i have to disagree. if i find something that belongs to someone--like their phone--i'd try to return it to them, not attempt to sell it to a 'news' site for several grand.
I "find" a phone in a bar, I give it to the bartender. I know the owner is going to retrace his steps at some point.
There are just too many holes showing up in the prosecution's story here.
First, they raid Chen's home. As a journalist, this is only arguably permissible if they are investigating a crime that he committed. But the information they used to get the search warrant was sealed, with their argument being that there are 2 persons of interested (i.e. 2 persons being investigated) whom they don't want to alert. Since they raided Chen's home, we can assume they are not referring to him as one of those two people. This means they searched his home/office and seized his equipment to further an investigation into other individuals. That starts to get very close to crossing the line of search and seizure of a journalist's professional sources. If the search was to investigate Chen, they could have simply used that to get the search warrant and there wouldn't be a need to attempt to avoid alerting 2 other people by sealing the search request. So it would appear that they searched his home/office in order to collect material gathered in his position as a journalist, to further an investigation against other individuals. Questionable.
Now they change their story to claim that they want to sealed in order to protect a confidential informant. So, who was this informant? Some one from inside Giz/Gawker? Unlikely. More likely, it was someone associated with the finder or the finder himself. This would imply they are going after Chen and Gawker, with the 2 other people of interest are possibly Denton and whomever else was involved at their end.
If this is the case, it would seem the DA would be throwing away a case that is almost a slam dunk against the finder. Whether he sold the phone or sold access to the phone, he benefitted from it which would be illegal. Chen on the other hand could argue that he did not buy the phone, but paid for the chance to give it a look over. Whether this would stand up in court is questionable, as to whether there is a difference between buying the phone and paying to look at it for a few days. If court determines that there is a difference and that letting Giz look the phone over was not criminal on Giz' part and if the material gathered in the search show emails/records of Chen offering the finder money to look at the phone then it would seem the DA might have thrown away a fairly solid case against the finder in order to lose against against Chen. If the court says paying to look at the phone is the same as buying the phone, then Chen et al are looking at a difficult case, thoughI don't expect the sentence, if convicted to be very harsh. The seizure of Chen's equipment might have been to find information that could show Chen's intent...to buy the phone or access to the phone.
Lol why would he go to Jail? Its only buying stolen property, plus he probably won't get charged because 1) the phone was left on the ground, it was found, not stolen and 2) whoever found it called Apple and they said they didn't want it, what was he supposed to do? Then this guy bought it for 5 grand, hes not exactly a threat to society that needs to be locked up...
Apple was victimized? It was their own fault one of their employs lost it at a bar.
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
You forgot to add that he gets his car back in pieces.
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
Since leaving the premises with the car would automatically be theft, whereas leaving with the phone is not automatically theft, that is a really bad analogy. I don't understand why people keep comparing the two. Your analogy would better if you left it at the keys. If you took keys home, you would not automatically be a thief. You would be a dick, but not a thief. What you do with the keys after that point would determine whether you committed theft.
You forgot to add that he gets his car back in pieces.
Why? That does not appear to be the case with the iPhone. At all. The stores indicated it was fully reassembled. In fact, they said they did not complete the disassembly in order to avoid damaging it.
So, I guess we could correct you statement to:
"You forgot to add that he gets his car [keys] back in [essentially the same state he lost them]"
There you go. More accurate and honest. That wasn't too hard after all.
I'm definitely frothing at the mouth to see this guy, and the publication, go down, HARD! Sigh, I don't think it will happen, either. The discussion about this issue has nothing to do with the merits of the law, and everything to do with whether people like Apple or hate them. The same goes for all of the other hot button issues around here.
No one likes Flash, but look how many fans it has attracted since Apple came out publicly against it. No one thinks Nokia has a legitimate gripe against Apple, but look at the number of people who are happy for the law suit. Everyone knows that HTC is infringing on Apple's IP, yet look at how many people there are who think that Apple should not have the right to protect any of their innovations. Everyone knows that, according to the local law, this prototype was stolen and Giz knowingly purchased stolen goods. Even with Giz bragging about the fact that they are not journalists, look at the number of people who want Chen to be protected and for Apple to get in trouble even though they were victimized. None of these are honest discussion on the merits of the issues. They are all polemics on Apple: love em' or hate em".
I'm sorry. but your analysis is clear, and is dead-on target.
There you go. More accurate and honest. That wasn't too hard after all.
