The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
You would be wrong. "Night service" under CA law is defined from 22:00 to 6:00. According to Jason Chen's account of the events he got home @ 9:45 and the police told them they had been there for a "couple of hours". "Service" occurs at the beginning of the execution of the warrant -- not the conclusion.
You could have found all that information in about 45 seconds but instead you decided to idly speculate. Its true that Gawker media COO/legal representative made the same argument in her letter to detective Broad -- that doesn't make it any less laughable.
I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...
If all you have gotten out the postings here is that, then yeah you need to embrace your misconceptions and misaprehensions with a whole heart -and who am I to disabuse you of your misconceptions and misapprehensions. Go ahead - wallow in them until your fingers get all pruney.
leave the keys in your car and somebody takes it, Stolen. leave a phone in a bar, not stolen.
Leave the keys in your car and somebody drives it to their place, pops the bonnet and takes some pics and then drives it to your house and hands over the car and keys.
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:
We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.
Quote:
I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.
Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.
Quote:
And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.
There you go again..."stolen." That point is very much in debate.
Quote:
Wrong.
First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
If the property is stolen, yes.
Quote:
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.
Quote:
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.
I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.
Quote:
What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.
Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.
Quote:
There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:
- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues.
Quote:
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
I didn't see them claim that. Link?
Quote:
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
Not exactly.
Quote:
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
Unless you can produce evidence to counter that story, shut up. And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?
Quote:
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
Wait..who owned the phone..Gray Powell---or Apple? Are they under a legal obligation to answer the phone? Morally, of course they are. But that's not what we're talking about.
Quote:
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?
Does anyone deny they wanted to disassemble it? Try not to look so surprised.
Quote:
Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?
The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
There you go again...unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't advocate theft and publishing of trade secret information. EVER.
There are legitimate ways to obtain rumors and speculation without breaking an NDA or the law. As a few examples:
- Publishing Apple job postings to get a hint of what's going on in the future
- Pointing out public statements by Apple (and other) people that might be a slip of the tongue, but could provide useful information
- Recording an increase in lead times in products - just ahead of the time that a new product is expected
- Reporting that Foxconn issued a public tender for 10,000,000 LCD screens
- Reporting that someone from AMD was observed going into Apple HQ
Or tons of other things.
There are ways to get a story without stealing or breaking NDAs. In the old days of journalism, people were pretty good at it, but sadly, today's bloggers don't have the skill or patience to do it.
We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.
Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.
Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.
I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.
Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.
No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues. .
So his profession is stealing things and dealing in stolen property?
By that logic, I'm going to start a web site dedicated to driving cool cars - so I can go out and steal a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.
Or maybe a mass-murderer should put up a web site about how it feels to kill people - so he can't be prosecuted?
The very site you posted specifically says that the exception is if the 'journalist' is accused of a crime. In this case, the journalist is accused of several crimes. The law was never intended to allow journalists to be above the law.
You keep repeating that you're not sure it's been stolen. Since the relevant CA law has been cited here dozens of times, I'm not sure it's my problem that you can't either read or understand the law. The law is about as clear as it can be - it was stolen.
Why should I care if your brother is a lawyer? if HE wants to chime in with a legal opinion, that might be interesting. But simply the fact that you have a brother who is {almost} an attorney doesn't change the fact that you're about as wrong as you can be.
Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."
Which raises the question: do we really want a corporation directing the expenditure of taxpayer money in criminal investigation?
Wow, Apple, Inc. is on the steering committee for a Silicon Valley based Law Enforcement Team that investigates COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGICAL CRIMES?
Horror of Horrors, I wonder if HP is on the steering committee, too? Or is HP donating their technology and hardware to the criminals?
GEEZ People! If your house is repeatedly broken into, wouldn't you be on the steering committee of the Home Burglary Police Support Group, aka Neighborhood Watch?
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).
The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.
It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.
... There you go again... unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.
Same to you!
Seriously, you are "calling the kettle black" here.
You say that "Not a single person has indicated the bar story is false," but you fail to mention that one person (the thief) is telling that story. The only other person who was even there was the Apple engineer that lost the phone, and he has been told not to talk about it so how could anyone contradict the story? You also (falsely) make it sound like the engineer agrees with you merely by his silence. Not true at all and you should know so.
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
Yeah, the circumstances of how the iPhone prototype was found seems questionable to me too. Heck, I don't leave my iPhone lying around in public places under any circumstances and that's just the 3G version. If I had a secret prototype in my possession, I don't think I'd even let the thing out of my grasp, let alone leave it lying around. But then, that's just me. I probably wouldn't have been drinking in the first place.
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
Your analogy has a few holes.
You state "someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner."
