or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone - Page 5

post #161 of 310
How much do you want to bet?

Chen was videotaped in possession of property deemed to be stolen, he admitted he had it in his possession, nowhere did I say he stole it.

I suggest you look into the difference between stealing and receiving stolen property.

Your circular arguments seem very trollish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And in your case ignorance is your only defense.

The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)

That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.

But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.

Therefore you are delusional.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #162 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And in your case ignorance is your only defense.

The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)

That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.

But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.

Therefore you are delusional.

I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.
post #163 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.

You just stated it: Sue.

That makes it civil.

I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.

No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.
post #164 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

How much do you want to bet?

Chen was videotaped in possession of property deemed to be stolen, he admitted he had it in his possession, nowhere did I say he stole it.

I suggest you look into the difference between stealing and receiving stolen property.

Your circular arguments seem very trollish.

Actually you DID say he stole it in threads past. You also said HE paid for it, though I don't know how he can do both.

Now you are backtracking and just saying he was in possession.

My story still hasn't changed. Yours just did.
post #165 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Gizmodo is guilty as hell. Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures? Gizmodo knew exactly what they had when Jobs asked for it back. They had no business playing games and then leaking trade secrets at that point.

Thompson

He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:

"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."

So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.

If the facts don't work for you, just change them?

Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.

"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 #166 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Like I said in a different post in a different thread, no one seems to care about the legal or moral merits of the issue. This is, and shall always be about whether a person likes Apple or hates them.

We didn't need any detailed information to know that under the law, Giz dealt in stolen merchandise. Now that we have more information, and that information is damning, not one defender of Giz will back off from that defense. If anything, they will dig in deeper and become even more shrill. Even in this thread, it has been suggested that Apple somehow did something wrong. There will no doubt be some still believing that Apple owes Giz an apology. Still others believe that Apple has no rights to trade secrets, patents, or anything else contributing to their success.

When the smoke clears, perhaps sooner rather than later, I suspect that there will be a steaming crater in the internet where Giz used to be. I also suspect that someone will go to jail, but it won't be the staff of Giz. No one will be happy with the outcome. The haters who were never going to buy one of these phones will declare loudly that because of Apple's NAZI campaign agains journalism and freedom, they will never buy another Apple product. At that point, things will more or less be back to normal.

Oh, and Apple will print money even faster than they are now.

I wish I could live in that dream world. It must be nice to simply write off everyone that has a different opinion as being an Apple hater. Nice, simple fantasy world.

"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 #167 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

You just stated it: Sue.

That makes it civil.

I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.

No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.

Sigh. I'd rather not give you a treatise in law right now. So let's just assume that just because I am summarizing things for the sake of this thread, doesn't mean it's the entire statement on the law ok?

In any event, just by your stating that they can sue civilly is an admission on your part of the wrongdoing of the employee.

Based on the affidavit to the search warrant, it does appear that Chen is certainly implicit in some respects - of course everything things need to be proven! That goes without saying! The same reasons that you are attacking others for their opinions can be made to yourself.

And contrary to your last sentence, you don't know the facts, nor do any of us.

EDIT TO ADD: it appears that some of my posts are missing. I guess it doesn't matter for myself, but I do find it rather odd.
post #168 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

it's called, among other things, obstruction of justice.

This guy is in a lot of trouble. And the more trouble he's in, the more trouble Chen is in.

I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.

Yes and no. Chen is a big boy and he knowingly took a shady back-alley approach to "journalism". He should be hung out to dry along with anyone else who acted unethically and more so unwisely. Furthermore, I am getting fed up with the wishy-washy bullsh*t everyone spews forth (not you) about how much "good" Giz is doing for journalism. Eff Gizmodo on this one. Anyone in their position knows what trade secret is and how to treat it. They knowingly revealed trade secret. Positive ID, by them. Dissection, by them. Biased spin cover stories, by them. It was their mistake, after they knew who the rightful owner was, which according to them they knew before they wrote all of the blog posts revealing its guts. Case closed. They will suffer the consequence. If they had not said anything about knowing whose it was, they would be much, much more in the clear.

