There WAS no point by point response. You simply said "your analogy is no good" - with no point-by-point rebuttal. How am I supposed to respond to something that doesn't exist.
And as for reporting a crime, you apparently have forgotten the Journalist Shield law. If Engadget's writer is a journalist and covered by the Journalist Shield law, they are most certainly NOT obligated to report a crime if they have knowledge of it.
Geez, you don't even understand the basics - yet you clutter this site with your inane whining.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
You Apple-haters get awfully tiresome.
The two cases are different. As far as we know, Engadget never too possession of the iPhone. Gizmodo did. (If Engadget actually did take possession, then tie situation might be different as I explained above).
Now, look at the Journalist Shield law, the exception, and the exception to the exception as reported numerous times.
If Engadget did not take possession of the phone, they never received stolen property. (Heck, even if they DID take possession and returned it, they might still be covered by the exception to the exception because all the kept was information). But in the base case where Engadget did not take possession, they are CLEARLY covered by the Journalist Shield Law.
Now, look at Gizmodo. First pass, let's agree that they're journalists. But there is an exception to the Shield law that says if you're involved in a crime, the Shield law DOES NOT APPLY. The exception to that exception is that if you're only obtaining information, then the Shield law applies, even if you did commit a crime to get it. But since Gizmodo kept more than the information, this exception to the exception does not apply.
What part of that don't you understand? It's 100% simple, clear, and applicable. The act of keeping the stolen phone changes the situation greatly.
Oh, and btw, I love your 'crime still in progress' interpretation. By that interpretation, I can keep the Ferrari as long as I want because a crime is still in progress. The police have no right to investigate me because I'm a journalist and the crime is still in progress. Amazing.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
I'm trying to catch up here. I'm still recovering from the beer from Gourmet Haus Staudt last night.
Harliegh, what I don't understand is exactly what California Penal Codes you think Engadget violated. We have 485 and 496 for the theft and receiving of stolen goods, but those are for the "finder" and Gizmodo.
Can you cite the law that Engadget broke, or are you just saying that what they did was morally wrong?
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
There's no point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
The two cases are different. As far as we know, Engadget never too possession of the iPhone. Gizmodo did. (If Engadget actually did take possession, then tie situation might be different as I explained above).
Now, look at the Journalist Shield law, the exception, and the exception to the exception as reported numerous times.
If Engadget did not take possession of the phone, they never received stolen property. (Heck, even if they DID take possession and returned it, they might still be covered by the exception to the exception because all the kept was information). But in the base case where Engadget did not take possession, they are CLEARLY covered by the Journalist Shield Law.
Now, look at Gizmodo. First pass, let's agree that they're journalists. But there is an exception to the Shield law that says if you're involved in a crime, the Shield law DOES NOT APPLY. The exception to that exception is that if you're only obtaining information, then the Shield law applies, even if you did commit a crime to get it. But since Gizmodo kept more than the information, this exception to the exception does not apply.
What part of that don't you understand? It's 100% simple, clear, and applicable. The act of keeping the stolen phone changes the situation greatly.
Oh, and btw, I love your 'crime still in progress' interpretation. By that interpretation, I can keep the Ferrari as long as I want because a crime is still in progress. The police have no right to investigate me because I'm a journalist and the crime is still in progress. Amazing.
Wow! Really? Wow. Now I'm an apple hater? Based on what, again?
Wow. Just....wow.
I really think you need to just take a break, step away from the computer, have a drink, something. But you seriously need to calm down and reassess.
I have worked with computers since tape drives when I was in second grade programming in basic at Catholic school. I went apple when I was 9 and never turned back.
I am an accountant and even though apple can't do what I need it to do in that realm, I still own a late 2008 24 inch iMac.
We are about to give that one to my mother and get a 27 inch.
I hate having to type this on a PC in my office when I love my Mac and it's short keystrokes at home.