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Truths, facts and context will eventually come out in the open. Apple's fate doesn't rest on petty grievances. Industrial espionage and control over products development cycles are keys to unlocking the mystery.
There might be a lot more actors in this Drama than the Blogosphere and the Medias care to look for.
I guess the Legal Authorities are on to something beyond the chattering noise of the wishful thinking crowd. But, of course, I wouldn't know for sure. While hindsight is 20/20, insight is fuzzy and mainly self-serving.
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Truths, facts and context will eventually come out in the open. Apple's fate doesn't rest on petty grievances. Industrial espionage and control over products development cycles are keys to unlocking the mystery.
There might be a lot more actors in this Drama than the Blogosphere and the Medias care to look for.
I guess the Legal Authorities are on to something beyond the chattering noise of the wishful thinking crowd. But, of course, I wouldn't know for sure. While hindsight is 20/20, insight is fuzzy and mainly self-serving.
Well put. I might also add that the salient point is that this is now officially about FELONY THEFT. "However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Honesty and accuracy do come into play when someone is trying to make an analogy to demonstrate the issues at play. I could make up some really stupid analogy comparing the case to someone breaking into Jobs home, holding him hostage at gun point, ransacking his home until they found the prototype, killing Jobs and the then stealing the phone. I mean, that analogy would bear many of the same story points, intentionally included to inflate the issue and dishonestly imply greater similarity than actually exists.
No, the car theft analogy has been demonstrated to be a very week analogy. As weak as an armed robbery and murder analogy. Taking someone car is covered by different laws than found property. It is intentional misdirection and it gets very tired. It shows either laziness or dishonesty. But it keeps coming up. At least they aren't comparing it to rape anymore. That seemed to be very popular for a while.
Umm, receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Depending on how much the value of the property. If apple puts a ridiculous price on the value of their prototype, he may get charged with a class C felony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLV702
Better get used to Orange? you aware if this is first offense he would probably get 30 days (suspended) and 3 years probation.. So probably would not spend a single day in jail. He would probably get arrested go in front of judge get bailed set and then get bailed out..
I don't think he should get anything other than probation. Seems silly to send someone to prison for this. But Chen really didn't think things through.
$14 M is about 0.05% of Apple's cash. It would be like if any of us were fined $100. The CFO was fired but Jobs, who was the sole beneficiary of the situation, escaped unscated. So I'd call that lenient.
IDK about you, but I certainly don't have $200,000 in readily available cash.
Since leaving the premises with the car would automatically be theft, whereas leaving with the phone is not automatically theft, that is a really bad analogy.
Please show us the CA law that supports that interpretation.
In fact, according to CA law, they're BOTH theft, so the analogy is quite accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Why? That does not appear to be the case with the iPhone. At all. The stores indicated it was fully reassembled. In fact, they said they did not complete the disassembly in order to avoid damaging it.
There are pictures of it in pieces all over the web. Where is the evidence that it was reassembled? Furthermore, it can be damaged in disassembly - which is why what they did would have voided the warranty if it were a for-sale iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
Umm, receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Depending on how much the value of the property. If apple puts a ridiculous price on the value of their prototype, he may get charged with a class C felony.
I don't think he should get anything other than probation. Seems silly to send someone to prison for this. But Chen really didn't think things through.
Your first paragraph and second paragraphs contradict each other. If it was a serious felony, he needs to be seriously punished. I think the person who took it and Chen deserve jail time. They KNOWINGLY sold a stolen phone (under the law) and used it to deprive Apple of something that is very valuable (Apple's secrecy). It's really that simple. If these guys get off the hook, what's to stop someone from breaking into Apple HQ to steal other prototypes?
Please show us the CA law that supports that interpretation.
In fact, according to CA law, they're BOTH theft, so the analogy is quite accurate.
You asked this once before and I took the time to explain it to you and posted and contrasted the differences between a stolen car (California Vehicle Code) and lost property statutes. I won't post them for you again. You often claim to be a lawyer (or paralegal or whatever) so you shouldn't need a layman like me to explain them to you again. Suffice to say, for anyone that wants to read them, taking a car under any circumstances, unless you are a person authorized by the state, is immediately considered theft. Taking a found item (not a car for those being obtuse) is not considered theft. Period. Only if you then fail to meet the obligations assumed by taking responsibility for the item does it them become theft.
