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.
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"?
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.
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.
If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.
That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.
I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.
California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")
And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Cali law defines 'night' as after 10 pm. So as long as they had the right to enter the house and remove anything without the owner present they should be in the clear.
Wrong. What Gizmodo paid for it is automatically what it's worth. And the original finder didn't try very hard to return it to Apple, he obviously knew it belonged to Apple, and then he SOLD it to Gizmodo.
Selling found property that you know belongs to somebody else automatically makes it stolen, and buying stolen property is a felony. As people have been saying this entire time, if the guy really wanted to return it to Apple he could have given it to the bartender. Apple did, in fact, call the bar multiple times looking for that phone.
There is no excuse for what happened. Both the guy who sold it and Gizmodo are going down for this, or at least their editors are, since we're talking about a felony here.
A colossal waste of time of which about every other post is yours?
I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.
Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.
California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")
And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?
And, in classic proper police fashion, rather than serve the warrant at a time that would have been convenient to the defendant, they elected what they ascertained to be the most inopportune time.
That, actually, is the only thing in any of this that applies to how things work in the real world. It's not like television, where they are nice and congenial. It's more inconvenience and passive aggression.
i.e.: how cops really are.
I feel they served the warrant when it was convenient to THEM, as well as being well within the guidelines. Having read it and seeing their attorney's response (though the entire warrant is obviously not shown) I must say that is the case.
Though the grounds for the issuing of the warrant may be questionable, how it was carried out is more or less "procedure"....
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.
If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.
That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.
I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.
For apple's sake, I would like the story to be as reported, what comes out in the end MIGHT be another story, but no one will no until that happens, so again, let Gizmodo be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?
Nothing is proven fact until it is PROVEN fact, and that is what the courts are for (though criminal courts are famously unfair and slanted....)
Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.
There was nothing wrong with you making a statement of fact.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
-Clive
The penal codes of Cali and several other states disagree with you. They all define theft as taking something that is not yours either by direct force, trickery or not making sufficient attempts to return a found object.
This guy called AppleCare, not Corporate. He did not report to the bar owner that he found the phone, he did not message the guy on the facebook account he says was visible on the phone. He didn't fed ex the prototype back to Apple, drive there or hand it over to the manager of the nearest store.
He removed the phone from the bar with intent to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if a check of Chen's computer finds an email telling the guy to call Apple just so he could get a ticket as 'proof' that he tried. Or even conversations before hand saying Gizmodo would pay if he could get his hands on a iphone etc.
Which by the by is why they took all his computers, phone etc. and anything that might have a backup of information he deleted when things get hot.
My guess is that there's actual California office or they would likely have seized from there also to prevent destruction of potential evidence
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.
[...]
A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
You could not be more wrong. When I was a poor college student, my car was stolen. I noticed it about 8:00 in the morning, called the police immediately and filed a report. They called me back about noon the same day to tell me they had found and recovered my car, they had caught the guy who stole it, and they had already filed charges against the guy assuming it would be okay with me that they prosecute the guy. That car was worth a lot less than Gizmodo paid for this phone.
And in that case the police had to actually look for my car. Imagine how much simpler this case is where Gizmodo has already published a full confession and detailed description of the crime for the whole world to see.
Comments
but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.
The dirty truth of this forum comes out.
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.
Why attack Gizmodo?
The rest of you are doing that just fine.
I'll defend the underdog, thank you.
How Apple Conceals Prototype iPhones
The dirty truth of this forum comes out.
Eeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaccccccccctttttttttlll llllllllllyyyyyyyyy
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"?
State your ABSOLUTE proof it was not.
(Sorry. Couldn't help it.)
Eeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaccccccccctttttttttlll llllllllllyyyyyyyyy
A colossal waste of time of which about every other post is yours?
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.
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.
If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.
That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.
I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.
Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?
Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.
California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")
And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
Cali law defines 'night' as after 10 pm. So as long as they had the right to enter the house and remove anything without the owner present they should be in the clear.
Wrong. What Gizmodo paid for it is automatically what it's worth. And the original finder didn't try very hard to return it to Apple, he obviously knew it belonged to Apple, and then he SOLD it to Gizmodo.
Selling found property that you know belongs to somebody else automatically makes it stolen, and buying stolen property is a felony. As people have been saying this entire time, if the guy really wanted to return it to Apple he could have given it to the bartender. Apple did, in fact, call the bar multiple times looking for that phone.
There is no excuse for what happened. Both the guy who sold it and Gizmodo are going down for this, or at least their editors are, since we're talking about a felony here.
A colossal waste of time of which about every other post is yours?
I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.
Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.
California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")
And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?
And, in classic proper police fashion, rather than serve the warrant at a time that would have been convenient to the defendant, they elected what they ascertained to be the most inopportune time.
That, actually, is the only thing in any of this that applies to how things work in the real world. It's not like television, where they are nice and congenial. It's more inconvenience and passive aggression.
i.e.: how cops really are.
I feel they served the warrant when it was convenient to THEM, as well as being well within the guidelines. Having read it and seeing their attorney's response (though the entire warrant is obviously not shown) I must say that is the case.
Though the grounds for the issuing of the warrant may be questionable, how it was carried out is more or less "procedure"....
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?
At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.
The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.
If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.
That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.
I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.
For apple's sake, I would like the story to be as reported, what comes out in the end MIGHT be another story, but no one will no until that happens, so again, let Gizmodo be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Why attack Gizmodo?
The rest of you are doing that just fine.
I'll defend the underdog, thank you.
Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?
Nothing is proven fact until it is PROVEN fact, and that is what the courts are for (though criminal courts are famously unfair and slanted....)
Have a drink and let it go.
Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
Already addressed.
I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.
There was nothing wrong with you making a statement of fact.
I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."
Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Stop the hyperbole... please.
-Clive
The penal codes of Cali and several other states disagree with you. They all define theft as taking something that is not yours either by direct force, trickery or not making sufficient attempts to return a found object.
This guy called AppleCare, not Corporate. He did not report to the bar owner that he found the phone, he did not message the guy on the facebook account he says was visible on the phone. He didn't fed ex the prototype back to Apple, drive there or hand it over to the manager of the nearest store.
He removed the phone from the bar with intent to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if a check of Chen's computer finds an email telling the guy to call Apple just so he could get a ticket as 'proof' that he tried. Or even conversations before hand saying Gizmodo would pay if he could get his hands on a iphone etc.
Which by the by is why they took all his computers, phone etc. and anything that might have a backup of information he deleted when things get hot.
My guess is that there's actual California office or they would likely have seized from there also to prevent destruction of potential evidence
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.
[...]
A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
You could not be more wrong. When I was a poor college student, my car was stolen. I noticed it about 8:00 in the morning, called the police immediately and filed a report. They called me back about noon the same day to tell me they had found and recovered my car, they had caught the guy who stole it, and they had already filed charges against the guy assuming it would be okay with me that they prosecute the guy. That car was worth a lot less than Gizmodo paid for this phone.
And in that case the police had to actually look for my car. Imagine how much simpler this case is where Gizmodo has already published a full confession and detailed description of the crime for the whole world to see.