I'm trying to catch up here. I'm still recovering from the beer from Gourmet Haus Staudt last night.
Harliegh, what I don't understand is exactly what California Penal Codes you think Engadget violated. We have 485 and 496 for the theft and receiving of stolen goods, but those are for the "finder" and Gizmodo.
Can you cite the law that Engadget broke, or are you just saying that what they did was morally wrong?
I'm going to leave that to Rigelian. I honestly believe he is sane enough and patient enough to address this further.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
"There was no desire to joy ride"
Taking it apart was definitely a joy ride. Look at their whole history of presentation. In no way was it, "does this phone belong to you?" It was all about profiting from hits as a result of leaking information about the stolen property they purchased.
"There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo."
That doesn't really matter, however, Gawker had previously posted a bounty for information (legally or illegally) obtained about the iPad, including extra $$$ if they could get their hands on one. So while I wouldn't say this in of itself was a crime, it certainly shows where their heads were at and anyone with the iPhone and access to Google would be able to instantly find them as a buyer.
I get where you're going with their legal defense, and that's probably their best option, but I wouldn't buy it, and I don't think a jury would either.
Keep in mind that the courts have ruled in the past in regards to 485/496 that paying for found property even with the intent to turn it in is still considered grounds for finding both theft and receiving stolen goods.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
I saw a constitutional lawyer that teaches at some fancy shmancy university on t.v. yesterday and the 5k payment was the thing he was most uncomfortable with(uncomfortable was his word, veeery careful). He seemed to indicate because of that payment a case against Gizmodo might hold up.
Taking it apart was definitely a joy ride. Look at their whole history of presentation. In no way was it, "does this phone belong to you?" It was all about profiting from hits as a result of leaking information about the stolen property they purchased.
"There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo."
That doesn't really matter, however, Gawker had previously posted a bounty for information (legally or illegally) obtained about the iPad, including extra $$$ if they could get their hands on one. So while I wouldn't say this in of itself was a crime, it certainly shows where their heads were at and anyone with the iPhone and access to Google would be able to instantly find them as a buyer.
I get where you're going with their legal defense, and that's probably their best option, but I wouldn't buy it, and I don't think a jury would either.
Keep in mind that the courts have ruled in the past in regards to 485/496 that paying for found property even with the intent to turn it in is still considered grounds for finding both theft and receiving stolen goods.
No taking it apart was not the equivalent of a joy ride. Taking it apart is consistent with the purpose of providing people a story. As I said before it makes a colorable legal argument, which may result in the information collected during the raid being tossed. Meaning the issue might not get to a jury.
I saw a constitutional lawyer that teaches at some fancy shmancy university on t.v. yesterday and the 5k payment was the thing he was most uncomfortable with(uncomfortable was his word, veeery careful). He seemed to indicate because of that payment a case against Gizmodo might hold up.
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
No taking it apart was not the equivalent of a joy ride. Taking it apart is consistent with the purpose of providing people a story. As I said before it makes a colorable legal argument, which may result in the information collected during the raid being tossed. Meaning the issue might not get to a jury.
Exactly what "story" is that? When they took it apart, if not sooner, it was clearly taking the property into their own use (a joy ride). Had the finder given the phone to DoesItBlend, and they ground it up, would that still be legally consistent with the purpose of telling whatever story you're talking about?
Are you suggesting that providing people whatever story you're talking about trumps criminal laws? If Gizmodo broke into the house of Steve Jobs and stole the phone, would that be consistent with the purpose of providing people a story? How is breaking and entering any less consistent with receiving stolen goods or any other crime?
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
Is the journalist shield law a California state law?
I think Ellsburg was concerned with being charged with treason at the time. Taking an outright payment for the pentagon papers may have supported a treason charge.
Most of your implications are a bit over my head though.
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
Oh, I totally agree on this case being very interesting from the start.