Trade Secrets

Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property. A trade secret can be a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable to the public.

Some examples of Trade Secrets are:
1. Formula for the soft drink, Coca-Cola
2. Business processes
3. Marketing Strategies
4. Food Recipes
5. Computer Algorithms
6. Prototypes

In addition, the trade secret must be of an economic advantage over a business' competitors or customers. Lastly, the owner of the trade secret must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Giz even states it was camouflaged by Apple.)

What were the trade secrets? Marketing strategy and prototypes which Giz states Apple was hiding and not intended for public knowledge. No sh*t Gizmodo, no effing sh*t. Who cares if it was Apple, if Giz did this to your company would you be happy?

So the issue is less about who stole it and more about Giz's destruction of Trade Secrecy, which is a right of all companies. Again, Giz committed this crime when they stated admission of ownership and that it was a prototype destined to be secret. Their understanding of this law is not necessary in order for them to be proven guilty.
post #169 of 310
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.

I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.

Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.

Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.

At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.

Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #170 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Actually you DID say he stole it in threads past. You also said HE paid for it, though I don't know how he can do both.

Now you are backtracking and just saying he was in possession.

My story still hasn't changed. Yours just did.

If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:

http://gawker.com/5539717/

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Fun stuff!
post #171 of 310
I like your take on this Robin but perhaps you are being just a bit *too* kind to the Gizmodo kids.

This part here for instance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

... Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ...

Doesn't seem right to me.

Gizmodo's first publication on the matter was just of some photos and one video. AFAIK the disassembly was posted either the next day or the day after that.

They make the statement (paraphrased) that "they didn't know it was real until they took it apart." But Apple, in the person of Steve Jobs, contacted them the next day after they published. It seems to me that it's inescapable that they either took it apart *after* talking to Steve Jobs (which kind of makes the statement that they had to take it apart a lie), or they took it apart before Steve Jobs called and only posted the video later (which makes everything Brian Lam said in his email to Jobs about needing "proof" a lie).

It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.

It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
post #172 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.

My instincts tell me you are right, but I was just trying to stick to the facts in order to clear the air. Thanks for the link, fascinating reading indeed! But I came away a little less negative about Gawker--he seemed pretty even-handed and even self-critical in his follow up notes. Still, I agree with Steve.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #173 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.

It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.

Even ignoring the fact that they paid $5000 for the phone to begin with (which is indicative of their knowledge), I think that if it is true that they were going to pay Hogan another $3500 later upon reveal of the real iPhone highly points to the fact that they did know.
post #174 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

The point that Gizmodo (and you) are missing is that it doesn't matter if it's authentic. Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law. The fact that Gizmodo paid $5 K for it makes it felony theft. It doesn't matter if it was an Apple phone or an alien artifact, it was stolen property worth $5 K.

End of story.
"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 #175 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law.

And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #176 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

1. And I think you are engaged in classic misdirection.

2. What? Are you gonna pull a Stalin and try to go back and edit all your posts on this subject for the last month?

3. Whatever. I'm tired of sparring with you. Welcome to the ignore list. Usually I wouldn't do that, but I lose brain cells reading your posts. It's for my own senior health.

Alternative Perspective

1. FWIW HQ, from my assessment, on this Gizmodo topic and specifically the referenced post, PP is not engaging in any misdirection, classically or otherwise. Your interpretation(s) are in stark contrast to reality (obviously IMO). Breathe.

2. I've carefully read (at times in a state of mild bewilderment) and absorbed your and his posts over numerous threads on the unfolding and fascinating Gizmodo shenanigan (a charitable overstatement). Some postings are informative, few are legally enlightening, but all are characterologically illuminating. With all the respect that these have earned and are due, both your current assertion and characterization are rhetorical and offensive nonsense. Take a deep breath.

3. Defensive posturing of this magnitude would be a drain on anyone's energy. Perhaps you might consider just ceasing sparring. There are appropriate times to employ the Ignore List (perhaps now by including me!). However on the Gizmodo topic, with intelligent posters articulating similar perspectives, question whether utilizing it might simply be a dysfunctional method to limit unpleasant reality intrusions in an effort to preserve your personal worldview. Slowly exhale.

