Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
I don't know about a time limit. There certainly maybe one, but during that time, the finder is expected to make 'reasonable' efforts to return the phone. The finder may, after a period of time, reasonable efforts to return and perhaps reporting/submitting the found item to the police, expect that it would become his property. The story we have all heard includes efforts to return the phone. Whether this was enough to be considered 'reasonable' efforts is questionable. He didn't report it to the police.
Except for some that have some seemingly pathological need to believe a planned theft occurred, there has been no information released that implies the phone was stolen at any point before Giz took possession of it. We have really only heard one side, but that story says that it was found. At that point, there was no theft. The finder made an attempt to return it. Still no theft. But when the finder sold the device, it seems that is when it likely went from being considered found to being considered stolen. Giz, by paying for it and taking possession of it became involved in the theft.
There are question that are still open, regardless of the peanut gallery that is in a rush to convict with or without evidence and with predetermined opinions on the intent of the parties involved.
-Did Giz buy the phone with the intent to return it to the owner? I think the answer is obviously yes.
-Did they also intend to publish information they found while in possession of it? Again, obviously yes.
-Did Giz know, with any certainty that it was Apple property? Again, regardless of what people are saying now, when the detailed pictures, of the inside and outside, first leaked, many, many people here and elsewhere said that it absolutely was not an Apple device. So Giz is expected to have known, before seeing it that it was an Apple prototype? Obviously, since they paid $5k for it, then thought there was a good chance that it was, but like us, they could not have known. People now say it was obvious, but that is easy to say once it is confirmed. It is sort of funny how everyone becomes an expert in identifying Apple prototypes after Apple confirms it.
-Does this become a trade secret crime? Maybe. Was there reasonable expectation that a prototype allowed off of Apple property, disguised as a 3GS but allowed to be in public, with an employee that is drinking on his birthday and left unattended would remain a secret and therefore protected? Gray is an Apple employee and had the device in public in his role as an agent of the company. His leaving it unattended in public is in effect Apple leaving it unattended in public. Does Apple (Gray) leaving it in public negate the protections for trade secrets, as it might be argued that leaving it in public is the same as making it public? Or as some internet lawyers have claimed, does it remain a trade secret with trade secret protection as long as Apple doesn't announce it? If that was the case, nothing would ever lose trade secret protection until announced, and that simply is not the case.
I haven't decided where I am on all of the issue involved. I am not willing to bend the facts that are available or add to them, in order to make it fit my view of Apple, Giz and the other parties involved. We don't have nearly the complete story yet, but filling in the blanks with even wilder narratives and assumptions is just not worth the time. If Giz is found guilty, let them pay. Calling them name is just childish.
And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.
Umm, ok. That isn't what I wrote. I wrote "And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?"
if you don't like that fact perhaps you should ask the police. After all, the AI story itself reports "We?re still not saying it?s a crime,? San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal". If you need the facts to be different, feel free to change them, I guess.
Nothing like a strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.
Wasn't Paystar's team the same that handled Burst.com? Didn't do too badly for them. Who would you suggest? WH? Foley? I am sure Gawker would take suggestions.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
Let me point out were I think you are being a little unrealistic.
Injunction is issued that no data be deleted.
Sorry your honor a virus/trojan/worm infect my network and all data was lost.
My house was broken into and all my equipment was stolen.
My office had a faulty outlet and burned, luckily I was able to get the fire department here before anything beyond the office was destroyed.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
These folks have a lot to loose if they actually complied with such a order.
Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.
There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
If Chen actually had something to hide, do you honestly think he'd comply with that injunction? In your scenario, the police don't seize Chen's computers, hard drives, etc. but instead opt to sort out the legal issues first. Since they never seized his computers, how would they know what Chen may or may not have deleted defying the injunction. They wouldn't have any evidence to make Chen "face serious consequences".
All that would be tempting fate. Any reasonable person knows that it will smell, and it will be investigated to death.
Oh, I suppose a meteorite might crash into the police dept and destroy evidence.
