cvaldes said:
Oh yeah, that proves it...
"I forgot how good X was..." proves that I am consuming copious amounts of X.
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
Oh yeah, that proves it...
"I forgot how good X was..." proves that I am consuming copious amounts of X.
No other phone would have been taken apart and put on the internet, then have evidence scattered all over the bay with suspects making themselves known. It's a fairly unique stolen cell phone situation.
Gizmodo Fail, BIG TIME! After reading that list of who done it (great read by the way!) Gizmodo doesn't have a leg to stand on. How stupid could you get. To know all that about tech and trade secrets etc. and then think that after plugging the thing in (fail) you could illegally flog it (fail) and boast about it in a video (fail fail fail). Versus lets say, handing it in to Apple politely and quietly asking Steve if there was any reward or anything? Damn how stupid could you get?! They all deserve the slamer big time, let them contemplate the rocks in their heads.... Now I really want to know who gets the movie rights to this! This is good stuff!
I just read the whole thing.
What this amounts to is what I've said before. It is nothing less than corporate espionage. Jason Chen and the other two guys deserve to go to prison. Period.
Oh.. you can toss in conspiracy to commit fraud too.
What this amounts to is what I've said before. It is nothing less than corporate espionage. Jason Chen and the other two guys deserve to go to prison. Period.
Oh.. you can toss in conspiracy to commit fraud too.
Bombshell !
Based on documents, the journalism freedom of speech defense is flimsy at most. Among others listed in the affidavit, serious alleged crimes justifying search and seizure may include:
1. Conspiracy.
2. Extortion.
3. Theft of trade secrets. (Max $5M penalty.)
Based on documents, the journalism freedom of speech defense is flimsy at most. Among others listed in the affidavit, serious alleged crimes justifying search and seizure may include:
1. Conspiracy.
2. Extortion.
3. Theft of trade secrets. (Max $5M penalty.)
Hey, I'm just presenting the facts; if other people want to reach conclusions, there's nothing I can do about that.
You've been here long enough, you should know that some people here are severely logic-challenged.
The conditional payment is far less important than the actual amounts. If they were seriously unsure that the phone was authentic, why weren't the amounts something like $500 now, $8000 if it turns out to be real? $500 for a phone you have strong belief is a fake is more than generous. $5000 for a phone you really think is a fake is downright implausible.
The fact that Gizmodo paid almost 60% of the full $8500 upfront is strong evidence that they knew they had the Real Thing. You focus purely on the "if" but while ignoring the amounts and the way the deal was structured. Anybody willing to pay most of the amount upfront knows what he is buying, certainly knows to a high enough degree that it meets the test of knowledge under the law. If you're genuinely not sure, why would you agree to that? You'd pay less upfront and more later AFTER the conditional event has been fulfilled. But that's not how Gizmodo paid up. If you're a juror, how Gizmodo structured the deal is certainly legitimate evidence of of their knowledge that they had an authentic prototype.
You got this backwards: this conditional payment is actually MORE proof, not less, that Gizmodo knew that it was buying an authentic Apple prototype.
Exactly. Hiding evidence in churches and in bushes. Bounties if it's a trade secret. Extortion before returning it. Talk about unclean hands...
You should know I was not responding to you, but including your post for clarity as it wouldn't be included in my quote.
I bet they won't, more like a few weeks or months in county jail and probation. The finder might escape jail if they need his testimony to convict anyone in NY, but it sounds like the computer evidence will take care of that.
Did they ever figure out if they can search the seized equipment?
The link from CBS credits Gizz for Gray Powell's Facebook post about the beer.
So, we're back to Gizz as the source, and the Facebook statement that may or may not imply intoxication (I don't see that that is does).
Either way, the rest of the story is probably less than accurate, knowing now what we know of Hogan.
Full support. Pick any of the hundreds of pages at random in the half dozen threads and you will see righteous and indignant defence of this guy and Chen for doing everything above board, returning the phone to Apple when asked, buying the 'story' not the phone, Apple being an evil corporation while these two were just honest angels, it's 1984 all over again etc. Gee, what a letdown this Hogan must be right now for many people.
The majority of the rabid lynch mob on the other hand weren't actually going out on a limb at all. Most just stating simple laws based on what was known, ie if you find it then it's a crime to sell it, Apple has a right to call in the police, etc, without needing to put blind faith in anything.
As with all accidents, lots of things could've or should've happened.