HQ, you proclaim and make inferences of high-regard for your Gizmodo analysis, while directly and inferentially disparaging lucid, logical, and contextual alternatives proffered by others. It seems to me, you vastly overrate many of the analytical capabilities you've applied to this topic. By doing so, you disservice yourself by undermining the esteem you may seek.

My comments are direct and harsh, but not intended to belittle or offend (nor to initiate sparring between us). No need to respond; just give it a thought sometime. In the meantime, let's step back and enjoy the unfolding of legal events by the career pros.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

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

Reply
post #177 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

And you know that {that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan} because . . . ?

Because they friggin' said so. Sheesh.

Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
"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 #178 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because they friggin' said so. Sheesh.

Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.

They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his. In fact, the police report that mentions that Giz paid a portion of the money up front and reserved a subsequent payment for after the item was officially announced by Apple is a pretty strong indication that they were not certain that it was not hoax at the time they paid him. i.e. they wanted confirmation prior to paying the full amount.

This doesn't necessarily absolve them of any wrong doing, but your logic is just off. Their story of how they got their hands on it was to provide background at the time of their story. It is not evidence of them knowing it was not Hogans. The police report itself at least implies they were not certain. They paid $5k+ up front so they obviously felt pretty sure, but the amount held in reserve is evidence that they were not entirely convinced.

"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 #179 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:

http://gawker.com/5539717/

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Fun stuff!

Ryan Tate sounds like a real gentleman.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #180 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.

You're damn right she is. Me, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone and started cooking the corpse. But then again, I choose my friends carefully.
post #181 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.

I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.

...

Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.

THANK YOU for being rational.
post #182 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueheeler View Post

You're damn right she is. Me, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone and started cooking the corpse. But then again, I choose my friends carefully.

I never would have believed before this happened that there were so many people who ascribe to this juvenile amoral point of view. I said it to the other guy already, but seriously, this is the kind of view of "friendship" that you should grow out of by the age of fifteen or so. Your duty is to your family and to society itself before it is to some guy you happen to be living with at the time.

If your brother, sister, mother or father turns out to be a cold blooded killer then you could say you might have a bit of a dilemma as to whether to turn them in. If on the other hand your college roommate uses your computer without your permission to commit a stupid petty crime (and therefore involve you in it), you are an idiot for not turning them in. Why should the roommate defend Hogan when Hogan obviously couldn't give a rats ass about her?

I don't understand in general why anyone is defending the Gizmodo people or Hogan or any of them and making out like it's all about "honour" or some such when in fact these are some of the least honourable people you could find. It can't be honourable to defend someone who is themselves without honour.

Hogan, his accomplice, Chen, Lam and most of the Gawker staff would probably throw any one of you defending them to the cops in a second if it could get them out of the jam they are in.
post #183 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

A couple of clueless dudes decide to turn a happy accident into a quick few grand. Not realizing that they are a pair of chihuahuas getting into the arena with a pit bull. A little like Mamet's "American Buffalo." What a great subject for a graphic novel is this whole saga. Complications ensue as the game moves higher and higher in the fifth estate v. corporate world. Can't you just see the woodcut-style, low-angle lighting, black and white cell of a furrow browed Steve Jobs talking on the phone ("i" ronically) to Chen. "Just give the package back and no one gets hurt." The giddy, sweating Chen yammering on about "what's in it for me?" A hot room mate. Tech SWAT breaking down doors . . . . We end up in a Law and Order land of attorneys and court rooms. So many layers. So many lawyers. Lots of interesting characters. Silicon Valley Smackdown. Writers out there, take head.

Yeah, I can imagine the movie as well in my mind since yesterday. Really juicy stuff. Could be better than the crap movies out lately. I'll repeat my casting choices I posted earlier. Jack Nicholson as Steve. Asian guy (Chinese one, not Korean guy) from Lost as Jason Chen or Brian Lam. Scarlett Johansson as the hot roommate. That "geeky loser" guy from Kick-Ass or the one from Zombieland as the engineer that lost the phone.

The narration opens like Roshark from Watchmen... Something like the detective investigating the case narrating...

