So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.
So tell me, why come at me the way you did?
Did we really come up with the same perspective? I will blame it for my inability to convey my thoughts using the English language. And leave it at that.
I agree with Gizmodo that outing Gray may save his job in the end because of the incredible amount of sympathy that he's received. If he was nameless/faceless it'd be easy to march him down to HR and process the exit paperwork like that engineer that allegedly showed Wozniak the iPad early; to his detriment.
That was up to the engineer to decide. Who do you think was in a better position to make that decision, Gizmodo or the engineer who knew what he'd been going through during the previous weeks and where he stood with things?
Gizmodo outed him solely because they're hit whoring douchebags.
Also, being outed doesn't just affect his situation at Apple, it also means that anyone interviewing him for a position in the future will see what happened after just a few seconds of Googling.
If Gizmodo wasn't such hit whoring douchebags and actually cared at all about the engineer, they would've contacted him. They had his Facebook profile from day one...that's how they outed him.
Everybody around there knows all the details of the story, everybody is a cop, everybody is a lawyer, everybody is a judge, everybody believes in everything, everybody is so intelligent ... lol
This is no event. This story is ridiculously childish ... as usual it's a f@&ù& buzz.
The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
I have only two points to make, both of them as an Apple customer and shareholder, and one who is an ardent fan of the company (you can look up my posts). As to whom the points are addressed to should be obvious.
1) Be careful what you wish for.
2) I hope like hell that Apple had nothing whatsoever to do with this 'search' travesty.
You know, in a twisted way I'm taking some pleasure from this. Even on this site (which IMHO is a cut above the average), the amount of garbage that passes for rational thought is simply mind-boggling. It'll be nice to see the boneheads run pell-mell into the brick wall of reality for a change....
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.
Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.
The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.
The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.
this is total BS. apple needs to wake up and understand that any R&D work has its hazards and GIZMODO was just reporting or tabloid reporting the product. "Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, "
BTW bought a Macbook pro 15 inch. its not as hot as Apple makes out to be. paid AUD 5200 which is roughly USD 4800 with SSD and i7
played command and conquer some old version and it bombed out after 1.4 hours.
The "that" which is being fallen back to is precisely the point.
Everyone needs to realize GIZMODO REPORTED THE CRIME. They did so in excruciating detail over and over and over again like the hit whores that they are.
Was an iPhone found?
Yes, see pages and pages of Gizmodo stating this.
Was the iPhone turned into the police, the bar owner, an Apple employee, sent to Apple headquarters or store, or was the engineer contacted (the finder had his Facebook profile)?
No, again see Gizmodo's website.
Was the iPhone purchased?
Yes. And once again we see Gizmodo stating that they did (for $5,000).
Was the iPhone taken under their own usage
Yes. They disassembled it. See gizmodo.com if you're still confused on where this comes from.
So clearly, we have a felonies here under California Penal Code 485 and 496.
Apple didn't need to report the iPhone stolen. Apple didn't need to do anything for charged to be brought. One could argue that Apple needed to provide proof of ownership, but that's certainly not going to be contested, and it doesn't matter. The finder stole the phone from someone, it doesn't matter who.
If you're going to hate on Apple, hate on me as well...
A few years ago, I had a phone stolen from my car. I never reported it. Police found someone with my phone and they tracked me down through the service provider. I went in to claim the phone and fill out paperwork stating I owned the phone and how much it was worth. It was enough to charge the guy with a felony. He had claimed he had found it, and that was enough to charge him since he admitted that he hadn't tried to return it. The prosecution of the guy had nothing to do with me. And this all happened in the same county as Redwood City.
And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.
I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.
Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.
A loud mouth? Yes.
Stupid? No.
Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.
And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?
That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.
So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
This is not that situation though. Your example is completely different.
The same situation using your example would be:
A car company is coming out with a new type of motor. Some guy gets a hold of the plans and decides to make a bit of money selling them to a journalist. The journalist publishes the plans in great detail on the web so all the car companies competitors are now aware of the new motor and how it works.
See? Totally different. In your example the journalist is saving the world from a great evil. IN the real world, both Gizmodo and the purported journalist of the example are committing a crime.
The "lost/stolen" iPhone prototype is technically a trade secret. Apple is only one of the 25 member in the committee. And the steering commitee doesn't even have control over "R.E.A.C.T." They are basically a consultant.
I don't think that looks that bad either. Sure, it's one more thing that Apple's opposition can mention try try to put a few dings in an investigation, but it's probably (I hope) grasping at straws.
The description of the steering committee says there are 25 tech firms on board. Apple is one of many large tech companies in that area, so it makes sense that they'd join the others in supporting REACT.
Some digging may be done, but when it comes to criminal investigations, I would hope Apple is smart enough to stay out of pushing for anything with REACT.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.
Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.
The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.
The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.
Are you not even reading my posts?
I have already stated what you did about 10 posts ago.
I also stated the caveat that whether they bring charges without the behest of Apple, if apple DOES NOT support that the item in question was stolen or that their rights have been violated, be it a public forum or in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney will have difficult time being able to prosecute any type of case.
