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 3

post #81 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy View Post

i'm having trouble understanding all this animosity towards gizmodo

How about when they turned off presentations I was watching at the 2008 CES ?
Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (1st gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.7
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
2010 Mac Mini with Plex as a HTPC
1TB Time Capsule
32G...
Reply
Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (1st gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.7
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
2010 Mac Mini with Plex as a HTPC
1TB Time Capsule
32G...
Reply
post #82 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:48pm
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.

It's not Gizmodo VS Apple.

This is for catching the guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:49pm
Obviously, there are a lot of people posting here who have no idea of what "breaking the law" means.

1. There's a law.

2. Someone breaks it.

3. The authorities investigate.

4. Charges are filed.

5. A trial is held.

6. A verdict is rendered.

7. The verdict is carried out.

And NONE of this requires the active participation of Apple or Steve Jobs!

As an Apple stockholder, I hope the law rips Gizmodo a new one.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


Awww.

That's the funniest shit I've seen today, but

Awwwww.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #85 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

No matter how you slice it Gizmodo really dropped the ball on this.

Maybe we'll see the Apple conspiracy theorists now chime in that this was also a Gawker conspiracy to profit from suing their attorney for malpractice.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:50pm
meh. Who cares really. We got what we wanted out of it, and iphone 4g is just a few months away anyways. It's not like Apple's 2015 model got out or something REALLY damaging.

You mean iphone 9g will act as a HOVER BOARD!?
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


Yawn. He considers himself a geek?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

There are many possibilities.

1) the gizmodo editor bought the iPhone prototype without any idea that it was stolen
2) the gizmodo editor knew it was stolen
3) the gizmodo editor stole the iPhone prototype
4) the Apple engineer actually sold gizmodo the iPhone
5) Steve Jobs sold gizmodo the iPhone.

The police needs to get the evidence. Breaking the door might be a bit over the top, but that's probably regular procedure in order to preserve evidence.

You forget option

6) Gizmodo is composed of paparazzi or yellow journalism minded twit brains who wanted to publish a story no matter what and played dumb in the hope they would get away with being Homer Simpson level stupid.

Actually now I think about it, Homer Simpson is smarter.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

meh. Who cares really. We got what we wanted out of it, and iphone 4g is just a few months away anyways. It's not like Apple's 2015 model got out or something REALLY damaging.

You mean iphone 9g will act as a HOVER BOARD!?

But you have to buy two as well as the Nike+++++++ attachments for your shoes. That's where get cha!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #90 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3goldens View Post

Search warrant was illegal do tell, how is that?

Apple influence the police, are you some sort of conspiracy buff, nut, whatever.....

Clearly, what these people did need to be investigated, and should it be found that this item was stolen, and that they clear.y knew they were purchasing stolen goods, I hope they shut them down, and they all go to the big house to meet bubba! That'll teach em a thing or two!

I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.

I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.

Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.

Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?

How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.

Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.

Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:53pm
What people don't understand is this, Gizmodo themselves were the ones that created this chain of events that led to the authorities in California to seize, Jason Chen's computers. Link number one, they showed the lost iPhone prototype in their possession by showing pictures of it in their website, Link number two, they admitted that they paid a large amount of money to the finder and btw, they were noted to actively looking for someone who can provide them with the existence of the 4 gen iPhone and are willing to pay for it, link number three, they acknowledge that the finder knew who the Apple engineer who lost the prototype by looking at his facebook account the very night the guy/girl found the lost iPhone, link number four, they posted the Apple engineer's name all over the web as the one who lost the prototype but not the name of the finder. I am no lawyer, but the way Gizmodo handled it, it will looked like they have something to hide and the authorities are curious about it .
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.
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 #93 of 531
4/26/10 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.

I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.

Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.

Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?

How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.

Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.

Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.

Gizmodo needs a lawyer so they can continue to play the "I don't know it's stolen" card.

I am sure the lawyers are reviewing each and every blog posts about the iPhone G4 at the moment.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple 1984 View Post

Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.

As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.

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? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.

PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #95 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

What people don't understand is this, Gizmodo themselves were the ones that created this chain of events that led to the authorities in California to seize, Jason Chen's computers. Link number one, they showed the lost iPhone prototype in their possession by showing pictures of it in their website, Link number two, they admitted that they paid a large amount of money to the finder and btw, they were noted to actively looking for someone who can provide them with the existence of the 4 gen iPhone and are willing to pay for it, link number three, they acknowledge that the finder knew who the Apple engineer who lost the prototype by looking at his facebook account the very night the guy/girl found the lost iPhone, link number four, they posted the Apple engineer's name all over the web as the one who lost the prototype but not the name of the finder. I am no lawyer, but the way Gizmodo handled it, it will looked like they have something to hide and the authorities are curious about it .

