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.
If you want an idea of what I am doing right now, I am sitting here in front of my 24 in iMac, petting my flame point siamese and drinking grey goose on the rocks.
It should be said, if anyone in this forum needs to relax, it's not me.
Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.
The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.
The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
Sorry, but that kind of logic doesn't make sense.
Being a journalist gives you some protection - but not against theft. The crime here is trafficking in stolen property - and I don't care if he's the Editor of The Wall Street Journal. That is no defense.
As for whether he knew it was stolen, please stop repeating that fallacious argument. Under CA law, it was stolen - it's not even a gray area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero
Can Jason be compelled to give up the password? Not in the criminal case. Mr. 5th Amendment likely applies. But probably not in any civil case someone in Cuppertino might wish to bring against him (and his employer.)
He can most certainly be ordered to turn over any relevant documents on the computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
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.
Why? First, you don't know if Apple reported it stolen.
More importantly, there's no such requirement in the law. If you go on vacation and I break into your house and steal your TV and car and the police see me doing it, they can arrest me - even though you have clearly not filed a stolen property report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
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.
That last sentence is the ONLY similarity - but it's not enough to justify what you're proposing. If the reporter believed that the phone caused a risk of imminent harm to the public, he MIGHT be able to make that argument. In this case, he's simply stealing and publishing trade secret information - which is illegal in both CA and NY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitro
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, "
How does that have anything to do with this case? R&D has its hazards, sure. But why does that give the 'finder' the right to steal Apple's property, Gizmodo the right to buy stolen property, and Gizmodo the right to misappropriate and publish trade secrets? How does returning the phone negate those crimes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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). .
Yes, if Apple's target is to make juvenile delinquents who can't tell right from wrong happy, that might be a reasonable approach.
But Apple is a business which has to protect its trade secrets. They have every right to prosecute and most people who are old enough to own anything of value understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick
Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.
* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.
Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply
Exactly. He can refuse to reveal a news source. But when HE is involved in the crime, that protection doesn't apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp
Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion.
Not at all. Most people don't know anything about the case, but if you ask the majority if it's OK for Gizmodo to steal Apple's prototype phone (using the CA legal definition), take it apart, and publish trade secrets on the internet, most people will say that's not OK.
I guess it's okay then if I steal your car and sell it to Gizmodo so they can do a story on your stereo system. Freedom of the press, right?
You're really going crazy here. Gizmodo bought stolen property - is that so hard to understand?
It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
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.
1) That assumes that a baseband engineer was allowed to go out partying with a prototype in the first place.
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.
Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.
To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.
Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.
To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.
Or, adversely, protecting their high profile source.
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.
This is a case of a lost/stolen (however you want to phrase it) prototype that is worth millions of dollars. Companies would likely pay millions to obtain that unit. Of course the police will be after this like rabid dogs. This is not just some dude's lost iPhone (as much as some philosophers on this forum continue to bring up that absurd analogy).
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.
Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard from these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
I think you will find that in most computer crimes the first thing that happens is the computers are siezed. Doesn't matter if it is a single person working at home or a global corporation. Think Enron, think Mitnick. Taking the computers is no different to taking DNA from your clothing or taking the hammer you used in an assault, you are taking the implements that *may* have been used in the procurement of a crime.
Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard form these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.
And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.
Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.
Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?
Apparently common sense does not reign in this venue.....
I'm not here to do a pissing contest, though I could tell you things that could either curdle your blood or make you laugh, but I would like people to actually think about the circumstances rather than shooting from the hip.
It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
Actually, if Gizmodo stole my car and the evidence was reasonably suspected to be on their computers and cameras, I would expect and demand that the police seize those computers and cameras. I would say that analogy fits almost perfectly except Gizmodo only claims they participated in knowingly purchasing stolen property. Gizmodo doesn't claim to be the ones who stole the property.
This case may have been given special treatment. However, the main reason for that is isn't Apple, but rather it's high profile because of the coverage of it. The coverage started with Gizmodo and they brought it smack dab into the spotlight here.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
I don't get it. All these tech sites do this. Buy people's lost and found stuff and disassemble it. What's so different about Jizzmodo? I think the police should focus on real criminals instead of wasting time confiscating computers, taking away photographers' cameras, assaulting Ivy League professors for trying to get into their own homes and countless other violations.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
Your definition matches my statement, no matter how you attempt to interpret it, as it was reported to be said, and not from the mouth of the stater.
You would have been better to state I was mistaking it for libel, in which case you would still be incorrect.
(Also, the story can change with evidence and the threat of perjury)
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies).
Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud. I believe next time I'm in an argument (despite what the argument is about, or who it is with - why spoil the fun?), I shall use the phrase "hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons" just for the hell of it. I can but anticipate the wide-eyed looks of wonder and amazement.
Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud. I believe next time I'm in an argument (despite what the argument is about, or who it is with - why spoil the fun?), I shall use the phrase "hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons" just for the hell of it. I can but anticipate the wide-eyed looks of wonder and amazement.
I will admit the original statement wasn't as funny but this synopsis of it made my cat get off my lap due to my laughing out loud.
