AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo - Page 5

post #161 of 250
5/15/10 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.

Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.

Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.

It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 250
5/15/10 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".

I don't think so.

They captured the photons that were bouncing off of the prototype.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 250
5/15/10 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.

It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.

I agree. Oh, here's a few extra T's ...TTTTTTT
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 250
5/15/10 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?



Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #165 of 250
5/15/10 at 5:03pm
Something that is considered by law in California to be stolen property.

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #166 of 250
5/15/10 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Something that is considered by law in California to be stolen property.

Ignorance of the law is no defense, there fixed it for you.

I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #167 of 250
5/15/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.

It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.

Obviously - I"ve said that many times. But the fact is that the 'finder' made NO effort to return it, so it became stolen property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.

So in your view, it's OK to break the law for a story? Where do you draw the line? You can break the law about buying stolen property but not stealing it yourself? Just what rational or moral line are you drawing in the sand?

You seem to be taking the Gizmodo line that since they're journalists, they should be able to do whatever they want. They're going to find out how ridiculous that position is shortly.

The fact is that they broke the law. Pure and simple. And they need to be punished for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.

Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 250
5/15/10 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #169 of 250
5/15/10 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.

So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?

Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 250
5/15/10 at 7:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?

Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.

Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law. I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #171 of 250
5/15/10 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?

Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.

Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law, and I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #172 of 250
5/15/10 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law.

And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 250
5/15/10 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?

Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.

Uhoh, logic getting in the way again. Yes, if that was their only intent, then that is what they would have done. Funny thing is, most people can have multiple reason and intentions. I guess not everyone, obviously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.

actually, it was a very good example that well demonstrated not everying is always black and white. And really, who the hell are you to criticize the example as worthless for not applying to giz directly. Very amusing coming from a person that keeps bringing up some retarded car analogy. I suppose if ones doesn't understand the point of an analogy then both your weak examples and weaker criticism of his example make a lot of sense.

You do this for a living, eh?

"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 #174 of 250
5/15/10 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone

The trade secret crimes, even if we assume obtaining it wasn't wrong, was publishing the videos and photos of the prototype. I am not a lawyer but the detective's affidavit states Jason Chen violated the law by publishing videos, photos, etc. of the prototype, a trade secret.

When the phone was used in public it was concealed by a case that made it look just like an ordinary iPhone 3G/3GS.
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 250
5/15/10 at 10:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.


While he's in there, I hope that he learns basic grammar. This guy is an EDITOR of a major blog? If he writes like that to Steve Jobs, I wonder what his compositional style is like when messaging crime buddies...erm...I mean...colleagues.
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 #176 of 250
5/15/10 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.

He's right about one thing though --most of us did think it was fake. However, none of us paid $5k to examine it and offered an additional $3.5K upon confirmation that it was genuine.

No thinking judge would conclude the Giz didn't know that the prototype was real. Only an idiot would speculate otherwise.
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 #177 of 250
5/15/10 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.

Try learning the facts first. Hogan and Warner were turned down by Engadget and Wired, and who knows how many other blogs. Only Gizmodo was pitiful enough to buy it. Perhaps a few other blogs would have succumbed to the temptation, but the fact remains that Giz did it, and they were not even on Warner's A or B list. ON SNAP!
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 #178 of 250
5/15/10 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them?

Any judge with reasoning skills.

May I borrow your sister for the night? I will return her in the morning, broken and exposed for the entire world to see.

The damage had been done, buddy.

Would a criminal who bought 100kgs of coke be exonerated because he had a change of heart and decided to return 95% of it (he has disseminated the other 5%)? Um, NO. Damage done? Yeah.
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 #179 of 250
5/16/10 at 12:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.

Probably the same judge and jury who would convict somebody who "borrowed" a car without permission. Taking somebody's property, dismantling it, and most likely breaking it is illegal in California even if you totally promised scout's honor that you always intended to return it when you were done with it. Yeah, we Californians are weird like that.
Also, this idea that they bought it out of noble reasons is complete BS that most people wouldn't fall for. Maybe it's different in places besides California, but if you intend to return something to somebody, you don't take it apart and break it so that you can make money off it before you give it back. Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. If it's reasonable to you to tear something apart that you say you always intended to give back, then I hope you never do me the honor of finding something I lost.
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 250
5/16/10 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.