Yes, but any reasonable person knows that calling AppleCare when you know how to get in touch with a phone's owner also smells and will be investigated. Any reasonable person knows that if you pay $5 K for something, you're going to have a hard time saying "I didn't know what it was". It's not at all clear that we're dealing with reasonable people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.
Legally, there's a world of difference. If a journalist receives information from someone who broke an NDA to deliver that information, the journalist is clearly covered under the Press Shield laws. Purchasing stolen property is entirely different.
Morally, I'm not sure there's much difference, either. The journalist is doing his job - which is to publish any information he can legally obtain. Since he can legally receive information from someone but can not legally purchase stolen property, there is a big difference. Of course, the person who breaks the NDA is morally a scum-bucket, but no one is arguing that he has any protection so that's a moot point.
Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As to legalities of this everyone -- including you -- is purely speculating.
SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
We'll all have to wait and see how it pans out, won't we. Until then, all the legal speculation is worth exactly zero.
Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.
No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.
Perhaps you should think before you write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.
I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So why are you spending time speculating?
At least, I admit that I am. And, I caveat it adequately.
Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.
Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.
If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.
I'm well aware...but I would say that for Apple's size, they seem to have gotten quite litigious over the last 12 months, so much so that it came up on their quarterly call. Don't fall for the potentially fleeting market cap number when analyzing the size of Apple as a company. Their revenue and income is still that of a mid tier large cap company, and a few bad results in the court room could have a disastrous effect on the stock price and obviously their market cap as a result. Just think Apple may be over extending themselves with all the patent lawsuits, both against them and on their behalf...and this current little incident just struck me funny that they're adding criminal cases to their portfolio.
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.
Did you even read what I posted?
Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
It's like the raping never occurred.
nice....
What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.
Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.
Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?
No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.
Perhaps you should think before you write.
I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?
You most certainly did misrepresent my position - and the evidence is quite clear to see.
If someone supplied information to AI that breaks an NDA, they are not in violation of a law as far as I know - which is why theft of property is different.
They can be sued by their employer for breaking the NDA, but that's civil, not criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
It's awfully hard to make sense of your rambling. Can you state in plain English what the question is?
For the record, here is the process:
1. Police receive probable cause information that a crime has been committed and that evidence might be available.
2. Police go to judge to get a search warrant.
3. If the judge agrees that there's probable cause, judge orders a search warrant.
4. At that point, the police can legally search the premises as long as they follow the limits on the search warrant.
The police have done nothing wrong and there's nothing illegal about what they've done at this point.
Now, if the person who was searched has an objection, they can:
5. Go to court to ask for an injunction to stop future searches or to have the evidence thrown out and returned to the owner.
If they can not get that injunction, they can futher:
6. Ask for the court to rule the evidence as inadmissible.
Even if #5 or #6 occurs, that doesn't make the search illegal. It simply limits what evidence can be used in trial. We're not at that stage of the process, so the police have done NOTHING wrong.
What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.
Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.
Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?
Did Gizmodo buy the prototype for 5 grand? yes
Did Gizmodo take apart the iPhone prototype? yes
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no
Yes timing is everything.
No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.
To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.
No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.
To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.
So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.
So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.
Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.
Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.
I see. So if you come across a car in the street, you can not take it because that would be stealing, but if you come across a phone in a bar you CAN take it and it's not stealing?
Care to point to the relevant portions of California law which support that bizarre conclusion?
Comments
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
I don't know about a time limit. There certainly maybe one, but during that time, the finder is expected to make 'reasonable' efforts to return the phone. The finder may, after a period of time, reasonable efforts to return and perhaps reporting/submitting the found item to the police, expect that it would become his property. The story we have all heard includes efforts to return the phone. Whether this was enough to be considered 'reasonable' efforts is questionable. He didn't report it to the police.
Except for some that have some seemingly pathological need to believe a planned theft occurred, there has been no information released that implies the phone was stolen at any point before Giz took possession of it. We have really only heard one side, but that story says that it was found. At that point, there was no theft. The finder made an attempt to return it. Still no theft. But when the finder sold the device, it seems that is when it likely went from being considered found to being considered stolen. Giz, by paying for it and taking possession of it became involved in the theft.
