3 ms·

...he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone. The attorney keeps stressing this like it's the cornerstone of their

by BRadmin 16y ago

...he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone. The attorney keeps stressing this like it's the cornerstone of their defense. Are they trying to say that he was paid for access to review, not in exchange for the (stolen) iPhone itself?

jrockway 16y ago
A sticky point is the value of the phone. If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000. If he didn't sell it, but was paid $5000 by Gizmodo to not tell anyone else about it, then the value of the phone is in question. If the value of the phone is less than $400 (and if you add up the cost of each component, and take into account that it was remotely bricked, that is easy to argue), then there is no particularly severe crime involved. A slap on the wrist, at worst. If it's $5000, though, then jail time could become involved. This defense is also good for Gizmodo. It's not illegal to pay someone $5000 to not talk about something to the media. It's the basis for pretty much every employment contract in existence. Like most high-profile cases, this is not particularly clear-cut. He didn't walk into Apple headquarters, gun down a few guards under the watchful eye of a security camera, take the iPhone, and sell it to the highest bidder. That would be clear-cut "grand theft" (not to mention, murder). Instead, he found it lying around in a bar, asked everyone in the bar if it was theirs, was told no, the excitement and curiosity went to his head, and he ended up with $5000 for letting Gizmodo take some pictures of the thing. A crime? Maybe. But not obviously. (There is a lot of hate for this guy, but think about it. If you found a cool electronic gadget laying around in a bar, wouldn't you play with it? And when you found out it was a fucking top-secret prototype of one of the most secretive companies in existence, wouldn't you be a little excited? And when you're excited, do you always make the best decisions? If not, you don't belong on HN. Sure, the guy is a sleaze-bag for pocketing the five grand. But Apple is a sleaze-bag for paying slave children build the phones in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it is helpful to treat both parties with the same scrutiny; at least when we are using words like "sleaze-bag".)
- wooster 16y ago
  "for paying slave children build the phones in the first place" Your posts would be a lot more convincing without the unsubstantiated defamation thrown in.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    I'm not writing to "convince". Make your own decisions.
- BRadmin 16y ago
  Of course without being in the situation it's difficult to say how one would react, but I believe (or hope to believe) that most reasonable people would never try to make $$ off of such circumstances. He made no serious attempt to return the phone - he couldn't even contact Apple Care himself? Heck, it's not hard to snap off an email to sjobs@apple.com.
- 37prime 16y ago
  How can someone even "pay" slave children to build anything? By definition, "slaves" aren't getting paid at all. Mandatory Futurama Quotes: Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work all day but they don't pay you or let you go. Leela: That's the only thing about being a slave.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    So nobody has any actual commentary on my thoughts -- just outrage at one exaggeration made in passing. Oh HN, why...
- xsmasher 16y ago
  > If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000 Simply not true. If I find your car and sell it to a chop shop for $300, then what was your car worth? If I paid you back the $300, would we be even? You wouldn't want $300 back, you'd want to be "made whole." There simply is no way that Apple can be made whole in this situation. The genie is out of the bottle. Re: the criminal angle, there was no crime in finding the phone, and possibly none in taking it home. It seems possible that there was a crime in converting it to his own benefit instead of turning it into to Apple or the police. So far the DA seems to agree.
maxharris 16y ago
This is ridiculous (and I think you agree, right?) I doubt that many jurors will find this convicing. People that possess stolen property have no right to sell access to the stolen good.
- jrockway 16y ago
  When you use the word "steal", sure, you're right. But he didn't "steal" anything, he misappropriated property that was reasonably expected to not be abandoned. Things for the jury to consider include: whether it was reasonable to assume that the device was lost and not abandoned, whether he had any malicious intent (his state of mind), and so on. As I mention above, it's not clear-cut at all.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - scelerat 16y ago
    Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, any way you look at it.

by BRadmin 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago

A sticky point is the value of the phone. If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000. If he didn't sell it, but was paid $5000 by Gizmodo to not tell anyone else about it, then the value of the phone is in question. If the value of the phone is less than $400 (and if you add up the cost of each component, and take into account that it was remotely bricked, that is easy to argue), then there is no particularly severe crime involved. A slap on the wrist, at worst. If it's $5000, though, then jail time could become involved. This defense is also good for Gizmodo. It's not illegal to pay someone $5000 to not talk about something to the media. It's the basis for pretty much every employment contract in existence. Like most high-profile cases, this is not particularly clear-cut. He didn't walk into Apple headquarters, gun down a few guards under the watchful eye of a security camera, take the iPhone, and sell it to the highest bidder. That would be clear-cut "grand theft" (not to mention, murder). Instead, he found it lying around in a bar, asked everyone in the bar if it was theirs, was told no, the excitement and curiosity went to his head, and he ended up with $5000 for letting Gizmodo take some pictures of the thing. A crime? Maybe. But not obviously. (There is a lot of hate for this guy, but think about it. If you found a cool electronic gadget laying around in a bar, wouldn't you play with it? And when you found out it was a fucking top-secret prototype of one of the most secretive companies in existence, wouldn't you be a little excited? And when you're excited, do you always make the best decisions? If not, you don't belong on HN. Sure, the guy is a sleaze-bag for pocketing the five grand. But Apple is a sleaze-bag for paying slave children build the phones in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it is helpful to treat both parties with the same scrutiny; at least when we are using words like "sleaze-bag".)

wooster 16y ago
"for paying slave children build the phones in the first place" Your posts would be a lot more convincing without the unsubstantiated defamation thrown in.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I'm not writing to "convince". Make your own decisions.
BRadmin 16y ago
Of course without being in the situation it's difficult to say how one would react, but I believe (or hope to believe) that most reasonable people would never try to make $$ off of such circumstances. He made no serious attempt to return the phone - he couldn't even contact Apple Care himself? Heck, it's not hard to snap off an email to sjobs@apple.com.
37prime 16y ago
How can someone even "pay" slave children to build anything? By definition, "slaves" aren't getting paid at all. Mandatory Futurama Quotes: Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work all day but they don't pay you or let you go. Leela: That's the only thing about being a slave.
- jrockway 16y ago
  So nobody has any actual commentary on my thoughts -- just outrage at one exaggeration made in passing. Oh HN, why...
xsmasher 16y ago
> If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000 Simply not true. If I find your car and sell it to a chop shop for $300, then what was your car worth? If I paid you back the $300, would we be even? You wouldn't want $300 back, you'd want to be "made whole." There simply is no way that Apple can be made whole in this situation. The genie is out of the bottle. Re: the criminal angle, there was no crime in finding the phone, and possibly none in taking it home. It seems possible that there was a crime in converting it to his own benefit instead of turning it into to Apple or the police. So far the DA seems to agree.

maxharris 16y ago

This is ridiculous (and I think you agree, right?) I doubt that many jurors will find this convicing. People that possess stolen property have no right to sell access to the stolen good.

jrockway 16y ago
When you use the word "steal", sure, you're right. But he didn't "steal" anything, he misappropriated property that was reasonably expected to not be abandoned. Things for the jury to consider include: whether it was reasonable to assume that the device was lost and not abandoned, whether he had any malicious intent (his state of mind), and so on. As I mention above, it's not clear-cut at all.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- scelerat 16y ago
  Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, any way you look at it.