"I walk the Silicon Valley streets at night. So much talent, so much technology. But so much filth. I look at people with their i-everythings and laugh quietly. The rain starts. Strange time in the year for it. Maybe it's that global warming stuff these California hippies whine about.

The facts. On the 20th of April I met with Apple regarding the theft of their so-called iPhone 4G prototype. These geniuses. How'd they lose it? I met with Rick Orloff and Bruce Sewell at the Apple campus, their Disneyland for geeks, only, you gotta work for Apple to take the rides. Seems some loser named Robert "Gray" Powell lost the phone when out drinking at a local bar. Yeah, right. Some broad got him all in a huff and he forgot about his super-top-secret gadget? I'm trying not to chuckle in front of these goons...."


And so on...
post #184 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

Sigh. I'd rather not give you a treatise in law right now. So let's just assume that just because I am summarizing things for the sake of this thread, doesn't mean it's the entire statement on the law ok?

In any event, just by your stating that they can sue civilly is an admission on your part of the wrongdoing of the employee.

Based on the affidavit to the search warrant, it does appear that Chen is certainly implicit in some respects - of course everything things need to be proven! That goes without saying! The same reasons that you are attacking others for their opinions can be made to yourself.

And contrary to your last sentence, you don't know the facts, nor do any of us.

EDIT TO ADD: it appears that some of my posts are missing. I guess it doesn't matter for myself, but I do find it rather odd.

You are attempting to apply civil suits to a criminal case, which in this instance, if you are an attorney you will know, does not apply. They are two different worlds. The fact is that I have attacked everyone because the essentially attacked Chen immediately, as though he was the embodiment of Gizmodo.

If you check all previous threads on this subject, they have attacked him without any proof and the affidavit now shows there are entities higher than Chen. You know how that works, especially if he acted as a representative of Gizmodo. Though they will also state that he bought the item (they first said he stole the item all on his own and that he was a thief) which nothing shows he did either, therefore their argument fails on the outset.

As you stated, there is no proof and I have argued that from the beginning. Check my previous posts in the previous threads on this subject and you will see that. So, no, the finger can't be pointed back at me, as you only stated what I have always stated.

And there is no point attempting to argue civil law to criminal. The only wash for that is that if he is found guilty in criminal court (if he is even considered a subject worth pursuing when there are many other higher level subjects of direct involvement available) then it will be easier to gain a favorable verdict in a civil suit.

But you already know there's more than likely no chance they will go after Chen, based on your own argument, so my question is: Why are you even ATTEMPTING to argue for them?
post #185 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Energ8t View Post

Yes and no. Chen is a big boy and he knowingly took a shady back-alley approach to "journalism". He should be hung out to dry along with anyone else who acted unethically and more so unwisely. Furthermore, I am getting fed up with the wishy-washy bullsh*t everyone spews forth (not you) about how much "good" Giz is doing for journalism. Eff Gizmodo on this one. Anyone in their position knows what trade secret is and how to treat it. They knowingly revealed trade secret. Positive ID, by them. Dissection, by them. Biased spin cover stories, by them. It was their mistake, after they knew who the rightful owner was, which according to them they knew before they wrote all of the blog posts revealing its guts. Case closed. They will suffer the consequence. If they had not said anything about knowing whose it was, they would be much, much more in the clear.

Trade Secrets

Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property. A trade secret can be a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable to the public.

Some examples of Trade Secrets are:
1. Formula for the soft drink, Coca-Cola
2. Business processes
3. Marketing Strategies
4. Food Recipes
5. Computer Algorithms
6. Prototypes

In addition, the trade secret must be of an economic advantage over a business' competitors or customers. Lastly, the owner of the trade secret must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Giz even states it was camouflaged by Apple.)

What were the trade secrets? Marketing strategy and prototypes which Giz states Apple was hiding and not intended for public knowledge. No sh*t Gizmodo, no effing sh*t. Who cares if it was Apple, if Giz did this to your company would you be happy?

So the issue is less about who stole it and more about Giz's destruction of Trade Secrecy, which is a right of all companies. Again, Giz committed this crime when they stated admission of ownership and that it was a prototype destined to be secret. Their understanding of this law is not necessary in order for them to be proven guilty.