Let's go backward:
Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?
Now that that is out of the way.....
No one knows what has occurred, including the police or task force. If they felt they had any case at all they would have arrested Chen and The gawker owner (I know not his name) on the spot.
They are searching for evidence in order to try to build a case. That borders of a violation of civil liberties, but I won't go into that here.
And until there is a report stating it is "stolen" it is lost. Period. You can't make that work no matter how hard you try to talk someone into it, and if you can, you should be an attorney, a congressman, or a salesman for Toyota.
Also, apparently the "finder" did attempt to find the "owner", to no avail, which has also been reported, though many choose to gloss over that.
If people stopped trying to be right and instead attempted to be observant they would learn so much more.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), and Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
It's like domestic violence, the victim can't stop the police from pressing charges.
unless you run the police department ... even then it's called corruption.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.
You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.
One, you are being obtuse and also wrong. There was no such report in THIS thread.
On this site, maybe, and that was conjecture, but not in this thread.
Also, stating it's stolen is a great way of "distancing" one's self from its exposition.
Something that can be thought about.....though obviously no one has.
Comments
So you state point by point you know no more than I do, but at the same time come at me as though you know more. If you are going by those points, you also know the bartender and the police were contacted and questioned and both stated they knew nothing about it with the police stating they have had no reports of any stolen property from apple.
So tell me, why come at me the way you did?
Did we really come up with the same perspective? I will blame it for my inability to convey my thoughts using the English language. And leave it at that.
CGC
I agree with Gizmodo that outing Gray may save his job in the end because of the incredible amount of sympathy that he's received. If he was nameless/faceless it'd be easy to march him down to HR and process the exit paperwork like that engineer that allegedly showed Wozniak the iPad early; to his detriment.
That was up to the engineer to decide. Who do you think was in a better position to make that decision, Gizmodo or the engineer who knew what he'd been going through during the previous weeks and where he stood with things?
Gizmodo outed him solely because they're hit whoring douchebags.
Also, being outed doesn't just affect his situation at Apple, it also means that anyone interviewing him for a position in the future will see what happened after just a few seconds of Googling.
If Gizmodo wasn't such hit whoring douchebags and actually cared at all about the engineer, they would've contacted him. They had his Facebook profile from day one...that's how they outed him.
Everybody around there knows all the details of the story, everybody is a cop, everybody is a lawyer, everybody is a judge, everybody believes in everything, everybody is so intelligent ... lol
This is no event. This story is ridiculously childish ... as usual it's a f@&ù& buzz.
And once again Apple got an app for that too ....
The law is clear. You find something, know who the rightful owner is, do not return it to it's rightful owner or the local police dept, and then sell it for $5000!!! GUILTY!!! They is no grey area here. Simply GUILTY. Freedom of speech has got NOTHING to do with this case!!!
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
1) Be careful what you wish for.
2) I hope like hell that Apple had nothing whatsoever to do with this 'search' travesty.
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
If there's a nuclear bomb waiting to explode in those iPhone prototype, then maybe Gizmodo has the duty to alert the public.
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
But the big car company committed a crime by covering up the deadly defect. Did Apple commit a crime by making a prototype phone?
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.
Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.
The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.
The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.
BTW bought a Macbook pro 15 inch. its not as hot as Apple makes out to be. paid AUD 5200 which is roughly USD 4800 with SSD and i7
played command and conquer some old version and it bombed out after 1.4 hours.
nuf said.
The "that" which is being fallen back to is precisely the point.
Everyone needs to realize GIZMODO REPORTED THE CRIME. They did so in excruciating detail over and over and over again like the hit whores that they are.
Was an iPhone found?
Yes, see pages and pages of Gizmodo stating this.
Was the iPhone turned into the police, the bar owner, an Apple employee, sent to Apple headquarters or store, or was the engineer contacted (the finder had his Facebook profile)?
No, again see Gizmodo's website.
Was the iPhone purchased?
Yes. And once again we see Gizmodo stating that they did (for $5,000).
Was the iPhone taken under their own usage
Yes. They disassembled it. See gizmodo.com if you're still confused on where this comes from.
So clearly, we have a felonies here under California Penal Code 485 and 496.
Apple didn't need to report the iPhone stolen. Apple didn't need to do anything for charged to be brought. One could argue that Apple needed to provide proof of ownership, but that's certainly not going to be contested, and it doesn't matter. The finder stole the phone from someone, it doesn't matter who.
If you're going to hate on Apple, hate on me as well...
A few years ago, I had a phone stolen from my car. I never reported it. Police found someone with my phone and they tracked me down through the service provider. I went in to claim the phone and fill out paperwork stating I owned the phone and how much it was worth. It was enough to charge the guy with a felony. He had claimed he had found it, and that was enough to charge him since he admitted that he hadn't tried to return it. The prosecution of the guy had nothing to do with me. And this all happened in the same county as Redwood City.
And Gizmodo also has attorneys, and that's something a lot of people are missing. I am willing to bet that they consulted their attorneys before undertaking their report.
