Gizmodo's astonishingly misguided video with which they emblazoned their home page for literally months shows just how juvenile they are. Watch with disbelief and note the average rating and the top comments:
Regardless of the merit of Gizmodo's actions, what I think is equally unprofessional is the DA's apparent need to make comments such as were made. What public interest is served in making the statements that were made; statements which are basically value judgments?
Well, at least this whole sorry affair has been wrapped up and the actual dealers of the stolen property were convicted. As for Gizmodo, I think a judge calling them juvenile is satisfaction enough for me.
This whole prosecution was dumb to begin with. Being 'juvenile' is not crime. If it were, a lot of us wouldn't be here.....
Unfortunately they are adults and hence can be tried as such. The e-mail to Steve Jobs was extortion, plain and simple. "Give us access to early info and you'll get your iPhone prototype back", was the essence of it.
It's just that Gizmodo's actions were borderline plain stupidity so it was probably not worth pursuing convictions and wasting even more time and tax dollars.
This whole prosecution was dumb to begin with. Being 'juvenile' is not crime. If it were, a lot of us wouldn't be here.....
Many posters here, who are/were (perhaps legitimately) p-o'ed with Gizmodo shamefully conflated (and surprisingly, still continue to conflate) their dislike with wishing harm upon those that they dislike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Under California law, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be, but "appropriates such property to his own use," is guilty of theft.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the silver Apple logo emblazoned on the back of a never-before-seen iPhone model might possibly indicate that it belongs to...Apple? Being that obvious, this is a crime. Don't confuse the choice not to prosecute with a declaration of innocence. Gizmodo were utterly out of order - legally, professionally and morally.
Apple asked for the phone back and Gizmodo decided to play hardball...with the second largest company in the world...and Steve Jobs. It was men against boys.
I certainly don't wish any harm on anyone. I think Gizmodo have had their comeuppance in the form of complete loss of credibility. I for one will not read any article on the site, even if I am sent a link I won't read it on principle. These are not people who deserve traffic.
Well, at least this whole sorry affair has been wrapped up and the actual dealers of the stolen property were convicted. As for Gizmodo, I think a judge calling them juvenile is satisfaction enough for me.
Well, I suppose you're still waiting then. Wasn't it the DA who said so?
Well, I suppose you're still waiting then. Wasn't it the DA who said so?
Well, OK, my mistake, apparently CNET said the DA apparently used the word "juvenile" *.
But in any case the rest of the DA's quoted comments are about spot on. He must have been quite baffled as to Gizmodo's behaviour.
*Wagstaffe said, however, that his office's review of the computers seized from Chen's home showed the correspondence between Gizmodo editors was "juvenile."
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the silver Apple logo emblazoned on the back of a never-before-seen iPhone model might possibly indicate that it belongs to...Apple? Being that obvious, this is a crime. Don't confuse the choice not to prosecute with a declaration of innocence. Gizmodo were utterly out of order - legally, professionally and morally.
You're mistaken there. Every iPhone has a silver Apple logo on the back. That isn't proof that it belongs to Apple - only that it was designed by Apple.
HOWEVER, Gizmo clearly knew that this particular phone belonged to Apple because they contacted Apple to try extortion. They can't argue that they didn't know who the phone belonged to - regardless of any logo on the back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol
I wonder what the DA called the idiot who lost it in the first place?
Careless? Which isn't a crime.
Furthermore, we still don't have proof that the guy lost it. It could have been stolen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thee O'Maschas
"Prosecutors ultimately did not pursue criminal charges, possibly in light of allegations that the raid on Chen's house was illegal."
Wow. And not a single iDouche cared to comment on Apple's illegal action.
One Apple's iGestapo repeated again recently. Silence from the fanboi's.
What part of ALLEGATIONS do you not understand?
There are people who think Elvis is alive. That doesn't make it true.
"Prosecutors ultimately did not pursue criminal charges, possibly in light of allegations that the raid on Chen's house was illegal."
Wow. And not a single iDouche cared to comment on Apple's illegal action.
One Apple's iGestapo repeated again recently. Silence from the fanboi's.
In the case of the house raid on Chen's house, there was probable cause. So no illegal action by Apple - or do the facts of the matter get in the way of your attitude?
Again there were allegations and reported activity - no real confirmation of what happened, especially in light of mixed stories coming out of the precinct involved. Or again, are the facts of the matter getting in the way of hating on Apple for you?
Perhaps next time you do a drive by here you can use the trash can instead of throwing stuff on the floor?
In the car business, spotting a prototype before it's ready to prime time and publishing scoop pix to the embarrassment of the manufacturer is part of the game. Apple should not be so paranoid about this, and anyone finding an Apple product ahead of launch should be free to publicise it. But not be difficult about giving it back.
Furthermore, we still don't have proof that the guy lost it. It could have been stolen.
If it was stolen said idiot would have filed a stolen claim which he didn't. He lost it. And he is an idiot as he works for the most secretive company ever second only to the CIA. I wonder if he's in the mail room now or at a genius bar somewhere? Banished to Siberia like KGB would do.
If it was stolen said idiot would have filed a stolen claim which he didn't. He lost it. And he is an idiot as he works for the most secretive company ever second only to the CIA. I wonder if he's in the mail room now or at a genius bar somewhere? Banished to Siberia like KGB would do.
In the car business, spotting a prototype before it's ready to prime time and publishing scoop pix to the embarrassment of the manufacturer is part of the game. Apple should not be so paranoid about this, and anyone finding an Apple product ahead of launch should be free to publicise it. But not be difficult about giving it back.
They tried Engadget first. They turned it down. You don't turn down something like that unless you know it's over the line and unprofessional.
I hear what you're saying but they went too far and the faeces only hit the fan when Gizmodo declined to return the device.
You're mistaken there. Every iPhone has a silver Apple logo on the back. That isn't proof that it belongs to Apple - only that it was designed by Apple.
There was no mistake. It was a phone that nobody had seen up to that point. It was clearly a prototype. It had an Apple logo on the back. If I found an iPhone I'd never seen before in my life in a bar and it had an Apple logo on the back...I'd know it was probably Apple's. Did they know who the owner was 'likely to be' (AI's words, not necessarily the official definition)? Yes, absolutely.
Comments
Gizmodo's astonishingly misguided video with which they emblazoned their home page for literally months shows just how juvenile they are. Watch with disbelief and note the average rating and the top comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WATcSu58uI4
"The reason I love Gizmodo, I think it's honestly." Oh my...
"Astonishingly misguided" is a good description. I'd add: embarrassing, vainglorious, immature, opportunistic, and tacky.
Just because you add a Coldplay-esque track to it doesn't make it inspiring or cool!!
This whole prosecution was dumb to begin with. Being 'juvenile' is not crime. If it were, a lot of us wouldn't be here.....
Unfortunately they are adults and hence can be tried as such. The e-mail to Steve Jobs was extortion, plain and simple. "Give us access to early info and you'll get your iPhone prototype back", was the essence of it.
It's just that Gizmodo's actions were borderline plain stupidity so it was probably not worth pursuing convictions and wasting even more time and tax dollars.
This whole prosecution was dumb to begin with. Being 'juvenile' is not crime. If it were, a lot of us wouldn't be here.....
Many posters here, who are/were (perhaps legitimately) p-o'ed with Gizmodo shamefully conflated (and surprisingly, still continue to conflate) their dislike with wishing harm upon those that they dislike.
Under California law, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be, but "appropriates such property to his own use," is guilty of theft.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the silver Apple logo emblazoned on the back of a never-before-seen iPhone model might possibly indicate that it belongs to...Apple? Being that obvious, this is a crime. Don't confuse the choice not to prosecute with a declaration of innocence. Gizmodo were utterly out of order - legally, professionally and morally.
Apple asked for the phone back and Gizmodo decided to play hardball...with the second largest company in the world...and Steve Jobs. It was men against boys.
I certainly don't wish any harm on anyone. I think Gizmodo have had their comeuppance in the form of complete loss of credibility. I for one will not read any article on the site, even if I am sent a link I won't read it on principle. These are not people who deserve traffic.
Wow. And not a single iDouche cared to comment on Apple's illegal action.
One Apple's iGestapo repeated again recently. Silence from the fanboi's.
I wonder what the DA called the idiot who lost it in the first place?
Mistakes happen. Dealing in stolen goods and extorting people, however, is intentional.
