Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Something that is considered by law in California to be stolen property.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Something that is considered by law in California to be stolen property.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, there fixed it for you.
I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.
Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
Obviously - I"ve said that many times. But the fact is that the 'finder' made NO effort to return it, so it became stolen property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
So in your view, it's OK to break the law for a story? Where do you draw the line? You can break the law about buying stolen property but not stealing it yourself? Just what rational or moral line are you drawing in the sand?
You seem to be taking the Gizmodo line that since they're journalists, they should be able to do whatever they want. They're going to find out how ridiculous that position is shortly.
The fact is that they broke the law. Pure and simple. And they need to be punished for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.
Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.
Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law. I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law, and I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law.
And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Uhoh, logic getting in the way again. Yes, if that was their only intent, then that is what they would have done. Funny thing is, most people can have multiple reason and intentions. I guess not everyone, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.
actually, it was a very good example that well demonstrated not everying is always black and white. And really, who the hell are you to criticize the example as worthless for not applying to giz directly. Very amusing coming from a person that keeps bringing up some retarded car analogy. I suppose if ones doesn't understand the point of an analogy then both your weak examples and weaker criticism of his example make a lot of sense.
Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone
The trade secret crimes, even if we assume obtaining it wasn't wrong, was publishing the videos and photos of the prototype. I am not a lawyer but the detective's affidavit states Jason Chen violated the law by publishing videos, photos, etc. of the prototype, a trade secret.
When the phone was used in public it was concealed by a case that made it look just like an ordinary iPhone 3G/3GS.
Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.
While he's in there, I hope that he learns basic grammar. This guy is an EDITOR of a major blog? If he writes like that to Steve Jobs, I wonder what his compositional style is like when messaging crime buddies...erm...I mean...colleagues.
Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.
He's right about one thing though --most of us did think it was fake. However, none of us paid $5k to examine it and offered an additional $3.5K upon confirmation that it was genuine.
No thinking judge would conclude the Giz didn't know that the prototype was real. Only an idiot would speculate otherwise.
Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Try learning the facts first. Hogan and Warner were turned down by Engadget and Wired, and who knows how many other blogs. Only Gizmodo was pitiful enough to buy it. Perhaps a few other blogs would have succumbed to the temptation, but the fact remains that Giz did it, and they were not even on Warner's A or B list. ON SNAP!
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them?
Any judge with reasoning skills.
May I borrow your sister for the night? I will return her in the morning, broken and exposed for the entire world to see.
The damage had been done, buddy.
Would a criminal who bought 100kgs of coke be exonerated because he had a change of heart and decided to return 95% of it (he has disseminated the other 5%)? Um, NO. Damage done? Yeah.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
Probably the same judge and jury who would convict somebody who "borrowed" a car without permission. Taking somebody's property, dismantling it, and most likely breaking it is illegal in California even if you totally promised scout's honor that you always intended to return it when you were done with it. Yeah, we Californians are weird like that.
Also, this idea that they bought it out of noble reasons is complete BS that most people wouldn't fall for. Maybe it's different in places besides California, but if you intend to return something to somebody, you don't take it apart and break it so that you can make money off it before you give it back. Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. If it's reasonable to you to tear something apart that you say you always intended to give back, then I hope you never do me the honor of finding something I lost.
Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Uhm... It WAS offered to other tech blogs. Engadget was one of them. They checked with their lawyers. Their suggestion? Don't touch this with a ten foot pole!
You know nothing about the law dude. Hogan AND Gizmodo are in deep sh*t... Wait and see.
Gizmodo can get pounded into the ground for all I care.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
From my perspective, Almost every jury and judge in all 50 States in the Union. Do you know why, it's simple really, all the prosecution have to do is show Gizmodo's iPhone expose from x-date to y-date( Original and revised ) and show them the e-mail from Brian Lam to Steve Jobs. Considering that Brian Hogan will undoubtedly spill the beans to get himself a shorter jail time, the Gizmodo crew basically will be left holding the bucket.
Giz will lose all that money after paying their lawyers and paying the fine. It's foolish really to exchange a long term relationship for a short term gain that will destroy your company considering that you pissed off the CEO of a company who likes your website.
Comments
"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".
I don't think so.
They captured the photons that were bouncing off of the prototype.
Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
I agree. Oh, here's a few extra T's ...TTTTTTT
Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Something that is considered by law in California to be stolen property.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, there fixed it for you.
I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.
Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
Obviously - I"ve said that many times. But the fact is that the 'finder' made NO effort to return it, so it became stolen property.
Yes I know what I'm talking about, do you?. Just because Giz was willing to buy something that was lost for a story it does not mean they'd go to extremes to get that story. Stealing the phone out of the engineer's pocket, breaking into his car or home and steal the phone, bypassing the middleman and break into Apple's HQ, or kidnapping Steve Jobs is a lot different then being offered something the may or may not have been stolen, something that may or may not have been really an iPhone. Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
So in your view, it's OK to break the law for a story? Where do you draw the line? You can break the law about buying stolen property but not stealing it yourself? Just what rational or moral line are you drawing in the sand?