Again, the entire argument fails at one point: No proof CHEN transferred funds to gain said item.

How many times do I have to say this?

The affidavit shows all contact went to Lam. How does one deduce "CHEN purchased stolen property" from that? You also state GIZMODO's destruction of trade secrets, not CHEN's destruction, as he acted as a representative for GIZMODO.

Stop looking at the INDIVIDUAL and look at the ENTITY.

Though GAWKER has some hand in this as well....
post #186 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:

http://gawker.com/5539717/

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Fun stuff!

I wonder how many derogatory emails gawker/gizmodo sent sjobs@apple.com using personal addresses trying to bait him into an email flame war? Their articles here on Apple just reek of desperation. I feel sorry for them. That email exchange made my stomach churn. Thanks for the link.
post #187 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:

http://gawker.com/5539717/

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Fun stuff!

Which goes back to why are any of you prosecuting in your own minds CHEN when it should have been GAWKER and GIZMODO that should have been in your line of sight?

Though I am seeing a trend of now distancing yourselves from the previous mode of thought ("Chen is the anti-christ!!") to now "let's gang up on Gawker, which, honestly, I have no problem with, except for the blatant hypocrisy.
post #188 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.

I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.

Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.

Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.

At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.

Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.

And THAT has been exactly what I have said from the beginning, but check all the other threads on this subject and though all of them will tell you otherwise, they (people in this forum) acted as though they knew everything and Chen was the party that should be locked up with the key thrown away.

What you read are the facts, what I have argued all along, and they have refuted me ON THE FACTS.

(You can more or less see where my patience has worn thin with these people.....)
post #189 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post

Alternative Perspective

1. FWIW HQ, from my assessment, on this Gizmodo topic and specifically the referenced post, PP is not engaging in any misdirection, classically or otherwise. Your interpretation(s) are in stark contrast to reality (obviously IMO). Breathe.

2. I've carefully read (at times in a state of mild bewilderment) and absorbed your and his posts over numerous threads on the unfolding and fascinating Gizmodo shenanigan (a charitable overstatement). Some postings are informative, few are legally enlightening, but all are characterologically illuminating. With all the respect that these have earned and are due, both your current assertion and characterization are rhetorical and offensive nonsense. Take a deep breath.

3. Defensive posturing of this magnitude would be a drain on anyone's energy. Perhaps you might consider just ceasing sparring. There are appropriate times to employ the Ignore List (perhaps now by including me!). However on the Gizmodo topic, with intelligent posters articulating similar perspectives, question whether utilizing it might simply be a dysfunctional method to limit unpleasant reality intrusions in an effort to preserve your personal worldview. Slowly exhale.

HQ, you proclaim and make inferences of high-regard for your Gizmodo analysis, while directly and inferentially disparaging lucid, logical, and contextual alternatives proffered by others. It seems to me, you vastly overrate many of the analytical capabilities you've applied to this topic. By doing so, you disservice yourself by undermining the esteem you may seek.

My comments are direct and harsh, but not intended to belittle or offend (nor to initiate sparring between us). No need to respond; just give it a thought sometime. In the meantime, let's step back and enjoy the unfolding of legal events by the career pros.

So basically I argued "no one knows anything. Stop demonizing Chen." and that's nonsense? Really? Really? The affidavit refutes you, but whatever.....

Not to mention none of the counters I have received have been lucid nor informative, and the FACTS prove that. IOW, no matter how high brow you attempt to sound, it still comes down to: You know nothing, yet prosecuted Chen. The facts available show how much you didn't know, and you are still attempting to argue the same point.

Sit this one out Curtis.
post #190 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The point that Gizmodo (and you) are missing is that it doesn't matter if it's authentic. Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law. The fact that Gizmodo paid $5 K for it makes it felony theft. It doesn't matter if it was an Apple phone or an alien artifact, it was stolen property worth $5 K.

End of story.

Assuming he did't sell them something he had made for this very purpose, hence the possibility of a hoax, which was the assumption they worked under and therefore they ARE NOT aware as to whether it belonged to Hogan or not.

