Investigation Into Lost iPhone 4 Prototype Wrapping Up, Jobs Interviewed

[KnightWRX]

People can form whatever opinions they want to, even asinine, illogical or unpopular opinions, and freely discuss them in the court of public opinion as long as slander, libel and other legal strictures are observed. Opinions are just that

Exactly my point in all this : People need to calm down on the "Gizmodo is guilty!" crap, and starting talking about : "I think there was wrongdoing that needs to be pursued and investigated so that we know IF Gizmodo was guilty of something".

Exchange of ideas and views does not mean burning witches.

 

[Earendil]

You just based your opinion on other's opinions

Is that your opinion, or fact? Because I'm pretty sure he's basing his opinion on facts as well. All of it is authoritarian information, and not empirical, but I think we can still accept a lot of it as "fact" none the less.

So you're saying that when the facts come out, if the opinions you've based your own opinion on don't change, you won't change your mind.

Again, your opinion of what he meant? Because my opinion is that you had a little reading comprehension fail, don't know the meaning of "revoke", and/or intentionally misrepresenting your opponent (in discussion terms) with a position you know he doesn't represent so that you can continue to argue.

What I think he said is that unless the forthcoming facts of the case revoke (See: abolish, countermand, disclaim, dismiss, repeal, void, withdraw) his earlier obtained opinions, than he shall continue to hold the same opinion. Which is completely reasonable, because without new or contradicting information, why would anyone change they position?

And then you wonder why I'm a little annoyed at people who state their opinion as fact ? Seriously, fact is fact. Opinion is opinion. Innocent until proven guilty. Chen and Co. have yet to even be charged with anything, but in your mind, they are guilty and you base this on opinions published everywhere (because the facts sure don't support this guilty verdict).

English western culture tip: Most people speak in opinion, and when stating a fact they add the word "fact" or "truth" to the beginning or end of they statement. I.E. opinion is the default. However it should be noted that stating fact and truth in the current culture is an unpopular thing to do, so even when you try and state a fact or truth, people dismiss it as being just your opinion. Perhaps this will help you understand why we, on a forum for discussing ideas, keep running around stating "facts". In reality, the majority of culture dictates that opinion is the default stance.

You are entitled to your opinion. You're even entitled to not change your mind when the facts prove you wrong. But to pretend your opinion is factual because of your interpretation of known evidence (which we don't even know if it is court worthy or not at this point) and other's opinions is wrong.

Ethically or legally wrong? Because it certainly isn't legally wrong, and ethics, well, they are a matter of opinion these days. So now we're back to square one. Are you trying to state that your view of ethics is a fact?

 

[Earendil]

Exchange of ideas and views does not mean burning witches.

I see and read nothing but an exchanging of ideas on these forums. No action that can effect Gizmodo has ever (to my knowledge) been taken. Hyperbole much?

 

[BaldiMac]

You just based your opinion on other's opinions

It seems to me that he based his opinion on the accounts given by Gizmodo, the police affidavit, and California law that has been quoted many times in descriptions of this case. None of those are opinion.

So you're saying that when the facts come out, if the opinions you've based your own opinion on don't change, you won't change your mind.

He didn't say that. He said that unless the facts described by Gizmodo and the police affidavit change, he won't change his opinion based on the court decision or the decision to prosecute.

Innocent until proven guilty.

In a court of law. This forum is not a court of law. Stating that one thinks Gizmodo is guilty of a crime, does not imply that they have been found guilty in a court of law.

Chen and Co. have yet to even be charged with anything, but in your mind, they are guilty and you base this on opinions published everywhere

How do you know what he is basing this on? There are plenty of published descriptions by Gizmodo and others that provide sufficient facts to determine that a crime has been committed.

(because the facts sure don't support this guilty verdict).

Hypocrisy.

 

[paradox00]

Exactly my point in all this : People need to calm down on the "Gizmodo is guilty!" crap, and starting talking about : "I think there was wrongdoing that needs to be pursued and investigated so that we know IF Gizmodo was guilty of something".

Exchange of ideas and views does not mean burning witches.

There's no libel or slander in such statements, so how does that support your assertation that people have no right to believe that Gizmodo is guilty until the court says that they are?

 

[Opstech]

I remember when Steve and the Woz were at one time thieves too. The Blue box anyone??????? How many of you thought it was awesome that college kids were sticking it to the overpriced phone companies at that time?
Let it go Steve Jobs

 

[myca]

So you're saying that when the facts come out, if the opinions you've based your own opinion on don't change, you won't change your mind.