In regards to Ellsberg, he was charged with theft and treason, but was let go via mistrial...not that I think deserved to go to jail. As far as the Times, they were given clearance by the Supreme Court to publish. I think the $5,000 might have made a difference, but also there's a difference between the information and property.
In the case of the NYTimes, they were given information, and reported it, even though the source of the information was originally illegally obtained. In the case of Gizmodo, property was stolen and then illegally purchased by Gizmodo.
I think if Gizmodo had simply observed the phone and covered it as a story as the "finder" returned it (by contacting the engineer, taking it to a police station, etc...) then Gizmodo would've been fine, but they crossed the line in paying for the phone, taking it in their possession, disassembling it, and not taking action to return it (by way of engineer, police station, Apple location, etc...).
This is why I don't think Engadget committed any crimes...based on what has been claimed so far. Engadget appears to have just reported on the situation.
Just as the joy ride is part of my story. My blog is about the fun of driving around in stolen cars.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Gizmodo did and what I'm suggesting.
There is a huge difference. The joy of driving around in stolen cars is the crime and the point. I don't think that Gizmodo's story was about the joy of stealing a prototype iphone, it was about---quite simply, informing the public about what features are going to be part of a new iphone. I think that is significantly different.
There is a huge difference. The joy of driving around in stolen cars is the crime and the point. I don't think that Gizmodo's story was about the joy of stealing a prototype iphone, it was about---quite simply, informing the public about what features are going to be part of a new iphone. I think that is significantly different.
He might have misspoken, The plan as I understand it is for me to find lost cars in the parking lot...the ones with the keys in them next to the Valet Parking sign. He's going to write not about the joy of driving around in a stolen car, but write about the features the cars have....Does a Ferrari have large or small cup holders...that kind of stuff. I'm thinking he might even take one apart to show what it looks like fully disassembled.
He might have misspoken, The plan as I understand it is for me to find lost cars in the parking lot...the ones with the keys in them next to the Valet Parking sign. He's going to write not about the joy of driving around in a stolen car, but write about the features the cars have....Does a Ferrari have large or small cup holders...that kind of stuff. I'm thinking he might even take one apart to show what it looks like fully disassembled.
Ahem. Don't you mean take it apart to insure the tech inside indicates it's a genuine Ferrari and not a kit car?
Comments
There WAS no point by point response. You simply said "your analogy is no good" - with no point-by-point rebuttal. How am I supposed to respond to something that doesn't exist.
And as for reporting a crime, you apparently have forgotten the Journalist Shield law. If Engadget's writer is a journalist and covered by the Journalist Shield law, they are most certainly NOT obligated to report a crime if they have knowledge of it.
Geez, you don't even understand the basics - yet you clutter this site with your inane whining.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
You Apple-haters get awfully tiresome.
The two cases are different. As far as we know, Engadget never too possession of the iPhone. Gizmodo did. (If Engadget actually did take possession, then tie situation might be different as I explained above).
Now, look at the Journalist Shield law, the exception, and the exception to the exception as reported numerous times.
If Engadget did not take possession of the phone, they never received stolen property. (Heck, even if they DID take possession and returned it, they might still be covered by the exception to the exception because all the kept was information). But in the base case where Engadget did not take possession, they are CLEARLY covered by the Journalist Shield Law.
Now, look at Gizmodo. First pass, let's agree that they're journalists. But there is an exception to the Shield law that says if you're involved in a crime, the Shield law DOES NOT APPLY. The exception to that exception is that if you're only obtaining information, then the Shield law applies, even if you did commit a crime to get it. But since Gizmodo kept more than the information, this exception to the exception does not apply.
What part of that don't you understand? It's 100% simple, clear, and applicable. The act of keeping the stolen phone changes the situation greatly.
Oh, and btw, I love your 'crime still in progress' interpretation. By that interpretation, I can keep the Ferrari as long as I want because a crime is still in progress. The police have no right to investigate me because I'm a journalist and the crime is still in progress. Amazing.
it doesn't apply if you are reporting a crime in progress while it is in progress. If it did, then you have no argument, as it would apply to Chen as well. he just obtained the phone, if he was solely in possession of it, from his parent company, who paid for it.