There are question that are still open, regardless of the peanut gallery that is in a rush to convict with or without evidence and with predetermined opinions on the intent of the parties involved.
-Did Giz buy the phone with the intent to return it to the owner? I think the answer is obviously yes.
-Did they also intend to publish information they found while in possession of it? Again, obviously yes.
-Did Giz know, with any certainty that it was Apple property? Again, regardless of what people are saying now, when the detailed pictures, of the inside and outside, first leaked, many, many people here and elsewhere said that it absolutely was not an Apple device. So Giz is expected to have known, before seeing it that it was an Apple prototype? Obviously, since they paid $5k for it, then thought there was a good chance that it was, but like us, they could not have known. People now say it was obvious, but that is easy to say once it is confirmed. It is sort of funny how everyone becomes an expert in identifying Apple prototypes after Apple confirms it.
-Does this become a trade secret crime? Maybe. Was there reasonable expectation that a prototype allowed off of Apple property, disguised as a 3GS but allowed to be in public, with an employee that is drinking on his birthday and left unattended would remain a secret and therefore protected? Gray is an Apple employee and had the device in public in his role as an agent of the company. His leaving it unattended in public is in effect Apple leaving it unattended in public. Does Apple (Gray) leaving it in public negate the protections for trade secrets, as it might be argued that leaving it in public is the same as making it public? Or as some internet lawyers have claimed, does it remain a trade secret with trade secret protection as long as Apple doesn't announce it? If that was the case, nothing would ever lose trade secret protection until announced, and that simply is not the case.
I haven't decided where I am on all of the issue involved. I am not willing to bend the facts that are available or add to them, in order to make it fit my view of Apple, Giz and the other parties involved. We don't have nearly the complete story yet, but filling in the blanks with even wilder narratives and assumptions is just not worth the time. If Giz is found guilty, let them pay. Calling them name is just childish.
And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.
Umm, ok. That isn't what I wrote. I wrote "And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?"
if you don't like that fact perhaps you should ask the police. After all, the AI story itself reports "We?re still not saying it?s a crime,? San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal". If you need the facts to be different, feel free to change them, I guess.
Nothing like a strawman.
The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.
Wasn't Paystar's team the same that handled Burst.com? Didn't do too badly for them. Who would you suggest? WH? Foley? I am sure Gawker would take suggestions.
That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
Let me point out were I think you are being a little unrealistic.
Injunction is issued that no data be deleted.
Sorry your honor a virus/trojan/worm infect my network and all data was lost.
My house was broken into and all my equipment was stolen.
My office had a faulty outlet and burned, luckily I was able to get the fire department here before anything beyond the office was destroyed.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
These folks have a lot to loose if they actually complied with such a order.
Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.
There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.
Let me point out were I think you are being a little unrealistic.
Injunction is issued that no data be deleted.
Sorry your honor a virus/trojan/worm infect my network and all data was lost.
My house was broken into and all my equipment was stolen.
My office had a faulty outlet and burned, luckily I was able to get the fire department here before anything beyond the office was destroyed.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
These folks have a lot to loose if they actually complied with such a order.
All that would be tempting fate. Any reasonable person knows that it will smell, and it will be investigated to death.
Oh, I suppose a meteorite might crash into the police dept and destroy evidence.
Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
If Chen actually had something to hide, do you honestly think he'd comply with that injunction? In your scenario, the police don't seize Chen's computers, hard drives, etc. but instead opt to sort out the legal issues first. Since they never seized his computers, how would they know what Chen may or may not have deleted defying the injunction. They wouldn't have any evidence to make Chen "face serious consequences".
All that would be tempting fate. Any reasonable person knows that it will smell, and it will be investigated to death.
Oh, I suppose a meteorite might crash into the police dept and destroy evidence.
Yes, but any reasonable person knows that calling AppleCare when you know how to get in touch with a phone's owner also smells and will be investigated. Any reasonable person knows that if you pay $5 K for something, you're going to have a hard time saying "I didn't know what it was". It's not at all clear that we're dealing with reasonable people.
There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.
Legally, there's a world of difference. If a journalist receives information from someone who broke an NDA to deliver that information, the journalist is clearly covered under the Press Shield laws. Purchasing stolen property is entirely different.
Morally, I'm not sure there's much difference, either. The journalist is doing his job - which is to publish any information he can legally obtain. Since he can legally receive information from someone but can not legally purchase stolen property, there is a big difference. Of course, the person who breaks the NDA is morally a scum-bucket, but no one is arguing that he has any protection so that's a moot point.
Morally, I'm not sure there's much difference, either.
Thanks for agreeing with my main point.
As to legalities of this everyone -- including you -- is purely speculating.
We'll all have to wait and see how it pans out, won't we. Until then, all the legal speculation is worth exactly zero.
Thanks for agreeing with my main point.
Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.
As to legalities of this everyone -- including you -- is purely speculating.
SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.
We'll all have to wait and see how it pans out, won't we. Until then, all the legal speculation is worth exactly zero.
So why are you spending time speculating?
Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.
No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.
Perhaps you should think before you write.
SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.
I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?
So why are you spending time speculating?
At least, I admit that I am. And, I caveat it adequately.
Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.
Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.
If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.
I'm well aware...but I would say that for Apple's size, they seem to have gotten quite litigious over the last 12 months, so much so that it came up on their quarterly call. Don't fall for the potentially fleeting market cap number when analyzing the size of Apple as a company. Their revenue and income is still that of a mid tier large cap company, and a few bad results in the court room could have a disastrous effect on the stock price and obviously their market cap as a result. Just think Apple may be over extending themselves with all the patent lawsuits, both against them and on their behalf...and this current little incident just struck me funny that they're adding criminal cases to their portfolio.
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
It's like the raping never occurred.
nice....
Are you really that clueless?
No. Why do you ask?
The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.
Did you even read what I posted?
Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
There's nothing nefarious about it.
Okay. I never said there was.
So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
It's like the raping never occurred.
nice....
What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.
Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.
Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?
No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.
Perhaps you should think before you write.
I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?
You most certainly did misrepresent my position - and the evidence is quite clear to see.
If someone supplied information to AI that breaks an NDA, they are not in violation of a law as far as I know - which is why theft of property is different.
They can be sued by their employer for breaking the NDA, but that's civil, not criminal.
Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
It's awfully hard to make sense of your rambling. Can you state in plain English what the question is?
For the record, here is the process:
1. Police receive probable cause information that a crime has been committed and that evidence might be available.
2. Police go to judge to get a search warrant.
3. If the judge agrees that there's probable cause, judge orders a search warrant.
4. At that point, the police can legally search the premises as long as they follow the limits on the search warrant.
The police have done nothing wrong and there's nothing illegal about what they've done at this point.
Now, if the person who was searched has an objection, they can:
5. Go to court to ask for an injunction to stop future searches or to have the evidence thrown out and returned to the owner.
If they can not get that injunction, they can futher:
6. Ask for the court to rule the evidence as inadmissible.
Even if #5 or #6 occurs, that doesn't make the search illegal. It simply limits what evidence can be used in trial. We're not at that stage of the process, so the police have done NOTHING wrong.
What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.
Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.
Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?
Did Gizmodo buy the prototype for 5 grand? yes
Did Gizmodo take apart the iPhone prototype? yes
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no
Yes timing is everything.
Did Gizmodo buy the prototype for 5 grand? yes
Did Gizmodo take apart the iPhone prototype? yes
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no
Yes timing is everything.
No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.
To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.
No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.
To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.
So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.
So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.
Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.
Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.
I see. So if you come across a car in the street, you can not take it because that would be stealing, but if you come across a phone in a bar you CAN take it and it's not stealing?
Care to point to the relevant portions of California law which support that bizarre conclusion?