I was going to answer fully but;

Again, your opinion of what he meant? Because my opinion is that you had a little reading comprehension fail, don't know the meaning of "revoke", and/or intentionally misrepresenting your opponent (in discussion terms) with a position you know he doesn't represent so that you can continue to argue.

What I think he said is that unless the forthcoming facts of the case revoke (See: abolish, countermand, disclaim, dismiss, repeal, void, withdraw) his earlier obtained opinions, than he shall continue to hold the same opinion. Which is completely reasonable, because without new or contradicting information, why would anyone change they position?

Kind of sums it up (many thanks ), as in my opinion won't change unless information comes to light that revokes the facts as stated in the affidavit, that I've just had another read through, and I suggest you do the same, as it is very interesting reading. But to summarise, it gives a clear and concise case to possible criminal activities surrounding this whole issue.

You just based your opinion on other's opinions

If you mean

Based upon my training and experience as well as the statements of Witness Katherine Martison, Bruce Sewell, and upon the fact that digital evidence was posted on the website Gizmodo.com with Jason Chen's image, I believe that evidence of the theft of the iPhone prototype, the vandalism of the iPhone prototype, and the sale of its associated trade secrets will be found in and/or upon the items requested in Appendix A.

Then yes, some of my opinions are based on others opinions, but seeing as the above is the opinion of the investigating officer, I would argue that it has a great deal of validity.

But seriously, when did I ever state my opinion was fact? As I stated earlier, my opinions are based upon the reports (sometimes differing) as seen by many, and the facts and statements as shown in the affidavit, and I'm in agreement with the investigating officer that crimes were committed.

And to quote myself

Now my opinion may be wrong, but all I've read on this informs me otherwise.

 

[whatever]

I remember when Steve and the Woz were at one time thieves too. The Blue box anyone??????? How many of you thought it was awesome that college kids were sticking it to the overpriced phone companies at that time?
Let it go Steve Jobs

It's not Steve Jobs that is pushing this.

But as an Apple share holder who may have been directly affected by this, I for one agree that this needs to be pursued in both criminal and civil courts.

What if another company got a hold of the prototype.

 

[JAT]

Trade secrets are not protected under law except in contract law. If you want your trade secrets to remain secret, you need to protect them. As soon as you bring them into an area where there's people that aren't under NDA have access to your trade secrets, well you blew it.

Hence my reason for singling out trade secrets. Property is very different and protected by theft laws.

You (and Diode, forgot to quote that) seem to have forgotten the prototype was wrapped in an iPhone 3gs case, and it was only known as different on very close inspection and disassembly. After being stolen. Which is a crime in every country I know of.

We disagree.

Steve
Sent from my Kotex® MaxiPad 4G

That is stupid humor. And I hate stupid humor. But, it made me laugh. So, now, I hate you for making me laugh when I shouldn't.

Exchange of ideas and views does not mean burning witches.

How, then, do people discuss a matter where the only choices are guilty or not guilty? Having the opinion that anyone is guilty does not suggest (to me) that a torch is ready at hand.

 

[berol]

You (and Diode, forgot to quote that) seem to have forgotten the prototype was wrapped in an iPhone 3gs case, and it was only known as different on very close inspection and disassembly. After being stolen. Which is a crime in every country I know of.

not to mention that it was damaged [vandalized] on the disassembly

 

[Iconoclysm]

Buying and or selling stolen property is one thing...
buying and or selling lost property is another....
and Finding lost property and selling it is another....

who do you believe?

I know that, according to the law, not attempting to return lost property is equivelent to stealing. I also know that buying something that you know doesn't belong to the person you are buying it from is a crime.

So who cares what anyone believes? These are laws, not suggestions...

And after hearing the things the kid who stole this phone said about it, he knew he was doing something wrong...especially aftery trying to scatter the evidence.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Meaningless? Value is not the sum of its parts. You contradict yourself in the next sentence. An iPhone 4 is more valuable than the sum of its parts.

And if the prototype is no more valuable than any other iPhone 4, than what were iPhone 4's being sold for at the time of the incident?

What did Gizmodo pay for it? $10k (though they lied and said $5k), so that's what it was worth at the time..."on the market". To Apple, the IP was worth a lot more than that - and IP is what was stolen, not hardware.

 

[Iconoclysm]

That's a good point, doesn't Steve have MobileMe? He could have used Find My Phone feature and sent out the Apple Strike Force during the full 7 days before it was actually sold to Gizmodo.



Well, my Dad says your Dad is wrong. So there!