I'm trying to catch up here. I'm still recovering from the beer from Gourmet Haus Staudt last night.
Harliegh, what I don't understand is exactly what California Penal Codes you think Engadget violated. We have 485 and 496 for the theft and receiving of stolen goods, but those are for the "finder" and Gizmodo.
Can you cite the law that Engadget broke, or are you just saying that what they did was morally wrong?
The rest of your post was snipped. You're obviously either incapable or unwilling to stick to rational debate. My analogy was almost exactly the same thing as Gizmodo did - and all you can say is 'has no merit'. Explain why my analogy is not the same.
Then you get into your flagrant distortion of the truth. Gizmodo publicly stated that they BOUGHT the phone. They're now trying to revise that - and you're asking for proof that they bought it. Sorry, but their own statements are sufficient. But let's look at Gawker's OWN WORDS:
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple...he-next-iphone
"Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash."
They got it for $5,000. Not the right to use it - that has only been added later - in spite of your rampant attempts to deny the truth.
Furthermore, it's irrelevant. It's also a crime to knowingly possess stolen property - which Gizmodo clearly did. We don't have any evidence that Engadget actually possessed the phone - all we know is that they took pictures of it, but the 'finder' could have retained possession while Engadget took the pictures. So until there's evidence that Engadget actually DID take possession, their situation is entirely different.
There's no point arguing with you. You're only interesting is 'neener neener' crap and haven't been able to provide a single rational argument.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
You Apple-haters get awfully tiresome.
The two cases are different. As far as we know, Engadget never too possession of the iPhone. Gizmodo did. (If Engadget actually did take possession, then tie situation might be different as I explained above).
Now, look at the Journalist Shield law, the exception, and the exception to the exception as reported numerous times.
If Engadget did not take possession of the phone, they never received stolen property. (Heck, even if they DID take possession and returned it, they might still be covered by the exception to the exception because all the kept was information). But in the base case where Engadget did not take possession, they are CLEARLY covered by the Journalist Shield Law.
Now, look at Gizmodo. First pass, let's agree that they're journalists. But there is an exception to the Shield law that says if you're involved in a crime, the Shield law DOES NOT APPLY. The exception to that exception is that if you're only obtaining information, then the Shield law applies, even if you did commit a crime to get it. But since Gizmodo kept more than the information, this exception to the exception does not apply.
What part of that don't you understand? It's 100% simple, clear, and applicable. The act of keeping the stolen phone changes the situation greatly.
Oh, and btw, I love your 'crime still in progress' interpretation. By that interpretation, I can keep the Ferrari as long as I want because a crime is still in progress. The police have no right to investigate me because I'm a journalist and the crime is still in progress. Amazing.
Wow! Really? Wow. Now I'm an apple hater? Based on what, again?
Wow. Just....wow.
I really think you need to just take a break, step away from the computer, have a drink, something. But you seriously need to calm down and reassess.
I have worked with computers since tape drives when I was in second grade programming in basic at Catholic school. I went apple when I was 9 and never turned back.
I am an accountant and even though apple can't do what I need it to do in that realm, I still own a late 2008 24 inch iMac.
We are about to give that one to my mother and get a 27 inch.
I hate having to type this on a PC in my office when I love my Mac and it's short keystrokes at home.
I'm an apple hater now?
Wow.
I think you need a Valium.
I'm trying to catch up here. I'm still recovering from the beer from Gourmet Haus Staudt last night.
Harliegh, what I don't understand is exactly what California Penal Codes you think Engadget violated. We have 485 and 496 for the theft and receiving of stolen goods, but those are for the "finder" and Gizmodo.
Can you cite the law that Engadget broke, or are you just saying that what they did was morally wrong?
