LOL @ "my side"Two of the most vocal people who have been arguing your side of things here are lawyers.
Easy tiger, it's Shakespeare.
LOL @ "my side"Two of the most vocal people who have been arguing your side of things here are lawyers.
LOL @ "my side"
Easy tiger, it's Shakespeare.
Exactly, dude! This is so like my situation -- I was outside a Detroit bar when I saw this cool looking Corvette unlocked with the keys inside. I asked a guy in the bar bathroom if he knew who it belonged to, but he said he didn't, so I drove it home. The car looked kinda funny, and when I removed some side panels, I found out it was actually a new unreleased 'Vette hybrid! I think some Chevy engineer must have been test-driving it, then drank too much when he stopped off at the bar and took a cab home instead of the car -- the engineer left his driver's license in the car. Well, my buddy said he'd try to call the local Chevy dealer's service department to see if they'd take the car back, but apparently they didn't know anything about it, so I figured instead that I could sell it to Road & Track and make some pretty sweet cash! They disassembled it and wrote about on their website, and jeez, the next thing I know frickin' GM knocks on the door asking about the frickin' thing! Fortunately my roommate knows all about the law, and says they can't go in the garage! Only now GM has bribed the cops to come by my house asking all sorts of questions. I just don't frickin' get it -- those bastards at GM have totally blown this out of proportion! Frickin' fascists!
Ever hear the urban legend of the Toothbrush Bandits? Yeah, that's what Gizmodo did to Apple.]
Yeah, I know the quote.
When I was robbed at gun point, and my iPhone taken from me, I didn't get ANY response from the police. The police had the full ability to track my phone (I even alerted them when I could see the phone had been used), and yet they closed the case the minute it was opened.
No, the implication is only in your somewhat stubborn mind. Sorry for moving beyond Hogan long before we even had his name, but in my view he's just the MacGuffin in a much bigger story, and wherever that story is, "I want to go to there" (sic).But when you say something like "Is it really that much to ask that they put a simple, anonymous "if found, call this number" sticker on this billion-dollar thing, instead of leaving it blank?" you are clearly implying that Apple let this poor guy down by not doing a better job of preventing him (or discouraging him) from lifting the phone and selling it to Gizmodo.
Oooh man. This is some deep poo poo for him. Though, to be honest, I would have done the exact same thing. Most likely would have sold it to Gizmodo.
I don't have a side in this.
The one thing I hate more than thieves are liars.
They need this lawyer...only way it can get stranger:
"...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a bunch of guys that sold a prototype to a goofy gadget site, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Hey, it worked for O.J.!
Toothbrush Bandits? This is an urban legend already!?
After watching this whole mess go down in flames for everyone involved, this could have gone down much better. Considering how long it was since the iPhone was found compared to Gizmodo actually publishing the photos, this is how I see this scenario going down less risky for Brian Hogan, Jason Chen and Gizmodo.
Once the phone was found and discovered to be a prototype, Brian can let Gizmodo "review" the phone for a day or...
Well, yes, but that's my very point. Should I sleep better at night knowing the police are more interested in propitiating large conglomerates instead of pursuing legitimate threats to our safety?
A reevaluation of priorities is in order.
So the first guy who hasn't done anything morally questionable for $5000, which includes considering the implications of every transaction leading to that $5000 entering your pocket, please cast the first stone.
<readying catapult>
IMO the amount of tax money spent on this fiasco is way out of control. DA, React, etc.
You can't begin to think that this much effort would be put into play if you lost your cell phone, now would you?
Just my guess, this kid will get a slap on the wrist, probation, and 20 Hail Marys.
Chen will probably get screwed, unless the courts decide that he really is a journalist and the evidence is not allowed.
Honestly, I think people are being way too hard on him.
I think this misses the point. Apple could just as reasonably said "thank you" and closed the door. It's not about where the money is, it's about where the ethics are...I'm willing to bet that he would have been richer and better off calling Apple instead of Gizmodo. Can you imagine how grateful they would have been to get a prototype back?
Yeah, this is not really an easy case in the real world. To convict the kid, you have to convince 12 semi-random people sitting on the jury to unanimously agree that: (1) asking around the bar for the phone's owner; and (2) calling Apple; were not "reasonable and just" attempts to find the phone's owner. This means, basically, that each juror will have to be 95% certain that these didn't constitute reasonable attempts to find the phone's owner; it's not enough for them to find it highly likely that these weren't reasonable attempts.
Meaning that if only one juror isn't convinced, there is no conviction. And it's easy to imagine a couple of jurors believing that calling Apple and talking to their reps was enough...the jury won't be made up of Macrumors members who have memorized Apple's address and and Steve Jobs's personal e-mail address.
I kind of also think that a jury might be not be impressed by the argument that the finder had to jump through additional hoops to find the owner, when the owner never called his/its own phone.
The best fact for the prosecution seems to be that the owner may have known the name of the person who lost the phone from the facebook page. Unfortunately, this is hearsay and may be difficult to get into evidence (although possibly for impeachment).
So, anyway, these are all good reasons why charges may not have been filed yet, and why they may not be filed.
Important note: The only source we have for what happened in this case are Giz's reports, plus the couple of other bits in the news. There may be (and probably are) a lot of other relevant facts that law enforcement knows which we don't - these actual facts will have more bearing on what thepeople ultimately decide to do.)
C'mon! Don't tell me that outcome isn't worth more than half the useless nonsense the government usually squanders my tax money on. If
Actually, they could just pass the hat around here, and I'd bet they'd get enough to take care of all of this. And if it turns out that Gabby Gizmodo was the organ grinder behind these monkeys, you'd raise enough to cover the appeals as well.
Oh, and Chen really is covered by the shield law, and the evidence necessary to convict him will be allowed anyway.