Jon Stewert Slams Apple over Gizmodo case, too funny to pass up :D
polycounter lvl 14
http://tv.gawker.com/5526868/jon-stewart-slams-apple-over-its-handling-of-gizmodo-case
I thought the whole thing was a bit ridiculous. It was their fault in the first place. Some noob employee leaving it at a bar... Then apple was like, psh, it wasn't a real prototype anyway. Then once Gizmodo started showing it off, they start busting down doors? Lmao. I'm sorry, I've always hated the whole Apple hype. This is just too good to be true for me. Jon Stewert sums up the hilarity perfectly
I thought the whole thing was a bit ridiculous. It was their fault in the first place. Some noob employee leaving it at a bar... Then apple was like, psh, it wasn't a real prototype anyway. Then once Gizmodo started showing it off, they start busting down doors? Lmao. I'm sorry, I've always hated the whole Apple hype. This is just too good to be true for me. Jon Stewert sums up the hilarity perfectly
Replies
On one hand, Gizmodo are guilty of purchasing stolen goods knowingly, which is a crime regardless (the guy who found the phone should have given it to the bar keeper legally). But also Apple were stupid for not taking the report of the missing phone seriously before the guy sold it to gizmodo.
Also I think he should have asked for $150,000 - but not from Gizmodo...
Oh, and bahaha! That was good, and fair... maybe even balanced? But i digress...
finders keepers, losers weepers
Cmon, Hawken, put the I-koolaid down.
Given the above, and further, that the police did NOT have the right legally to search a reporters house. Your making one hell of a strawman defense.
That and who ever has the newest stuff is the coolest kid.
yeah sure, ask any lawyer.
just because a guy found it in a bar, doesn't mean it's his. Same for any one of us. If you find something, it's not legally yours. The guy had no right to take it from the bar.
Also, who's to say that the police didn't have the right to enforce a search warrant? A blogger isn't a journalist. I'm sure they are aware of the law just as much as Gizmodo prepared for such a search.
Believe me, just because I make apps on a mac, doesn't mean I drink the koolaid. Far from it, I have my own battles with Apple!
If it one thing the iPhone needs, it's longer battery life.
http://www.iphoneqna.com/consumer-electronics-iphone/the-official-verdict-in-the-stolen-iphone-case
In the US a full time blogger is a journalist. I also believe that in order for something to be stolen, you have to steal it. Picking up something a person dropped doesn't count.
Okay, let's ask!
It's not considered stolen property, it's considered found property. While the finder of lost property is still obligated under the law to try to return it, it's the huge difference between civil and criminal charges in how it's prosecuted.
The finder of the iPhone abided by California Civil Code section 2080 in taking custodianship of the phone and making a good faith effort to return it, but violated 2080.1 by failing to turn it over to the police when the owner did not respond.
Nothing in the CCC mandates leaving lost property where you found it.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=02001-03000&file=2080-2080.10
Sure he's a journalist. The California Court of Appeals set precedent on this four years ago, ironically in a case involving Apple and leaked secrets. In that case, Apple tried to sue a blog to obtain emails that would show the source of an internal leak. The appellate court ruled against Apple, and in doing so established that the CA Reporter's Shield Law applied to blogs and websites.
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case430.cfm
The only thing Gizmodo/Gawker are really looking at here as a liability is the claim that they knowingly paid money for goods of questionable origin. Realistically, I expect they understood that this purchase was some shaky pudding, but thought the gain was worth potential charges. Legally, I'm sure they'll argue what I mentioned above, that they acquired lost property rather than stolen, which is again a civil charge. They'll also get bonus points in court for returning the property to its rightful owner once a legitimate claim was made and without legal intervention.
Apple files police report for lost possibly stolen corporate property.
Police bust in on Gizmodo/Gawker employee's home with an erroneous search warrant.
Apple is evil corporate entity that violated a journalist's rights with home invasion.
Shifting blame much? o.O?
Also, I'm snemmy here. Apple was right in reporting it, and they didn't really have any say in how the police responded. This seems more of an overreaction on part of the the police than Apple.
Fixed!
Yeah, there was something like that. The guy definitely made an effort to return it, but likely didn't realize he needed to contact the police after. Actually, if there's any documentation where an Apple rep told him not to bother returning it (assuming it was a fake/hoax), he might have grounds for claiming it's his via the owner abandoning it. Just guessing on that, though.
Two things on this. One, Apple filed the criminal complaint after they had contacted Gizmodo about recovering the device. That makes their complaint less about recovering property than it is about revenge (Gawker Media and Apple famously do not get along.) I can see how Apple's following through on a criminal complaint looks tacky to a lot of people.
Two, Apple actually does have some say in how this police team responded to this crime. The unit responsible for investigating computer and tech-related crimes in California is called REACT - Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team. There are 25 public tech companies on the REACT steering committee, which provide traning, support and personnel for the team's investigations. One of those companies on the committee is... yep, Apple Inc. That's not proof of anything, but it's enough to raise eyebrows in a case that has police ramming in someone's front door over a lost cellphone that's already been returned to the owner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1795
Okay, that's a better explanation of the 'police' force that was mentioned and changes things quite a bit. I'm seeing too much 'post first, fact find later' concerning this incident all over the tech sites I follow.
Still, an interesting story but the nerd-rage is blowing things a bit out of proportion on a blown out of proportion case.
x.x;;
Many have asked this question... if you find out, be sure to let me know
Actually, I guess people here probably don't know me anymore since I'm not in the industry. I was almost famous back about ten years ago, for a mod I made for the original Half-Life. Polycount's largely moved on from being mod-oriented artists to pros, but I've sort of hung around. Mainly for the sex. But the cat threads are good, too.
Embarrassing old mod video awesomeness - check out that totally sweet wall flip at 1:34!
[ame]
When you think about the cock-block they did on Adobe, this does appear to a have slight tinge of karma!
PS that video is great
Technically they didn't buy it.
It was stated as such in a podcast they gave.