The software on the iPhone 4 was not yet capable of running the "Find My Phone" feature according to the documents. Also, read a bit about the confession of the "finder", he tried to wipe the iPhone with iTunes so it couldn't be found...and his roomate called Apple to turn him in. He never made the attempt to call Apple himself. He also hid the evidence.

My wife is also an attorney, and says that there was wrongdoing here, even if you were to go by the letter of the law and it said otherwise.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Look, your account of the details do not constitute sufficient proof and is not trial allowed evidence, as such, your father, who is not a judge and thus can not render a guilty verdict, could only provide his opinion.

And seriously, stop playing the "My dad is a lawyer" card. It doesn't make any of your arguments any more valid. There are tons of ambulance chasers out there who have no clue, we don't know your dad's credentials and somehow commenting on a an on-going case is not something a good lawyer would do anyhow.

Again, Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.



Trade secrets are not protected under law except in contract law. If you want your trade secrets to remain secret, you need to protect them. As soon as you bring them into an area where there's people that aren't under NDA have access to your trade secrets, well you blew it.

Hence my reason for singling out trade secrets. Property is very different and protected by theft laws.

Regardless of trade secrets, then, to fit your argument - they are guilty of grand larceny as they willingly paid over $500 for an item they knew did not belong to the seller. Good luck with that in a court of law....in Canada?

 

[Iconoclysm]

It was far more important to wipe and brick the phone at that stage. It's shocking how little real information was revealed by gizmodo. They didn't report that the band was the antenna or even that the back was made of glass.

Yes, they reported both.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Key points that would be debated in a court of law and decided upon by a judge in said court of law unless the charged party decided to enter a guilty plea.

Until then, heck, until charges are even pressed, anyone condemning and screaming "GUILTY!" is wrong, under the United States' judicial system and under the provisions that make it so an individual is Innocent until proven guilty.

What a hard concept.

You really like to throw common sense to the wind, don't you? Most of us are witnesses in this case, and we've even seen the confession given by one of the defendents.

If I saw a guy take another guy's car from a parking lot because he thought it was lost, I think I'd be saying that he was guilty of theft right now too....especially when I saw Gizmodo buy the car and take it for a joy ride before offering to give it back.

 

[Iconoclysm]

There's a difference between stating an opinion and stating a fact. People screaming at Gizmodo and condemning are not stating an opinion.

Yes, yes they are stating an opinion - the opinion that Gizmodo is guilty. Man, you really have your head screwed on backwards.

 

[Iconoclysm]

You just based your opinion on other's opinions and then you say this :



So you're saying that when the facts come out, if the opinions you've based your own opinion on don't change, you won't change your mind.

And then you wonder why I'm a little annoyed at people who state their opinion as fact ? Seriously, fact is fact. Opinion is opinion. Innocent until proven guilty. Chen and Co. have yet to even be charged with anything, but in your mind, they are guilty and you base this on opinions published everywhere (because the facts sure don't support this guilty verdict).

You are entitled to your opinion. You're even entitled to not change your mind when the facts prove you wrong. But to pretend your opinion is factual because of your interpretation of known evidence (which we don't even know if it is court worthy or not at this point) and other's opinions is wrong.

We have based our opinions ON FACTS!!!! Jeez....

In this particular case, the suspects have come out and admitted what they've done and argue that it wasn't wrong...but we've all seen the written laws and it's more than clear that they've done more than just one or two things wrong.

If a jury/judge finds them not guilty, we're all going to be in shock...

The rest of what you say is just ridiculous. It's like you're trying to be a defense attorney and doing a horrible job at it - most judges would laugh you out of the court room for wasting their time.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Exactly my point in all this : People need to calm down on the "Gizmodo is guilty!" crap, and starting talking about : "I think there was wrongdoing that needs to be pursued and investigated so that we know IF Gizmodo was guilty of something".

Exchange of ideas and views does not mean burning witches.

You know what? Screw Gizmodo. I don't care if they're guilty or not I'm not going to like them either way after what they've done. I've burned witches for doing things that I consider morally wrong without being illegal and that's my right to do so as a consumer. There's no need to see if what they did warrants prosecution, what they did was shady and underhanded. So even if they were to be proven innocent, I still wouldn't have to like it.

 

[err404]

Yes, they reported both.

Not really. They reported that the band was aluminum and there was no mention of it being the antenna. The back was reported as glass, ceramic or plastic and that the antenna was behind it. But it hardly matters to this thread.

