So you're saying if its news worthy then whoever shouldn't be able pursue legal action against those who aided in illegal activities?
What kind of legal action are you talking about?
If Apple was alleging that Gizmodo cost them damages, and was trying to sue for that, I would likely disagree with the damages ammount, but I wouldn't call them wrong for doing it.
What appears to be going on here, however, is Apple pressing some kind of criminal charges. Considering that Gizmodo returned the device to apple without any resistance, I view this as out of line.
Just because they returned the device doesn't make what they did suddenly disappear and everything is a wash.
What did they do that hurt Apple? Publish the information.
Publishing that information wasn't illegal, though.
But paying $5000 for stolen property sure was.
As such, pressing criminal charges against them is perverting the system in order to "get back at them", not actually working to rectify the situation.
I guess it is a good thing that Big Boy, Real-World law doesn't work like whichever episode of Perry Mason you are basing the notion that someone has to "press criminal charges" for the police and DA to pursue a crime that happened in their jurisdiction on.
They paid $5000 after the guy contacted them. They didn't put out a $5000 bounty in advance, or anything.
Cops don't generally raid houses of people who purchase stolen property, but then return it when the owner comes forward.
Evander on
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase
So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?
Are you honestly asserting that there is no impetus for theft of trade secrets without journalists?
This is a case where Gizmodo refusing to purchase the device would have made no difference. The guy probably could have gotten MUCH MORE money by selling it to MSoft or Google. Pretending that this was some catburglar looking for a big score, rather than what it was, a dude who found something in a bar, is intelectually dishonest.
Do you think MSoft or Google would have bought it though?
If either did and that ever got out...damn what a shitstorm that would cause. Far beyond the scope of this little thread.
I think MSoft and Google would have wanted to. It would be tantalizing. But I doubt they would have.
They wouldn't have touched it. Some people here in Atlanta stole Coca-Cola's secret formula and tried to sell it to Pepsi. The first thing Pepsi did was call Coca-Cola and tell them someone was trying to sell their stuff - big companies don't mess with trade secrets. Like someone said, this guy probably tried to go to Engadget and start a bidding war, but Time-Warner's lawyers said "fuck no".
Joshua Topolsky, editor-in-chief of Engadget, which is owned by AOL Inc., said that the site was contacted April 17 by people who claimed to have found the device in a bar. These people asked Engadget to pay for access to the device, but it declined to do so after consulting with its attorneys. "We believe it's the same device," said Mr. Topolsky.
So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.
Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?
Theft is probably worse
I mean, if you disagree I'll be happy to write a blog post about the contents of your bank account
That article wouldn't be very long.
And it isn't theft, it's receipt of (maybe? but I'll give you that point because I have no idea what the exact law is in California, but it's usually a specific intent crime) stolen goods which is a different thing altogether. How are you getting the information about my bank account? That's pretty important to your absurd hypothetical that is in no way analogous to the case at hand here.
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
So so long as the person encouraging felonies is a journalist they shouldn't be punished for it. Gotcha.
Lesser of two evils. Allowing reporters a shield against prosecution for obtaining information is a pretty important part of an open democracy. What is worse, a couple trade secrets being revealed, or allowing corporate or government corruption to go unreported?
False dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to protect reporters who don't commit felonies. It's not a felony to report leaked information. It is a felony to buy stolen goods.
I think the issue between us here is where to draw the line. I think it's important to protect journalists in even extremely questionable cases like this one so that they do not fear legal repercussions for reporting something that's actually important. I don't agree with what the journalist did here. But I think it has to be protected in order to ensure freedom of the press in the future. I feel that freedom of the press is more important than you feel it is.
I think the issue between us here is where to draw the line. I think it's important to protect journalists in even extremely questionable cases like this one so that they do not fear legal repercussions for reporting something that's actually important. I don't agree with what the journalist did here. But I think it has to be protected in order to ensure freedom of the press in the future. I feel that freedom of the press is more important than you feel it is.
Which brings us back to: You think people should be able to commit felonies so long as it's for a story. And yes, depending on the value of the goods, it is a felony.
