According to Gizmodo (if you will) he CLAIMS to have found it on a barstool, asks around, got no response and decided to take it home. Checking it out, found Powell's Facebook link on it (and so had his name) but instead of doing the logical thing and returning it to the bar where it was left, he attempted, according to Gizmodo, to call the Apple support lines to return it, etc. This stuff is all out there in GIzmodo's recount of it. He removed it from where it was found. That alone according to Cailfornia law is considered theft. Further when Gizmodo finally contacted Powell he said he had called the bar several times to see if anyone has TURNED IT IN. A logical and expected behavior by an honest person. All of this has been hashed and rehashed.
And it is all too neat, too clean, too pat.
That is the point I am making.
And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?
If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.
How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?
How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?
How did they know he left the post and from that phone?
Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?
The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.
As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.
Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.
Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.
The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.
And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.
You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.
BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.
Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.
And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.
I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.
I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!
You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.
As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.
Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.
Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.
And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?
If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.
That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?
What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"
Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.
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.
The difference is an Apple prototype leaked more than two months before it's release gives competitors a substantial headstart. The material harm to Apple from this kind of leak could be in the millions. Apple commands the market lead it currently enjoys partly because nobody knows what's coming next -- and Apple continues to impress. Again, this kind of leak really steals the thunder of a release.
Imagine we never saw this device. When Steve whipped it out on stage, we'd all be like "Oooo, ahhh! A front facing camera! Look how thin! Better battery life! Camera flash! Wow, a beautiful high-res screen! Gimme Gimme!" But now, when he pulls it out, we'll be like "Yeah, seen that. What else you got?" If that's not materially damaging to Apple, I don't know what is.
Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.
And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.
I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.
I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!
I alleged nothing but another point of view seasoned with common sense, the one thing a number of these emotionally salted posts seem to be lacking.
NO ONE knows what happened, most of all the DA, hence why they WANT to know and went to this extreme to find out.
IF apple conducted a controlled leak, they are NOT going to say anything until they have to.
IF the item was stolen by someone inside apple and then leaked, it will come out.
IF the item was ACTUALLY lost and then found (that story has more holes than a colander) then THAT will come out.
But if nothing else I have illustrated how outlandish it is for ANYONE to prosecute ANYONE in a public forum without ANY shred of evidence.
Didn't we just destabilize a very well known middle eastern country with even LESS evidence?
Has ANYONE not learned ANYTHING from the last 7 to 8 years?
To me, this is a social exercise.
Nothing more.
I believe what I am saying no more than the Lincoln Group believes they propaganda they spew on the masses (if you are who you say you are, you know who they are. Their new name is Fulcrum International) but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.
How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?
How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?
How did they know he left the post and from that phone?
Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.
The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.
And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.
You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.
BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.
You know, for someone who keeps demanding proof for any and all opinions about this case, you sure do indulge in a lot of made up stuff.
So I put it to you:
Where's your proof that this was an Apple publicity scheme?
Where's your proof that the DA was on a fishing expedition?
Where's your proof that Apple in some way caused any of this to happen?
These are highly charged, highly speculative ideas about the case that run contrary to simplest explanation (guy left phone in bar, guy found it and sold it, laws were broken, at least in the estimation of the DA), so I imagine you have something some reason for thinking those things beyond "I bet Apple/and or the DA are the bad guys"?
If the stolen goods are not claimed from the police, they EVENTUALLY sell the goods at auction. By this time of course, anybody will be able to buy a comparable iPhone LEGALLY.
Stop muddying up the water by trying to misdirect from the finder's criminal action of selling property that didn't belong to him. No theorizing on the possible actions of the police once the item was turned in dismisses the factual criminal action of the finder.
I'll say this though: if Apple has its way, Gawker Media could end up with a couple of high-level employees in jail and possibly be sued by Apple, Inc. out of existance. Now that's really scary.
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??