Christ, did this need reporting?
Well, at least this whole sorry affair has been wrapped up and the actual dealers of the stolen property were convicted. As for Gizmodo, I think a judge calling them juvenile is satisfaction enough for me.
Well, I suppose you're still waiting then. Wasn't it the DA who said so?
Well, I suppose you're still waiting then. Wasn't it the DA who said so?
Well, OK, my mistake, apparently CNET said the DA apparently used the word "juvenile" *.
But in any case the rest of the DA's quoted comments are about spot on. He must have been quite baffled as to Gizmodo's behaviour.
*Wagstaffe said, however, that his office's review of the computers seized from Chen's home showed the correspondence between Gizmodo editors was "juvenile."
With that said, i'm somewhat annoyed that the word juvenile has a negative connotation.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the silver Apple logo emblazoned on the back of a never-before-seen iPhone model might possibly indicate that it belongs to...Apple? Being that obvious, this is a crime. Don't confuse the choice not to prosecute with a declaration of innocence. Gizmodo were utterly out of order - legally, professionally and morally.
You're mistaken there. Every iPhone has a silver Apple logo on the back. That isn't proof that it belongs to Apple - only that it was designed by Apple.
HOWEVER, Gizmo clearly knew that this particular phone belonged to Apple because they contacted Apple to try extortion. They can't argue that they didn't know who the phone belonged to - regardless of any logo on the back.
I wonder what the DA called the idiot who lost it in the first place?
Careless? Which isn't a crime.
Furthermore, we still don't have proof that the guy lost it. It could have been stolen.
"Prosecutors ultimately did not pursue criminal charges, possibly in light of allegations that the raid on Chen's house was illegal."
Wow. And not a single iDouche cared to comment on Apple's illegal action.
One Apple's iGestapo repeated again recently. Silence from the fanboi's.
What part of ALLEGATIONS do you not understand?
There are people who think Elvis is alive. That doesn't make it true.
"Prosecutors ultimately did not pursue criminal charges, possibly in light of allegations that the raid on Chen's house was illegal."
Wow. And not a single iDouche cared to comment on Apple's illegal action.
One Apple's iGestapo repeated again recently. Silence from the fanboi's.
In the case of the house raid on Chen's house, there was probable cause. So no illegal action by Apple - or do the facts of the matter get in the way of your attitude?
Again there were allegations and reported activity - no real confirmation of what happened, especially in light of mixed stories coming out of the precinct involved. Or again, are the facts of the matter getting in the way of hating on Apple for you?
Perhaps next time you do a drive by here you can use the trash can instead of throwing stuff on the floor?
Careless? Which isn't a crime.
Furthermore, we still don't have proof that the guy lost it. It could have been stolen.
If it was stolen said idiot would have filed a stolen claim which he didn't. He lost it. And he is an idiot as he works for the most secretive company ever second only to the CIA. I wonder if he's in the mail room now or at a genius bar somewhere? Banished to Siberia like KGB would do.
If it was stolen said idiot would have filed a stolen claim which he didn't. He lost it. And he is an idiot as he works for the most secretive company ever second only to the CIA. I wonder if he's in the mail room now or at a genius bar somewhere? Banished to Siberia like KGB would do.
The CIA is a company? This explains a lot... :P
In the car business, spotting a prototype before it's ready to prime time and publishing scoop pix to the embarrassment of the manufacturer is part of the game. Apple should not be so paranoid about this, and anyone finding an Apple product ahead of launch should be free to publicise it. But not be difficult about giving it back.
They tried Engadget first. They turned it down. You don't turn down something like that unless you know it's over the line and unprofessional.
I hear what you're saying but they went too far and the faeces only hit the fan when Gizmodo declined to return the device.
You're mistaken there. Every iPhone has a silver Apple logo on the back. That isn't proof that it belongs to Apple - only that it was designed by Apple.
There was no mistake. It was a phone that nobody had seen up to that point. It was clearly a prototype. It had an Apple logo on the back. If I found an iPhone I'd never seen before in my life in a bar and it had an Apple logo on the back...I'd know it was probably Apple's. Did they know who the owner was 'likely to be' (AI's words, not necessarily the official definition)? Yes, absolutely.