I'm going to leave that to Rigelian. I honestly believe he is sane enough and patient enough to address this further.
I have had enough with the Zoo today.
My patience threshold has been exhausted.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
"There was no desire to joy ride"
Taking it apart was definitely a joy ride. Look at their whole history of presentation. In no way was it, "does this phone belong to you?" It was all about profiting from hits as a result of leaking information about the stolen property they purchased.
"There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo."
That doesn't really matter, however, Gawker had previously posted a bounty for information (legally or illegally) obtained about the iPad, including extra $$$ if they could get their hands on one. So while I wouldn't say this in of itself was a crime, it certainly shows where their heads were at and anyone with the iPhone and access to Google would be able to instantly find them as a buyer.
I get where you're going with their legal defense, and that's probably their best option, but I wouldn't buy it, and I don't think a jury would either.
Keep in mind that the courts have ruled in the past in regards to 485/496 that paying for found property even with the intent to turn it in is still considered grounds for finding both theft and receiving stolen goods.
I don't think the analogy is quite that easy. Here's why. The purpose of the gaining access to the phone was to publish information about it. There was no desire to joy ride, there is no intent to withhold it from its rightful owner. In fact, the publication of the information was likely to inform the true owner the property's location and provide the means to recover it.
There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo.
The function of the press is to gather information and disseminate it. The payment of $5,000 seemed wholly within that function and the use that was made of the phone, was consistent with that function.
I think it creates a colorable argument. The way it ultimately turns out, may depend on it. I will add, that how the courts interpret the breadth of the journalist shield law will be interesting.
I saw a constitutional lawyer that teaches at some fancy shmancy university on t.v. yesterday and the 5k payment was the thing he was most uncomfortable with(uncomfortable was his word, veeery careful). He seemed to indicate because of that payment a case against Gizmodo might hold up.
I'm going to leave that to Rigelian. I honestly believe he is sane enough and patient enough to address this further.
I have had enough with the Zoo today.
My patience threshold has been exhausted.
Excellent post.
"There was no desire to joy ride"
Taking it apart was definitely a joy ride. Look at their whole history of presentation. In no way was it, "does this phone belong to you?" It was all about profiting from hits as a result of leaking information about the stolen property they purchased.
"There is also scant evidence that the initial appropriation of the property was in any way solicited by Gizmodo."
That doesn't really matter, however, Gawker had previously posted a bounty for information (legally or illegally) obtained about the iPad, including extra $$$ if they could get their hands on one. So while I wouldn't say this in of itself was a crime, it certainly shows where their heads were at and anyone with the iPhone and access to Google would be able to instantly find them as a buyer.
I get where you're going with their legal defense, and that's probably their best option, but I wouldn't buy it, and I don't think a jury would either.
Keep in mind that the courts have ruled in the past in regards to 485/496 that paying for found property even with the intent to turn it in is still considered grounds for finding both theft and receiving stolen goods.
No taking it apart was not the equivalent of a joy ride. Taking it apart is consistent with the purpose of providing people a story. As I said before it makes a colorable legal argument, which may result in the information collected during the raid being tossed. Meaning the issue might not get to a jury.
I saw a constitutional lawyer that teaches at some fancy shmancy university on t.v. yesterday and the 5k payment was the thing he was most uncomfortable with(uncomfortable was his word, veeery careful). He seemed to indicate because of that payment a case against Gizmodo might hold up.
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
No taking it apart was not the equivalent of a joy ride. Taking it apart is consistent with the purpose of providing people a story. As I said before it makes a colorable legal argument, which may result in the information collected during the raid being tossed. Meaning the issue might not get to a jury.
Exactly what "story" is that? When they took it apart, if not sooner, it was clearly taking the property into their own use (a joy ride). Had the finder given the phone to DoesItBlend, and they ground it up, would that still be legally consistent with the purpose of telling whatever story you're talking about?
