If Gray Powell, Apple employee, had not been in a bar drinking and had been half way responsible and alert, none of this would have happened. It seems that the irresponsibility and carelessness of Apple is being overlooked. Gee, let me get a little drunk and leave a top secret iPhone prototype laying around for anyone to see and take it. But don't touch it - you'll be a felon otherwise. Chen and Gizmodo were being opportunistic over Apple carelessness. They didn't steal the device, they didn't coerce the Apple employee to leave the device at the bar. They didn't get the Apple employee drunk in hopes of taking the device. Apple needs to take responsibility for their carelessness instead of trying to blame someone else. Will it hurt sales? Maybe. But it's not Gizmodo's fault - it's Gray Powell's fault.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Details of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Saga Revealed in Search Warrant Affidavit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You either didn't read the previous comments and the affidavit or you are just trolling.
If i were this guy, and was responsible for this phone, i'd keep a very close eye on it. He was careless. Really nothing to do with being in a bar. It could have happened in a food store. He didn't make sure it was safe. Of course, it should have been returned to him and the kid that took it and Gizmodo should pay. and yes, he did take it. If i found a diamond ring at a bar, i'd give it to the bar "lost and found".... you know whoever lost that is flipping out trying to find it. If i took the diamond ring home, i'd feel like a thief.
You are trolling - or ?
You see ONE issue. There are at least FIVE.
1) Carelessness by an employee. This is not a crime, even if it is 100% true, valid, undisputed, shocking, etc. This is an internal matter for Apple and they decide on the outcome - not you or me, the police or anyone else.
2) Knowingly selling a lost/found item that isn't yours. Not to mention possessing it for several days without contacting the known owner. He knew who it belonged to and spent his time contacting buyers vs. contacting the owner.
3) Buying a lost/found item that you know doesn't belong to the seller. Again, probably aware of who the known owner is (employee & Apple). It's now akin to buying stolen property.
4) Damaging the property of another.
5) Knowingly trying to hide evidence. Removing computers, etc.
6) Disseminating and publishing trade secrets. This last one isn't just taking pictures of something in plain view. It involves breaking open a device that knowingly belongs to the owner/inventor/producer (again "stolen") of such product with the intent to publish trade secrets that are inside. Keep in mind, the phone had been disguised. Thus, there were "layers" that were breached in order to gain access to such trade secrets.
you are the one missing the point
If a drunk guy leaves his computer in the street, his car unlocked, or his wallet laying around, and any of it is stolen by somebody, no matter how irresponsible the drunk man was to begin with, it is still a theft. Stop defending crooks, that is why this world is the way it is today.
If a drunk guy leaves his computer in the street, his car unlocked, or his wallet laying around, and any of it is stolen by somebody, no matter how irresponsible the drunk man was to begin with, it is still a theft. Stop defending crooks, that is why this world is the way it is today.
Yet another Gawker apologist distorting the known facts and trying to blame the victim. It was a restaurant, not a bar. No evidence suggests even "a little drunk" so stop that distortion. It was disguised to look like a 3Gs so didn't matter who saw it, unless the crooks were targeting Powell because they knew/suspected he was a tester. And past products have had over a hundred field testers. Testers probably have been using various prototypes as primary phones for months. You treat it like your phone. Obviously could have been "more careful" and checked backpack before leaving, but absolutely nothing to suggest carelessness. And as far as it being Powell's fault and not Gizmodo's, try telling that to the judge!
Considering that the police warrant was issued THREE weeks ago, there is the likelihood that the police have had more conversations with the roommates, Hogan and others. Thus, there are many things that WE still don't know yet.
1. Hogan and roommates giving more information/evidence that we don't know about. This assumes none of them have "lawyered up" or gone silent.
2. E-mails on Hogan's computer (which the police already have) detailing conversations Hogan may have had with the other tech magazines and tech bloggers. These could further implicate Hogan. E-mails to and from Chen might also be on Hogan's computer. Hogan's computer is not subject to ANY shield laws.
3. Texts or anything similar on Hogan's phone (or any other phone the police collected thus far).
4. Conversations the police may have already had with Chen and Gizmodo, assuming that they aren't silent. Of course, the police might be delaying these conversations until after further testimony is taken from other sources. It might depend upon who the police really want to "go after" in all of this. And, there might be fights we don't know about (behind the scenes) concerning Chen's computers and his journalist rights.
4. The three conversations that Hogan and Chen apparently had (per the roommate). The police quite possibly have asked Hogan and/or Chen about these conversations. The contents of these conversations might implicate Hogan and/or Chen in some way.
Again, it's been 3 weeks. There is a lot of potential "evidence" that the police have collected since then. At a minimum, further conversations with Hogan and the 2 roommates might have produced more information. And, there are the e-mails on Hogan's computer, the cell phones that the police have, etc. We only know part of the story. I'm sure that many things are happening vs. dust settling.
1. Hogan and roommates giving more information/evidence that we don't know about. This assumes none of them have "lawyered up" or gone silent.
2. E-mails on Hogan's computer (which the police already have) detailing conversations Hogan may have had with the other tech magazines and tech bloggers. These could further implicate Hogan. E-mails to and from Chen might also be on Hogan's computer. Hogan's computer is not subject to ANY shield laws.
3. Texts or anything similar on Hogan's phone (or any other phone the police collected thus far).
4. Conversations the police may have already had with Chen and Gizmodo, assuming that they aren't silent. Of course, the police might be delaying these conversations until after further testimony is taken from other sources. It might depend upon who the police really want to "go after" in all of this. And, there might be fights we don't know about (behind the scenes) concerning Chen's computers and his journalist rights.
4. The three conversations that Hogan and Chen apparently had (per the roommate). The police quite possibly have asked Hogan and/or Chen about these conversations. The contents of these conversations might implicate Hogan and/or Chen in some way.
Again, it's been 3 weeks. There is a lot of potential "evidence" that the police have collected since then. At a minimum, further conversations with Hogan and the 2 roommates might have produced more information. And, there are the e-mails on Hogan's computer, the cell phones that the police have, etc. We only know part of the story. I'm sure that many things are happening vs. dust settling.
Anyone can lose an item. It's not something that you intend to happen and you'd rather it hadn't happened. I imagine that anyone losing something of value that belongs to someone else would be worrying themselves sick about where it could be etc. and be hoping that whoever finds it would hand it in.
You are wrong again...IT IS A BAR...it is advertised as a bar/pub by the owners themselves. Just so you do not hurt yourself by having to do a little research, I have provided a link for you to see for yourself.
http://www.gourmethausstaudt.com/blog/
The sell food only four days a week. Also I have enclosed the link of what the "owner" of the pub has to say about it in his own words. He never refers to his families establishment as a restaurant but as a PUB.
http://www.gourmethausstaudt.com/update_blog/
If you are going to continue to cut people down and insult them then at least have your facts straight. You have every right to express "your opinion" just as other posters have a right to express theirs, but do it with facts and evidence.
Thank You
You should therefore know, if you've done your research correctly, that the establishment has declared itself to be a restaurant to its advertisers, and business filing.
The establishment has a bar component, but is a part of the restaurant.
Thank You
You should therefore know, if you've done your research correctly, that the establishment has declared itself to be a restaurant to its advertisers, and business filing.
The establishment has a bar component, but is a part of the restaurant.
Thank You
Source? I provided my proof, where is yours?
The owner of this "beer garden" doesn't seem to be much of an Apple fan per his May 4th post (first few paragraphs).
-----
Just because you go to a "beer garden" doesn't mean you leave drunk. Even if you left in a beer-induced coma (which obviously doesn't apply here) it doesn't give anyone the right to sell your lost phone.
You are amazing! Where's the insult in mccldwll's post? And who are you defending by saying "to do it with facts and evidence"? Look at the comment mccldwll was responding to:
Half-way responsible - assumption. Blaming the whole thing on the victim.
Little drunk - assumption.
Laying around for anyone to see and take it - it was in a bag.
Incorrect. Failing to return the device, selling it, etc.
Didn't steal the device? Please educate yourself.
Didn't coerce the Apple employee - don't even know how to respond to this.
Powell's carelessness somehow makes the others innocent?
What were you saying about facts, evidence and doing a little research?
You are wrong again...IT IS A BAR...it is advertised as a bar/pub by the owners themselves. Just so you do not hurt yourself by having to do a little research, I have provided a link for you to see for yourself.
http://www.gourmethausstaudt.com/blog/
The sell food only four days a week. Also I have enclosed the link of what the "owner" of the pub has to say about it in his own words. He never refers to his families establishment as a restaurant but as a PUB.
http://www.gourmethausstaudt.com/update_blog/
If you are going to continue to cut people down and insult them then at least have your facts straight. You have every right to express "your opinion" just as other posters have a right to express theirs, but do it with facts and evidence.
Thank You
Don't know what part of the world you live in, but establishments such as that that stay open until 10p.m. only 4 night per week, the nights they serve good food, are much more like restaurants than bars. The latter generally are open until midnight or 1 a.m. (when local ordinances make them close) 6 or 7 nights per week, and don't serve much beyond burgers or sandwiches. And the Sunday brunch certainly is not a bar type event. These restaurants/brew-pubs are very common and popular around the country since they generally have excellent food in a more casual atmosphere. Continually calling it a bar as the Gawkers do is an attempt to paint a false picture of the setting.
The affidavit references the establishment as a restaurant first, Yahoo! Travel lists as restaurant, their facebook group lists services in order os prevalence on-site.
More importantly, the website describes itself as a cafe, not a bar as you said.
Livestrong - restaurant.
CA Deutch - restaurant.
His first sentence is an offense to me and others...I have NOT, DO NOT and have never stated in ANY of my posts that I support Gawker!!! I have repeatedly said that the COURTS will decide who is/is NOT guilty not MacRumors Forum Posters!
Obviously you are not observant, my location is right under my name in plain sight. I understand and can openly see your point, HOWEVER, the owner himself, all advertising and the web site refer to this establishment as a BEER GARDEN and STORE. The owner also refers to his own establishment as a PUB. No one is attempting to paint any false pictures...it is FACT and you are the individual that is trying to change the meaning of what and where this whole incident took place. It is in the links...how more factual can a person get for you? I guess maybe getting the owner to call you and tell you, of course that would not work either because you would say it wasnt the owner. Wow, simply amazing example of tunnel vision.
And by the way...they are not even OPEN on Sunday...shows you did not even read what I offered you.
So what the OWNER of his OWN establishment and his OWN web site mean nothing? Another example of tunnel vision...totally amazing!
If you're referring to the write-up, that appears to be by Chuck Lenatti, and Indy writer, and linked by the restaurant because it says nice things about the place. Don't forget that Gawker is in the biz of paying people to write things.
Yes. You've consistently demonstrated tunnel vision (thought generally a narrower and winding tunnel).
I found a lost phone in a parking lot. I took it home and waited for someone to call. A friend of the phone's owner called and I informed him that I had found the phone. We exchanged information and the owner of the phone picked up his property the next afternoon. I received $20 and a handshake. I'm sure Apple would have paid more than $20 for the return of their phone.
Brian Hogan and Thomas Warner behaved like the lowest of Dickensian criminal scum. They tried to hide the evidence of their crime. They lied to the police. Jason "Fagin" Chen was in the gutter beside them.
Brian Hogan and Thomas Warner behaved like the lowest of Dickensian criminal scum. They tried to hide the evidence of their crime. They lied to the police. Jason "Fagin" Chen was in the gutter beside them.
I am using facts and not insulting people by calling them Gawkers. If you can tell me with proof...where the OWNER and/or his website calls it a restaurant or cafe instead of a Store, Beer Garden or Pub then I will open my mind to your reasoning. I have watched all of your posts throughout this entire thread and you have NEVER provided FACT on tunnel visioned assumption and opinion. Support what you say with fact and dont be so insulting to others that may have different opinions then you...calling them names does not reflect your true intelligence which is obvious but lacking because of how you treat people.
Yep, you seem to have that, or are you only selecting information? Obviously
How could I forget, people aren't so intelligent to see the whole picture sometimes, not that it is a direct insult to you, becauase it isn't.Registration for establishment:
Gourmet Haus Staudt Gifts & Cafe
Oh what's this? It's a cafe? Cafe != pub/place where people get drunk. Usually, when people get drunk, they are asked to leave, regardless of establishment.
Second, you might have noticed that the website isn't very informative at all, it links to its Facebook page/group, which again, lists food above drink.
Yep, you seem to have that, or are you only selecting information? Obviously
Registration for establishment:
Gourmet Haus Staudt Gifts & Cafe
Oh what's this? It's a cafe? Cafe != pub/place where people get drunk. Usually, when people get drunk, they are asked to leave, regardless of establishment.
Second, you might have noticed that the website isn't very informative at all, it links to its Facebook page/group, which again, lists food above drink.
I found the site at Yelp. I actually saw a picture showing they charge over $5 US a pint.
Yep, you seem to have that, or are you only selecting information? Obviously
Registration for establishment:
Gourmet Haus Staudt Gifts & Cafe
Oh what's this? It's a cafe? Cafe != pub/place where people get drunk. Usually, when people get drunk, they are asked to leave, regardless of establishment.
Second, you might have noticed that the website isn't very informative at all, it links to its Facebook page/group, which again, lists food above drink.
Proof?
Another thing you are not taking into consideration: ANY establishment that is a Bar, Pub, Restaurant, Cafe or anything that is related will ALWAYS associate those key words to their establishment to gain google/bing search hits and customers that are searching on the iPhone for Drinking or Dinner. This does not mean that the owner refers to his/her establishment as other then what it is and in this case he refers to his establishment as a Pub or Beer Garden, not a restaurant.
Obviously his website is informative enough to let patrons know that it is a Beer Garden that sells many forms of authentic German Beer and a Store that sells German ingredients and things necessary to make German related recipes. It is a nice clean website that meets its purpose and that is to define his establishment and business for German Beer Con sours and a School for students desiring to learn how to make German Beer.
I've been there. It's a pub. It's a place where many people go for food, and many people go for drink. Just like a British pub. When I was there, no one was noticeably drunk.