you can also carry a gun and shoot and kill an unarmed person on your property if they're trespassing in Texas, so what's your point?
It's just a phone bro, calm down.
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.
EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you can also carry a gun and shoot and kill an unarmed person on your property if they're trespassing in Texas, so what's your point?
It's just a phone bro, calm down.
According to Gizmodo's STORY, the person that had the iPhone found the identity of the legitimate owner the very same night that he "found" the iPhone. Because, according to the STORY, the iPhone was wiped by morning.
So, outside guesstimate.... within 12 hours.
It took the thief less than 12 hours to know the identify of the person that owned the iPhone and then the thief made no attempt to return the iPhone to Gray Powell for 3.5 weeks before selling it to Gizmodo.
I'd love to hear this thief justify why he sat on the iPhone for 3.5 weeks, fully knowing who it belonged to, and then still decided to sell it for a profit.
Thief be going to jail real soon!
Mark
Dude, really, is that the best you can do?
You shoot someone on your property for trespassing because it's the law.
You cannot "find" property, not due your due diligence to locate the owner; after which you must then turn it over to the police if the owner cannot be located, then turn around and sell it. That is ILLEGAL under the law.
The raid isn't Apple's making. It's a company of marketing geniuses, and they know they have absolutely nothing to gain from this – it will brandish the company as power tripping nazis in the public's mind even though they had nothing to do with the raid. People in general want to believe such things about corporations because it fits their world view, and once they have a smoking gun like Apple's ties to REACT, they can't be talked out of it. Especially not with long, boring lectures about California law. This will tarnish Apple's image, which is worth a hell of a lot more than $5K.
It's good to see that, in our system of balances, a large company can't always bully the small guy. Sure, Apple is saving face by not prosecuting themselves, but seem to be having the D.A. do the dirty work. But, as we know, CA usually messes up somewhere when attempting to try a case. Look at the Rodney King, or O.J. mess.
When I read this story I was thinking of Lethal Weapon 2 when the villain in the movie says "I have diplomatic immunity".
'
- Someone found a prototype iPhone in a bar.
- Someone was unable to trace the owner as the firmware was remotely wiped.
- Someone called gizmodo saying they have a prototype iPhone.
- Rumors spread that it was a Japanese fake.
[*]Gizmodo buys the phone for news value and curiosity.- Gizmodo looks at the phone and is not sure if it is a fake or real.
- Gizmodo opens it up and finds that the components are a close match to what apple uses and hence concludes it is real (as they mentioned in their post)
- At this point they know that it is real and then it is returned to Apple.
Will that not sell in the court?
I think it's all a big over reaction. Apple should probably be more careful and just shut up!
You are still ignoring the fact completely that it makes no different if this was an Apple iPhone or a Rolex Phone. The seller had no legal right to sell it and as such Gizmodo had no legal right to buy it.
So your excuse is it didnt hurt too much and so therefor theft and leaking of trade secrets isn't that big of a crime. And I am also assuming you can show proof that its 8 weeks till we see this device for sale? You seem pretty sure of that when you claim it. Amazing that you know a release date that Apple hasn't announced
Either way, I think Apple come off looking bad guys. Firstly, one of THEIR employees loses a prototype device. Yes, Gizmodo paid for and pulled the device apart online for everyone to see, but they complied with Apples written request for return (what was the time delay between first reveal online and the letter?). Now Apple are happy to sit quietly in the deep background, looking like the Dark Lords themselves, Microsoft allowing seizures of equipment, threats of criminal procedings, etc. Looks like other people are going to suffer for the extreme paranoia coming top down at Apple.
Sorry, I like their kit, but the corporate mentality that seems to exist there now doesn't bear any resemblance to the two young maverick phone freakers of the 70's that created Apple
Apple are the ones who come out of this looking bad, having had the largest amount of free pre-publicity for the new iPhone they could have hoped for!
Apple can not interfere in a criminal investigation. And whether the person who lost the phone is an Apple employee or not does not make anything the seller or buyer did legal or right. They reported a crime as anyone is expected to do.
Very interesting
They might be guilty of receiving and buying knowingly stolen property. Also, Intellectual property by opening, photographing knowing that this a preproduction unit can be considered theft. Heck not a lawyer, but it is always interesting to see that those with deep pockets... We'll just have to see where this goes in the courts....
They might be guilty of receiving and buying knowingly stolen property. Also, Intellectual property by opening, photographing knowing that this a preproduction unit can be considered theft. Heck not a lawyer, but it is always interesting to see that those with deep pockets... We'll just have to see where this goes in the courts....