If the poster had left his original analogy to the found car keys, then it would be a better analogy. The Lost Property Statues (as opposed to the Vehicle Code) would apply. Like I said, taking those keys home would make one a dick, but not a thief. Failing to return them at all or selling them would make one a thief.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, please never be my lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are pictures of it in pieces all over the web. Where is the evidence that it was reassembled? Furthermore, it can be damaged in disassembly - which is why what they did would have voided the warranty if it were a for-sale iPhone.
Ahh, but your implied it was returned in pieces. But that would be a lie. Most electronic devices can be disassembled with care without damage. For the technically challenged, this is actually how they repair them. It is entirely possible to take it apart and reassemble it without damage. You implied it was returned disassembled. Just not an honest analogy. Hence, my correction of your faulty analogy.
<edit> All we have are the giz stores for the most part for 'evidence'. The last line in their story about the disassembly is "After subsequently putting the phone back together, I really feel sorry for the factory workers in China who do this all day."
Might not be true. Might be true. Certainly, no reason to assert categorically that it isn't. </edit>
Between these asinine analogies and your insistence that we will find out that the entire episode was a scripted theft by agents of Gizmodo to obtain the prototype, it is really getting weird. The DA seems to feel there is a case here. Why do people feel the need to artificially bolster the 'evidence'? It is especially strange to do in an informal forum, as we have here, where twisting and spinning the facts won't actually accomplish anything. These aren't the Salem Witch Trials. No need to convict before trial, make up 'evidence' or burn anyone at the stake. No need for Samuel Parris here, thanks.
Your first paragraph and second paragraphs contradict each other. If it was a serious felony, he needs to be seriously punished. I think the person who took it and Chen deserve jail time. They KNOWINGLY sold a stolen phone (under the law) and used it to deprive Apple of something that is very valuable (Apple's secrecy). It's really that simple. If these guys get off the hook, what's to stop someone from breaking into Apple HQ to steal other prototypes?
My first paragraph only states that it could be a felony by law. My second states that I don't hope he isn't charged with a felony, my opinion. But yeah, if gets 10 years for being overzealous, then so be it.
Chen is not going to go to jail, that's just ridiculous Apple fanboy talk.
What I want to know is what role, if any, Apple played in getting the REACT taskforce involved. Did the REACT group get involved by the request of Apple? I think the prosecution wants to delay the release of the search warrant as long as possible because they know it's going to make both the court, REACT and Apple look really bad.
You asked this once before and I took the time to explain it to you and posted and contrasted the differences between a stolen car (California Vehicle Code) and lost property statutes. I won't post them for you again. You often claim to be a lawyer (or paralegal or whatever) so you shouldn't need a layman like me to explain them to you again. Suffice to say, for anyone that wants to read them, taking a car under any circumstances, unless you are a person authorized by the state, is immediately considered theft. Taking a found item (not a car for those being obtuse) is not considered theft. Period. Only if you then fail to meet the obligations assumed by taking responsibility for the item does it them become theft.
If the poster had left his original analogy to the found car keys, then it would be a better analogy. The Lost Property Statues (as opposed to the Vehicle Code) would apply. Like I said, taking those keys home would make one a dick, but not a thief. Failing to return them at all or selling them would make one a thief.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, please never be my lawyer.
That is, of course, BS. Your 'explanation' of why my analogy didn't apply boiled down to "I don't want to believe it".
I love your silly rationalization at the end of your first paragraph. Let's even assume that you're right. Now, try to follow:
1. You admit that taking a car is theft.
2. You agree that taking a phone is theft if you don't follow through on your obligations.
3. The finder clearly did not follow through on his obligations.
4. Therefore, it is theft - no matter how many foolish rationalizations you try to come up with.
Trying to get back a stolen prototype of a mulit-million dollar product is gonna make Apple look bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mavfan1
Chen is not going to go to jail, that's just ridiculous Apple fanboy talk.
What I want to know is what role, if any, Apple played in getting the REACT taskforce involved. Did the REACT group get involved by the request of Apple? I think the prosecution wants to delay the release of the search warrant as long as possible because they know it's going to make both the court, REACT and Apple look really bad.
Comments
i have to disagree. if i find something that belongs to someone--like their phone--i'd try to return it to them, not attempt to sell it to a 'news' site for several grand.
I "find" a phone in a bar, I give it to the bartender. I know the owner is going to retrace his steps at some point.