If some one hits you, hitting them back doesn't fix the situation.
No, but it might get them to stop hitting you.
Right.
So Gizmodo is still hitting Apple?
No, they aren't. In addition, I think Apple can rest 100% sure that even if 10 years go by and another Apple product gets leaked, Gizmodo is not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it. Even better, other journalists are probably not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it.
Not to mention that you took a specific example to a broad analogy in order to illustrate that "two wrongs don't make a right." Personally I don't agree that two wrongs never make a right, because sometimes the second wrong prevents more wrongs.
Again, and this is something I've asked twice already to no answer, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? Did they say "raid this guy's place" and if so do you have proof or did they just raise a fuss and then the police decided on what to do?
Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase
So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?
Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.
I can sort-of get behind this philosophy in theory, free information and all that. And in small doses I don't think it's harmful. But practically, it's a terrible philosophy. Protections for inventors are in place to encourage innovation, and are thus incredibly important if we want people to keep inventing things. So no, not a net loss for society.
Encouraging invention is good and necessary. I do not believe that artificially restricting information is the only method of encouraging invention, or the best method, or I would cite this as an exception. I do recognize though that we have a tradition of copyright and patent laws, that they have indeed served the public good, and that they exist for consumer and producer alike. I just think that as the transaction cost of spreading information continues to drop, the cost to society of artificially restricting such transfers becomes more deleterious by relation.
I'm not very rabid in my opposition to IP as a metaphor altogether, though. In fact, in the short term, I am for protections for artists or inventors which guarantee them a monopoly or partial monopoly for a term up to twenty years. But I won't support a lifetime entitlement, and the present situation wherein we have the Hemingway and Steinbeck dynasties selling paperbacks to captive high-school audiences at $10 a pop is just patently fucked.
Cops don't generally raid houses of people who purchase stolen property, but then return it when the owner comes forward.
Oh yeah? What are you basing this claim on?
Pawn shops.
Hey what's your mom's phone number?
I wan't to call her and see if she has ANY idea what you are talking about.
So your point is what? You're just talking shit, and you've run out of it?
Yes, the law does allow for prosecution in this manner, but it is generally uncommon because this behavior serves to disincentivize people who receive stolen goods from returning it.
I also struggle to see a couple of blog posts alone as being grounds enough for the police to search a private residence.
This means that EITHER there is extra evidence about the guy that we are all unaware of, or Apple encouraged the police to do something. Apple has motive. Apple is the simplest solution here.
If it turns out I'm wrong, and Apple had nothing to do with it, so be it, but defending this type of intimidation tactics by saying "technically it's within the law" is a joke.
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
But it's cool, DOTS
I gave you back the pieces when you asked.
So you believe that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have? And you also think that stuff like credit card numbers should be governed by the same laws that govern trade secrets?
Also you have a pretty broad definition of newsworthiness. The contents of my bank account really aren't in any way newsworthy, nor are my credit card numbers. I mean my bank account would be newsworthy if I had a couple million dollars in there that I somehow avoided claiming on my taxes I guess.
I guess my point here is that you don't have a great grasp on American free speech law.
If some one hits you, hitting them back doesn't fix the situation.
No, but it might get them to stop hitting you.
Right.
So Gizmodo is still hitting Apple?
No, they aren't. In addition, I think Apple can rest 100% sure that even if 10 years go by and another Apple product gets leaked, Gizmodo is not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it. Even better, other journalists are probably not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it.
Not to mention that you took a specific example to a broad analogy in order to illustrate that "two wrongs don't make a right." Personally I don't agree that two wrongs never make a right, because sometimes the second wrong prevents more wrongs.
you are saying two wrongs will be prevented here, but one of those "wrongs" is journalists publishing information.
I would call that prevention a greater societal wrong
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
But it's cool, DOTS
I gave you back the pieces when you asked.
So you believe that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have? And you also think that stuff like credit card numbers should be governed by the same laws that govern trade secrets?
