This is not that situation though. Your example is completely different.
...
My appreciation for many of your sanity posts, perspective, and patience (and to a few others, as well).
On the Gizmodo topic, I've just been sitting back shaking my head for a few days, restrained by disappointment to comment at the abundance of adolescent hyperbole, flawed reasoning, rationalizations, projection, strawmen, false equivalences, etc. I'm mind-numbed by the mindless' identification with egregious behavior (legal outcome notwithstanding).
In any event, I'd be curious whether the sometimes unpleasant head of reality has begun to erode Mr. Chen's mask of bravado.
Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.
likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.
Exactly.
That goes into no one knowing what's really happened and that is what may be revealed soon enough.
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.
I disagree, I don't think too many people would have sympathies with the engineer if he did get fired, and even if that were the case it doesn't justify anything on Gizmodos part. They could have called him and asked him if they should out him - I'll bet they didn't do that. And I bet if they had, he would have said "no thanks".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Nice strawman. I guess because I'm this forum while engaging in other things I can't possible be concerned about other things.
Yeah - I agree - thats why I facetiously said that in response to your post. To refresh your memory, you said "Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday?" Context, my friend...
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
So your argument is now "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance"? Excellent! There are too many cases so you can just google Apple and lawsuit for plenty of examples. I really don't care if you stand on your soapbox all day spouting how awful Gizmodo is and how we should never contribute to their pagehits. I'll still read their articles if they interest me.
You're putting words in my mouth - I don't recall saying any of that; "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance" - I have no idea what that has to do with my post either.
Personally, I'll occasionally read Gizmodo when I'm bored and it's a slow day on the good tech blog sites. It's pretty far down on my list (even after TUAW) for editorial content. They churn out a high volume of low quality material, but thats just my opinion. The entire way they played this iPhone prototype story was just sleazy from start to finish, and it sounds like they violated the law I the process. Time will tell how criminally and civilly responsible they are, and how deep their pockets are to afford a good defense. You can tilt the scales of justice a lot with a lot of cash; I'm looking forward to watching a good drama play out.
You still haven't mentioned any Apple lawsuits that are even remotely similar to this one. If you think of any, let us know. You mentioned it, so why should we do the googling. If it's so obvious, surely you can name a few.
I'm thinking I must have learned the basics of the legal system when you were only a kid. I can only guess that you're refusal to believe simple legal facts has to be down to you just not knowing any better.
The example you have given above is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. You are still wrong. Crimes are determined by the law. Action on criminal behaviour is decided by the cops (within reason, they mostly *have* to act). Guilt is determined by a judge.
None of this has anything to do with whether the victim considers a crime has been committed. The law simply does not work that way. Your original assertion, that Apple has to consider the prototype stolen for it to be so, is just made up junk. It's not true. You are simply wrong.
What facts?
You have stated none. Only one person in this entire thread has stated a factual and reasonable interpretation of the law and that person was not you.
Until you can do such, you are just as credible as the owner of gawker.
Also, you responses, including this one, border on personal attack.
Let's keep this adult, or are you the age you accuse me of being?
We're not trying them publicly with facts that have yet to be determined.
Gizmodo, as reported on their site, claim they purchased an iPhone which they, as reported on their site, knew, as reported on their site, was stolen.
They may have lied about some of this, but by their claims, they would be guilty of felony charges, and I don't see why they would lie against their self-interest and how they could've not committed any felonies (barring any fantasies that Apple gave them the iPhone).
Oh, and they're douchebags for outing the engineer.
If they got full legal consultation regarding everything as it pertained to what they claimed in their reporting and the lawyer didn't tell them they're were violations of California Penal Codes 485 and 496, then their lawyer is an idiot. Really though, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up those Penal codes as well as Civil code 2080 or to look at previous cases where people were prosecuted for purchasing items which were found but not properly reported.
Exactly, so barring hiding behind the defense they are "reporters" why out the phone and the engineer in the manner they did when the legal backlash could destroy them?
I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.
I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.
Another intelligent interpretation of the law. Why couldn't the other 129 posts have been this informed?