You seem to be taking the Gizmodo line that since they're journalists, they should be able to do whatever they want. They're going to find out how ridiculous that position is shortly.
The fact is that they broke the law. Pure and simple. And they need to be punished for it.
I dont particularly like nor agree with what Giz did, but I understand why they did it. They have to compete with countless other techblogs. Look it's already 2 weeks later and we're still discussing them. What they did is borderline criminal at best. No one is going to do any jail time. So whatever little police issues they may have its well worth all the publicity they've gotten and continue to get.
Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.
Borderline criminal? They knowingly purchased stolen property. There's nothing borderline about it.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law. I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law, and I'm sure the hits were in the millions. Mark my words nobody's going to jail.
Dude at what level is your reading comprehension? My example was purely to show you how one would willfully buy stolen property even though its against the law.
And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.
So how many months would you be willing to spend in jail for a few thousand page hits?
Your example is silly. If Gizmodo had bought it with the intent to return it, it would have been returned directly to Apple without all the shenanigans - and without disassembling the phone and posting its pictures all over the Internet.
Uhoh, logic getting in the way again. Yes, if that was their only intent, then that is what they would have done. Funny thing is, most people can have multiple reason and intentions. I guess not everyone, obviously.
And since your example had absolutely nothing to do with the Gizmodo case, it's completely worthless.
actually, it was a very good example that well demonstrated not everying is always black and white. And really, who the hell are you to criticize the example as worthless for not applying to giz directly. Very amusing coming from a person that keeps bringing up some retarded car analogy. I suppose if ones doesn't understand the point of an analogy then both your weak examples and weaker criticism of his example make a lot of sense.
You do this for a living, eh?
Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone
The trade secret crimes, even if we assume obtaining it wasn't wrong, was publishing the videos and photos of the prototype. I am not a lawyer but the detective's affidavit states Jason Chen violated the law by publishing videos, photos, etc. of the prototype, a trade secret.
When the phone was used in public it was concealed by a case that made it look just like an ordinary iPhone 3G/3GS.
Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.
While he's in there, I hope that he learns basic grammar. This guy is an EDITOR of a major blog?
Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.
He's right about one thing though --most of us did think it was fake. However, none of us paid $5k to examine it and offered an additional $3.5K upon confirmation that it was genuine.
No thinking judge would conclude the Giz didn't know that the prototype was real. Only an idiot would speculate otherwise.
Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Try learning the facts first. Hogan and Warner were turned down by Engadget and Wired, and who knows how many other blogs. Only Gizmodo was pitiful enough to buy it. Perhaps a few other blogs would have succumbed to the temptation, but the fact remains that Giz did it, and they were not even on Warner's A or B list.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them?
Any judge with reasoning skills.
May I borrow your sister for the night? I will return her in the morning, broken and exposed for the entire world to see.
The damage had been done, buddy.
Would a criminal who bought 100kgs of coke be exonerated because he had a change of heart and decided to return 95% of it (he has disseminated the other 5%)? Um, NO. Damage done? Yeah.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
Probably the same judge and jury who would convict somebody who "borrowed" a car without permission. Taking somebody's property, dismantling it, and most likely breaking it is illegal in California even if you totally promised scout's honor that you always intended to return it when you were done with it. Yeah, we Californians are weird like that.
Also, this idea that they bought it out of noble reasons is complete BS that most people wouldn't fall for. Maybe it's different in places besides California, but if you intend to return something to somebody, you don't take it apart and break it so that you can make money off it before you give it back. Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. If it's reasonable to you to tear something apart that you say you always intended to give back, then I hope you never do me the honor of finding something I lost.
Another techblog would've purchased the phone and we would've been talking about them and not Giz. You cant buy that type of publicity.
Uhm... It WAS offered to other tech blogs. Engadget was one of them. They checked with their lawyers. Their suggestion? Don't touch this with a ten foot pole!
You know nothing about the law dude. Hogan AND Gizmodo are in deep sh*t... Wait and see.
Gizmodo can get pounded into the ground for all I care.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
From my perspective, Almost every jury and judge in all 50 States in the Union. Do you know why, it's simple really, all the prosecution have to do is show Gizmodo's iPhone expose from x-date to y-date( Original and revised ) and show them the e-mail from Brian Lam to Steve Jobs. Considering that Brian Hogan will undoubtedly spill the beans to get himself a shorter jail time, the Gizmodo crew basically will be left holding the bucket.
Giz will lose all that money after paying their lawyers and paying the fine. It's foolish really to exchange a long term relationship for a short term gain that will destroy your company considering that you pissed off the CEO of a company who likes your website.