Police investigating Gizmodo's iPhone prototype story

1356721

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 402
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Inevitable action on the cop's part after all the publicity.

    In the end I think Gizmodo will pay for this in some way; Nick Denton could blog from Jail.
  • Reply 42 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


    Inevitable action on the cop's part after all the publicity.

    In the end I think Gizmodo will pay for this in some way; Nick Denton could blog from Jail.



    You mean if Nick wasn't sitting on the other side of the country from where the law exists.

  • Reply 43 of 402
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    If what you call "stealing" applies in both states. This isn't grand-theft, so nope.



    I'm sure you'll make a great prosecutor.





    You logic was that CA can't prosecute Gawker because they are not based in CA. It doesn't matter if the act was legal or not in NYC. Crimes are prosecuted based on where the crime was committed not where the criminal lives.
  • Reply 44 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    You logic was that CA can't prosecute Gawker because they are not based in CA. It doesn't matter if the act was legal or not in any NYC. Crimes are prosecuted based on where the crime was committed not where the criminal lives.



    Right - that's why you can smoke medical pot - like in CA - in NYC. Go ahead! It doesn't matter!

  • Reply 45 of 402
    wallywally Posts: 211member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    Seems to me that Apple needs to be careful here. They might just end up creating an incentive to sell a future iDevice prototype to somebody who isn't based in the US and who won't be so cooperative as to give the device back.



    This is the dumbest comment I've read so far (and there was quite the competition).



    So you're saying that Apple should ignore someone parading their IP on the web (which was possibly obtained illegally) for fear that it might happen again and that person might not like how Apple dealt with this case? Come on.



    If someone engages in illegal activity they deserve the appropriate consequences for their actions plain and simple. If Gizmodo did indeed partake in illegal behavior by buying stolen property and then profit from it, then I hope Apple pursues this to the fullest extent possible.



    Now if Apple was seeking a punishment of say... public disemboweling, then your caution to Apple would make sense.
  • Reply 46 of 402
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    You too can play lawyer!



    If what you call "stealing" applies in both states. This isn't grand-theft, so nope.



    I'm sure you'll make a great prosecutor.





    I think your scathing comments are clouding what would otherwise be valid points for a counter argument.
  • Reply 47 of 402
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    You mean if Nick wasn't sitting on the other side of the country from where the law exists.





    It's the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed you silly goose.
  • Reply 48 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post


    It's the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed you silly goose



    Yep good luck sending that to the NY DA's office. Perhaps you can bring some CA-medical pot with you too.

  • Reply 49 of 402
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    If what you call "stealing" applies in both states. This isn't grand-theft, so nope.



    State law does not supersede federal law, namely the National Stolen Property Act.



    California law defines grand larceny as anything more than $400. Apple can legitimately argue that because the prototype contains trade secrets, it's worth far more money than you can imagine, more than just the raw materials.
  • Reply 50 of 402
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    ... ...
  • Reply 51 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    State law does not supersede federal law, namely the <a href="http://eca.state.gov/icpp/18-2314.html">National Stolen Property Act</a>.



    California law defines grand larceny as anything more than $400. Apple can legitimately argue that because the prototype contains trade secrets, it's worth far more money than you can imagine, more than just the raw materials.



    And trade secrets are usually found in bars. That'll be one hell of a defense. Can't wait to see it.





    Hey someone tried to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge in a bar - shhh - it's a secret!
  • Reply 52 of 402
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    Right - that's why you can smoke medical pot - like in CA - in NYC. Go ahead! It doesn't matter!





    By doing so you broke NYC law in NYC. Gawker broke CA law in CA. Where they are based doesn't matter. Thanks for proofing my point.
  • Reply 53 of 402
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by echosonic View Post


    Who in fuckdom has ever left ANYTHING on a bar stool?



    I did. Her name was Theresa...
  • Reply 54 of 402
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr.No View Post


    Yep good luck sending that to the NY DA's office. Perhaps you can bring some CA-medical pot with you too.





    I can see why you keep drawing conclusions to medical cannabis - any individual with an iota of logic is reading your comments and thinking "man, this r-tard must be high."
  • Reply 55 of 402
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    I wouldn't be surprised if it finally comes to light that the software engineer didn't leave the iPhone protoype lying around, but rather, was the victim of a pickpocket.
  • Reply 56 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    By doing so you broke NYC law in NYC. Gawker broke CA law in CA. Where they are based doesn't matter. Thanks for proofing my point.



    Where the law is based doesn't either by your logic

  • Reply 57 of 402
    Dr.No is obviously a troll. Stop feeding him.
  • Reply 58 of 402
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LandMineHare View Post


    Dr.No is obviously a troll. Stop feeding him.



    he's been feeding himself pot brownies.. how else do you explain his reasoning?
  • Reply 59 of 402
    dr.nodr.no Posts: 75member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters View Post


    I can see why you keep drawing conclusions to medical cannabis - any individual with an iota of logic is reading your comments and thinking "man, this r-tard must be high."



    You can't be gay and married in CA - you can in other states - but that doesn't matter either right?

  • Reply 60 of 402
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satcomer View Post


    The problem is Gizmodo people are not journalists. They are part of a blog.



    IMHO they are scum that don't deserve page hits.



    However, Giz does do everything possible to deliver the truth about one technology aspect or another (even if it involves breaking the law, apparently).



    That's much more than can be said for the "journalists" working for CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS.
Sign In or Register to comment.