First, they raid Chen's home. As a journalist, this is only arguably permissible if they are investigating a crime that he committed. But the information they used to get the search warrant was sealed, with their argument being that there are 2 persons of interested (i.e. 2 persons being investigated) whom they don't want to alert. Since they raided Chen's home, we can assume they are not referring to him as one of those two people. This means they searched his home/office and seized his equipment to further an investigation into other individuals. That starts to get very close to crossing the line of search and seizure of a journalist's professional sources. If the search was to investigate Chen, they could have simply used that to get the search warrant and there wouldn't be a need to attempt to avoid alerting 2 other people by sealing the search request. So it would appear that they searched his home/office in order to collect material gathered in his position as a journalist, to further an investigation against other individuals. Questionable.
Now they change their story to claim that they want to sealed in order to protect a confidential informant. So, who was this informant? Some one from inside Giz/Gawker? Unlikely. More likely, it was someone associated with the finder or the finder himself. This would imply they are going after Chen and Gawker, with the 2 other people of interest are possibly Denton and whomever else was involved at their end.
If this is the case, it would seem the DA would be throwing away a case that is almost a slam dunk against the finder. Whether he sold the phone or sold access to the phone, he benefitted from it which would be illegal. Chen on the other hand could argue that he did not buy the phone, but paid for the chance to give it a look over. Whether this would stand up in court is questionable, as to whether there is a difference between buying the phone and paying to look at it for a few days. If court determines that there is a difference and that letting Giz look the phone over was not criminal on Giz' part and if the material gathered in the search show emails/records of Chen offering the finder money to look at the phone then it would seem the DA might have thrown away a fairly solid case against the finder in order to lose against against Chen. If the court says paying to look at the phone is the same as buying the phone, then Chen et al are looking at a difficult case, thoughI don't expect the sentence, if convicted to be very harsh. The seizure of Chen's equipment might have been to find information that could show Chen's intent...to buy the phone or access to the phone.
Lol why would he go to Jail? Its only buying stolen property, plus he probably won't get charged because 1) the phone was left on the ground, it was found, not stolen and 2) whoever found it called Apple and they said they didn't want it, what was he supposed to do? Then this guy bought it for 5 grand, hes not exactly a threat to society that needs to be locked up...
Apple was victimized? It was their own fault one of their employs lost it at a bar.
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
You forgot to add that he gets his car back in pieces.
OK. Lets say I am out in a bar. I find a set of keys on the floor. Now, instead of turning them into the bartender, I go out in the parking lot, and see which door they open. I drive off in the vehicle (YOURS) and offer it for "sale" to someone who PROMISES that after keeping it to verify it is in fact a REAL car, THEY will try to locate the owner (YOU). Did I mention that I get paid for this?? And, YOU wait 3 weeks to get your car back, after of course seeing pics of it all over the net. I bet that you would be the first to say that "I did nothing wrong" and "it was your fault for losing the keys", right??
Since leaving the premises with the car would automatically be theft, whereas leaving with the phone is not automatically theft, that is a really bad analogy. I don't understand why people keep comparing the two. Your analogy would better if you left it at the keys. If you took keys home, you would not automatically be a thief. You would be a dick, but not a thief. What you do with the keys after that point would determine whether you committed theft.
You forgot to add that he gets his car back in pieces.
Why? That does not appear to be the case with the iPhone. At all. The stores indicated it was fully reassembled. In fact, they said they did not complete the disassembly in order to avoid damaging it.
So, I guess we could correct you statement to:
"You forgot to add that he gets his car [keys] back in [essentially the same state he lost them]"
There you go. More accurate and honest. That wasn't too hard after all.
I'm definitely frothing at the mouth to see this guy, and the publication, go down, HARD! Sigh, I don't think it will happen, either. The discussion about this issue has nothing to do with the merits of the law, and everything to do with whether people like Apple or hate them. The same goes for all of the other hot button issues around here.
No one likes Flash, but look how many fans it has attracted since Apple came out publicly against it. No one thinks Nokia has a legitimate gripe against Apple, but look at the number of people who are happy for the law suit. Everyone knows that HTC is infringing on Apple's IP, yet look at how many people there are who think that Apple should not have the right to protect any of their innovations. Everyone knows that, according to the local law, this prototype was stolen and Giz knowingly purchased stolen goods. Even with Giz bragging about the fact that they are not journalists, look at the number of people who want Chen to be protected and for Apple to get in trouble even though they were victimized. None of these are honest discussion on the merits of the issues. They are all polemics on Apple: love em' or hate em".