You forgot to mention that they disassembled the phone. People who find a stolen *anything* typically don't disassemble it. Would they disassemble a car if their intentions were altruistic? I don't think so. The intention of them ultimately wanting to return it to Apple is also presumptuous, at best. Let's not be overly naive.
If I found a phone of mysterious origins I have a couple of options. I can look at the information on the phone, see the name of the person who it belongs to, and take steps to return it. Along those lines, I can return it to the bar owner, company, or police, or send the guy an email. Call his parents. Get the idea? Or I can realize that it's an in-demand prototype, and sell it to a high bidder. Which do you think really happened?
Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).
The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.
It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.
For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
Come on up to Waterloo Ontario some time. I'll give you the names of a few of the bars that some of the thousands of RIM employees hang out at. See if you can pick out the ones with the prototypes. Money down that you can't. (oh hell, make it easier, see if you can even pick out the RIM jobs)
This just gets better and better. 2 hours of work gone. In the blink of a thread. Wish we had more topics like this which churn out the post counts. So many instant classics here.
For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
You're ignoring a few points:
- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
- 'Finder' doesn't call the person whose phone it was - even though he knows their name and Facebook page
- 'Finder' doesn't answer the phone when it rings repeatedly that evening
- 'Finder' doesn't make any reasonable attempts to return it (mail it to Apple, drop it off with Apple, give it to the police, let the bark know he found it, etc). Instead, he calls an Apple tech support line - where people work from scripts and have no independent action authority
- 'Finder' just happens to call Gizmodo - a name known to only a tiny number of people relative to such far better known organizations like Fox News, CBS, CNET, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, etc
Then, after Gizmodo finds out about it, the 'coincidences' just happen to continue:
- Gizmodo, who claims to have extensive contacts within Apple, can't find anyone better to call than the tech support hotline
- Gizmodo also never takes any of the above reasonable actions to return it
- Gizmodo claims that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - yet they paid $5 K for it (do they pay $5 K for EVERY unknown phone that someone calls them about?)
Now, let's compare all those coincidences with my explanation:
- Gizmodo claims to have extensive contacts within Apple. It is therefore quite plausible that Gizmodo knows where to find Apple engineers and probably even knows who carries an iPhone 4G. So, hardly any stretch of the imagination required at all - compared to the story that you're accepting hook, line, and sinker which requires a long stream of bizarre coincidences.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
I can't speak for everyone in the court of public opinion, but here's why I think Gizmodo is guilty of douchebaggery and AI is not, as well as other sites and methods...
First, there are all kinds of ways that AI and other sites get information...a lot is speculation, sometimes it's slip ups, piecing together public info like job postings or part orders, reviewing log files, finding EXIF or other metadata, or just general chatter. That's all well and good.
It's also another thing if someone chooses to break an NDA or an embargo. The consequences then become that between the breakee and Apple (or other company). I would have no problem with Gizmodo if the engineer himself had let Gizmodo see the phone and Gizmodo published the information. I also wouldn't feel bad if the engineer was fired for that.
I'd also have no problem if Gizmodo had seen the phone at the bar or taken pictures of it, covering it as a story as it was being return to the owner by means of giving it to the bar manager, turning it into a police station or sending/taking it to an Apple Store or headquarters.
However, what Gizmodo claims is clearly theft and receiving of stolen goods. They're extra special douchebaggers for having outed the engineer.
As someone who works in this industry, sometimes on both sides (publishing and development), I don't want to think that my hard work could simply be physically stolen from me, and I wouldn't steal from someone else. Those that do steal, or knowingly purchase stolen property deserve to be prosecuted.
Normally, I'm against having someone be made an example out of, but in this case, they're getting special treatment because of their own publicizing of the events, and because they're douchebags, I really can't feel too much sympathy for them.
Comments
The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.
You would be wrong. "Night service" under CA law is defined from 22:00 to 6:00. According to Jason Chen's account of the events he got home @ 9:45 and the police told them they had been there for a "couple of hours". "Service" occurs at the beginning of the execution of the warrant -- not the conclusion.
You could have found all that information in about 45 seconds but instead you decided to idly speculate. Its true that Gawker media COO/legal representative made the same argument in her letter to detective Broad -- that doesn't make it any less laughable.
I'm starting to equate Apple with Facism more and more...
If all you have gotten out the postings here is that, then yeah you need to embrace your misconceptions and misaprehensions with a whole heart -and who am I to disabuse you of your misconceptions and misapprehensions. Go ahead - wallow in them until your fingers get all pruney.
leave the keys in your car and somebody takes it, Stolen. leave a phone in a bar, not stolen.
Leave the keys in your car and somebody drives it to their place, pops the bonnet and takes some pics and then drives it to your house and hands over the car and keys.
Still stolen?
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html
We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.
I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.
Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.
And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.