Also you have a pretty broad definition of newsworthiness. The contents of my bank account really aren't in any way newsworthy, nor are my credit card numbers. I mean my bank account would be newsworthy if I had a couple million dollars in there that I somehow avoided claiming on my taxes I guess.
I guess my point here is that you don't have a great grasp on American free speech law.
You seem to think journalists are immune to the law so long as it's for a story. You're not doing too hot either.
I don't think I've seen a pawn shop advertising "STOLEN TV, BUY NOW BEFORE OWNER CONTACTS US!"
Receipt of stolen goods is a specific intent crime. You have to know something is stolen in order to be convicted for it. So that sign would put you on notice, and you would be guilty. But if you had no idea that the television was stolen, and you pay fair market price for it, you would be a bona fide purchaser without notice for value and be in the clear.
Again, and this is something I've asked twice already to no answer, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? Did they say "raid this guy's place" and if so do you have proof or did they just raise a fuss and then the police decided on what to do?
Haha oops, thanks for linking that though it doesn't explain exactly what the steering committee does. Obviously it implies that the committee sets policy but it seems odd to give corporations any say in that. Whether or not Apple has any control over the members of REACT and compelled them to do this is still vague.
If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.
I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
Again, and this is something I've asked twice already to no answer, what control does Apple have over the authority's response? Did they say "raid this guy's place" and if so do you have proof or did they just raise a fuss and then the police decided on what to do?
Haha oops, thanks for linking that though it doesn't explain exactly what the steering committee does. Obviously it implies that the committee sets policy but it seems odd to give corporations any say in that. Whether or not Apple has any control over the members of REACT and compelled them to do this is still vague.
Still, it'll be one more root in the ol' poisoned tree.
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
But it's cool, DOTS
I gave you back the pieces when you asked.
So you believe that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have? And you also think that stuff like credit card numbers should be governed by the same laws that govern trade secrets?
Also you have a pretty broad definition of newsworthiness. The contents of my bank account really aren't in any way newsworthy, nor are my credit card numbers. I mean my bank account would be newsworthy if I had a couple million dollars in there that I somehow avoided claiming on my taxes I guess.
I guess my point here is that you don't have a great grasp on American free speech law.
How do I not? Their news post was in no way illegal.
Chen may end up charged with buying stolen property. Talking about how you bought stolen property (not illegal, protected by 1st amendment) does not legal shield you from the legal consequences of buying stolen property (definitely illegal, definitely not protected by the 1st amendment)
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
But it's cool, DOTS
I gave you back the pieces when you asked.
So you believe that corporations should have all the rights that individuals have? And you also think that stuff like credit card numbers should be governed by the same laws that govern trade secrets?
Also you have a pretty broad definition of newsworthiness. The contents of my bank account really aren't in any way newsworthy, nor are my credit card numbers. I mean my bank account would be newsworthy if I had a couple million dollars in there that I somehow avoided claiming on my taxes I guess.
I guess my point here is that you don't have a great grasp on American free speech law.
Newsworthiness is a factor when weighing free speech vs. privacy rights. It is not an exception to trade secret law.
I don't think I've seen a pawn shop advertising "STOLEN TV, BUY NOW BEFORE OWNER CONTACTS US!"
Receipt of stolen goods is a specific intent crime. You have to know something is stolen in order to be convicted for it. So that sign would put you on notice, and you would be guilty. But if you had no idea that the television was stolen, and you pay fair market price for it, you would be a bona fide purchaser without notice for value and be in the clear.
So Gizmodo had no reason to believe that random guy was anything other than the owner of a prototype? Given that they were aware of how it came into his possession before purchasing it, and that California law spells out that it would constitute theft for him not to "make reasonable efforts to return it to the owner", and, if those failed, turn it over to the police?
I don't think I've seen a pawn shop advertising "STOLEN TV, BUY NOW BEFORE OWNER CONTACTS US!"
Receipt of stolen goods is a specific intent crime. You have to know something is stolen in order to be convicted for it. So that sign would put you on notice, and you would be guilty. But if you had no idea that the television was stolen, and you pay fair market price for it, you would be a bona fide purchaser without notice for value and be in the clear.