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.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
Nice to see a sound another well written observations in this thread.
Comments
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.
If you want an idea of what I am doing right now, I am sitting here in front of my 24 in iMac, petting my flame point siamese and drinking grey goose on the rocks.
It should be said, if anyone in this forum needs to relax, it's not me.
Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.
The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.
The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
Sorry, but that kind of logic doesn't make sense.
Being a journalist gives you some protection - but not against theft. The crime here is trafficking in stolen property - and I don't care if he's the Editor of The Wall Street Journal. That is no defense.
As for whether he knew it was stolen, please stop repeating that fallacious argument. Under CA law, it was stolen - it's not even a gray area.
Can Jason be compelled to give up the password? Not in the criminal case. Mr. 5th Amendment likely applies. But probably not in any civil case someone in Cuppertino might wish to bring against him (and his employer.)
He can most certainly be ordered to turn over any relevant documents on the computer.
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.
Why? First, you don't know if Apple reported it stolen.
More importantly, there's no such requirement in the law. If you go on vacation and I break into your house and steal your TV and car and the police see me doing it, they can arrest me - even though you have clearly not filed a stolen property report.
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.
That last sentence is the ONLY similarity - but it's not enough to justify what you're proposing. If the reporter believed that the phone caused a risk of imminent harm to the public, he MIGHT be able to make that argument. In this case, he's simply stealing and publishing trade secret information - which is illegal in both CA and NY.
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, "
How does that have anything to do with this case? R&D has its hazards, sure. But why does that give the 'finder' the right to steal Apple's property, Gizmodo the right to buy stolen property, and Gizmodo the right to misappropriate and publish trade secrets? How does returning the phone negate those crimes?
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). .
Yes, if Apple's target is to make juvenile delinquents who can't tell right from wrong happy, that might be a reasonable approach.
But Apple is a business which has to protect its trade secrets. They have every right to prosecute and most people who are old enough to own anything of value understand that.
Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.
* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.
Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply
Exactly. He can refuse to reveal a news source. But when HE is involved in the crime, that protection doesn't apply.
Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion.
Not at all. Most people don't know anything about the case, but if you ask the majority if it's OK for Gizmodo to steal Apple's prototype phone (using the CA legal definition), take it apart, and publish trade secrets on the internet, most people will say that's not OK.
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?
So a written admission and a public boast no longer constitute "proof" in your perfectly objective mind?
I guess it's okay then if I steal your car and sell it to Gizmodo so they can do a story on your stereo system. Freedom of the press, right?
You're really going crazy here. Gizmodo bought stolen property - is that so hard to understand?
It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
Wow there is some crap on this forum
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.
1) That assumes that a baseband engineer was allowed to go out partying with a prototype in the first place.
2) Apparently no one being home wasn't a problem.
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.
Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.
To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.
So a written admission and a public boast no longer constitute "proof" in your perfectly objective mind?
It constitutes show boating, PT Barnum style and nothing more.
In court it would be circumstantial evidence.
Many more high profile cases have been lost with more.
Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.
To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.
Or, adversely, protecting their high profile source.
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.
This is a case of a lost/stolen (however you want to phrase it) prototype that is worth millions of dollars. Companies would likely pay millions to obtain that unit. Of course the police will be after this like rabid dogs. This is not just some dude's lost iPhone (as much as some philosophers on this forum continue to bring up that absurd analogy).
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.
Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard from these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
I think you will find that in most computer crimes the first thing that happens is the computers are siezed. Doesn't matter if it is a single person working at home or a global corporation. Think Enron, think Mitnick. Taking the computers is no different to taking DNA from your clothing or taking the hammer you used in an assault, you are taking the implements that *may* have been used in the procurement of a crime.
Stop being so paranoid.
Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard form these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.
And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.
Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.
Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?
Apparently common sense does not reign in this venue.....
I'm not here to do a pissing contest, though I could tell you things that could either curdle your blood or make you laugh, but I would like people to actually think about the circumstances rather than shooting from the hip.
It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.
No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??
As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.
What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
Actually, if Gizmodo stole my car and the evidence was reasonably suspected to be on their computers and cameras, I would expect and demand that the police seize those computers and cameras. I would say that analogy fits almost perfectly except Gizmodo only claims they participated in knowingly purchasing stolen property. Gizmodo doesn't claim to be the ones who stole the property.
This case may have been given special treatment. However, the main reason for that is isn't Apple, but rather it's high profile because of the coverage of it. The coverage started with Gizmodo and they brought it smack dab into the spotlight here.
And in court that is hearsay until proven.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
Your definition matches my statement, no matter how you attempt to interpret it, as it was reported to be said, and not from the mouth of the stater.
You would have been better to state I was mistaking it for libel, in which case you would still be incorrect.
(Also, the story can change with evidence and the threat of perjury)
However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies).
Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud.
Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud.
I will admit the original statement wasn't as funny but this synopsis of it made my cat get off my lap due to my laughing out loud.
Wow there is some crap on this forum
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.
Very sound and valid observations.
Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).
Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
Nice to see a sound another well written observations in this thread.