The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Therefore you are delusional.
I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.
I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.
You just stated it: Sue.
That makes it civil.
I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.
No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.
Gizmodo is guilty as hell. Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures? Gizmodo knew exactly what they had when Jobs asked for it back. They had no business playing games and then leaking trade secrets at that point.
Thompson
He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:
"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."
So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.
If the facts don't work for you, just change them?
Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.
Like I said in a different post in a different thread, no one seems to care about the legal or moral merits of the issue. This is, and shall always be about whether a person likes Apple or hates them.
We didn't need any detailed information to know that under the law, Giz dealt in stolen merchandise. Now that we have more information, and that information is damning, not one defender of Giz will back off from that defense. If anything, they will dig in deeper and become even more shrill. Even in this thread, it has been suggested that Apple somehow did something wrong. There will no doubt be some still believing that Apple owes Giz an apology. Still others believe that Apple has no rights to trade secrets, patents, or anything else contributing to their success.
When the smoke clears, perhaps sooner rather than later, I suspect that there will be a steaming crater in the internet where Giz used to be. I also suspect that someone will go to jail, but it won't be the staff of Giz. No one will be happy with the outcome. The haters who were never going to buy one of these phones will declare loudly that because of Apple's NAZI campaign agains journalism and freedom, they will never buy another Apple product. At that point, things will more or less be back to normal.
Oh, and Apple will print money even faster than they are now.
I wish I could live in that dream world. It must be nice to simply write off everyone that has a different opinion as being an Apple hater. Nice, simple fantasy world.
I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.
No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.
Sigh. I'd rather not give you a treatise in law right now. So let's just assume that just because I am summarizing things for the sake of this thread, doesn't mean it's the entire statement on the law ok?
In any event, just by your stating that they can sue civilly is an admission on your part of the wrongdoing of the employee.
Based on the affidavit to the search warrant, it does appear that Chen is certainly implicit in some respects - of course everything things need to be proven! That goes without saying! The same reasons that you are attacking others for their opinions can be made to yourself.
And contrary to your last sentence, you don't know the facts, nor do any of us.
EDIT TO ADD: it appears that some of my posts are missing. I guess it doesn't matter for myself, but I do find it rather odd.
it's called, among other things, obstruction of justice.
This guy is in a lot of trouble. And the more trouble he's in, the more trouble Chen is in.
I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.
Yes and no. Chen is a big boy and he knowingly took a shady back-alley approach to "journalism". He should be hung out to dry along with anyone else who acted unethically and more so unwisely. Furthermore, I am getting fed up with the wishy-washy bullsh*t everyone spews forth (not you) about how much "good" Giz is doing for journalism. Eff Gizmodo on this one. Anyone in their position knows what trade secret is and how to treat it. They knowingly revealed trade secret. Positive ID, by them. Dissection, by them. Biased spin cover stories, by them. It was their mistake, after they knew who the rightful owner was, which according to them they knew before they wrote all of the blog posts revealing its guts. Case closed. They will suffer the consequence. If they had not said anything about knowing whose it was, they would be much, much more in the clear.
Trade Secrets
Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property. A trade secret can be a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable to the public.
Some examples of Trade Secrets are:
1. Formula for the soft drink, Coca-Cola
2. Business processes
3. Marketing Strategies
4. Food Recipes
5. Computer Algorithms
6. Prototypes
In addition, the trade secret must be of an economic advantage over a business' competitors or customers. Lastly, the owner of the trade secret must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Giz even states it was camouflaged by Apple.)
What were the trade secrets? Marketing strategy and prototypes which Giz states Apple was hiding and not intended for public knowledge. No sh*t Gizmodo, no effing sh*t. Who cares if it was Apple, if Giz did this to your company would you be happy?
So the issue is less about who stole it and more about Giz's destruction of Trade Secrecy, which is a right of all companies. Again, Giz committed this crime when they stated admission of ownership and that it was a prototype destined to be secret. Their understanding of this law is not necessary in order for them to be proven guilty.
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.
Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.
At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.
I like your take on this Robin but perhaps you are being just a bit *too* kind to the Gizmodo kids.
This part here for instance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
... Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ...
Doesn't seem right to me.
Gizmodo's first publication on the matter was just of some photos and one video. AFAIK the disassembly was posted either the next day or the day after that.
They make the statement (paraphrased) that "they didn't know it was real until they took it apart." But Apple, in the person of Steve Jobs, contacted them the next day after they published. It seems to me that it's inescapable that they either took it apart *after* talking to Steve Jobs (which kind of makes the statement that they had to take it apart a lie), or they took it apart before Steve Jobs called and only posted the video later (which makes everything Brian Lam said in his email to Jobs about needing "proof" a lie).
It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
My instincts tell me you are right, but I was just trying to stick to the facts in order to clear the air. Thanks for the link, fascinating reading indeed! But I came away a little less negative about Gawker--he seemed pretty even-handed and even self-critical in his follow up notes. Still, I agree with Steve.
It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
Even ignoring the fact that they paid $5000 for the phone to begin with (which is indicative of their knowledge), I think that if it is true that they were going to pay Hogan another $3500 later upon reveal of the real iPhone highly points to the fact that they did know.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The point that Gizmodo (and you) are missing is that it doesn't matter if it's authentic. Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law. The fact that Gizmodo paid $5 K for it makes it felony theft. It doesn't matter if it was an Apple phone or an alien artifact, it was stolen property worth $5 K.
Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law.
And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.
1. And I think you are engaged in classic misdirection.
2. What? Are you gonna pull a Stalin and try to go back and edit all your posts on this subject for the last month?
3. Whatever. I'm tired of sparring with you. Welcome to the ignore list. Usually I wouldn't do that, but I lose brain cells reading your posts. It's for my own senior health.
Alternative Perspective
1. FWIW HQ, from my assessment, on this Gizmodo topic and specifically the referenced post, PP is not engaging in any misdirection, classically or otherwise. Your interpretation(s) are in stark contrast to reality (obviously IMO). Breathe.
2. I've carefully read (at times in a state of mild bewilderment) and absorbed your and his posts over numerous threads on the unfolding and fascinating Gizmodo shenanigan (a charitable overstatement). Some postings are informative, few are legally enlightening, but all are characterologically illuminating. With all the respect that these have earned and are due, both your current assertion and characterization are rhetorical and offensive nonsense. Take a deep breath.
3. Defensive posturing of this magnitude would be a drain on anyone's energy. Perhaps you might consider just ceasing sparring. There are appropriate times to employ the Ignore List (perhaps now by including me!). However on the Gizmodo topic, with intelligent posters articulating similar perspectives, question whether utilizing it might simply be a dysfunctional method to limit unpleasant reality intrusions in an effort to preserve your personal worldview. Slowly exhale.
HQ, you proclaim and make inferences of high-regard for your Gizmodo analysis, while directly and inferentially disparaging lucid, logical, and contextual alternatives proffered by others. It seems to me, you vastly overrate many of the analytical capabilities you've applied to this topic. By doing so, you disservice yourself by undermining the esteem you may seek.
My comments are direct and harsh, but not intended to belittle or offend (nor to initiate sparring between us). No need to respond; just give it a thought sometime. In the meantime, let's step back and enjoy the unfolding of legal events by the career pros.
And you know that {that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan} because . . . ?
Because they friggin' said so. Sheesh.
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his. In fact, the police report that mentions that Giz paid a portion of the money up front and reserved a subsequent payment for after the item was officially announced by Apple is a pretty strong indication that they were not certain that it was not hoax at the time they paid him. i.e. they wanted confirmation prior to paying the full amount.
This doesn't necessarily absolve them of any wrong doing, but your logic is just off. Their story of how they got their hands on it was to provide background at the time of their story. It is not evidence of them knowing it was not Hogans. The police report itself at least implies they were not certain. They paid $5k+ up front so they obviously felt pretty sure, but the amount held in reserve is evidence that they were not entirely convinced.
Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
You're damn right she is. Me, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone and started cooking the corpse. But then again, I choose my friends carefully.
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
...
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
Comments
And in your case ignorance is your only defense.
The law, as written, has multiple interpretations (as any attorney who has had to argue it in a courtroom setting will tell you), and as I have already stated, the entire affair is moot until charges are filed against Gizmodo, or Chen (though, no matter how much you would like it to happen, it is HIGHLY unlikely charges will be brought against Chen.)
That is the argument. That you wish to crucify Chen. Not gonna happen. The law is on his side. He didn't "steal" said item, though you have stated repeatedly he did. CHEN didn't pay for said item, though you and other's continually state he did, as though he acted alone, or at all. The company he is affiliated with, on the other hand did. You have received your proof of that via the affidavit.
But you will still attempt to put Chen's head on a stake, though all proof states otherwise.
Therefore you are delusional.
I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.
I have for the most part ignored your posts, but I do have a question. Do you know much about agency law? Corporate criminal liability? Criminal law? Anything of a legal nature? The rules that say that corporations are liable for the actions of its employee within the scope of employment - this does not mean that the employee get off scot free. Many times, people sue both the employee and the employer.
You just stated it: Sue.
That makes it civil.
I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.
No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.
How much do you want to bet?
Chen was videotaped in possession of property deemed to be stolen, he admitted he had it in his possession, nowhere did I say he stole it.
I suggest you look into the difference between stealing and receiving stolen property.
Your circular arguments seem very trollish.
Actually you DID say he stole it in threads past. You also said HE paid for it, though I don't know how he can do both.
Now you are backtracking and just saying he was in possession.
My story still hasn't changed. Yours just did.
Gizmodo is guilty as hell. Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures? Gizmodo knew exactly what they had when Jobs asked for it back. They had no business playing games and then leaking trade secrets at that point.
Thompson
He likely did miss that part...you know since it didn't happen. From the docs:
"Sewell told be that after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam."
So, you were wrong that it was before and you were wrong about whom Jobs called.
Nice work. Your entire comment was premised on one statement with two facts. Unfortunately, both facts were wrong.
If the facts don't work for you, just change them?
Not that it really changes the overall case against the various parties, but it certainly makes your comment untruthful or incorrect.
Like I said in a different post in a different thread, no one seems to care about the legal or moral merits of the issue. This is, and shall always be about whether a person likes Apple or hates them.
We didn't need any detailed information to know that under the law, Giz dealt in stolen merchandise. Now that we have more information, and that information is damning, not one defender of Giz will back off from that defense. If anything, they will dig in deeper and become even more shrill. Even in this thread, it has been suggested that Apple somehow did something wrong. There will no doubt be some still believing that Apple owes Giz an apology. Still others believe that Apple has no rights to trade secrets, patents, or anything else contributing to their success.
When the smoke clears, perhaps sooner rather than later, I suspect that there will be a steaming crater in the internet where Giz used to be. I also suspect that someone will go to jail, but it won't be the staff of Giz. No one will be happy with the outcome. The haters who were never going to buy one of these phones will declare loudly that because of Apple's NAZI campaign agains journalism and freedom, they will never buy another Apple product. At that point, things will more or less be back to normal.
Oh, and Apple will print money even faster than they are now.
I wish I could live in that dream world. It must be nice to simply write off everyone that has a different opinion as being an Apple hater. Nice, simple fantasy world.
You just stated it: Sue.
That makes it civil.
I really can't say I know how the criminal aspect goes, but you as well as anyone should know that will be determined upon the proof available, and right now, nothing puts Jason Chen as the one responsible for obtaining (stealing) or purchasing the item.
No matter how anyone chooses to see otherwise, those are the facts.
Sigh. I'd rather not give you a treatise in law right now. So let's just assume that just because I am summarizing things for the sake of this thread, doesn't mean it's the entire statement on the law ok?
In any event, just by your stating that they can sue civilly is an admission on your part of the wrongdoing of the employee.
Based on the affidavit to the search warrant, it does appear that Chen is certainly implicit in some respects - of course everything things need to be proven! That goes without saying! The same reasons that you are attacking others for their opinions can be made to yourself.
And contrary to your last sentence, you don't know the facts, nor do any of us.
EDIT TO ADD: it appears that some of my posts are missing. I guess it doesn't matter for myself, but I do find it rather odd.
it's called, among other things, obstruction of justice.
This guy is in a lot of trouble. And the more trouble he's in, the more trouble Chen is in.
I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.
Yes and no. Chen is a big boy and he knowingly took a shady back-alley approach to "journalism". He should be hung out to dry along with anyone else who acted unethically and more so unwisely. Furthermore, I am getting fed up with the wishy-washy bullsh*t everyone spews forth (not you) about how much "good" Giz is doing for journalism. Eff Gizmodo on this one. Anyone in their position knows what trade secret is and how to treat it. They knowingly revealed trade secret. Positive ID, by them. Dissection, by them. Biased spin cover stories, by them. It was their mistake, after they knew who the rightful owner was, which according to them they knew before they wrote all of the blog posts revealing its guts. Case closed. They will suffer the consequence. If they had not said anything about knowing whose it was, they would be much, much more in the clear.
Trade Secrets
Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property. A trade secret can be a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable to the public.
Some examples of Trade Secrets are:
1. Formula for the soft drink, Coca-Cola
2. Business processes
3. Marketing Strategies
4. Food Recipes
5. Computer Algorithms
6. Prototypes
In addition, the trade secret must be of an economic advantage over a business' competitors or customers. Lastly, the owner of the trade secret must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Giz even states it was camouflaged by Apple.)
What were the trade secrets? Marketing strategy and prototypes which Giz states Apple was hiding and not intended for public knowledge. No sh*t Gizmodo, no effing sh*t. Who cares if it was Apple, if Giz did this to your company would you be happy?
So the issue is less about who stole it and more about Giz's destruction of Trade Secrecy, which is a right of all companies. Again, Giz committed this crime when they stated admission of ownership and that it was a prototype destined to be secret. Their understanding of this law is not necessary in order for them to be proven guilty.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The quotes on "stolen" above are mine, to indicate that this remains a gray area (no pun intended). Even the guy who lost it can't say for sure whether it was stolen or lost. Only Hogan knows that for sure.
Gizmodo's, Lam's, and Chen's culpability hinges on what they knew, and when they knew it. Sounds familiar doesn't it? So, the investigation rolls on. The cops now have everyone's cell phones, and computers, and assuming there is data on them to be recovered will be able to check that against everyone involved in regards to timing and conversations. Hogan is clearly the most at risk, and the tale he tells will either implicate or exculpate Gizmodo and their people. Since I am an expert, having watched lots of cop and court shows on TV, they are no doubt questioning each person separately and cross-checking everything in an attempt to catch folks lying. Lying to investigators in the course of their work is a crime in itself, I believe. So the odds are pretty high that eventually the truth will out.
At some point, Gizmodo knew the phone was real, belonged to Apple, and that they had paid to get it from someone who was not its owner. The order in which those events occurred will almost certainly be determined though physical evidence and interviews. Hogan is the key, and with an accomplice and a cooperative witness room mate both attempting to save themselves, it'll be tough for him to maintain a lie.
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
Actually you DID say he stole it in threads past. You also said HE paid for it, though I don't know how he can do both.
Now you are backtracking and just saying he was in possession.
My story still hasn't changed. Yours just did.
If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.
Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:
http://gawker.com/5539717/
Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.
Fun stuff!
This part here for instance:
... Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Doesn't seem right to me.
Gizmodo's first publication on the matter was just of some photos and one video. AFAIK the disassembly was posted either the next day or the day after that.
They make the statement (paraphrased) that "they didn't know it was real until they took it apart." But Apple, in the person of Steve Jobs, contacted them the next day after they published. It seems to me that it's inescapable that they either took it apart *after* talking to Steve Jobs (which kind of makes the statement that they had to take it apart a lie), or they took it apart before Steve Jobs called and only posted the video later (which makes everything Brian Lam said in his email to Jobs about needing "proof" a lie).
It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
My instincts tell me you are right, but I was just trying to stick to the facts in order to clear the air. Thanks for the link, fascinating reading indeed! But I came away a little less negative about Gawker--he seemed pretty even-handed and even self-critical in his follow up notes. Still, I agree with Steve.
It's going to come down to whether or not they knew it was a real Apple iPhone or not, and even if Hogan doesn't crack and tell the truth, I think someone will and the truth will come out. The important aspect of the law in that regard (as far as I understand what I've read about California law), is that the judgement is going to be made on what a reasonable person in their position would decide. Given Gizmodo's knowledge base, I don't see how they can make the argument that any reasonably competent tech journalist wouldn't know this was a real iPhone even without taking it apart, and even without the fact that Steve Jobs called them the next day and asked for it back.
It's good to maintain an open mind until all this is decided, but I can't see any way in which almost all parties on the Gizmodo side aren't quite clearly lying about what happened. They've certainly changed their stories several times already.
Even ignoring the fact that they paid $5000 for the phone to begin with (which is indicative of their knowledge), I think that if it is true that they were going to pay Hogan another $3500 later upon reveal of the real iPhone highly points to the fact that they did know.
Gizmodo's take is that they didn't know the phone was "stolen" when they paid for it. In support of that assertion they say they had no proof it was real until after they bought and disassembled it. Therefore, they only paid for an object of dubious authenticity. They may be right. To say otherwise at this point would be conjecture. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
The point that Gizmodo (and you) are missing is that it doesn't matter if it's authentic. Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law. The fact that Gizmodo paid $5 K for it makes it felony theft. It doesn't matter if it was an Apple phone or an alien artifact, it was stolen property worth $5 K.
End of story.
Gizmodo knew that Hogan didn't own it. That makes it theft under CA law.
And you know that because . . . ? Look, Gizmodo can roast in hell for all I care, I was just trying to stick to what is known vis-a-vis the public domain.
1. And I think you are engaged in classic misdirection.
2. What? Are you gonna pull a Stalin and try to go back and edit all your posts on this subject for the last month?
3. Whatever. I'm tired of sparring with you. Welcome to the ignore list. Usually I wouldn't do that, but I lose brain cells reading your posts. It's for my own senior health.
Alternative Perspective
1. FWIW HQ, from my assessment, on this Gizmodo topic and specifically the referenced post, PP is not engaging in any misdirection, classically or otherwise. Your interpretation(s) are in stark contrast to reality (obviously IMO). Breathe.
2. I've carefully read (at times in a state of mild bewilderment) and absorbed your and his posts over numerous threads on the unfolding and fascinating Gizmodo shenanigan (a charitable overstatement). Some postings are informative, few are legally enlightening, but all are characterologically illuminating. With all the respect that these have earned and are due, both your current assertion and characterization are rhetorical and offensive nonsense. Take a deep breath.
3. Defensive posturing of this magnitude would be a drain on anyone's energy. Perhaps you might consider just ceasing sparring. There are appropriate times to employ the Ignore List (perhaps now by including me!). However on the Gizmodo topic, with intelligent posters articulating similar perspectives, question whether utilizing it might simply be a dysfunctional method to limit unpleasant reality intrusions in an effort to preserve your personal worldview. Slowly exhale.
HQ, you proclaim and make inferences of high-regard for your Gizmodo analysis, while directly and inferentially disparaging lucid, logical, and contextual alternatives proffered by others. It seems to me, you vastly overrate many of the analytical capabilities you've applied to this topic. By doing so, you disservice yourself by undermining the esteem you may seek.
My comments are direct and harsh, but not intended to belittle or offend (nor to initiate sparring between us). No need to respond; just give it a thought sometime. In the meantime, let's step back and enjoy the unfolding of legal events by the career pros.
And you know that {that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan} because . . . ?
Because they friggin' said so. Sheesh.
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
Because they friggin' said so. Sheesh.
Remember the story where Hogan found it in a bar and offered to sell it to Gizmodo? And remember where that story came from? Gizmodo. That is pretty clear evidence that Gizmodo knew it didn't belong to Hogan.
They posted that story, as it was related to them by Hogan, along with their tear down story. That in no way, using rational thought, proves that they knew when they paid him that it was not his. In fact, the police report that mentions that Giz paid a portion of the money up front and reserved a subsequent payment for after the item was officially announced by Apple is a pretty strong indication that they were not certain that it was not hoax at the time they paid him. i.e. they wanted confirmation prior to paying the full amount.
This doesn't necessarily absolve them of any wrong doing, but your logic is just off. Their story of how they got their hands on it was to provide background at the time of their story. It is not evidence of them knowing it was not Hogans. The police report itself at least implies they were not certain. They paid $5k+ up front so they obviously felt pretty sure, but the amount held in reserve is evidence that they were not entirely convinced.
If anyone is tired of reading the loose thoughts and hateful remarks of "harley" here, there is a new interesting development.
Ryan Tate of Gawker got in an email fight with Steve Jobs and posted the thread here:
http://gawker.com/5539717/
Steve should probably not be answering these emails, but luckily Ryan holds up Gawker media's reputation for being douchebags and makes an idiot of himself.
Fun stuff!
Ryan Tate sounds like a real gentleman.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
You're damn right she is. Me, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone and started cooking the corpse. But then again, I choose my friends carefully.
Let me wade in as a neutral party. I think there are things we can all agree on.
I just read the entire affidavit. Also went to Gizmodo.com and watched the now infamous video as well as read their side of the story. Wow, very interesting. It'll be fascinating to see how this thing plays out.
...
Unless others correct me (as they surely will), that is pretty much all that is public at this point. We can all conjecture, but until and unless more is made public, the cops and courts have the ball.
THANK YOU for being rational.