For examples:
- Powell could've used a lanyard to keep it on his wrist.
- He could've somehow avoided being distracted when he stood up and laid the phone down on his barstool.
- Apple should've put a "call for return reward" sticker on all the prototypes. Apple could've not had bugs in OS 4.0 that prevented remote locating.
However, anyone who's been alive long enough, has mislaid something valuable like a phone or a wallet or keys. It happens. And I don't think Apple really even minded that much until Gizmodo got hold of it.
Oops, sorry but this is not the Mac Rumours site. It's the MacRumors forum. Check to see who the creatour or factour is. Maybe the authour is a minour.
Hey genius, did you ever stop to think that maybe it was part of the guy's job to take the phone with him so he could, you know, test it? Sorry, but you failed.Is my iPhone 3Gs the next priceless prototype? I don't think so. When ever i go places like to a pool, or dances at the YMCA, my 3GS stays at home, and that cheap ass Nokia comes with me. Why can't the immature drinker do just that? Sorry, but you failed.
Doubtful. Apple doesn't want anything to distract from iPad until the final iPhone HD is released.
Then again, if it actually was orchestrated by Apple, it's absolutely brilliant. By bringing the cops in, things get slowed down to a crawl as all the parties hire lawyers and prepare themselves to go to court (or flee the country, if Daring Fireball's report on Jesus Diaz is true). The net effect is that this case won't be resolved until long after the iPhone HD is announced, released, and has sold millions. It has effectively been delayed until after the months-long iPhone HD announce / release / promote / sell cycle.
On the other hand, it's built huge buzz (at least among the Apple rumor sites and geek-oriented blogs). For free. This is the kind of publicity Ballmer and Microsoft would kill for.
Kids !
These kids were obviously in major panic mode. Those were a few lousy hours for them and their family. I'm not sure what infuriates me the most here. Between the girlfriend who turned them in, the father who allaowed the police into his home, the kid consenting to any type of search, the other kid waiving his miranda rights and this whole episode is just a comedy of errors. Clearly Apple is sending a message of intimidation here and I do not expect them to just 'forget about it' at this point. And why should they really.
These kids were obviously in major panic mode. Those were a few lousy hours for them and their family. I'm not sure what infuriates me the most here. Between the girlfriend who turned them in, the father who allaowed the police into his home, the kid consenting to any type of search, the other kid waiving his miranda rights and this whole episode is just a comedy of errors. Clearly Apple is sending a message of intimidation here and I do not expect them to just 'forget about it' at this point. And why should they really.
Everything that can be said about this probably has been at this point, but I'll bring it up since I don't remember seeing it mentioned.
If there's any possibility that this phone is not this years model, but next years....or more to the point, that it potentially contains components not yet ready for prime time this year, it makes the damages that Apple might face all the more epic.
They mentioned that Apple considered the phone "invaluable". While I'm sure the 2010 phone is (even with a leak 2 months too early), I am CERTAIN the 2011 phone would be.
Both the 2010 and 2011 phones could have the same outer shell. Thinking out loud....
If there's any possibility that this phone is not this years model, but next years....or more to the point, that it potentially contains components not yet ready for prime time this year, it makes the damages that Apple might face all the more epic.
They mentioned that Apple considered the phone "invaluable". While I'm sure the 2010 phone is (even with a leak 2 months too early), I am CERTAIN the 2011 phone would be.
Both the 2010 and 2011 phones could have the same outer shell. Thinking out loud....
Maybe, but once the criminal case is disposed of, the real pain starts. The civil suits are going to impoverish these thieves for a long time to come.
Knuckleheads
Oh they're here somewhere.
Probably thinking about the next statement they're going to make maybe along the lines of "we didn't have the complete facts at the time we made our statement" or some other crud. Sheesh.
I'm waiting for the argument that Chen should never of had his apartment ransacked!
Where are the numskulls who think that neither of these guys did anything wrong?
Or are they all still in that previous thread?
Oh they're here somewhere.
Probably thinking about the next statement they're going to make maybe along the lines of "we didn't have the complete facts at the time we made our statement" or some other crud. Sheesh.
I'm waiting for the argument that Chen should never of had his apartment ransacked!
He was out with his uncle. Maybe you're a binge, drink-til-you-pass-out drinker every time you go out. The rest of us aren't helpless drunks and can function just fine at a bar without being fumbling in the dark buffoons.