If you can infer one way, no matter how much you may no like it because it doesn't work for your fantasy of a witch hunt, you can infer the other.
post #191 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I like your take on this Robin but perhaps you are being just a bit *too* kind to the Gizmodo kids.

This part here for instance: Doesn't seem right to me.

Gizmodo's first publication on the matter was just of some photos and one video. AFAIK the disassembly was posted either the next day or the day after that.

They make the statement (paraphrased) that "they didn't know it was real until they took it apart." But Apple, in the person of Steve Jobs, contacted them the next day after they published. It seems to me that it's inescapable that they either took it apart *after* talking to Steve Jobs (which kind of makes the statement that they had to take it apart a lie), or they took it apart before Steve Jobs called and only posted the video later (which makes everything Brian Lam said in his email to Jobs about needing "proof" a lie).

It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.

It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.

No, it's not inescapable anywhere but your fantasy. The timeline is what matters, which is why this investigation is taking so long. If John Stewart knows the timeline, how come you do not?
post #192 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

Even ignoring the fact that they paid $5000 for the phone to begin with (which is indicative of their knowledge), I think that if it is true that they were going to pay Hogan another $3500 later upon reveal of the real iPhone highly points to the fact that they did know.

That's called a contingency and is a common business practice. They elected to take the chance they were throwing initial money away, for the possibility it was real.

THEY.

Not CHEN.

THEY.

If it was a hoax, they're out $5k. Oh well. Apple could have just kept quiet and then no one would have known until the keynote and therefore no trade secrets violated.

"Apple didn't own up. It's a hoax."

Apple is guilty of vanity.
post #193 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.

The facts are nothing to these people as long as it doesn't fall in line with they're being able to verbally kick Chen around like a lame dog.

I know from experience there is no point attempting to argue facts with these people.
post #194 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipt View Post

Sigh. I'd rather not give you a treatise in law right now. So let's just assume that just because I am summarizing things for the sake of this thread, doesn't mean it's the entire statement on the law ok?

In any event, just by your stating that they can sue civilly is an admission on your part of the wrongdoing of the employee.

Based on the affidavit to the search warrant, it does appear that Chen is certainly implicit in some respects - of course everything things need to be proven! That goes without saying! The same reasons that you are attacking others for their opinions can be made to yourself.

And contrary to your last sentence, you don't know the facts, nor do any of us.

EDIT TO ADD: it appears that some of my posts are missing. I guess it doesn't matter for myself, but I do find it rather odd.

And I also just noticed you contradicted yourself here. You state no one knows the facts then attempted to argue the facts.

How do you do that?
post #195 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Again, the entire argument fails at one point: No proof CHEN transferred funds to gain said item.

How many times do I have to say this?

The affidavit shows all contact went to Lam. How does one deduce "CHEN purchased stolen property" from that? You also state GIZMODO's destruction of trade secrets, not CHEN's destruction, as he acted as a representative for GIZMODO.

Stop looking at the INDIVIDUAL and look at the ENTITY.

Though GAWKER has some hand in this as well....


The fact that cops raided Chen's house means he will be taking the fall. Yes Gizmodo will pay fines but if your employer asks you to do something illegal and you do it you are screwed. You are not off the hook because someone else gave you the money to buy stlen goods. If Chen goes to jail, he will be deflowered, no question about it.
post #196 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

Sorry for the confusion, where I come from we call these things (literally translated) capital crimes. I guess the proper english word would be a felony that doesn't involve hurting someone else physically (e.g. robbery, tax evasion, theft etc.)

Dan2236, you've become the star in this forum ever since you said you'll never "snitch" on your own room-mate like Hogan's did. And thanks anyway for clearing up what you meant by "capital crime" is.. *chuckle with evil grin*

But unfortunately, you didn't answer 'DESuserIGN' question no. 1: "Are you 13 years old?"
I mean, are you? Because only people at that age usually defend his/her room-mates vigorously without thinking about the consequences..

I much agree with what 'Prof. Peabody' has said about you: "Perhaps in reality you are not a little kid, but your ideas are totally grade school."

