Night service" under CA law is defined from 22:00 to 6:00. According to Jason Chen's account of the events he got home @ 9:45 and the police told them they had been there for a "couple of hours". "Service" occurs at the beginning of the execution of the warrant -- not the conclusion.

You could have found all that information in about 45 seconds but instead you decided to idly speculate. Its true that Gawker media COO/legal representative made the same argument in her letter to detective Broad -- that doesn't make it any less laughable.
post #463 of 531
leave the keys in your car and somebody takes it, Stolen. leave a phone in a bar, not stolen.
post #464 of 531
Misread
post #465 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post

I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...

If all you have gotten out the postings here is that, then yeah you need to embrace your misconceptions and misaprehensions with a whole heart -and who am I to disabuse you of your misconceptions and misapprehensions. Go ahead - wallow in them until your fingers get all pruney.
post #466 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cretony38 View Post

leave the keys in your car and somebody takes it, Stolen. leave a phone in a bar, not stolen.

Leave the keys in your car and somebody drives it to their place, pops the bonnet and takes some pics and then drives it to your house and hands over the car and keys.

Still stolen?
post #467 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.

I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html

We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.

Quote:



I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.

Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.

Quote:


And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.

There you go again..."stolen." That point is very much in debate.

Quote:


Wrong.

First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.

If the property is stolen, yes.

Quote:
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.

Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.

Quote:
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.

I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.

Quote:

What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.

Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.

Quote:


There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:

- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.

No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues.

Quote:
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)

I didn't see them claim that. Link?

Quote:
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple

Not exactly.

Quote:
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.

Unless you can produce evidence to counter that story, shut up. And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?

Quote:
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it

Wait..who owned the phone..Gray Powell---or Apple? Are they under a legal obligation to answer the phone? Morally, of course they are. But that's not what we're talking about.

Quote:


- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?

Does anyone deny they wanted to disassemble it? Try not to look so surprised.

Quote:

Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?

The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.

There you go again...unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #468 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!

EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.

Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!

So which is it people?

- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?

..OR..

Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?

Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't advocate theft and publishing of trade secret information. EVER.

There are legitimate ways to obtain rumors and speculation without breaking an NDA or the law. As a few examples:

- Publishing Apple job postings to get a hint of what's going on in the future
- Pointing out public statements by Apple (and other) people that might be a slip of the tongue, but could provide useful information
- Recording an increase in lead times in products - just ahead of the time that a new product is expected
- Reporting that Foxconn issued a public tender for 10,000,000 LCD screens
- Reporting that someone from AMD was observed going into Apple HQ
Or tons of other things.

There are ways to get a story without stealing or breaking NDAs. In the old days of journalism, people were pretty good at it, but sadly, today's bloggers don't have the skill or patience to do it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #469 of 531
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #470 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html

We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.

Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.

Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.

I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.



Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.


No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues. .


So his profession is stealing things and dealing in stolen property?

By that logic, I'm going to start a web site dedicated to driving cool cars - so I can go out and steal a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.

Or maybe a mass-murderer should put up a web site about how it feels to kill people - so he can't be prosecuted?

The very site you posted specifically says that the exception is if the 'journalist' is accused of a crime. In this case, the journalist is accused of several crimes. The law was never intended to allow journalists to be above the law.

You keep repeating that you're not sure it's been stolen. Since the relevant CA law has been cited here dozens of times, I'm not sure it's my problem that you can't either read or understand the law. The law is about as clear as it can be - it was stolen.

Why should I care if your brother is a lawyer? if HE wants to chime in with a legal opinion, that might be interesting. But simply the fact that you have a brother who is {almost} an attorney doesn't change the fact that you're about as wrong as you can be.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #471 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."

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

Which raises the question: do we really want a corporation directing the expenditure of taxpayer money in criminal investigation?

Wow, Apple, Inc. is on the steering committee for a Silicon Valley based Law Enforcement Team that investigates COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGICAL CRIMES?