Uhm... It WAS offered to other tech blogs. Engadget was one of them. They checked with their lawyers. Their suggestion? Don't touch this with a ten foot pole!

You know nothing about the law dude. Hogan AND Gizmodo are in deep sh*t... Wait and see.

Gizmodo can get pounded into the ground for all I care.
Reply
Reply
post #181 of 250
5/16/10 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.

From my perspective, Almost every jury and judge in all 50 States in the Union. Do you know why, it's simple really, all the prosecution have to do is show Gizmodo's iPhone expose from x-date to y-date( Original and revised ) and show them the e-mail from Brian Lam to Steve Jobs. Considering that Brian Hogan will undoubtedly spill the beans to get himself a shorter jail time, the Gizmodo crew basically will be left holding the bucket.

Giz will lose all that money after paying their lawyers and paying the fine. It's foolish really to exchange a long term relationship for a short term gain that will destroy your company considering that you pissed off the CEO of a company who likes your website.
Reply
Reply
post #182 of 250
5/16/10 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them.

What makes you so certain of that? It's the discretion of the San Mateo County DA, not the state of California. And from their actions taken to date, they are treating this as a high profile, high priority case. The publicity and microscope that this case is under has already driven the prosecution.

These "other criminals" that you think California [sic] would "rather" go after aren't in the public eye like Giz, Hogan, Lam, Chen, et al. And this is a multiple felony case, not some minor infraction or misdemeanor. The prosecution won't move forward only if they don't feel they have a case. But, from what's in the affidavit, I'd be very surprised if the charges were just dropped.

For a jury, the instructions from the judge are typically quite narrow, and deal with specific legal questions. Whether the property was returned or not is irrelevant. What laws were broken in the first place are all that matter, and the jury decides whether the prosecution's case is beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69

Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.

How 'bout you call your friend, and let them decide what to do? If you bought the thing and gave it immediately to your friend, I doubt that any prosecutor would press charges mainly because your friend would tell them not to. Especially since an ordinary iPhone's low value would keep that case at the misdemeanor level.

That's clearly not the case with the prototype iPhone. For one thing, Gizmodo's bone-headed payout for the item elevated a simple misdemeanor case (which I doubt that the DA's office would have pursued this vigorously) into a felony.
Reply
Reply
post #183 of 250
5/16/10 at 5:38pm
OK all you geniuses then where are the arrests? Why haven't any charges been filed? We all know who lost the phone, who found and sold it, and who bought it and the amount they paid for it. What's there left to investigate? Giz will at most get fined and if you ask me it'll be chump change compared to the publicity they've gotten. Maybe you guys haven't heard but there are plenty of tech companies other than Apple, the vast majority of articles on Gizmodo are NOT about Apple. So what Steve Jobs is mad at them. He doesn't do them any favors so he can go F himself. And another thing why isn't this site reporting on the all the suicides at Foxconn or why isnt Apple being investigated for the working conditions of the factories they hire? Foxconn if you didn't know is the company that really makes the iPhone. People are slitting there wrists like crazy over there. Just thought I'd let you know whats going on with the employees the build your precious iPhones.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #184 of 250
5/16/10 at 5:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I think that died along with Norman Rockwell. Or maybe it was when doctors stopped riding horses to their houscalls.

Not everywhere and not for everyone. I know a few doctors that regularly volunteer overseas, without pay for various orgs. Granted, these are Canadian doctors for whom the dollar is not almighty, otherwise they could move to the US and become perversely wealthy.

A prof once mentioned his view of the professions that stuck with me, and it seems to be true. People become engineers and architects because they want to create, doctors and dentists because they want to ease suffering, accountants because they love numbers (it was a math prof). But what do lawyers create? Whose pain to they ease? Lawyers don't create, ease no pain and few would say they do it for love. It seems to be the most mercenary of professions.

But in a case like this, no one really wins except the lawyers. If really is all about the money, this case must be a big wet dream.