I mean that in all honesty. The rest of the romper room could learn a lot of they read things like this rather than speaking.
I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
From the California Penal code:
"Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m."
Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion. It cannot ever be a victim. It's called Handicapping creative talent to level the playing field. The Corporate Media calls it as it should be: Apple's brilliance trumps common business practice and therefore must be slowed to allow fairness to alleviate tip scaling genius.
Gizmodo went to the Court of Public Opinion and its spin apparatus to take on Apple. They broke the law and bragged about it because it helped them make their case in a court of corporate spinmeisters. You flood the anti Apple blogs with hateful rhetoric and let it sap their Will to seek Justice for harms done.
Business and Politics dread straight arrows. Success stories are better expressed in past tense; it makes for a better template to free riding mediocrity.
Will this Case ever be judged on its own merits? If Apple has no business standing out of the crowd, it therefore has no merit; so how could it possibly be?
Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.
I am surprised that they didn't perform the search early in the morning when they probably would have been home. Would have saved the tax payers a little money on the damage they did.
Normally a Search Warrant has a specific time that the search may occur. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. This Search Warrant seemed pretty broad.
A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
Comments
This is not that situation though. Your example is completely different.
...
My appreciation for many of your sanity posts, perspective, and patience (and to a few others, as well).
On the Gizmodo topic, I've just been sitting back shaking my head for a few days, restrained by disappointment to comment at the abundance of adolescent hyperbole, flawed reasoning, rationalizations, projection, strawmen, false equivalences, etc. I'm mind-numbed by the mindless' identification with egregious behavior (legal outcome notwithstanding).
In any event, I'd be curious whether the sometimes unpleasant head of reality has begun to erode Mr. Chen's mask of bravado.
Which makes the following argument even more plausible: 'The whole thing appeared to be another publicity stunt by apple, who is known and notorious for using the rumor/tech community to leak information and generate free publicity. This court case is proof and the fact that it has been mentioned everywhere from radio shows, tech websites, news shows, etc is proof of just that. Apple came up with a good story. I wrote about it and contributed. i'm not sure what the problem is and where the irrefutable harm is, other than to me, my business, and my livelihood.
likely to be part of the argument in court. it would be part of mine.
Exactly.
That goes into no one knowing what's really happened and that is what may be revealed soon enough.
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.
I disagree, I don't think too many people would have sympathies with the engineer if he did get fired, and even if that were the case it doesn't justify anything on Gizmodos part. They could have called him and asked him if they should out him - I'll bet they didn't do that. And I bet if they had, he would have said "no thanks".
Nice strawman. I guess because I'm this forum while engaging in other things I can't possible be concerned about other things.
Yeah - I agree - thats why I facetiously said that in response to your post. To refresh your memory, you said "Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday?" Context, my friend...
So your argument is now "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance"? Excellent! There are too many cases so you can just google Apple and lawsuit for plenty of examples. I really don't care if you stand on your soapbox all day spouting how awful Gizmodo is and how we should never contribute to their pagehits. I'll still read their articles if they interest me.
You're putting words in my mouth - I don't recall saying any of that; "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance" - I have no idea what that has to do with my post either.
Personally, I'll occasionally read Gizmodo when I'm bored and it's a slow day on the good tech blog sites. It's pretty far down on my list (even after TUAW) for editorial content. They churn out a high volume of low quality material, but thats just my opinion. The entire way they played this iPhone prototype story was just sleazy from start to finish, and it sounds like they violated the law I the process. Time will tell how criminally and civilly responsible they are, and how deep their pockets are to afford a good defense. You can tilt the scales of justice a lot with a lot of cash; I'm looking forward to watching a good drama play out.
You still haven't mentioned any Apple lawsuits that are even remotely similar to this one. If you think of any, let us know. You mentioned it, so why should we do the googling. If it's so obvious, surely you can name a few.
Rob
Maybe they are giving Jason a break.
The evidence they took may be deemed useless (and the charge dismissed) because it was taken improperly.
It's very obvious that they did a night search, which the warrant clearly disapproved.
How could they make such a mistake?
Because it was all for show in the land of Hollywood and no substance.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=149
I stand corrected.