I feel this has been pretty public for the outcome of possible police charges.
Who states publicly you paid for an item that could be utilized for corporate espionage would be a tragically stupid thing to do and for some reason I don't see the owner of Gawker being that stupid.
A loud mouth? Yes.
Stupid? No.
Which brings the question as to why they would do something that stupid.
And also, why would they protect what components where in an item they had no incentive in protecting?
That begs a lot of questions that have yet to be answered.
So there is no point in trying them publicly when the facts are still yet to be determined.
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.
This is not that situation though. Your example is completely different.
The same situation using your example would be:
A car company is coming out with a new type of motor. Some guy gets a hold of the plans and decides to make a bit of money selling them to a journalist. The journalist publishes the plans in great detail on the web so all the car companies competitors are now aware of the new motor and how it works.
See? Totally different. In your example the journalist is saving the world from a great evil. IN the real world, both Gizmodo and the purported journalist of the example are committing a crime.
Holy Conflict of Interest Batman
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
This is NOT good people. It looks very bad.
Why does it look bad?
The "lost/stolen" iPhone prototype is technically a trade secret. Apple is only one of the 25 member in the committee. And the steering commitee doesn't even have control over "R.E.A.C.T." They are basically a consultant.
I don't think that looks that bad either. Sure, it's one more thing that Apple's opposition can mention try try to put a few dings in an investigation, but it's probably (I hope) grasping at straws.
The description of the steering committee says there are 25 tech firms on board. Apple is one of many large tech companies in that area, so it makes sense that they'd join the others in supporting REACT.
Some digging may be done, but when it comes to criminal investigations, I would hope Apple is smart enough to stay out of pushing for anything with REACT.
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......
Sigh. I know you're just a troll, but you're not even thinking here.
Since when does whether the victim considers it a crime or not have any bearing on anything? Apple doesn't have to "state that it's stolen," they also didn't have to "say it was theirs publicly" like Jason Chen wanted them to. These guys (and apparently you as well) are dealing with a twelve year old child who failed grade schools concept of what's legal and what's not. Their stupid boss actually convinced them (and they printed this), that they "had three weeks" to hang onto the thing before they had to give it back because of some similarly screwed up idea of what the law actually is.
The phone is "stolen" the minute the holder doesn't take reasonable steps to give it back. It doesn't matter at all whether Apple "considers it stolen." It doesn't matter what they want or they say, it's just a matter of what the law says, what the cops want to do about it, and whether the DA wants to prosecute. Period.
The phone was definitely "stolen" and therefore Gizmodo is definitely guilty of "possession of stolen goods" at minimum. That's just the law, and whether they knew it was stolen or not, or what Apple thinks about the whole situation it is 100% irrelevant.
Are you not even reading my posts?
I have already stated what you did about 10 posts ago.
I also stated the caveat that whether they bring charges without the behest of Apple, if apple DOES NOT support that the item in question was stolen or that their rights have been violated, be it a public forum or in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney will have difficult time being able to prosecute any type of case.
Let's go backward:
Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?
Now that that is out of the way.....
No one knows what has occurred, including the police or task force. If they felt they had any case at all they would have arrested Chen and The gawker owner (I know not his name) on the spot.
They are searching for evidence in order to try to build a case. That borders of a violation of civil liberties, but I won't go into that here.
And until there is a report stating it is "stolen" it is lost. Period. You can't make that work no matter how hard you try to talk someone into it, and if you can, you should be an attorney, a congressman, or a salesman for Toyota.
Also, apparently the "finder" did attempt to find the "owner", to no avail, which has also been reported, though many choose to gloss over that.
If people stopped trying to be right and instead attempted to be observant they would learn so much more.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), and Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
It's like domestic violence, the victim can't stop the police from pressing charges.
unless you run the police department ... even then it's called corruption.
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen).
Otherwise, the press and the public -- esp. the mainstream press -- will so quickly and massively coalesce around Gizmodo (whether the search was deserved or not), and Apple will be blamed (rightly or wrongly), that Apple won't know what hit it (assuming Apple wasn't in any way involved for the search to happen in the first place).
Both valuation consequences and consumer backlash could be huge, imho.
See this report from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/caae9188-5...44feab49a.html (note, they're 'reporters' now). You just wait......
Agreed.
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.
You're being willfully obtuse. There was a report in this very thread that Apple considers it stolen, as valid as any "report" you are likely to find on any topic. It's also the case that throughout this entire episode, Gruber has repeatedly stated on Daring Fireball that Apple considered the phone stolen. Now, Apple isn't keeping Gruber apprised of all their activities on a daily basis, but, if you are at all familiar with what he writes, the pointed way in which he has repeatedly mentioned that Apple considers it stolen indicates that someone inside Apple who is in a position to know has communicated this to him directly, from very early on.
One, you are being obtuse and also wrong. There was no such report in THIS thread.
On this site, maybe, and that was conjecture, but not in this thread.
Also, stating it's stolen is a great way of "distancing" one's self from its exposition.
Something that can be thought about.....though obviously no one has.