Are you suggesting that providing people whatever story you're talking about trumps criminal laws? If Gizmodo broke into the house of Steve Jobs and stole the phone, would that be consistent with the purpose of providing people a story? How is breaking and entering any less consistent with receiving stolen goods or any other crime?
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
Is the journalist shield law a California state law?
I think Ellsburg was concerned with being charged with treason at the time. Taking an outright payment for the pentagon papers may have supported a treason charge.
Most of your implications are a bit over my head though.
Certainly interesting.
The payment of $5,000 is the most questionable part. It makes it like a simple purchase of stolen goods. However, I like to make things a bit more difficult. Let's assume that Daniel Ellsberg sold the pentagon papers to the NYTimes for $5000 and the NYTimes published them? Would that logically be considered theft under California law? If so, would it be consistent with the first amendment? How is the California journalist law supposed to be interpreted given those underlying values? I think these types of questions make for a very interesting and challenging criminal prosecution.
The more I think about this, the more I love this case. There is big part of me that wants to see it prosecuted just to see how these issues are resolved. I'm quite certain that John Chen doesn't feel that way. But that's the advantage of being able to look at this from the outside looking in, rather than being in the inside of the whole thing.
Oh, I totally agree on this case being very interesting from the start.
In regards to Ellsberg, he was charged with theft and treason, but was let go via mistrial...not that I think deserved to go to jail. As far as the Times, they were given clearance by the Supreme Court to publish. I think the $5,000 might have made a difference, but also there's a difference between the information and property.
In the case of the NYTimes, they were given information, and reported it, even though the source of the information was originally illegally obtained. In the case of Gizmodo, property was stolen and then illegally purchased by Gizmodo.
I think if Gizmodo had simply observed the phone and covered it as a story as the "finder" returned it (by contacting the engineer, taking it to a police station, etc...) then Gizmodo would've been fine, but they crossed the line in paying for the phone, taking it in their possession, disassembling it, and not taking action to return it (by way of engineer, police station, Apple location, etc...).
This is why I don't think Engadget committed any crimes...based on what has been claimed so far. Engadget appears to have just reported on the situation.
No taking it apart was not the equivalent of a joy ride. Taking it apart is consistent with the purpose of providing people a story.
Just as the joy ride is part of my story. My blog is about the fun of driving around in stolen cars.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Gizmodo did and what I'm suggesting.
Just as the joy ride is part of my story. My blog is about the fun of driving around in stolen cars.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what Gizmodo did and what I'm suggesting.
There is a huge difference. The joy of driving around in stolen cars is the crime and the point. I don't think that Gizmodo's story was about the joy of stealing a prototype iphone, it was about---quite simply, informing the public about what features are going to be part of a new iphone. I think that is significantly different.
There is a huge difference. The joy of driving around in stolen cars is the crime and the point. I don't think that Gizmodo's story was about the joy of stealing a prototype iphone, it was about---quite simply, informing the public about what features are going to be part of a new iphone. I think that is significantly different.
He might have misspoken, The plan as I understand it is for me to find lost cars in the parking lot...the ones with the keys in them next to the Valet Parking sign. He's going to write not about the joy of driving around in a stolen car, but write about the features the cars have....Does a Ferrari have large or small cup holders...that kind of stuff. I'm thinking he might even take one apart to show what it looks like fully disassembled.
He might have misspoken, The plan as I understand it is for me to find lost cars in the parking lot...the ones with the keys in them next to the Valet Parking sign. He's going to write not about the joy of driving around in a stolen car, but write about the features the cars have....Does a Ferrari have large or small cup holders...that kind of stuff. I'm thinking he might even take one apart to show what it looks like fully disassembled.
Ahem. Don't you mean take it apart to insure the tech inside indicates it's a genuine Ferrari and not a kit car?
First part of the show is relevant and totally worth it.
"Apple, Camera 3...."
The moment of Zen is pretty relevant also, even if it is Fox news.