That having been said, in court that is inadmissible as hearsay.
Mistrial and case dismissed.
I'm thinking I must have learned the basics of the legal system when you were only a kid. I can only guess that you're refusal to believe simple legal facts has to be down to you just not knowing any better.
The example you have given above is completely unrelated to what we are talking about. You are still wrong. Crimes are determined by the law. Action on criminal behaviour is decided by the cops (within reason, they mostly *have* to act). Guilt is determined by a judge.
None of this has anything to do with whether the victim considers a crime has been committed. The law simply does not work that way. Your original assertion, that Apple has to consider the prototype stolen for it to be so, is just made up junk. It's not true. You are simply wrong.
What facts?
You have stated none. Only one person in this entire thread has stated a factual and reasonable interpretation of the law and that person was not you.
Until you can do such, you are just as credible as the owner of gawker.
Also, you responses, including this one, border on personal attack.
Let's keep this adult, or are you the age you accuse me of being?
We're not trying them publicly with facts that have yet to be determined.
Gizmodo, as reported on their site, claim they purchased an iPhone which they, as reported on their site, knew, as reported on their site, was stolen.
They may have lied about some of this, but by their claims, they would be guilty of felony charges, and I don't see why they would lie against their self-interest and how they could've not committed any felonies (barring any fantasies that Apple gave them the iPhone).
Oh, and they're douchebags for outing the engineer.
If they got full legal consultation regarding everything as it pertained to what they claimed in their reporting and the lawyer didn't tell them they're were violations of California Penal Codes 485 and 496, then their lawyer is an idiot. Really though, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up those Penal codes as well as Civil code 2080 or to look at previous cases where people were prosecuted for purchasing items which were found but not properly reported.
Exactly, so barring hiding behind the defense they are "reporters" why out the phone and the engineer in the manner they did when the legal backlash could destroy them?
I leave you to think about that.
What facts?
You have stated none. Only one person in this entire thread has stated a factual and reasonable interpretation of the law and that person was not you.
Until you can do such, you are just as credible as the owner of gawker.
lol like the things Gizmodo published didn't incriminate the person who sold them the iPhone enough already.
I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.
Good luck with that. Perhaps you should appoint Mr Quinn as your lawyer.
or yourself, since you clearly know the ins and outs of the criminal legal system......
I believe, at least according to California Penal Code Section 1533, that it is upon the "serving"/instigation of the search warrant that it is considered a day or night search. So if the police began any time before 10 pm (which I gather they did), it stands as a day search, regardless of final length of the search. At least according to my sources, for what it's worth.
Another intelligent interpretation of the law. Why couldn't the other 129 posts have been this informed?
I mean that in all honesty. The rest of the romper room could learn a lot of they read things like this rather than speaking.
I don't know how a night search is defined, but even if it's 10pm, the letter said he went home at 9:45pm and they continued searching for 30 minutes.
From the California Penal code:
"Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m."
He was physically served at 9:45pm
lol like the things Gizmodo published didn't incriminate the person who sold them the iPhone enough already.
If there is actually record the phone was "purchased".
I will not make an opinion one way or another on that piece of vapor.
Chunk of Chinese plastic and electronics > human condition
Gizmodo went to the Court of Public Opinion and its spin apparatus to take on Apple. They broke the law and bragged about it because it helped them make their case in a court of corporate spinmeisters. You flood the anti Apple blogs with hateful rhetoric and let it sap their Will to seek Justice for harms done.
Business and Politics dread straight arrows. Success stories are better expressed in past tense; it makes for a better template to free riding mediocrity.
Will this Case ever be judged on its own merits? If Apple has no business standing out of the crowd, it therefore has no merit; so how could it possibly be?
*laughs*
Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.
I am surprised that they didn't perform the search early in the morning when they probably would have been home. Would have saved the tax payers a little money on the damage they did.
Normally a Search Warrant has a specific time that the search may occur. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. This Search Warrant seemed pretty broad.
A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
The statute says any time between 7am and 10 pm.
Let the wild rumpus begin!
Use the Taser!!!1!1!1!1!! the Taser!!!!111!111!!111!!11!!!!!!