"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 #185 of 250
5/16/10 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

OK all you geniuses then where are the arrests? Why haven't any charges been filed? We all know who lost the phone, who found and sold it, and who bought it and the amount they paid for it. What's there left to investigate? Giz will at most get fined and if you ask me it'll be chump change compared to the publicity they've gotten. Maybe you guys haven't heard but there are plenty of tech companies other than Apple, the vast majority of articles on Gizmodo are NOT about Apple. So what Steve Jobs is mad at them. He doesn't do them any favors so he can go F himself.

Likely no arrests yet because they are going to deal with Hogan to go after the guys at Giz. They want to get into Chen's computers to see what parts of Hogans story can be corroborated directly and indirectly. Also, since they want to charge Chen with trade secrets theft (by way of take pics of the phone) they want evidence from his computers that he was the one that took the pics. They can't legally access his computers yet, so no charges.

"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 #186 of 250
5/16/10 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Likely no arrests yet because they are going to deal with Hogan to go after the guys at Giz. They want to get into Chen's computers to see what parts of Hogans story can be corroborated directly and indirectly. Also, since they want to charge Chen with trade secrets theft (by way of take pics of the phone) they want evidence from his computers that he was the one that took the pics. They can't legally access his computers yet, so no charges.

Whats there to corroborate? He admitted to everything, which is a confession and charges are always promptly filed. Have the even questioned him? They can arrest for suspicion and they haven't even done that. The warrant to confiscate the computers was issued pretty quickly, how long does it take to get a warrant to look through them? and I'm still waiting to hear what trade secrets were revealed, the phone was not reversed engineered, and it looks an an iPhone version of the LG Prada, big deal.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #187 of 250
5/16/10 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Whats there to corroborate? He admitted to everything, which is a confession and charges are always promptly filed. The warrant to confiscate the computers was issued pretty quickly, how long does it take to get a warrant to look through them? and I'm still waiting to hear what trade secrets were revealed, the phone was not reversed engineered, and it looks an an iPhone version of the LG Prada, big deal.

Who is 'he'? if it is Hogan, he might have admitted to much, but if they want Chen and/or Lam and/or Giz, then they will want to corroborate his story with the information on Chen's computer. Perhaps an email exchange on Chen's system that records saying "those pics you sent confirm it is an Apple prototype. Don't call Apple and don't bring it to the police. We will pay you $5k to buy it from you." Or perhaps an email from Chen that says "we can't be sure you have the real deal there, but it looks promising. We will pay you $5000 to look at it and if it is real we will return it to Apple once we are convinced it is real and another $X000 once Apple confirms it is real. We aren't taking your word on this." They are waiting so they can cover their asses with all the info they can find, beyond just what was provided by Hogan.

The search warrant the police received to search Chen's house may have been issued improperly. That is what they are trying to determine now, though it seems to be taking their sweet time. How long will it take to affirm the DA/police search and seizure were valid? No idea. Week, months, years? Who knows.

There were certainly trade secrets revealed, whether these 'secrets' were seemingly obvious to us doesn't really matter. We might have expected there would be a FF camera, a bigger battery or maybe even a new case. But we didn't know this and so they were secrets. What might be at issue for the trade secret charges is whether trade secret protection applied to the phone at the time Giz got a hold of it. Trade Secret Protection applies as long as the company has taken 'reasonable' efforts to maintain secrecy. Carelessness or bringing it out into public view where it can be seen (even if disguised) could be considered not meeting the criteria for 'reasonable'. Apple authorizing an employee to field test it in public, resulting in it being brought to a bar where the employee was drinking with it placed into a bag in which it was in not secured and then leaving it in the bar for anyone to find and examine might not meet the bar for 'reasonable'. That will be for a judge to decide. If it is found to have lost protection while out and about, then that charge might not stick.

"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 #188 of 250
5/16/10 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Who is 'he'? if it is Hogan, he might have admitted to much, but if they want Chen and/or Lam and/or Giz, then they will want to corroborate his story with the information on Chen's computer. Perhaps an email exchange on Chen's system that records saying "those pics you sent confirm it is an Apple prototype. Don't call Apple and don't bring it to the police. We will pay you $5k to buy it from you." Or perhaps an email from Chen that says "we can't be sure you have the real deal there, but it looks promising. We will pay you $5000 to look at it and if it is real we will return it to Apple once we are convinced it is real and another $X000 once Apple confirms it is real. We aren't taking your word on this." They are waiting so they can cover their asses with all the info they can find, beyond just what was provided by Hogan.

