They would find apple written inside of my iPhone, does that make Apple the owner of my iPhone too?
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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They would find apple written inside of my iPhone, does that make Apple the owner of my iPhone too?
Looks like EFF is siding with Chen. Everyone here out for blood is going to be very disappointed...
Seized Computers
Another reason for seizing computers & servers could be to determine if attempts were also made to sell unpublished info to competitors?
Another reason for seizing computers & servers could be to determine if attempts were also made to sell unpublished info to competitors?
All are against california law. Note the "OR." This differs from the common law.
CPC 496
(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a
state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.
Don't quit your day job (BTW, the word you're looking for is repercussion).
Again, lack of knowledge of the law is not a valid defense. Giz states what the guy did to determine the owner, they knew how long he had had the device. They also knew that he did not go to the police with the device. They also PUBLICLY stated how they bought a stolen iPhone prototype in the title of one of their articles.
Why do you keep ignoring these facts?
Hear, hear!
Not to mention their brave, principled, and steadfast defense of the sacred journalist's right to protect the identify of the thief they paid.
I "seem to be saying" that they themselves publicly stated that they were near-certain it was a prototype that belonged to Apple.
They: (1) clearly bought it with the intent of not returning it until they had used it for their own personal gain, (2) to their own satisfaction determined the owner, yet (3) did not return the item until after they had made illegal use of it.
I don't see how there can be any question about their frame of mind or the fact that at least two crimes were committed here.
Yes I read what you typed, that's why I responded back. Why don't you finally respond to the fact the Giz publicly stated they bought a stolen iPhone prototype.
This iPhone farce is great free publicity for Apple and Gizmodo, and juicy filler for media outlets.
and
This week's news draws a forceful illustration of the US legal system in action and inaction.
Compare: Gizmodo buys a lost-and-found gadget--naughty, but hardly dangerous--and the full weight of the so-called justice system comes crashing down like a redwood falling on a flea.
Politically connected, Ivy league gangs, however, defraud hundreds of billions of dollars from widows and pensioners and bankrupted whole nations, literally. Has The Law kicked down doors and seized all related property and data down on Wall Street or at the complicit, for-profit, privately owned and run Federal Reserve? No, of course not. Any criminal indictments? Not so far, and not likely for anyone of rank.
and
This week's news draws a forceful illustration of the US legal system in action and inaction.
Compare: Gizmodo buys a lost-and-found gadget--naughty, but hardly dangerous--and the full weight of the so-called justice system comes crashing down like a redwood falling on a flea.
Politically connected, Ivy league gangs, however, defraud hundreds of billions of dollars from widows and pensioners and bankrupted whole nations, literally. Has The Law kicked down doors and seized all related property and data down on Wall Street or at the complicit, for-profit, privately owned and run Federal Reserve? No, of course not. Any criminal indictments? Not so far, and not likely for anyone of rank.
I think that alot of people here are trying to mix 3 possible cases together...as i see it they are:
1) Recieving Stolen Goods by Gizmondo
2) Libel of Gray
3) Exposing Trade Secrets
a few pages back someone asked if Gizmondo would be in less trouble if they did not post photos of the phone..my thoughts are that if they would have only posted photos of exterior of the phone they may have had some wiggle room in the Exposing Trade Secrets case ..when they disassembled the phone and posted photos of the disassembled phone (even photos of the screws?) they crossed the line...not doing this would not have helped them in cases 1 and 2 though..
as far as i understand things the 3 cases will be treated seperatly ...
Also i have to believe Apple's competitors took a very close look at those photos..
Feel free to correct any of my assumptions...
This only my opinion...
1) Recieving Stolen Goods by Gizmondo
2) Libel of Gray
3) Exposing Trade Secrets
a few pages back someone asked if Gizmondo would be in less trouble if they did not post photos of the phone..my thoughts are that if they would have only posted photos of exterior of the phone they may have had some wiggle room in the Exposing Trade Secrets case ..when they disassembled the phone and posted photos of the disassembled phone (even photos of the screws?) they crossed the line...not doing this would not have helped them in cases 1 and 2 though..
as far as i understand things the 3 cases will be treated seperatly ...
Also i have to believe Apple's competitors took a very close look at those photos..
Feel free to correct any of my assumptions...
This only my opinion...
Yes, you responded back and agreed with me. We both agreed that it saying apple inside doesn't mean it belongs to apple. Try to keep up.
Now, your next question: Please show me the part where they said it was stolen.
Actually very recently they did say that it was very likely that criminal charges will be filed against some of the banking exces.
Exactly...this is more of an illustration of the joke that is our justice system than anything. It selectively chooses who to pursue and who it let's influence it. People with a couple of joints end up in prison for years and people who defraud millions get an ankle bracelet for a week if they even get convicted. It is a joke and one I don't have any faith in as a citizen.
Wow that's harsh. What if some thief steals my laptop and I agree to pay him to get it back since I care about getting my work back and I am worried the data will soon be destroyed or permanently lost. Am I punishable by law since I obtained (my) stolen property?
Actually you can go back and read through all theres pages as the link was posted several times.
No, you prove my point. Giz knew what the finder did to determine the owner, under California law it was insufficient to determine the rightful owner. Now Giz is further implicated in not locating the rightful owner. It wasn't until Apple asked for it back and after they posted numerous pictures and information about it online. Now that last part falls into Trade Secrets which is another matter entirely.
That's the dumbest statement in here yet.
Your not stealing if you're getting YOUR computer back.
We seem to be disagreeing on what constitutes knowledge of ownership. At what point do you think they "discovered the owner"?
No! The person whom stole your laptop and sold it back to you is now guilty of extortion on top of theft.
If you were one of those pedantic morons who think the letter of the law is holy then yes. You bought stolen property (even though common sense would say since it was YOUR property it's fine) but there are idiots that would prosecute you because "you broke the law and everyone has to be held accountable" or some other such nonsense.
We seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding. You say that under California law "it was insufficient to determine the rightful owner" and somehow assert that Gizmodo knew this. First of all, I don't think EITHER of us knows what is considered "sufficient", and furthermore, how you could possibly prove that Gizmodo knew that this duty was not performed.