But if you are 13 years old, then please go away, this is an adult forum, no kids with ridicolous mind is allowed here.
And if you are indeed an adult but with mind of a grade school, then also please please go away..

I am so sorry if I've said all of that above, I'm not a flamer, but somebody has to say it. Because many AppleInsider readers, like myself, wanted to read smart comments and arguments about the news in hand.. Like to name the few: 'harleighquinn', 'Prof. Peabody', 'Robin Huber', etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs ...

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Not only Ryan Tate, but Gizmodo's editor: Jesus Diaz also made things look worse for themselves when he responded to John Gruber's post (Daring Fireball) through his Twitter account about his whereabout..
post #197 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.

Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:

http://gawker.com/5539717/

Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.

Fun stuff!

Also, Tate DID NOT make a fool of himself. Read it again with an impartial view and any fool can see it was Steve who made a fool of HIMSELF.

You DO NOT attempt to place your morality in the business space. Actually, that's not true: One can, but in line with HOW one does business, not what the consumers can consume. If he want's that type of control he can move to China or the Middle East. They would be happy to take him. (actually, pornography in China in 200 made nearly double the USA numbers, so they may not want him either.)

Porn, as an industry, actually nearly competes with APPLE. Stating he plans to eliminate it is on par with pissing off the Taliban (hyperbole) and they have a large amount of influence that can hurt Apple, if they choose to.

Flash? I really don't care. It's crap. It can go. But forcing his morality on us? He sounds like all the hippies that had their fun and now want to ensure no one else does. It's like a parent telling you to not do everything they know they did.

Hypocrisy. Something I swore I would not do with my children. "Do as I say, not as I do" or in this case, did.

Don't use an icon that stood for actual freedom as your poster child to take that freedom away. That's pretty much Orwell's "1984" in a nutshell. To make something mean the opposite of what it originally meant and convince everyone the new meaning (New Speak) Is the correct one.

Also, Steve recants his statement within the exchange, from "it's about freedom..." to "It's not about freedom, it's about Apple trying to do what's right for its users."

Complete about face, in Steve's own words no less.

He went from Braveheart to British rule in a matter of paragraphs.

I now realize why all of you post the way you do: You sound just like Steve Jobs. ("You are so misinformed. No one kicked in any doors." - all news agencies reported the door was broken into and the garage open and I believe, though I may be wrong, local news posted images, and I'm willing to bet they sure as hell didn't pick the locks...but no, that didn't happen because I don't believe it did....) As I sit here typing this on my iMac, I am very acutely aware of and also very relieved that I have not sunk to such hero worship that I am attempting to mimic him.

Those are REAL psychological issues there......
post #198 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The fact that cops raided Chen's house means he will be taking the fall. Yes Gizmodo will pay fines but if your employer asks you to do something illegal and you do it you are screwed. You are not off the hook because someone else gave you the money to buy stlen goods. If Chen goes to jail, he will be deflowered, no question about it.

The only Jail Chen will go to is the one in your prison rape fantasies.

Give it a rest.
post #199 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

You know we call this? Blockleiter or Blockwart, thats what certain people did under the Nazis to tell on Jews hiding somewhere, its the exact same analogy YOU ALL are using "its against the law, of course I have to report it". You people make me sick, you know nothing about the word FRIENDSHIP, you would betray your own mothers and children if it would put you even in very low legal risk.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd...

Godwin's law makes it's appearance at post #123... Thanks, Dan, for proving that Intarwebz meme.

While we're at it, why not spend a little time looking up the term "slippery slope" on Wikipedia?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #200 of 310
Do people really think they look intelligent when they compare Apple's practice of regulating its App Storea practice not much different from what Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and others do with their platformsto Hitler, the Holocaust, North Korea, the Taliban, Communism, and the Super Devil?

The funny thing is that while Steve Jobs and Apple's defenders argue that there are many other options out there for people who do not like Apple's regulations, which is true (especially since Android is apparently destroying the iPhone in the market), the people who fight for freedom of choice are saying that every company do exactly what they want and should have no say in how they run their own businesses even if what the open advocates want ultimately hurts the average consumer. Is that really choice?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone