I am just going by the story told by Gizmodo, since it's the only story right now.
Like if you tell a police you have cocaine, you will most definitely be searched. Why should anybody believe otherwise?
And in court that is hearsay until proven.
Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.
Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.
Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.
Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.
The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.
I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.
And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.
Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.
Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.
Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.
Ever hear of Al Capone?
Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.
If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.
Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.
Seeing that Gizmodo did not post anything related to this topic on their website, I don't think they saw this coming at all
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn. What happens if the authorities find illegal content on his computer? Was it worth it after all? Maybe this will set a precedence on how far one can go to get a scoop...
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
I'm on Apple's side on this, but this specific warrant clearly forbids night searches. The search occurred after 9:00 PM. How is this legal?
This has been gone over a few times (or more) on this thread, but just in case you didn't catch it: a day search is defined as being served between the hours of 7am & 10pm.
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.
It is in fact not at all the same case. Now if the prototype could demonstrate that Apple was using ground-up baby seals in the manufacture the iPhone in spite of claims to the contrary - then yes it would be the same thing. Those are not the facts on the ground - none of which we have any corroboration for by the way until the DA investigates. That's what this is all about, period.
A DA suspects that criminal activity has occurred, there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence (provided ironically by Gizmodo themselves) to merit further investigation under California law (apparently both criminal and trade it seems), and the allegations and circumstances were enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant for the seizure of Chen's equipment, especially if the DA is concerned that evidence may be in danger of being compromised or destroyed. Now, the DA may look on this as an opportunity to bolster a career in a high profile case as well. So there's additional motivation, but not necessarily so.
In the end more words and vituperation will be spend in speculation out here in the blogosphere
than it will take to bring the case to closure.
The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences. This is not Watergate. This is not a large corporate entity like Exxon hiding malfeasance and criminal negligence. What the consequences are for Gawker, Gizmodo and Jason Chen (if any) remains to be seen. It depends largely on the DA's investigation.
Now if Gawker/Gizmodo is smart they will keep the editorializing to an absolute minimum until the investigation is over - but I bet they won't. They may try to paint themselves as aggrieved and wronged servants of the tech community just trying to do their jobs (something they have already alluded to as they edited original posts and tried to minimize their role in this). But not only is the the original material there and witnessed to by a large audience, but all versions are archived on the internet as well. A reasonably tech-savvy DA will know this and add that to whatever is found on Chen's equipment.
Seeing that Gizmodo did not post anything related to this topic on their website, I don't think they saw this coming at all
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn..
You make it sound like the police doing their work is the ugly turn? Is that what you mean? As a firm believer in the rule of law, I think the ugly turns happened when the thief didn't return the property, and then also when Gizmodo paid $5K for the hot phone. Now, the wheels of justice are turning and the ugly turns are being properly addressed.
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.
Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.
The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.
I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.
And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.
The point was the extremes I have seen going on in this thread with no actual proof, but still seemed to elicit the public burning at the stake supposed peanut gallery and shareholders were putting gizmodo through.
I haven't read the rest of your post, only the beginning, so this will only address that.
Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.
If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.
Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.
I'd honestly love to know how he would have accomplished that. Unless he's Tom Cruise, I more feel this piece of tech was handed to them, but that's just my opinion based on holes and the public nature of the circumstances.
Any fool would not have stated they paid for an item that was obviously a potential piece of corporate espionage unless there was reason to distance themselves from whomever gave it to them.
Misdirection.
Stating they paid for it in any nature puts them behind the 8 ball and in the cross hairs, so to say so means they were distancing themselves.
I have avoided saying this, but I live in the DC and have a friend working for the FCC (they already have the new all aluminum samsung TV, btw. A gift from samsung when the president of said company saw what he stated to be "sony crap" on the wall of their conference room.)
He has told me what apple does when the FCC tests their equipment. And apple guard is with the tech. Windows are blacked out. Several logs are signed, and when testing is done it is under lock and key. So WSJ was pretty accurate and this is a government agency no less.
So yes, my friend, the FCC and I really have issue that an apple baseband engineer was allowed to take a prototype to a bar, get drunk, and then lose the prototype.
The entire thing seemed flakey when it was explained, and pretty ostentatious in its explanation.
So lets just take into account the possibility the CA police more than likely decided to be gun-ho with the potential of a high profile case and may have stepped on more toes than they anticipated.
Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:
"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
Agreed.
And finally a truly perceptive statement.
Apparently some are capable of learning how things work in the real world.
They are going to portray themselves as victims of the apple machine and do a ton of giz vs apple articles.
It's pretty funny because Giz rarely ever wrote this many articles in the span of a single week. Most of their other blogs are 50-word summaries of press releases, followed by a load of pictures.
This prototype has improved Giz's content in more ways than just one.
Wow there is some crap on this forum Why not add to it...
1) The reason Apple NEED to pursue a case here is to not set a precedent of doing nothing. If they just let this slip under the radar then the next time someone steals some trade secrets from them or similar, they would argue that Apple did nothing last time, so they should not be prosecuted. Apple need to clearly maintain a precedent, which is in many ways the same as showing a precedent for protecting your trademark. If you don't, don't expect to win a case one day when you do.
2) The warrant was allegedly served around 7am, though no one was home. What time the search concludes is irrelevant to a night time clause, it could have gone into the wee hours and the only ones that would be upset would be the caffeine deprived cops.
Oh, and why did the super troopers have to kick the door in etc etc... usually when entering a house they will take extreme caution, you never know what gun wielding nut is on the other side of the door. Better to be safe then sorry.
Comments
once again, Gizmodo said they paid for it.
I am just going by the story told by Gizmodo, since it's the only story right now.
Like if you tell a police you have cocaine, you will most definitely be searched. Why should anybody believe otherwise?
And in court that is hearsay until proven.
Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.
Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.
Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.
Ever hear of Al Capone?
I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.
I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.
Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.
Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?
How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.
Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.
Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.
Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.
Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.
The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.
I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.
And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.
They might appreciate the business
And in court that is hearsay until proven.
Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.
Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.
Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.
Ever hear of Al Capone?
Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.
If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.
Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn. What happens if the authorities find illegal content on his computer? Was it worth it after all? Maybe this will set a precedence on how far one can go to get a scoop...
I'm on Apple's side on this, but this specific warrant clearly forbids night searches. The search occurred after 9:00 PM. How is this legal?
This has been gone over a few times (or more) on this thread, but just in case you didn't catch it: a day search is defined as being served between the hours of 7am & 10pm.
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.
It is in fact not at all the same case. Now if the prototype could demonstrate that Apple was using ground-up baby seals in the manufacture the iPhone in spite of claims to the contrary - then yes it would be the same thing. Those are not the facts on the ground - none of which we have any corroboration for by the way until the DA investigates. That's what this is all about, period.
A DA suspects that criminal activity has occurred, there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence (provided ironically by Gizmodo themselves) to merit further investigation under California law (apparently both criminal and trade it seems), and the allegations and circumstances were enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant for the seizure of Chen's equipment, especially if the DA is concerned that evidence may be in danger of being compromised or destroyed. Now, the DA may look on this as an opportunity to bolster a career in a high profile case as well. So there's additional motivation, but not necessarily so.
In the end more words and vituperation will be spend in speculation out here in the blogosphere
than it will take to bring the case to closure.
The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences. This is not Watergate. This is not a large corporate entity like Exxon hiding malfeasance and criminal negligence. What the consequences are for Gawker, Gizmodo and Jason Chen (if any) remains to be seen. It depends largely on the DA's investigation.