They knew the phone was stolen when they bought it. They knew it wasn't his.
The guy found property that wasn't his and decided to sell it, something both he and Gizmodo knew was against the law. Gizmodo literally made a story about how they broke the law.
If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.
I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.
If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.
I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.
What exception to it was this journalist in breach of?
If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.
I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.
Yes, and somehow, I don't see trade secrets being one of them.
If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.
I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.
What exception to it was this journalist in breach of?
Flip that around. Which part of the 1st amendment allows him to purchase stolen property?
- Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
Once again, illegal. Not their phone.
I think it's illegal, but hardly shady. Any tech journalist with his head screwed on straight would have done exactly what they did, given the opportunity and $5000 to invest in the venture. And you know what? I'm glad they did it, I hope they get away with it, and I hope that the tech journalists of the future are equally willing to violate the law of the land in order to provide valuable information to the public. I have unorthodox views about what constitutes good citizenship, perhaps.
o_O
Good lord man, it's a bloody consumer electronics scoop, not Woodward and Bernstein
Quid and Senj I'm mostly trying to stop yo guys from making really bad analogies here. I don't know if there's a separate exception that allows reporters to acquire goods like the iphone in question here (there should be), but your analogies are really overbroad and inapplicable to the case here.
- Gizmodo taking the phone apart and exposing the innards to the world? Shady.
Once again, illegal. Not their phone.
I think it's illegal, but hardly shady. Any tech journalist with his head screwed on straight would have done exactly what they did, given the opportunity and $5000 to invest in the venture. And you know what? I'm glad they did it, I hope they get away with it, and I hope that the tech journalists of the future are equally willing to violate the law of the land in order to provide valuable information to the public. I have unorthodox views about what constitutes good citizenship, perhaps.
o_O
Good lord man, it's a bloody consumer electronics scoop, not Woodward and Bernstein
If you allow people a right to say "this information is off limits from the press, no matter what" then you wouldn't have had woodward and bernstein.
Yes, this is FAR less significant, but it some of the same principles and they need to be upheld.
Dude who sold it is pretty well inexcusable, but I have no problems with Gizmodo's purchase
So you have no problem with Gizmodo encouraging people to engage in theft?
Of Apple's prototypes? Nope. Information is power and prosecuting people who spread it is a net loss for society. I'd feel the same way if I designed a 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-wrecker like John Galt and someone published the plans on WikiLeaks before my patent was secure. Bad for me, sure, and perhaps I'd even try to wield the law to my own ends just as Apple has here, but my ability to control that information comes at the expense of everyone else in the world.
I can sort-of get behind this philosophy in theory, free information and all that. And in small doses I don't think it's harmful. But practically, it's a terrible philosophy. Protections for inventors are in place to encourage innovation, and are thus incredibly important if we want people to keep inventing things. So no, not a net loss for society.
Encouraging invention is good and necessary. I do not believe that artificially restricting information is the only method of encouraging invention, or the best method, or I would cite this as an exception. I do recognize though that we have a tradition of copyright and patent laws, that they have indeed served the public good, and that they exist for consumer and producer alike. I just think that as the transaction cost of spreading information continues to drop, the cost to society of artificially restricting such transfers becomes more deleterious by relation.
I'm not very rabid in my opposition to IP as a metaphor altogether, though. In fact, in the short term, I am for protections for artists or inventors which guarantee them a monopoly or partial monopoly for a term up to twenty years. But I won't support a lifetime entitlement, and the present situation wherein we have the Hemingway and Steinbeck dynasties selling paperbacks to captive high-school audiences at $10 a pop is just patently fucked.
Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.
If some one hits you, hitting them back doesn't fix the situation.
No, but it might get them to stop hitting you.
Right.
So Gizmodo is still hitting Apple?
No, they aren't. In addition, I think Apple can rest 100% sure that even if 10 years go by and another Apple product gets leaked, Gizmodo is not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it. Even better, other journalists are probably not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it.
Not to mention that you took a specific example to a broad analogy in order to illustrate that "two wrongs don't make a right." Personally I don't agree that two wrongs never make a right, because sometimes the second wrong prevents more wrongs.
you are saying two wrongs will be prevented here, but one of those "wrongs" is journalists publishing information.
I would call that prevention a greater societal wrong
How is it a greater societal wrong when the information was obtained illegally? If Apple seeks to suppress a journalist who's exposing corruption among Apple's ranks, then Apple is in the wrong and the journalist is not at all. If a journalist buys a stolen Apple product and reports on it, the reporter is in the wrong for buying a stolen product. I think every single post that Quid has made could sum up what I want to say better than I am saying it now.
What if someone found military secrets and decided to report on them to the whole internet before handing documents back to the government?
You really think that would go unpunished? And that the documents would just get taken back without any further investigation?
No?
Then I don't see why corporate secrets should be treated any differently.
You...you've never read a history textbook covering the 20th century, have you?
The New York Times won that case a LONG time ago...
You...you can't provide a link?
You're honestly telling me that during no part of your schooling, you never learned about the fucking Pentagon Papers?
...you should ask for a refund on your property taxes, as they were obviously misspent.
Can't say that I have.
Maybe I did though, but maybe I just didn't give a shit.
I didn't go to school to become a fucking lawyer.
Regardless, it doesn't excuse you from not providing a simple link.
Well, I think we've highlighted the paucity of your education at this point. The fact that you didn't know about one of the most important Supreme Court rulings is pretty telling.
Posts
They paid $5000 after the guy contacted them. They didn't put out a $5000 bounty in advance, or anything.
Cops don't generally raid houses of people who purchase stolen property, but then return it when the owner comes forward.
Yes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703757504575194691720059102.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews
You forgot your wallet in a bar. Some guy found it. He didn't give it to the bartender or contact you based on the IDs inside. He did call the switchboard for the school whose student ID you had, but amazingly they didn't know what he was talking about. Then he shopped your wallet around and I paid $5000 for it. I opened up all your account, ripped out the stitching, and cut all the cards in half to see what they were made of. I posted all your personal details on my blog.
But it's cool, DOTS
I gave you back the pieces when you asked.
Right.
So Gizmodo is still hitting Apple?
I think the issue between us here is where to draw the line. I think it's important to protect journalists in even extremely questionable cases like this one so that they do not fear legal repercussions for reporting something that's actually important. I don't agree with what the journalist did here. But I think it has to be protected in order to ensure freedom of the press in the future. I feel that freedom of the press is more important than you feel it is.
Oh yeah? What are you basing this claim on?
Why do you hate Apple, so much?
Did you have like 100,000 shares of Apple stock and then decided to sell it when Steve Jobs came back?
Pawn shops.
Which brings us back to: You think people should be able to commit felonies so long as it's for a story. And yes, depending on the value of the goods, it is a felony.
Hey what's your mom's phone number?
I wan't to call her and see if she has ANY idea what you are talking about.
You...you've never read a history textbook covering the 20th century, have you?
The New York Times won that case a LONG time ago...
You...you can't provide a link?
No, they aren't. In addition, I think Apple can rest 100% sure that even if 10 years go by and another Apple product gets leaked, Gizmodo is not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it. Even better, other journalists are probably not gonna buy the leaked product and report on it.
Not to mention that you took a specific example to a broad analogy in order to illustrate that "two wrongs don't make a right." Personally I don't agree that two wrongs never make a right, because sometimes the second wrong prevents more wrongs.
Potentially quite a bit - they're on the REACT steering committee.
Encouraging invention is good and necessary. I do not believe that artificially restricting information is the only method of encouraging invention, or the best method, or I would cite this as an exception. I do recognize though that we have a tradition of copyright and patent laws, that they have indeed served the public good, and that they exist for consumer and producer alike. I just think that as the transaction cost of spreading information continues to drop, the cost to society of artificially restricting such transfers becomes more deleterious by relation.
I'm not very rabid in my opposition to IP as a metaphor altogether, though. In fact, in the short term, I am for protections for artists or inventors which guarantee them a monopoly or partial monopoly for a term up to twenty years. But I won't support a lifetime entitlement, and the present situation wherein we have the Hemingway and Steinbeck dynasties selling paperbacks to captive high-school audiences at $10 a pop is just patently fucked.