The search warrant the police received to search Chen's house may have been issued improperly. That is what they are trying to determine now, though it seems to be taking their sweet time. How long will it take to affirm the DA/police search and seizure were valid? No idea. Week, months, years? Who knows.

There were certainly trade secrets revealed, whether these 'secrets' were seemingly obvious to us doesn't really matter. We might have expected there would be a FF camera, a bigger battery or maybe even a new case. But we didn't know this and so they were secrets. What might be at issue for the trade secret charges is whether trade secret protection applied to the phone at the time Giz got a hold of it. Trade Secret Protection applies as long as the company has taken 'reasonable' efforts to maintain secrecy. Carelessness or bringing it out into public view where it can be seen (even if disguised) could be considered not meeting the criteria for 'reasonable'. Apple authorizing an employee to field test it in public, resulting in it being brought to a bar where the employee was drinking with it placed into a bag in which it was in not secured and then leaving it in the bar for anyone to find and examine might not meet the bar for 'reasonable'. That will be for a judge to decide. If it is found to have lost protection while out and about, then that charge might not stick.

All purely semantics and have no bearing on the case. Hogan said he sold for X amount and that is the same amount Giz said they paid. Who cares how they agreed on a price. When proceedings take long it's because the case is very weak or they're not sure how to proceed. All these techblogs publish pics if phones before they're released. I saw pics of the Droid, of the Nexus One, and of the Incredible months before they were realeased. Why wasn't that a violation of trade secrets? Does only Apple secrets matter? A trade secrets violation will be difficult to pursue since Giz and Apple didn't have a non-disclosure contract.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #189 of 250
5/16/10 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

All purely semantics and have no bearing on the case. Hogan said he sold for X amount and that is the same amount Giz said they paid. Who cares how they agreed on a price. When proceedings take long it's because the case is very weak or they're not sure how to proceed. All these techblogs publish pics if phones before they're released. I saw pics of the Droid, of the Nexus One, and of the Incredible months before they were realeased. Why wasn't that a violation of trade secrets? Does only Apple secrets matter? A trade secrets violation will be difficult to pursue since Giz and Apple didn't have a non-disclosure contract.

It would depend on how those sites obtained the pics. If they were controlled leaks or if someone broke their NDA, then those sites are likely in the clear. If they broke in and stole them, they would be guilty of trade secret violations. You don't need to be bound by an NDA to be guilty of violating trade secrets. You just need to have improperly obtained and then released them. That will be what the DA tries to determine. Of course, the secret also needs to be covered by trade secret protections, which will also be determined, at or before trial.

How they agreed on the price matters. If they agreed only for access to the device and not to buy it, that might matter in the charges or case (not sure if it would, but that seems to be what Giz is gearing up for). If the evidence shows that Giz felt Hogan might have been misrepresenting what he had, i.e. it was a hoax on his part, but they were will to pay to find out, it might go to intent. If the emails show Giz had every intention of returning it to Apple once they were sure it was Apple's and that they were not sure until they opened it up, then that also goes to intent.

Personally, I agree that a trade secret charge will not be as easy as some here think.

"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 #190 of 250
5/17/10 at 6:18am
Since there wasn't a NDA between Apple and Giz then the burden of proof would be on Apple that the pics hurt their business and gave the competition an advantage. Why does Apple maintain a high level of secrecy? Because they want to present their product to the ohhhs and ahhhs of the media at a big conference. This is not the formula for Coke we're talking about.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #191 of 250
5/17/10 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Since there wasn't a NDA between Apple and Giz then the burden of proof would be on Apple that the pics hurt their business and gave the competition an advantage. Why does Apple maintain a high level of secrecy? Because they want to present their product to the ohhhs and ahhhs of the media at a big conference. This is not the formula for Coke we're talking about.