 

[marksman]

It was far more important to wipe and brick the phone at that stage. It's shocking how little real information was revealed by gizmodo. They didn't report that the band was the antenna or even that the back was made of glass.

You give gizmodo too much credit, for thinking they would have noticed either thing.

By the way this thread is proof positive that ignore on vbulletin is a fail. I have someone in this thread on ignore, for a very long time, and probably more than half the posts in this thread quote them, so I end up seeing all the stuff I didn't want to see in the first place.

 

[gnasher729]

Buying and or selling stolen property is one thing...
buying and or selling lost property is another....
and Finding lost property and selling it is another....

Not according to the relevant laws, which would be the laws of California, which say that if you find lost property and don't return it to the finder or the police, you are guilty of theft.

Apple bringing it out into the real world does not diminish its actual value at the time. That is a silly argument. If a car company brings a prototype car out in public for a drive, it is still worth what it is worth. it does not then become worth only 35k because it was in public. That is absurd logic. At the time the prototype was stolen, its value was much greater than what an iPhone 4 is worth today.

Another publication offered $20,000 (until they figured out that they would be stolen property and retracted the offer). Gizmodo paid about $10,000, in full knowledge that the phone was stolen. Paying about half the actual value knowing that something is stolen sounds about right. So I'd say we can safely assume that the value of the phone was at least $20,000.

 

[Bilbo63]

1. Stickers peel off and/or can be covered and ignored
2. Might as put one on that says "apple prototype" if you are going to say it is apple property



Easier method: "Yo barkeep. Dude left his phone" and hand it over. Never had to get up off his barstool and who knows he might have gotten a free shot out of it



No. Because it was Apple's phone. If you lose your phone it is your responsibility to press charges if you have reasonable cause to believe someone stole it.

Gizmodo published that someone, without Apple's permission had possession of the phone and took money to give the phone to Giz's rep Jason Chen. At that point, there was reasonable cause to know a crime had been committed. Apple might have sent the link to the DA to tip them off. Or they might have been watching after the Valleywag stunt in Jan. After that, all Apple did was agree to comply with the DA who made all the decisions to follow through on investigating the crime. Apple would then turn to possible civil suits but it looks more like they decided to simply kick Gawker out of the sandbox for now.



Yep. stupidity in believing that shield laws applied given the way it was handled and published. Stupidity in someone tweeting they would do anything for info about the new iphone. Particularly after the valleywag stunt.






This coming from a guy supposedly from Canada who hasn't given us any proof that he has a clue about US, much less California law. And so could be talking out of his 'hat' as much as this guy and his dad.



Yes but you forgot that said individual publicly admitted and even bragged about his actions. Many would consider that to be very valid (even in a court of law) proof of guilt.

As for your whole trade secrets v property. What they are arguing about in the criminal case is property. It is physical possession of the phone.




Lets be totally precise. They paid for a phone they knew did not belong to Hogan. They admit this.

They paid the amount (which was high enough to make it a felony) on the hope it contained IP. Which it did. Which they then published etc.

But even without that last bit, they could have been charged with a criminal act just based on buying the phone.

The real stupidity in all of this is that they could have avoided all of it just in how they worded things. If Chen had said in the articles that 'a source' gave him the photos and gave him the video (all of which had no faces etc) then he could have applied shield laws to protect the knowledge that in fact he was the source. Even without all the Gray Powell stuff, folks would have flooded the site to check out the rumors, upping the page load counts etc that create ad money for the site. And thats what it is all about, hit fodder

Charlituna... For the record, I'm Canadian and I agree with you. Maybe it's a Quebec thing then?

Methinks Mr. Hogan is in deep ***** for sure. This knucklehead's legal bills are going to be a lot more than the money he got from Gizmodo.

As for Gizmodo? I think they are in deep as well and I certainly don't consider them "true journalists". That would be an insult to true journalists everywhere.

This is just my opinion. I've been wrong before, just ask my ex-wife.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Not really. They reported that the band was aluminum and there was no mention of it being the antenna. The back was reported as glass, ceramic or plastic and that the antenna was behind it. But it hardly matters to this thread.

They reported that the band was most likely the antenna, just as they said about the back being most likely glass.

 

[Rogzilla]

So, by KnightWRX's logic, OJ Simpson is not guilt of murdering his wife because he wasn't found guilty in the criminal court. Any body thinking different are clearly ignorant of the facts.

And by the way, thank you, Mr Canada, for explaining to us ignorant Americans how our judicial system works. And here, we thought if we just yelled things loud enough, it would be true.