Horror of Horrors, I wonder if HP is on the steering committee, too? Or is HP donating their technology and hardware to the criminals?

GEEZ People! If your house is repeatedly broken into, wouldn't you be on the steering committee of the Home Burglary Police Support Group, aka Neighborhood Watch?
post #472 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

(did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?

This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.

But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
post #473 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.

But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.

Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).

The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.

It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #474 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

... There you go again... unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.

Same to you!

Seriously, you are "calling the kettle black" here.

You say that "Not a single person has indicated the bar story is false," but you fail to mention that one person (the thief) is telling that story. The only other person who was even there was the Apple engineer that lost the phone, and he has been told not to talk about it so how could anyone contradict the story? You also (falsely) make it sound like the engineer agrees with you merely by his silence. Not true at all and you should know so.
post #475 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.

But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.

Yeah, the circumstances of how the iPhone prototype was found seems questionable to me too. Heck, I don't leave my iPhone lying around in public places under any circumstances and that's just the 3G version. If I had a secret prototype in my possession, I don't think I'd even let the thing out of my grasp, let alone leave it lying around. But then, that's just me. I probably wouldn't have been drinking in the first place.
post #476 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:

Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).

This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.

And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.

Your analogy has a few holes.

You state "someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner."

You forgot to mention that they disassembled the phone. People who find a stolen *anything* typically don't disassemble it. Would they disassemble a car if their intentions were altruistic? I don't think so. The intention of them ultimately wanting to return it to Apple is also presumptuous, at best. Let's not be overly naive.

If I found a phone of mysterious origins I have a couple of options. I can look at the information on the phone, see the name of the person who it belongs to, and take steps to return it. Along those lines, I can return it to the bar owner, company, or police, or send the guy an email. Call his parents. Get the idea? Or I can realize that it's an in-demand prototype, and sell it to a high bidder. Which do you think really happened?
post #477 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).

The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.

It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.

For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.

You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?

Come on up to Waterloo Ontario some time. I'll give you the names of a few of the bars that some of the thousands of RIM employees hang out at. See if you can pick out the ones with the prototypes. Money down that you can't. (oh hell, make it easier, see if you can even pick out the RIM jobs)

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #478 of 531
Final Words:

If you found a Lost, Post REPORT anyway you like AS Geek or Publisher which is FINE.

YOU know who that item Might/Should belong to, But Disassembling it ? Wrong, Wrong and Wrong!
post #479 of 531
This just gets better and better. 2 hours of work gone. In the blink of a thread. Wish we had more topics like this which churn out the post counts. So many instant classics here.
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
post #480 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.

You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?

You're ignoring a few points:

- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
- 'Finder' doesn't call the person whose phone it was - even though he knows their name and Facebook page
- 'Finder' doesn't answer the phone when it rings repeatedly that evening
- 'Finder' doesn't make any reasonable attempts to return it (mail it to Apple, drop it off with Apple, give it to the police, let the bark know he found it, etc). Instead, he calls an Apple tech support line - where people work from scripts and have no independent action authority
- 'Finder' just happens to call Gizmodo - a name known to only a tiny number of people relative to such far better known organizations like Fox News, CBS, CNET, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, etc

Then, after Gizmodo finds out about it, the 'coincidences' just happen to continue:
- Gizmodo, who claims to have extensive contacts within Apple, can't find anyone better to call than the tech support hotline
- Gizmodo also never takes any of the above reasonable actions to return it
- Gizmodo claims that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - yet they paid $5 K for it (do they pay $5 K for EVERY unknown phone that someone calls them about?)

Now, let's compare all those coincidences with my explanation:

- Gizmodo claims to have extensive contacts within Apple. It is therefore quite plausible that Gizmodo knows where to find Apple engineers and probably even knows who carries an iPhone 4G. So, hardly any stretch of the imagination required at all - compared to the story that you're accepting hook, line, and sinker which requires a long stream of bizarre coincidences.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor