“Are bloggers journalists? I guess we’ll find out,”

[cairns]

"The law in California is clear. You may not purchase property from someone you know is not the lawful owner. Pretty fükking simple.

The law also requires a "good faith" effort to return property to the rightful owner. But that is an entirely separate issue."

That's pretty much the law in every state in the Union and it wouldn't matter if it was Apple, MS, Dell or whoever. For Gizmo to hide behind the mantle of "journalism" is ridiculous. They bought stolen property and used it solely for their own benefit. I have serious doubts as to whether the seller ever tried to return it to Apple- that would have to be proven to me.

[RWebb]

Jeez....

1. they did not purchase the property
2. they did not know it was stolen
3. and even beyond that, Calif. has a shield law
4. so do the Feds.
5. they offered to return it to Apple after Apple said it was theirs
6. the finder (or an intermediary - facts are unclear on many issues here & that is one of them) tried for 3 WEEKS to return it to Apple

BTW - Apple tried to get the REACT (RAT) to go after Gawker (Gizmodo)...

We'll see if this fades away, or how big it blows up legally. But the DA has already taken a big step backwards on this.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RWebb

Jeez....

1. they did not purchase the property
They paid $5k for it. No one has disputed that and Gizmodo admit they paid the money
2. they did not know it was stolen
They knew it did not belong to the individual selling it. That's all that's needed to know or have a reasonable suspicion that the seller is committing larceny.
3. and even beyond that, Calif. has a shield law
THis may be debatable but Shield Law protects Journalists from revealing sources. AFAIK it does not shield them from committing or being party to a crime.
4. so do the Feds.
5. they offered to return it to Apple after Apple said it was theirs
Irrelevant. It's after the fact. CA penal code does not absolve you of the crime because you offered or intended to return the item.
6. the finder (or an intermediary - facts are unclear on many issues here & that is one of them) tried for 3 WEEKS to return it to Apple
3 weeks cause the guy was negotiating with not only Gizmodo but at least Engadget and Wired as well.

BTW - Apple tried to get the REACT (RAT) to go after Gawker (Gizmodo)...

We'll see if this fades away, or how big it blows up legally. But the DA has already taken a big step backwards on this.

Your wrong on this.

Gizmodos daily views jumped from the 200,000+ daily to 2 million for a 3-4 day period.

They generated a months worth of ad revenue in days. Do you seriously believe they revealed the info for the public good?

[island911]

I hate to agree w/ Webb, but...

Gizmo didn't buy the phone . . rather, they payed the guy off, to verify, get the story, and return the device to the original owner.

Lets say, hypothetically, that Apple offered a reward for the proto ...let's say 5k. And you knew the guy who wanted to sell it to ANYONE (like HTC, Microsoft). Would you give the guy 5k so that you could control the phone, and get it back to Apple?

If you did, would it be ..."The law in California is clear. You may not purchase property from someone you know is not the lawful owner. Pretty fükking simple." ?

[enzo1]

what about this.... oh and Chen has retained legal council....."Wired said its source also disputed characterizing the $5,000 paid by Gizmodo.com as a sale. Instead it is said to was an agreement for exclusivity," The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports. "'It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,' the source reportedly said. 'Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone [to its owner].' Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple last week after dismantling it and publishing stories, photos and video about it." Island we posted at same timeLOL, yea this is gonna be good... what does "exclusvity" mean? Looks like they knew what it was.

[gprsh924]

but that isn't what happened here, why talk in theoreticals

[island911]

Originally Posted by enzo1

what about this.... oh and Chen has retained legal council....."Wired said its source also disputed characterizing the $5,000 paid by Gizmodo.com as a sale. Instead it is said to was an agreement for exclusivity," The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports. "'It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,' the source reportedly said. 'Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone [to its owner].' Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple last week after dismantling it and publishing stories, photos and video about it."

Yep, if any here have seen some of the Chinese iClones then it becomes obvious that they (Gizmo guys) wouldn't know, right away, who made this device. --but there is good potential for a story there.

Many Apple stock holders (and fanboys) are really pissed that someone outed a (potential) misstep by Apple. As tummy-monk says, he would laugh is ass off if the same happened to msft.

[island911]

Wow ... another one found





no; really... ifighting ft4021 - iPhone cloned by I-Fighting (Posted on Jul 1, 07 10:08 PM PDT )

[enzo1]

island.... what stock do "you" own, oh I forgot, My HTC TouchPro 2 fanboy, so I assume you own HTC stock? a Chinese phone. that doesn't even work? LMAO

[island911]

Did you catch the date on that link? Point is (again) that the Gizmo guys could have been looking at something other than a next-gen iPhone.

I have no publicly traded stock. As to the HTC, I will bail on that device just as quickly as I bailed on the last, just as soon as something better comes along. --I'm always looking for a better device. (unlike the fanboys)

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Your wrong on this.
...

1st - it would be more convincing if you used the correct words - your is a possessive, not a contraction

2nd - the public good is not part of the legal analysis involved in this case

3rd - they say they paid a fee for certain services and did not buy it - you can Google to get their story in detail but it certainly does not seem the REACT cops had probable cause. They are likely off the hook tho as they did convince a judge. The defense will probe into what they told the J. to get the warrant, and if they lied, it will be very bad for them. If Apple lied to to get the J. to issue a warrant, it will be very bad for Apple -- if it isn't already.

I won't take the trouble to rebut the rest of it. Wait & see what happens...

[enzo1]

island; didn't think you had any stock, why would ya...... as for finding another better device, I'm not a APPLE HATER, so I can have the BEST device, maybe Palm will be your next phone, since it just got bought out by HP RWeb, I guess we'll see but I would be surprised if Apple didn't go through the proper channels http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042710/content/01125106.guest.html

[island911]

Originally Posted by enzo1

island;..... as for finding another better device, I'm not a APPLE HATER, so I can have the BEST device,]

uh huh.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RWebb

1st - it would be more convincing if you used the correct words - your is a possessive, not a contraction

2nd - the public good is not part of the legal analysis involved in this case

3rd - they say they paid a fee for certain services and did not buy it - you can Google to get their story in detail but it certainly does not seem the REACT cops had probable cause. They are likely off the hook tho as they did convince a judge. The defense will probe into what they told the J. to get the warrant, and if they lied, it will be very bad for them. If Apple lied to to get the J. to issue a warrant, it will be very bad for Apple -- if it isn't already.

I won't take the trouble to rebut the rest of it. Wait & see what happens...

So, in other words, you got nuthin.

[RWebb]

this might help you understand:

Can Gizmodo Win the iPhone Legal Battle? - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com

[enzo1]

very interesting, but the last line says it all.... Apple may not go after this, you can bet security there will be reviewed LOL..... “Some parts of this case falls into uncharted territory,” Mr. Freeman said.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by RWebb

this might help you understand:

Can Gizmodo Win the iPhone Legal Battle? - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com

this might help you understand:

Journalist shield law may not halt iPhone probe | Apple - CNET News

[enzo1]

stomachmonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWebb
this might help you understand:

Can Gizmodo Win the iPhone Legal Battle? - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com
this might help you understand:

Journalist shield law may not halt iPhone probe | Apple - CNET News

lot of information there, good stuff.... here's more http://lesposen.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/honda/

[RWebb]

news reports seem to be fluctuating a lot on this thing...

I've now seen some that refer to some fats the cops/DA had that might justify a seizure...

the Electronic Freedom Fnd. is now involved so that portends for a big case here

[enzo1]

yea , that's why I posted it , to see what everyone thought about it... lots of differing views, don't think we know everything