They keep the secrets for any number of reasons. One is the hype from product launches, yes. And make no mistake, this is a tool very successfully used by Apple for their marketing, so it is very important to them. Another, for any company, is to prevent competitors from knowing specific details. Again, speculation might have agreed to what Apple was going to do with this year's rev, but no one knew for sure. Now competitors have early info. Is it enough time for them to get their own products spec'ed to match/exceed and to get their marketing revved up to counter each new feature on the iPhone? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that they now have concrete evidence in which directions they should go to counter Apple instead of making educated guess, which they would have done prior to the leaks.

It will be easy for Apple to prove damages, real or potential. Their challenge will be to convince a court that their own actions that led to the phone being lost didn't negate their trade secret protections and that Giz is guilty of then violating their trade secrets illegally.

"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 #192 of 250
5/17/10 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

They keep the secrets for any number of reasons. One is the hype from product launches, yes. And make no mistake, this is a tool very successfully used by Apple for their marketing, so it is very important to them. Another, for any company, is to prevent competitors from knowing specific details. Again, speculation might have agreed to what Apple was going to do with this year's rev, but no one knew for sure. Now competitors have early info. Is it enough time for them to get their own products spec'ed to match/exceed and to get their marketing revved up to counter each new feature on the iPhone? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that they now have concrete evidence in which directions they should go to counter Apple instead of making educated guess, which they would have done prior to the leaks.

It will be easy for Apple to prove damages, real or potential. Their challenge will be to convince a court that their own actions that led to the phone being lost didn't negate their trade secret protections and that Giz is guilty of then violating their trade secrets illegally.

Actually it would be extremely hard for Apple to prove damages. The only claim they might have is that people stopped buying the current model and wait for the new one. Even if sales dipped recently how are they going to attest that directly to Giz? Numerous sites including this one have been reporting that a new iPhone is coming out so its not that big of a secret, now is it? Many of you ask where does Giz draw the line to get a story, I ask where does Apple draw the line if they're successful against Giz, will they then come after AppleInsider, Macrumors, tuaw, etc for publishing articles of upcoming devices?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #193 of 250
5/17/10 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Actually it would be extremely hard for Apple to prove damages. The only claim they might have is that people stopped buying the current model and wait for the new one. Even if sales dipped recently how are they going to attest that directly to Giz? Numerous sites including this one have been reporting that a new iPhone is coming out so its not that big of a secret, now is it? Many of you ask where does Giz draw the line to get a story, I ask where does Apple draw the line if they're successful against Giz, will they then come after AppleInsider, Macrumors, tuaw, etc for publishing articles of upcoming devices?

I think showing the actual damages only matters if they launch a civil suit. In the criminal case they just have to prove the crime.

"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 #194 of 250
5/17/10 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I think showing the actual damages only matters if they launch a civil suit. In the criminal case they just have to prove the crime.

Close. The state of CA also needs to prove that the value of the phone was large enough to make it felony theft. Of course, the fact that Gizmodo paid either $5 K or $8500 for it proves that beyond any doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Actually it would be extremely hard for Apple to prove damages. The only claim they might have is that people stopped buying the current model and wait for the new one. Even if sales dipped recently how are they going to attest that directly to Giz? Numerous sites including this one have been reporting that a new iPhone is coming out so its not that big of a secret, now is it? Many of you ask where does Giz draw the line to get a story, I ask where does Apple draw the line if they're successful against Giz, will they then come after AppleInsider, Macrumors, tuaw, etc for publishing articles of upcoming devices?

This is actually quite simple. There are experts who can readily look at sales figures and history and come up with estimates of losses. These estimates are never very precise, but if Apple brings in 3 experts who all put the value into the millions of dollars, it's going to be hard for Gizmodo to refute.
Reply
Reply
post #195 of 250
5/17/10 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Close. The state of CA also needs to prove that the value of the phone was large enough to make it felony theft. Of course, the fact that Gizmodo paid either $5 K or $8500 for it proves that beyond any doubt.
.

Fair enough. The value would make it a felony, but actual damages would be used in a civil trial?

"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 #196 of 250
5/17/10 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Close. The state of CA also needs to prove that the value of the phone was large enough to make it felony theft. Of course, the fact that Gizmodo paid either $5 K or $8500 for it proves that beyond any doubt.



This is actually quite simple. There are experts who can readily look at sales figures and history and come up with estimates of losses. These estimates are never very precise, but if Apple brings in 3 experts who all put the value into the millions of dollars, it's going to be hard for Gizmodo to refute.