Actually its simple. Government papers are owned by the government which in turn is owned by the Public. And Gizmodo would have to be able to prove that by publishing the information they published it was in the best interests of the public. Good luck to them on proving that they were looking out for the public by posting that.
Giz and chen will get what they deserve. You don't obtain property that doesn't belong to you. I Don't care if it's a phone or what have you. Wrong is wrong but i know some people are using this issue. As as vessel of their hate for apple.
Knowing about "possible crimes" would be clearly in the public interest. The journalist would have all the protection in the world. Knowing about Apple's plans may be something that the public is interested in ("interested" as in "nosy"), but it is not in the public interest. So there is no protection to be gained from that angle.
In case of a document with Apple's product plans (not in the public interest), the value of the document would be unimportant, but the corporation likely has the copyright on the document, so publishing it would copyright infringement, as would be photographing it, scanning it, writing down a copy of the contents. $30,000 to $150,000 maximum statutory damages or whatever you can prove. (However, a journalist would be allowed to read the document and then describe what is inside in their own words. Copyright covers the words used, and not the contents).
A big difference is that Gizmodo gained a lot of knowledge by opening the phone, which they had no right to do. Everything contained inside was most likely still protected as a trade secret, and that could cost Gizmodo dearly.
That's not even close to what Cervaro was saying. He said "Apple come off looking like bad guys". Not Apple are the bad guys.
This story has been picked up by media around the world who normally don't write about Apple (I posted an example of a Swedish newspaper article about it earlier, and they put it on the front page, not the tech pages). There's a human element and the media loves that, and the angle so far is more or less "big nazi corporation uses public resources to ransack home of poor nerd because the nazis can't keep track of their own prototypes, wants nerd behind bars." Apple's link to REACT is mentioned, so the casual reader will interpret it as Apple having their own private SS keeping Californians in check and transferring bloggers to concentration camps. True? No, but that doesn't matter when it comes to good stories. It's all about perception, not truth.
You could always try to talk sense into the bandwagon, but unfortunately it's going to play out something like this:
- Apple = nazis.
- No, you don't understand, it was the DA who...
- Apple = nazis.
- But California law states that...
- Apple = nazis.
- Apple cannot interfere with a criminal investigation...
- Apple = nazis.
- But it *was* illegal to buy the phone for $5K so Gizmodo *did* commit...
- Apple = nazis.
It's a lose-lose situation for Apple. The only thing they have a shot at winning is the case, but that will only generate more badwill.
I Disagree with this. I Went to see my grandparents who really don't use computers and talked told them about this. And even they think Giz/Chen is the culprit.
The other thing you have to remember to is that 5,000 dollars is alot of money to most people. And some people may get pissed that someone wasted that kind of money on a prototype of a phone. I Don't really think Apple is going to look bad in this.
Basic common sense shows that you don't obtain stolen property. I Think it will be the anti-apple fanboys who want apple to look bad. But they won't or maybe they will to the anti-apple faction on Macforums. But then again they don't really count.
This does not appear to be quite as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795/print
You'd think this was MacFacts instead of MacRumors with all the blind arrogance people exhibit on here.
Here is the conversation between the Apple employee and the guy:
Apple: Good morning sir, how can I help you?
Guy: I have an iPhone.
Apple: Yes... (most people call having an iPhone, iPod or Mac).
Guy: It is your iPhone.
Apple: Yes... (Of course it is made by Apple)
Guy: I want to return it.
Apple: Is anything wrong with your iPhone? (Seems an unhappy customer).
Guy: It doesn't work.
Apple: Where did you buy your phone (easiest to go back to the shop and swap it for one that works).
Guy: I didn't buy it.
Apple: (Confused)
Guy: And it doesn't look like the iPhones on your website.
Apple: (Very confused) Do you have a purchase receipt?
Guy: I said it is an Apple iPhone.
Apple: (More confused) Yes I know. You can't return your phone without a purchase receipt.
Guy: So you don't want to take the phone back?
Apple: You can't return your phone without a purchase receipt.
Now someone with a bit more talent than I have should be able to turn this into a really funny sketch.
Yeah, because they had it explained to them by you, and given your pro-Apple stance I don't think you could possibly tell the story in an unbiased manner. Most people will get the media version which depending on factors like country, political bias etc will be told differently.
Actually i did give them an unbiased version. And you don't know me personally so you don't know what i can or cannot do. Let's talk about this now. Seems like your idea of Unbiased would be someone who hates apple. I Don't hate apple and if that makes me a fanboy in your eyes. Then oh well. Because i could care less what you think.
But you don't know me or anything about my life and i would suggest that you don't comment like you do.
Have a nice day