"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."
There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it! Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
I think there's a disconnect in there.
Ah, but now you agree that they actually were involved! Whereas up until now you denied they were at all involved!
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
Well that is exactly what the bottom line of his "argument" is.
I think at this point is pretty clear that he is completely baseless.
"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."
the guy who stole the prototype has absolutely no legal defense. he took money for something he in no possible way owned (he "appropriated" it). his legal bills are going to be a lot more than the 5K he got too. what a fool. serves him right.
industrial espionage is a very serious matter in Silicon Valley. the law there is not going to laugh this off. no company there or elsewhere wants its prototypes sold on the black market to rivals or the tabloid media. and no pro media would buy them either, both as a matter of law and of ethics. even the National Inquirer would know better (thanks to experience). they would buy photos and pay the guy for his story, yes, and maybe even have some engineer look at it to figure out its specs that they could then blab. but they would never be so stupid as to actually pay cash for and take possession of the merch itself.
Gizmodo/Gawker is about to learn a very hard lesson. what stupid fools. serves them right too.
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
I think there's a disconnect in there.
You're ignoring the laws in question again. It doesn't matter if you give it back. Buying something you know/suspect is stolen is illegal. That's the act in question for Gizmodo. Can I buy your lost, then stolen car for a couple days, knowing it didn't belong to the guy I bought it from, then take it apart and put it back together hoping it still works (fingers crossed!), and then finally once it's all public, give it back? Cool? Thanks. Leave your keys on the seat. My source will be by in an hour or so.
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Oh I see you turn to humor now that you know how wrong your initial comment was. Based on your logic I can steal stuff from our neighbor state and never worry since I don't live in that state. I am sure you will make an excellent defense lawyer
Thank you. I was reading this whole thread and beginning to wonder if anyone was going to say that.
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!
The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that he directly participated into it, whether you decide to ignore it or not, it is irrelevant.
You lost the jackpot, could not answer my final question. You were almost there, perhaps next time as Tekstud or any other of your aliases
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Did you even read that link or the one I quoted above? They both quote Denton admitting that he/Gawker/Gizmodo bought the phone and may have to pay legal fees to defend himself. That's not even in question here.
But of course you didn't read them. You are entertaining yourself by, how did you say it, "pushing people's buttons". Make sure not to give it away again your ban will be forthcoming.
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
Another sure way to invalidate an argument - call someone a troll and walk away.
Hey whatever echo works best in the echo chamber - knock yourself out.
Comments
This thread is everything that's wrong with AI.
(shhhh - you'll give it away)
A person who won't put "Gawker in jail" because he's not in NY holding a phone - getting it?
Who is talking about NY? I am talking about who is holding the iPhone in CA?
This is your third and last chance or you loose the jackpot.
tick tock tick tock
Does this help?
How Checkbook Journalism Gave Gizmodo Its iPhone Scoop There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
I think there's a disconnect in there.
Who is talking about NY? I am talking about who is holding the iPhone in CA?
This is your third and last chance or you loose the jackpot.
tick tock tick tock
now whose copy and pasting - bzzt - no response for you!
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it! Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
I think there's a disconnect in there.
Ah, but now you agree that they actually were involved! Whereas up until now you denied they were at all involved!
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
And predicting your answer, I have a question:
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
Well that is exactly what the bottom line of his "argument" is.
I think at this point is pretty clear that he is completely baseless.
Does this help?
How Checkbook Journalism Gave Gizmodo Its iPhone Scoop
page view harvest indeed
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...e-scoop-2010-4
industrial espionage is a very serious matter in Silicon Valley. the law there is not going to laugh this off. no company there or elsewhere wants its prototypes sold on the black market to rivals or the tabloid media. and no pro media would buy them either, both as a matter of law and of ethics. even the National Inquirer would know better (thanks to experience). they would buy photos and pay the guy for his story, yes, and maybe even have some engineer look at it to figure out its specs that they could then blab. but they would never be so stupid as to actually pay cash for and take possession of the merch itself.
Gizmodo/Gawker is about to learn a very hard lesson. what stupid fools. serves them right too.
Perhaps - but returning it kind of invalidates "stolen" right? Every link mentions returning. They did. So far, I haven't gotten anything returned to me that was stolen from me to date. You think that might be hard to prosecute?
"He stole it after finding it lost in a bar. Then notified us - then didn't move it anywhere - then gave it back to us when we requested it to confirm who we were and what we were talking about - and returned it. - but ya - he stole it."
I think there's a disconnect in there.
You're ignoring the laws in question again. It doesn't matter if you give it back. Buying something you know/suspect is stolen is illegal. That's the act in question for Gizmodo. Can I buy your lost, then stolen car for a couple days, knowing it didn't belong to the guy I bought it from, then take it apart and put it back together hoping it still works (fingers crossed!), and then finally once it's all public, give it back? Cool? Thanks. Leave your keys on the seat. My source will be by in an hour or so.
And predicting your answer, I have a question:
Is it your contention that a business owner in NY (whose business is also based in NY) can authorize and fund an illegal activity in another state and be immune from prosecution?
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!
Oh I see you turn to humor now that you know how wrong your initial comment was. Based on your logic I can steal stuff from our neighbor state and never worry since I don't live in that state. I am sure you will make an excellent defense lawyer
Thank you. I was reading this whole thread and beginning to wonder if anyone was going to say that.
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!
The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that he directly participated into it, whether you decide to ignore it or not, it is irrelevant.
You lost the jackpot, could not answer my final question. You were almost there, perhaps next time as Tekstud or any other of your aliases
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
Endgadget Legal Counsel says it's a no go!
Gizmodo's unofficial Legal Counsel Dr.No says it's a no show!
In matters of Information counterfeiting, after all, they both should know...
You have proof he directly participated as opposed to - sent money for the rights to photos and published the photos? They were published here too - should AI be arrested?
Dude - that's a scoop! Run that baby!
page view harvest indeed
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...e-scoop-2010-4
Did you even read that link or the one I quoted above? They both quote Denton admitting that he/Gawker/Gizmodo bought the phone and may have to pay legal fees to defend himself. That's not even in question here.
But of course you didn't read them. You are entertaining yourself by, how did you say it, "pushing people's buttons". Make sure not to give it away again your ban will be forthcoming.
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
You are correct. I will stop feeding him.
I know it is tempting to respond when we see errant nonsense such as Dr.No is spouting. However, if we all take a chill pill and realise that trolls like him get their kicks from how much response they can elicit we can act accordingly. The only way to make characters like this leave the adults alone is to ignore them. Can we suck it up for a bit and stop responding? Please?
I agree too with a previous poster who suggested some filtering of posts containing quotes from those on our "ignore" lists as well as their actual posts. I don't know if this can be done but it would be a huge improvement.
Another sure way to invalidate an argument - call someone a troll and walk away.
Hey whatever echo works best in the echo chamber - knock yourself out.
Another sure way to invalidate an argument - call someone a troll and walk away.
Hey whatever echo works best in the echo chamber - knock yourself out.
Sorry NoNo boy. No more food for you today. You've been a bad troll, bad troll!
Until we cross paths again!