I'm sorry. but your analysis is clear, and is dead-on target.
It, therefor, makes no sense in this forum.
...
There you go. More accurate and honest. That wasn't too hard after all.
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Truths, facts and context will eventually come out in the open. Apple's fate doesn't rest on petty grievances. Industrial espionage and control over products development cycles are keys to unlocking the mystery.
There might be a lot more actors in this Drama than the Blogosphere and the Medias care to look for.
I guess the Legal Authorities are on to something beyond the chattering noise of the wishful thinking crowd. But, of course, I wouldn't know for sure. While hindsight is 20/20, insight is fuzzy and mainly self-serving.
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Truths, facts and context will eventually come out in the open. Apple's fate doesn't rest on petty grievances. Industrial espionage and control over products development cycles are keys to unlocking the mystery.
There might be a lot more actors in this Drama than the Blogosphere and the Medias care to look for.
I guess the Legal Authorities are on to something beyond the chattering noise of the wishful thinking crowd. But, of course, I wouldn't know for sure. While hindsight is 20/20, insight is fuzzy and mainly self-serving.
Well put. I might also add that the salient point is that this is now officially about FELONY THEFT. "However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."
Not too many ways to sugar-coat that....
Honesty and accuracy is irrelevant when you talk about rumors and speculations.
Honesty and accuracy do come into play when someone is trying to make an analogy to demonstrate the issues at play. I could make up some really stupid analogy comparing the case to someone breaking into Jobs home, holding him hostage at gun point, ransacking his home until they found the prototype, killing Jobs and the then stealing the phone. I mean, that analogy would bear many of the same story points, intentionally included to inflate the issue and dishonestly imply greater similarity than actually exists.
No, the car theft analogy has been demonstrated to be a very week analogy. As weak as an armed robbery and murder analogy. Taking someone car is covered by different laws than found property. It is intentional misdirection and it gets very tired. It shows either laziness or dishonesty. But it keeps coming up. At least they aren't comparing it to rape anymore. That seemed to be very popular for a while.
Chen should hope that prosecutors are as lenient on him as they were him Jobs on his illegal back dating of stocks.
Back dating of stocks in of itself is not illegal.
I "find" a phone in a bar, I give it to the bartender. I know the owner is going to retrace his steps at some point.
Quite right and that is what any reasonable person would do.
Better get used to Orange? you aware if this is first offense he would probably get 30 days (suspended) and 3 years probation.. So probably would not spend a single day in jail. He would probably get arrested go in front of judge get bailed set and then get bailed out..
I don't think he should get anything other than probation. Seems silly to send someone to prison for this. But Chen really didn't think things through.
$14 M is about 0.05% of Apple's cash. It would be like if any of us were fined $100. The CFO was fired but Jobs, who was the sole beneficiary of the situation, escaped unscated. So I'd call that lenient.
IDK about you, but I certainly don't have $200,000 in readily available cash.
Since leaving the premises with the car would automatically be theft, whereas leaving with the phone is not automatically theft, that is a really bad analogy.
Please show us the CA law that supports that interpretation.
In fact, according to CA law, they're BOTH theft, so the analogy is quite accurate.
Why? That does not appear to be the case with the iPhone. At all. The stores indicated it was fully reassembled. In fact, they said they did not complete the disassembly in order to avoid damaging it.
There are pictures of it in pieces all over the web. Where is the evidence that it was reassembled? Furthermore, it can be damaged in disassembly - which is why what they did would have voided the warranty if it were a for-sale iPhone.
Umm, receiving stolen property is a serious crime. Depending on how much the value of the property. If apple puts a ridiculous price on the value of their prototype, he may get charged with a class C felony.
I don't think he should get anything other than probation. Seems silly to send someone to prison for this. But Chen really didn't think things through.
Your first paragraph and second paragraphs contradict each other. If it was a serious felony, he needs to be seriously punished. I think the person who took it and Chen deserve jail time. They KNOWINGLY sold a stolen phone (under the law) and used it to deprive Apple of something that is very valuable (Apple's secrecy). It's really that simple. If these guys get off the hook, what's to stop someone from breaking into Apple HQ to steal other prototypes?
Please show us the CA law that supports that interpretation.
In fact, according to CA law, they're BOTH theft, so the analogy is quite accurate.
You asked this once before and I took the time to explain it to you and posted and contrasted the differences between a stolen car (California Vehicle Code) and lost property statutes. I won't post them for you again. You often claim to be a lawyer (or paralegal or whatever) so you shouldn't need a layman like me to explain them to you again. Suffice to say, for anyone that wants to read them, taking a car under any circumstances, unless you are a person authorized by the state, is immediately considered theft. Taking a found item (not a car for those being obtuse) is not considered theft. Period. Only if you then fail to meet the obligations assumed by taking responsibility for the item does it them become theft.
If the poster had left his original analogy to the found car keys, then it would be a better analogy. The Lost Property Statues (as opposed to the Vehicle Code) would apply. Like I said, taking those keys home would make one a dick, but not a thief. Failing to return them at all or selling them would make one a thief.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, please never be my lawyer.
There are pictures of it in pieces all over the web. Where is the evidence that it was reassembled? Furthermore, it can be damaged in disassembly - which is why what they did would have voided the warranty if it were a for-sale iPhone.
Ahh, but your implied it was returned in pieces. But that would be a lie. Most electronic devices can be disassembled with care without damage. For the technically challenged, this is actually how they repair them. It is entirely possible to take it apart and reassemble it without damage. You implied it was returned disassembled. Just not an honest analogy. Hence, my correction of your faulty analogy.
<edit> All we have are the giz stores for the most part for 'evidence'. The last line in their story about the disassembly is "After subsequently putting the phone back together, I really feel sorry for the factory workers in China who do this all day."
Might not be true. Might be true. Certainly, no reason to assert categorically that it isn't. </edit>
Between these asinine analogies and your insistence that we will find out that the entire episode was a scripted theft by agents of Gizmodo to obtain the prototype, it is really getting weird. The DA seems to feel there is a case here. Why do people feel the need to artificially bolster the 'evidence'? It is especially strange to do in an informal forum, as we have here, where twisting and spinning the facts won't actually accomplish anything. These aren't the Salem Witch Trials. No need to convict before trial, make up 'evidence' or burn anyone at the stake. No need for Samuel Parris here, thanks.
Your first paragraph and second paragraphs contradict each other. If it was a serious felony, he needs to be seriously punished. I think the person who took it and Chen deserve jail time. They KNOWINGLY sold a stolen phone (under the law) and used it to deprive Apple of something that is very valuable (Apple's secrecy). It's really that simple. If these guys get off the hook, what's to stop someone from breaking into Apple HQ to steal other prototypes?
My first paragraph only states that it could be a felony by law. My second states that I don't hope he isn't charged with a felony, my opinion. But yeah, if gets 10 years for being overzealous, then so be it.
What I want to know is what role, if any, Apple played in getting the REACT taskforce involved. Did the REACT group get involved by the request of Apple? I think the prosecution wants to delay the release of the search warrant as long as possible because they know it's going to make both the court, REACT and Apple look really bad.
You asked this once before and I took the time to explain it to you and posted and contrasted the differences between a stolen car (California Vehicle Code) and lost property statutes. I won't post them for you again. You often claim to be a lawyer (or paralegal or whatever) so you shouldn't need a layman like me to explain them to you again. Suffice to say, for anyone that wants to read them, taking a car under any circumstances, unless you are a person authorized by the state, is immediately considered theft. Taking a found item (not a car for those being obtuse) is not considered theft. Period. Only if you then fail to meet the obligations assumed by taking responsibility for the item does it them become theft.
If the poster had left his original analogy to the found car keys, then it would be a better analogy. The Lost Property Statues (as opposed to the Vehicle Code) would apply. Like I said, taking those keys home would make one a dick, but not a thief. Failing to return them at all or selling them would make one a thief.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, please never be my lawyer.
That is, of course, BS. Your 'explanation' of why my analogy didn't apply boiled down to "I don't want to believe it".
I love your silly rationalization at the end of your first paragraph. Let's even assume that you're right. Now, try to follow:
1. You admit that taking a car is theft.
2. You agree that taking a phone is theft if you don't follow through on your obligations.
3. The finder clearly did not follow through on his obligations.
4. Therefore, it is theft - no matter how many foolish rationalizations you try to come up with.
Chen is not going to go to jail, that's just ridiculous Apple fanboy talk.
What I want to know is what role, if any, Apple played in getting the REACT taskforce involved. Did the REACT group get involved by the request of Apple? I think the prosecution wants to delay the release of the search warrant as long as possible because they know it's going to make both the court, REACT and Apple look really bad.
Not a fanboy either.