So your point is what? You're just talking shit, and you've run out of it?
Yes, the law does allow for prosecution in this manner, but it is generally uncommon because this behavior serves to disincentivize people who receive stolen goods from returning it.
I also struggle to see a couple of blog posts alone as being grounds enough for the police to search a private residence.
This means that EITHER there is extra evidence about the guy that we are all unaware of, or Apple encouraged the police to do something. Apple has motive. Apple is the simplest solution here.
If it turns out I'm wrong, and Apple had nothing to do with it, so be it, but defending this type of intimidation tactics by saying "technically it's within the law" is a joke.
Also you have a pretty broad definition of newsworthiness. The contents of my bank account really aren't in any way newsworthy, nor are my credit card numbers. I mean my bank account would be newsworthy if I had a couple million dollars in there that I somehow avoided claiming on my taxes I guess.
I guess my point here is that you don't have a great grasp on American free speech law.
you are saying two wrongs will be prevented here, but one of those "wrongs" is journalists publishing information.
I would call that prevention a greater societal wrong
You seem to think journalists are immune to the law so long as it's for a story. You're not doing too hot either.
Receipt of stolen goods is a specific intent crime. You have to know something is stolen in order to be convicted for it. So that sign would put you on notice, and you would be guilty. But if you had no idea that the television was stolen, and you pay fair market price for it, you would be a bona fide purchaser without notice for value and be in the clear.
Haha oops, thanks for linking that though it doesn't explain exactly what the steering committee does. Obviously it implies that the committee sets policy but it seems odd to give corporations any say in that. Whether or not Apple has any control over the members of REACT and compelled them to do this is still vague.
Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.
Still, it'll be one more root in the ol' poisoned tree.
Chen may end up charged with buying stolen property. Talking about how you bought stolen property (not illegal, protected by 1st amendment) does not legal shield you from the legal consequences of buying stolen property (definitely illegal, definitely not protected by the 1st amendment)
Newsworthiness is a factor when weighing free speech vs. privacy rights. It is not an exception to trade secret law.
So Gizmodo had no reason to believe that random guy was anything other than the owner of a prototype? Given that they were aware of how it came into his possession before purchasing it, and that California law spells out that it would constitute theft for him not to "make reasonable efforts to return it to the owner", and, if those failed, turn it over to the police?
You're honestly telling me that during no part of your schooling, you never learned about the fucking Pentagon Papers?
...you should ask for a refund on your property taxes, as they were obviously misspent.
They knew the phone was stolen when they bought it. They knew it wasn't his.
The guy found property that wasn't his and decided to sell it, something both he and Gizmodo knew was against the law. Gizmodo literally made a story about how they broke the law.
You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.
What exception to it was this journalist in breach of?
Can't say that I have.
Maybe I did though, but maybe I just didn't give a shit.
I didn't go to school to become a fucking lawyer.
Regardless, it doesn't excuse you from not providing a simple link.
Yes, and somehow, I don't see trade secrets being one of them.
Flip that around. Which part of the 1st amendment allows him to purchase stolen property?
o_O
Good lord man, it's a bloody consumer electronics scoop, not Woodward and Bernstein
If you allow people a right to say "this information is off limits from the press, no matter what" then you wouldn't have had woodward and bernstein.
Yes, this is FAR less significant, but it some of the same principles and they need to be upheld.
Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.
How is it a greater societal wrong when the information was obtained illegally? If Apple seeks to suppress a journalist who's exposing corruption among Apple's ranks, then Apple is in the wrong and the journalist is not at all. If a journalist buys a stolen Apple product and reports on it, the reporter is in the wrong for buying a stolen product. I think every single post that Quid has made could sum up what I want to say better than I am saying it now.
Well, I think we've highlighted the paucity of your education at this point. The fact that you didn't know about one of the most important Supreme Court rulings is pretty telling.
But, if you insist, here's the Wikipedia page on it.