There you go again..."stolen." That point is very much in debate.
Wrong.
First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
If the property is stolen, yes.
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.
I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.
What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.
Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.
There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:
- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues.
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
I didn't see them claim that. Link?
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
Not exactly.
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
Unless you can produce evidence to counter that story, shut up. And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
Wait..who owned the phone..Gray Powell---or Apple? Are they under a legal obligation to answer the phone? Morally, of course they are. But that's not what we're talking about.
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?
Does anyone deny they wanted to disassemble it? Try not to look so surprised.
Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?
The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
There you go again...unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't advocate theft and publishing of trade secret information. EVER.
There are legitimate ways to obtain rumors and speculation without breaking an NDA or the law. As a few examples:
- Publishing Apple job postings to get a hint of what's going on in the future
- Pointing out public statements by Apple (and other) people that might be a slip of the tongue, but could provide useful information
- Recording an increase in lead times in products - just ahead of the time that a new product is expected
- Reporting that Foxconn issued a public tender for 10,000,000 LCD screens
- Reporting that someone from AMD was observed going into Apple HQ
Or tons of other things.
There are ways to get a story without stealing or breaking NDAs. In the old days of journalism, people were pretty good at it, but sadly, today's bloggers don't have the skill or patience to do it.
Direct Link: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/thatlost4gphone/
I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html
We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.
Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.
Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.
I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.
Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.
No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues. .
So his profession is stealing things and dealing in stolen property?
By that logic, I'm going to start a web site dedicated to driving cool cars - so I can go out and steal a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.
Or maybe a mass-murderer should put up a web site about how it feels to kill people - so he can't be prosecuted?
The very site you posted specifically says that the exception is if the 'journalist' is accused of a crime. In this case, the journalist is accused of several crimes. The law was never intended to allow journalists to be above the law.
You keep repeating that you're not sure it's been stolen. Since the relevant CA law has been cited here dozens of times, I'm not sure it's my problem that you can't either read or understand the law. The law is about as clear as it can be - it was stolen.
Why should I care if your brother is a lawyer? if HE wants to chime in with a legal opinion, that might be interesting. But simply the fact that you have a brother who is {almost} an attorney doesn't change the fact that you're about as wrong as you can be.
Another interesting to note is that Yahoo News is reporting that Apple, Inc is on the steering committee of REACT, providing "training, personnel, and support to the task force."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
Which raises the question: do we really want a corporation directing the expenditure of taxpayer money in criminal investigation?
Wow, Apple, Inc. is on the steering committee for a Silicon Valley based Law Enforcement Team that investigates COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGICAL CRIMES?
Horror of Horrors, I wonder if HP is on the steering committee, too? Or is HP donating their technology and hardware to the criminals?
GEEZ People! If your house is repeatedly broken into, wouldn't you be on the steering committee of the Home Burglary Police Support Group, aka Neighborhood Watch?
(did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?)
And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).
The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.
It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.
... There you go again... unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.
Same to you!
Seriously, you are "calling the kettle black" here.
You say that "Not a single person has indicated the bar story is false," but you fail to mention that one person (the thief) is telling that story. The only other person who was even there was the Apple engineer that lost the phone, and he has been told not to talk about it so how could anyone contradict the story? You also (falsely) make it sound like the engineer agrees with you merely by his silence. Not true at all and you should know so.
This is what I don't understand and seems strangest to me. Unless these barstools have backs on them, I can only imagine leaving a jacket maybe hung on the back of a barstool.
But this wasn't a jacket. I mean, if you're sitting on the barstool, how do you leave it there? Are you sitting on it (the phone)? Is the super secret prototype in his back pocket being crushed? Or did he go to the bathroom and think, "I'll just leave my phone here so no one steals my seat." I just can't imagine the scenario where the phone got left on the barstool. On the bar...yes. On the floor...yes. But not on the barstool itself.
Yeah, the circumstances of how the iPhone prototype was found seems questionable to me too. Heck, I don't leave my iPhone lying around in public places under any circumstances and that's just the 3G version. If I had a secret prototype in my possession, I don't think I'd even let the thing out of my grasp, let alone leave it lying around. But then, that's just me. I probably wouldn't have been drinking in the first place.
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
Your analogy has a few holes.
You state "someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner."
You forgot to mention that they disassembled the phone. People who find a stolen *anything* typically don't disassemble it. Would they disassemble a car if their intentions were altruistic? I don't think so. The intention of them ultimately wanting to return it to Apple is also presumptuous, at best. Let's not be overly naive.
If I found a phone of mysterious origins I have a couple of options. I can look at the information on the phone, see the name of the person who it belongs to, and take steps to return it. Along those lines, I can return it to the bar owner, company, or police, or send the guy an email. Call his parents. Get the idea? Or I can realize that it's an in-demand prototype, and sell it to a high bidder. Which do you think really happened?
Exactly. If it fell out of your pocket, it's probably on the floor. If you set it down and stepped away, it would probably be on the bar (although that's pretty unlikely).
The only way I could think of someone finding it on a bar stool is if it was still in the owner's pocket - which adds a whole new dimension. Gizmodo offers large bribe for phone, someone goes to bar where Apple engineers hang out, sees engineer with interesting phone, and it magically goes from one pocket to another.
It's not hard to imagine someone being willing to steal a phone for $5 K - particularly since Gizmodo undoubtedly told them that under the Shield law, that they could never be forced to give up their name.
For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
Come on up to Waterloo Ontario some time. I'll give you the names of a few of the bars that some of the thousands of RIM employees hang out at. See if you can pick out the ones with the prototypes. Money down that you can't. (oh hell, make it easier, see if you can even pick out the RIM jobs)
If you found a Lost, Post REPORT anyway you like AS Geek or Publisher which is FINE.
YOU know who that item Might/Should belong to, But Disassembling it ? Wrong, Wrong and Wrong!
For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
You're ignoring a few points:
- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
- 'Finder' doesn't call the person whose phone it was - even though he knows their name and Facebook page
- 'Finder' doesn't answer the phone when it rings repeatedly that evening
- 'Finder' doesn't make any reasonable attempts to return it (mail it to Apple, drop it off with Apple, give it to the police, let the bark know he found it, etc). Instead, he calls an Apple tech support line - where people work from scripts and have no independent action authority
- 'Finder' just happens to call Gizmodo - a name known to only a tiny number of people relative to such far better known organizations like Fox News, CBS, CNET, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, etc
Then, after Gizmodo finds out about it, the 'coincidences' just happen to continue:
- Gizmodo, who claims to have extensive contacts within Apple, can't find anyone better to call than the tech support hotline
- Gizmodo also never takes any of the above reasonable actions to return it
- Gizmodo claims that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - yet they paid $5 K for it (do they pay $5 K for EVERY unknown phone that someone calls them about?)
Now, let's compare all those coincidences with my explanation:
- Gizmodo claims to have extensive contacts within Apple. It is therefore quite plausible that Gizmodo knows where to find Apple engineers and probably even knows who carries an iPhone 4G. So, hardly any stretch of the imagination required at all - compared to the story that you're accepting hook, line, and sinker which requires a long stream of bizarre coincidences.
No offense intended but are you people SERIOUS?!?!
EVERY SINGLE LEAK posted on EVERY Apple 'rumors site' has been at the expense of SOMEONE breaking their NDA at the very least and perhaps even the LAW, depending on the path the 'story' took to get to one of the many rumor sites. Trust me when I say, people HAVE lost their jobs at Apple as a direct result of leaking news. Apple investigates each and every leak and believe you me, they try their best to find the party responsible and deal with them in an unfriendly way.
Over the years, many people lost their livelihood so YOU had something 'neat' to read about some future Apple product!
So which is it people?
- You support the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
- You denounce the THEFT and PUBLISHING of Apples trade secrets?
..OR..
Are you hypocrites? Only supporting these activities when the 'dirty work' is kept far far away from your otherwise unsoiled eyes?
Lets MAN UP people... the BULLSHIT in this forum getting WAY to high!
I can't speak for everyone in the court of public opinion, but here's why I think Gizmodo is guilty of douchebaggery and AI is not, as well as other sites and methods...
First, there are all kinds of ways that AI and other sites get information...a lot is speculation, sometimes it's slip ups, piecing together public info like job postings or part orders, reviewing log files, finding EXIF or other metadata, or just general chatter. That's all well and good.
It's also another thing if someone chooses to break an NDA or an embargo. The consequences then become that between the breakee and Apple (or other company). I would have no problem with Gizmodo if the engineer himself had let Gizmodo see the phone and Gizmodo published the information. I also wouldn't feel bad if the engineer was fired for that.
I'd also have no problem if Gizmodo had seen the phone at the bar or taken pictures of it, covering it as a story as it was being return to the owner by means of giving it to the bar manager, turning it into a police station or sending/taking it to an Apple Store or headquarters.
However, what Gizmodo claims is clearly theft and receiving of stolen goods. They're extra special douchebaggers for having outed the engineer.
As someone who works in this industry, sometimes on both sides (publishing and development), I don't want to think that my hard work could simply be physically stolen from me, and I wouldn't steal from someone else. Those that do steal, or knowingly purchase stolen property deserve to be prosecuted.
Normally, I'm against having someone be made an example out of, but in this case, they're getting special treatment because of their own publicizing of the events, and because they're douchebags, I really can't feel too much sympathy for them.