Pretty hard, Arresting is one thing, how do you expect them to convict without evidence?
That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?
What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"
Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.
And you neglect the obvious:
If that is the case, why state those were the circumstances in the first place, when it obviously could come back on them?
Especially since they obviously have a point of contact for the return of the item?
Admit you COULD have returned it but instead you elected to report it?
I honestly doubt that.
If that is the intelligence level of Northern California, the American civilization is doomed.
I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.
Except that this is not being done by Apple. This is a criminal suit. So Apple is really out of the picture.
And it is Gizmodo's fault for being so cavalier about things. They admitted they paid and how much. Their parent company pulled that stunt with the ipad etc. I'm sure after that move the DA has been watching Gawker to see if they would actually do it. They did, they get dinged big time .
Even if there are no criminal charges filed and no civil lawsuit by Apple, Powell might have cause for a suit over being called out. And companies may think twice about advertising on Gawker sites or offer any kind of info/review copies to their sites. And that could kill them more than the legal stuff cause they can't spin it as some kind of back ass wards win
Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.
But those conjectures of yours have accusatory undertones that is directed at Apple but never at Gizmodo. Let me point this out to you, Apple never said a word about this iPhone brouhaha only Gizmodo, Apple never made an official statement about the lost except for that one letter which it asked Gizmodo to return the prototype back to Apple. Everything we know about the next gen iPhone came from Gizmodo, how it was found, how the finder knew the engineer who lost it, how Gizmodo got hold of it , how much they paid for it , that they opened and examined it, that they posted photos and videos in their website, that they call Apple and have Apple legal wrote a letter to them asking the device back and the return of the prototype to Apple. That my friend is not conjecture . Those are the facts according to Gizmodo. The conjecture is about Apple's response to the situation.
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Mark
I think I have already made that point, but maybe it will go down better coming from you....
Comments
And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.
What‽‽‽‽‽‽
Care to cite that?
According to Gizmodo (if you will) he CLAIMS to have found it on a barstool, asks around, got no response and decided to take it home. Checking it out, found Powell's Facebook link on it (and so had his name) but instead of doing the logical thing and returning it to the bar where it was left, he attempted, according to Gizmodo, to call the Apple support lines to return it, etc. This stuff is all out there in GIzmodo's recount of it. He removed it from where it was found. That alone according to Cailfornia law is considered theft. Further when Gizmodo finally contacted Powell he said he had called the bar several times to see if anyone has TURNED IT IN. A logical and expected behavior by an honest person. All of this has been hashed and rehashed.
And it is all too neat, too clean, too pat.
That is the point I am making.
And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?
If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.
How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?
How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?
How did they know he left the post and from that phone?
Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?
The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
What‽‽‽‽‽‽
Care to cite that?
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.....
(though it's already been cited in this thread alone...and not by me.)
The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
See the post above the one you quoted.
You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.
As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.
Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.
Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.
The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.
And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.
You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.
BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.
Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.
And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.
I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.
I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!
harleighquinn
You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.
As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.
Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.
Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.
And it is all too neat, too clean, too pat.
That is the point I am making.
And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?
If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.
That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?
What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"
Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.
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.
The difference is an Apple prototype leaked more than two months before it's release gives competitors a substantial headstart. The material harm to Apple from this kind of leak could be in the millions. Apple commands the market lead it currently enjoys partly because nobody knows what's coming next -- and Apple continues to impress. Again, this kind of leak really steals the thunder of a release.
Imagine we never saw this device. When Steve whipped it out on stage, we'd all be like "Oooo, ahhh! A front facing camera! Look how thin! Better battery life! Camera flash! Wow, a beautiful high-res screen! Gimme Gimme!" But now, when he pulls it out, we'll be like "Yeah, seen that. What else you got?" If that's not materially damaging to Apple, I don't know what is.
austingaijin
Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.
And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.
I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.
I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!