Yes but none of what you mentioned is illegal for a media outlet. They can pay for stories and they do all the time. Take a video or snapshot of something interesting you may get paid for it. Now knowingly accepting stolen merchandise is likely not covered even for media outlets as there has to be a limit to ethics.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #96 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

+1

It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.

1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection.
2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.

I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".

The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property

Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.

I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. However, you're also free to keep checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:04pm
Funny how the search was news to Chen when he arrived after going out to dinner, and yet there was still a "1 page doc pertaining to the invalidity of the search warrant" signed by Gawkers lawyer in "room 1"...

Let's see how long before Gizmodo change this story...
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.

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? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.

PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.

For once I must agree with him.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple 1984 View Post

Maybe you would personally like to lose your job (or whatever may become of Gray) because someone either stole or found (but never returned) your phone. Or maybe as a stockholder you would like to lose money because a competitor in some way used this information to further their own product over Apple's.

I don't suppose it's ever crossed your mind that Apple most likely knew already that the phone was lost by Gray. It would be impossible to believe that Apple fired up Giz one day, looked at photos of their phone and then started wondering where it is. Whatever discipline meted out should have been dispensed during the month or so between the loss and the scoop. I would guess any connection between giz and gray's fate is less than what many are making it out to be.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".

The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.

I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #102 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by satcomer View Post

How about when they turned off presentations I was watching at the 2008 CES ?

Exactly. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Gizmodo have always been amoral assholes who will screw anyone over for page hits.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

Whatever your political slant is, there were numerous felonies here:
-Stealing property
-Buying stolen property
-Destroying stolen property

Being a member of the media does not protect you from any of these. In fact being a member of the media, shouldn't afford you any special treatment for breaking any law. To think otherwise is infantile and silly.

I'm very sorry, but this case can't help you flush out those conspiracy theories. You're also free to checking under the bed for the Steve Jobs boogyman. Oooooooooooo

Where is there a charge filed and by whom?

Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?

See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:

1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.

I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't think that (1) even applies. Being a journalist, regardless of who one works for, doesn't give the journalist license to commit criminal acts, even if they are related to "reporting a story".

The only question is whether a criminal act was committed and/or covered up.

You are right, it doesn't, but it does allow them certain protections to report things that are in the public interest, even if something illegal has happened in order to bring that into the public domain.

As an example, if a journalist got hold of some company confidential documents which showed the company in question was involved in embezzlement, even if those documents were stolen, then the journalist should be protected from using that stolen information because what they reported is in the public interest.

That being the case, it comes down to how you define public interest. I don't think it's in the public's interest to see Apples phone ahead of when they wanted to, so that argument falls down here and for the record, I think Gizmodo were wrong to do what they did.

All told there is more complexity to this than just "I love Apple so Gizmodo deserve everything they get", or "I hate Apple so Gizmodo are absolutely right".

Depending on how it is handled, this relatively trivial story could have dangerous ramifications for the journalism world.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:09pm
You start off with this ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Can we all stop quarterbacking and being fan boys long enough to see what has been left out? ..

.. and then proceed to do the very same thing yourself.

On top of that, most of your "quarterbacking" seems like gibberish to me. I'm not sure what you're even suggesting.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I know that's why I said the burden of proof is with whatever county prosecutor in charge. If Chen's computer comes up clean, meaning know acknowledgement that the phone was stolen, their prosecutors case becomes almost impossible to win.

Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You start off with this ... .. and then proceed to do the very same thing yourself.

On top of that, most of your "quarterbacking" seems like gibberish to me. I'm not sure what you're even suggesting.

Wow. Really? Wow......
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:15pm
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!!!
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

Free media my butt. The media has ALWAYS been controlled by the rich and until you get that into your skull you'll forever be deluded into thinking anyone in this world has any form of freedom.

Gizmodo clearly committed a crime and so they have no rights because they CHOSE to not obey the law. This is what sluts me off about the law because supposedly criminals have human rights but if they don't want to abide by the laws set by humans then how can they claim to have the same rights as those who do abide by the laws? If you choose not to obey the law then you should not legally have any rights plain and simple. Once people realise this then victims of crime can start to get better service than the criminals but something tells me this will never happen because of the political correctness freaks that are ruining society for everyone.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."

Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Stop the hyperbole... please.

um, that's true UNTIL you sell ("appropriate") the car. you are supposed to turn it over to the police instead as "found" to be held for the true owner to claim. same as if you find $5000 in cash in a brown paper bag on the sidewalk ...

sorry, but taking cash for someone else's property = committing crime.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

Aren't you going a bit over the top here? I'm a leftie, and a Canadian leftie at that, so I would be a leftist socialist commie by USA standards and this kind of police action doesn't bother me at all.

Also, the police didn't "raid the homes of (Steve's) enemies," they acted on a complaint from a citizen. They also weren't "legally notified their warrant is invalid," they were presented with a printout of an email from Jason Chen's boss. A totally different story than the one you're pushing.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."

Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Stop the hyperbole... please.

-Clive

Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft. Hence stolen.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.

Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.

There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.

Quote:
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.

The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.

Quote:
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.

What are you suggesting?
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Where is there a charge filed and by whom?

Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?

See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:

1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.

I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.

It is not required that Apple file charges to proceed with a criminal investigation.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:22pm
Good thing you are not a lawyer. First, the relevant time is when the police showed up, not when Chen came home. The warrant doesn't require the police to wait for Chen to show up.

Second, the Chen guy came home around 9:45 PM. The police showed up about two hours earlier. So the warrant was exercised at about 7:45PM. In California, Night Service is anything after 10PM and before 7 AM. So, based on both the time Chen came home and when the police exercised the warrant, the police complied with the terms of the warrant.

See here.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Like I said before, this is most likely not for Jason Chen.
It is for getting the guy who sold him the iPhone 4G.

Apple getting to the guy who sold the prototype isn't going to happen. Apple's already lost against Jason O'Grady back in the mid 2000's (O'Grady vs Superior Court) when they tried to sue Jason and find out his source. The courts said O'Grady's Powerpage had shield protection. Game over ..done that's the precedent.


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!!!

Yes that's for the guy that found and sold the prototype. You'll never know who he/she is because they're protected.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #117 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Where is there a charge filed and by whom?

Apple has yet to actual file a police report stating their property was stolen, so how does this amount to anything you have listed above?

See, if apple had filed a report it would have done one of two things:

1. Alerted everyone to the existence of an iPhone 4g.
2 If it was not actually stolen they would have had the potential of false reporting charges brought up on them.

I am not an attorney and I doubt you are either, so please stop stating this as though it were fact.


I am not an attorney, so let us stop the BS about who knows what law or fact better. Apple did not file an actual police report, that I agree. But Gizmodo did several things that can be considered idiotic and moronic such as, offering and buying the the prototype iPhone for x amount of dollars, dismantling it and posting the pictures of device all over the web and third, is stupid enough or arrogant enough to admit that the finder knew who the owner was prior to erasure of the prototype's files from his facebook account. As I said, I am not an attorney and neither am I from law enforcement, but in my opinion, Gizmodo set themselves up for this and they no one else to blame but themselves.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Wow. Really? Wow......

Sorry if that sounded harsh, I read it a few times and couldn't see what you were saying. Maybe you were a victim of iPhone autocorrect?
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

There's nothing he could do to fight it, unless he wanted to be arrested on the spot for assaulting a police officer or attempting to break into the evidence vault at police HQ.


The iPhone prototype was reportedly stolen weeks before the publicity. That alone gave Gawker a relatively long time to seek legal counsel on this particular case. Even months earlier, Gawker/Gizmodo had posted a reward for people who provided secret technology, which would have given them earlier legal knowledge in the area of property rights and stolen property.


What are you suggesting?

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.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 531
4/26/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

If they're going to reveal names and all, why spill the name of the guy who flubbed up and not the notorious opportunist who fenced it.

That's the name I want to see in print.

journalism doesn't drop names of their sources. but the guy probably had a deal to not expose him to ensure his privacy which could be up in the air now. if he stole it, and gizmodo knew this, then his name should be exposed as well, but if not, then i dont see why they should...protect your sources..

on the hand, if you're gary powell, would you want your name not exposed and very likely lose your job... or do you want your name exposed hoping the media and public will help save your job? its a no win situation. i just think gizmodo dropped his name to save his job, but do you agree his name would have been exposed anyways?

I would like a poll about what would most likely to happen to Gary P. if he did lose the iphoen and was not stolen:
a) Gizmodo does not drop his name, and GP get's fired, goes down quietly..
b) GP's name was going to be exposed eventually by someone else, but gets fired first with no public/media to help him.
c) Gizmodo, saved his job for the mean time, by dropping his name and hoping the public will put the pressure on Apple to not fire him.
d) GP's name does not get exposed and keeps his job.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor