I'm surprised no one has mentioned something quite obvious in relation to how much this "hurts" Apple. Folks have been bandying about how this is "good for Apple" due to all the hype, or how it's bad for Apple because folks will now sit on their purchase (like they wouldn't have done this anyway). But what about the fact that Apple's competitors now have three additional months to work on their next phones to counter the new iphone? I would think that that is the biggest source of damage to Apple, they've effectively lost three months of their competition having to wait to see what Apple will release next. They've lost 3 months of their product cycle due to this.
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
What does this have to do with anything? The issue isn't whether or not I'd be upset (who wouldn't be?), the issue is whether or not it was acceptable practice to take the phone into a bar (which was actually more like a restaurant) in the first place. Since kdarling just owned pretty much anyone making retarded holier-than-though "he was irresponsible for bringing it to the bar!" arguments, I'd say that particular issue can be laid to rest.
I mean honestly, this 'site is called 'MacRumours' - it's not a soap opera! Who cares whether someones obtained the warrant to find a missing iPhone, big deal.
Besides, there's a separate page named 'iPhone' on the top bar. Why not put all this crud there in stead of the 'Mac Rumours' page?
Besides, there's a separate page named 'iPhone' on the top bar. Why not put all this crud there in stead of the 'Mac Rumours' page?
Not only that, but they refused to return it -- even after they opened it and knew conclusively -- unless Apple sent them a confirmation letter, which they openly admitted would mean a huge story/money for them. To say nothing of the demand for better access in the future.
In my opinion, they clearly knew what they had, and they thought Apple wouldn't want to bear the brunt of negative publicity that an investigation would bring.
They thought wrong.
Way to make up a non-applicable example.
Paying $5000 for a phone with a bonus if it's an Apple phone does not imply any knowledge that the phone is an Apple phone.
the whole thing never would have happened if he was smart enough and took more pre-cautions.
For those who've come in late, let us repeat this important fact one more time:
Official iPhone testing is allowed in bars.
As this article talked about for the testing of the original iPhone:
As for trusting young men with things like this, an iPhone prototype pales in comparison with some of the very expensive and dangerous military gear that much younger soldiers, sailors and airmen are entrusted with. And you know what? They get a LOT drunker than Gray ever will
So field testing is allowed in bars. I think he should have been more careful with a priceless gadget. Also, not using it at a bar doesn't screw up the testing. Using it in NY city is a good test. Using it everywhere BUT a bar and other dangerous places would have been fine.
Project much? There isn't anything to indicate that the engineer had too much to drink or was "smashed".
3 Possible felonies == 3 Strikes
I do recall pointing out the multiple felonies enacted and it's clear the Law seems to concur.
I do recall pointing out the multiple felonies enacted and it's clear the Law seems to concur.
Clever. Pointing the the legally challenged Gizz as the source.
Got an independent source for the intoxication?
Of course it does. You need to look up what "knowledge" means with respect to the mens rea for receiving stolen goods in California. "Knowing" something does not require absolute certainty under the law.
And you declaring it "non-applicable" (not a word, by the way) doesn't make it so.
NO, IT'S NOT!
It's the theft and passing on of trade secrets. It's industrial espionage!
The site is called MacRumors, not MacRumours.
Also, the MacRumors editors are putting this on the front page because they (like other tech media publishers) worship the Almighty Pageview. Thank you for contributing to this article's hit count.
Support... or benefit of the doubt? We had very little information to go on, it was 25% hearsay and 75% speculation. Anyone who was ready to deliver the final verdict based on that little information was wrong, no matter whether they were on the "it's just a phone!" end or the rabid lynch mob end of the spectrum.
You need to look up what "knowledge" means in the first place. The issue isn't whether or not they're guilty of buying a stolen phone (which they clearly are), but a bonus *if* it's an Apple phone clearly implies they were hedging their bets. Sorry.
Correct. But being non-applicable does make it so.
Stop digging. You're not getting anywhere.
Any single place outside of Apple campus is a "dangerous place". In a cab. In a car. In an office building. ANYWHERE. Seriously, think about it.
And don't even get me started on the "it's Powell's fault" defense. Powell didn't take the phone and give it to an unscrupulous jerkweed. Powell didn't shop the phone around to gadget blogs. Powell didn't spent over $8000 for a phone he knew was stolen, and he he most certainly didn't disassemble the phone and post it up on the Internet.
The crime happened because he lost the phone, but the crime wasn't inevitable because he lost the phone. By your logic, gun manufacturers are to blame when somebody is shot, and woman to be blamed when they are assaulted.
Just stop it. Please.
To drive your point home, as far as the law goes, they only had to have a reasonable suspicion that it wasn't the finder's phone. Even if the true owner was a complete mystery, it's all the same.
Huh? What it shows is they were not only aware that it could be an Apple phone, but they wanted it to be so. It was their intent that it be an Apple phone.
And your "which they clearly are" appears to mean you think that receiving stolen goods is a general intent crime. It's not. Specific intent is required, which is why the legal definition of "knowledge' is the only definition that is relevant.
In this case it is. Which is why there is so much kerfuffle about it.
But the conviction is simply over a stolen mobile phone. No other mobile would get so much attention from the police.