Now if Gawker/Gizmodo is smart they will keep the editorializing to an absolute minimum until the investigation is over - but I bet they won't. They may try to paint themselves as aggrieved and wronged servants of the tech community just trying to do their jobs (something they have already alluded to as they edited original posts and tried to minimize their role in this). But not only is the the original material there and witnessed to by a large audience, but all versions are archived on the internet as well. A reasonably tech-savvy DA will know this and add that to whatever is found on Chen's equipment.
Seeing that Gizmodo did not post anything related to this topic on their website, I don't think they saw this coming at all
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn..
You make it sound like the police doing their work is the ugly turn? Is that what you mean? As a firm believer in the rule of law, I think the ugly turns happened when the thief didn't return the property, and then also when Gizmodo paid $5K for the hot phone. Now, the wheels of justice are turning and the ugly turns are being properly addressed.
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
now do we. Really?
Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.
Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.
The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.
I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.
And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.
The point was the extremes I have seen going on in this thread with no actual proof, but still seemed to elicit the public burning at the stake supposed peanut gallery and shareholders were putting gizmodo through.
I haven't read the rest of your post, only the beginning, so this will only address that.
snip
Let's go backward:
Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?
snip
engadget photographed, speculated on, but didn't purchase the phone, so they didn't commit the crime of buying stolen property?
Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.
If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.
Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.
I'd honestly love to know how he would have accomplished that. Unless he's Tom Cruise, I more feel this piece of tech was handed to them, but that's just my opinion based on holes and the public nature of the circumstances.
Any fool would not have stated they paid for an item that was obviously a potential piece of corporate espionage unless there was reason to distance themselves from whomever gave it to them.
Misdirection.
Stating they paid for it in any nature puts them behind the 8 ball and in the cross hairs, so to say so means they were distancing themselves.
I have avoided saying this, but I live in the DC and have a friend working for the FCC (they already have the new all aluminum samsung TV, btw. A gift from samsung when the president of said company saw what he stated to be "sony crap" on the wall of their conference room.)
He has told me what apple does when the FCC tests their equipment. And apple guard is with the tech. Windows are blacked out. Several logs are signed, and when testing is done it is under lock and key. So WSJ was pretty accurate and this is a government agency no less.
So yes, my friend, the FCC and I really have issue that an apple baseband engineer was allowed to take a prototype to a bar, get drunk, and then lose the prototype.
The entire thing seemed flakey when it was explained, and pretty ostentatious in its explanation.
So lets just take into account the possibility the CA police more than likely decided to be gun-ho with the potential of a high profile case and may have stepped on more toes than they anticipated.
"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."
engadget photographed, speculated on, but didn't purchase the phone, so they didn't commit the crime of buying stolen property?
It was probably leaked to endgadget first and when the desired amount of hits wasn't generated it went directly to gizmodo for the desired affect.
There is still no proof a purchase was made and $5k is pretty cheap for future apple gold, don't you think?
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
Agreed.
And finally a truly perceptive statement.
Apparently some are capable of learning how things work in the real world.
Very adult.
Relax, it was a joke.
They are going to portray themselves as victims of the apple machine and do a ton of giz vs apple articles.
It's pretty funny because Giz rarely ever wrote this many articles in the span of a single week. Most of their other blogs are 50-word summaries of press releases, followed by a load of pictures.
This prototype has improved Giz's content in more ways than just one.
1) The reason Apple NEED to pursue a case here is to not set a precedent of doing nothing. If they just let this slip under the radar then the next time someone steals some trade secrets from them or similar, they would argue that Apple did nothing last time, so they should not be prosecuted. Apple need to clearly maintain a precedent, which is in many ways the same as showing a precedent for protecting your trademark. If you don't, don't expect to win a case one day when you do.
2) The warrant was allegedly served around 7am, though no one was home. What time the search concludes is irrelevant to a night time clause, it could have gone into the wee hours and the only ones that would be upset would be the caffeine deprived cops.
Oh, and why did the super troopers have to kick the door in etc etc... usually when entering a house they will take extreme caution, you never know what gun wielding nut is on the other side of the door. Better to be safe then sorry.