I alleged nothing but another point of view seasoned with common sense, the one thing a number of these emotionally salted posts seem to be lacking.
NO ONE knows what happened, most of all the DA, hence why they WANT to know and went to this extreme to find out.
IF apple conducted a controlled leak, they are NOT going to say anything until they have to.
IF the item was stolen by someone inside apple and then leaked, it will come out.
IF the item was ACTUALLY lost and then found (that story has more holes than a colander) then THAT will come out.
But if nothing else I have illustrated how outlandish it is for ANYONE to prosecute ANYONE in a public forum without ANY shred of evidence.
Didn't we just destabilize a very well known middle eastern country with even LESS evidence?
Has ANYONE not learned ANYTHING from the last 7 to 8 years?
To me, this is a social exercise.
Nothing more.
I believe what I am saying no more than the Lincoln Group believes they propaganda they spew on the masses (if you are who you say you are, you know who they are. Their new name is Fulcrum International) but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.
How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?
How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?
How did they know he left the post and from that phone?
Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Mark
Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.
The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.
And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.
You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.
BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.
You know, for someone who keeps demanding proof for any and all opinions about this case, you sure do indulge in a lot of made up stuff.
So I put it to you:
Where's your proof that this was an Apple publicity scheme?
Where's your proof that the DA was on a fishing expedition?
Where's your proof that Apple in some way caused any of this to happen?
These are highly charged, highly speculative ideas about the case that run contrary to simplest explanation (guy left phone in bar, guy found it and sold it, laws were broken, at least in the estimation of the DA), so I imagine you have something some reason for thinking those things beyond "I bet Apple/and or the DA are the bad guys"?
http://www.ehow.com/how_5137713_buy-...s-legally.html
If the stolen goods are not claimed from the police, they EVENTUALLY sell the goods at auction. By this time of course, anybody will be able to buy a comparable iPhone LEGALLY.
Stop muddying up the water by trying to misdirect from the finder's criminal action of selling property that didn't belong to him. No theorizing on the possible actions of the police once the item was turned in dismisses the factual criminal action of the finder.
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??
Pretty hard, Arresting is one thing, how do you expect them to convict without evidence?
That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons?
What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"
Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.
And you neglect the obvious:
If that is the case, why state those were the circumstances in the first place, when it obviously could come back on them?
Especially since they obviously have a point of contact for the return of the item?
Admit you COULD have returned it but instead you elected to report it?
I honestly doubt that.
If that is the intelligence level of Northern California, the American civilization is doomed.
I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.
Except that this is not being done by Apple. This is a criminal suit. So Apple is really out of the picture.
And it is Gizmodo's fault for being so cavalier about things. They admitted they paid and how much. Their parent company pulled that stunt with the ipad etc. I'm sure after that move the DA has been watching Gawker to see if they would actually do it. They did, they get dinged big time .
Even if there are no criminal charges filed and no civil lawsuit by Apple, Powell might have cause for a suit over being called out. And companies may think twice about advertising on Gawker sites or offer any kind of info/review copies to their sites. And that could kill them more than the legal stuff cause they can't spin it as some kind of back ass wards win
Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.
But those conjectures of yours have accusatory undertones that is directed at Apple but never at Gizmodo. Let me point this out to you, Apple never said a word about this iPhone brouhaha only Gizmodo, Apple never made an official statement about the lost except for that one letter which it asked Gizmodo to return the prototype back to Apple. Everything we know about the next gen iPhone came from Gizmodo, how it was found, how the finder knew the engineer who lost it, how Gizmodo got hold of it , how much they paid for it , that they opened and examined it, that they posted photos and videos in their website, that they call Apple and have Apple legal wrote a letter to them asking the device back and the return of the prototype to Apple. That my friend is not conjecture . Those are the facts according to Gizmodo. The conjecture is about Apple's response to the situation.
If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.
Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.
You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.
Mark
I think I have already made that point, but maybe it will go down better coming from you....