Then put every website that posted the pics and links to Giz as an accessory, and every news channel that ran the story as well. Most people found out from a different website.

How can you pin a drop in sales on Giz? Are you going to go around asking people why didn't they buy an iPhone? What if they say "because I saw pics of the new iPhone on AppleInsider"? Whoa did appleinsider publish the same ill gotten pics and story that Giz did? Yes, so why are then they exempt from prosecution?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #197 of 250
5/17/10 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.

Or a complete fool has ones head jammed so far up their butts they would think it is nonsense. Really, requiring proof of ownership is nonsense? Stick your head back into the sand and continue to be clueless, wow.
Reply
Reply
post #198 of 250
5/17/10 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Fair enough. The value would make it a felony, but actual damages would be used in a civil trial?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then put every website that posted the pics and links to Giz as an accessory, and every news channel that ran the story as well. Most people found out from a different website.

How can you pin a drop in sales on Giz? Are you going to go around asking people why didn't they buy an iPhone? What if they say "because I saw pics of the new iPhone on AppleInsider"? Whoa did appleinsider publish the same ill gotten pics and story that Giz did? Yes, so why are then they exempt from prosecution?

As I said, there are experts who make their living on marketing analyses. Your examples indicate some serious misunderstanding of the law.

1. AI and others who republished the Gizmodo pictures are not accessories to the crime. Once Gizmodo put the pictures in the public domain, a legitimate news medium can copy them (with appropriate attribution). They do not commit a crime. Gizmodo, of course, DID commit a crime, which is why they're being criticized. If AI had purchased the stolen phone, then THEY would be the ones who committed the crime. It's really not complicated if you just think about it instead of blindly defending Gizmodo.

2. You CAN, however include ALL the people who saw the pictures in determining damages - whether they saw the pictures on Gizmodo or AI. AI would not have had the pictures if not for Gizmodo's illegal publication, so any lost sales are due to Gizmodo's crime - regardless of where the customer saw them.
Reply
Reply
post #199 of 250
5/17/10 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes.



As I said, there are experts who make their living on marketing analyses. Your examples indicate some serious misunderstanding of the law.

1. AI and others who republished the Gizmodo pictures are not accessories to the crime. Once Gizmodo put the pictures in the public domain, a legitimate news medium can copy them (with appropriate attribution). They do not commit a crime. Gizmodo, of course, DID commit a crime, which is why they're being criticized. If AI had purchased the stolen phone, then THEY would be the ones who committed the crime. It's really not complicated if you just think about it instead of blindly defending Gizmodo.

2. You CAN, however include ALL the people who saw the pictures in determining damages - whether they saw the pictures on Gizmodo or AI. AI would not have had the pictures if not for Gizmodo's illegal publication, so any lost sales are due to Gizmodo's crime - regardless of where the customer saw them.

Touche, well written and I wholeheartedly agree with you. But you ignored at what I said where will Apple stop if they win this case. Now ALL rumors can be questioned? Most of these sites have inside sources, what does the name of this website insinuate? Inside info on Apple products and services. Will they now storm the offices of AI and demand they give up their sources of info or because they label it as "rumor" are they exempt?

And are these experts ever wrong? Look at the economic mess were in because of so called experts. Are there not articles about a new iPhone even way before Giz's article? Did Giz show the world something we knew wasn't coming? Can you prove with a 100% certainty that people didn't buy a 3GS because of Giz? Whatever proof they can come up with can easily be shot down.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #200 of 250
5/17/10 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.

Let's say you left your wallet behind in a bar. A drunk finds it and I offer him $100.00 for it. I know the wallet is yours because your ID is inside. Do I contact you so we can make arrangements so it can be returned? No, I decide that since people are interested in other people's business, I'll post the contents of your wallet to my website, including credit cards, the personal notes from your girlfriend and the snapshots of you, her and a couple of small farm animals. I also pocket your cash. I finally agree to return the wallet AFTER you see my website and ASK ME for it back. That makes me innocent?

I knew the wallet was yours, but rather than return it, I made sure that I extracted every ounce of value out of it first and only returned it to you because you ASKED for it back. Sorry dude, that would make me a thief.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo