Yeah, you can try to stop one Russian company from selling these weapons
Why should they not sell them?
Because car bombs and other terrorist incidents are still a monthly occurrence in Russia. Selling these missiles to anyone other than the Russian military will increase the odds of these missiles being used against Russian civilians, including the company making the missiles.
Getting revenge on an ex-enemy from 20 years ago is not worth putting yourself and your family and friends at risk.
"An atom-blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways." — Isaac Asimov
The owner needs to take reasonable measures and the recipient needs to know that it's a trade secret.
By paying $5000 for the prototype, Gizmodo already acknowledged that it's a trade secret. Plus their job of speculating on unreleased Apple products makes them experts on what is and isn't an Apple trade secret.
the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if—
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public; and
Since the iPhone prototype was purposely disguised as an iPhone 3GS I'd say apple has "taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret".
And the prototype obviously has "economic value" because it sold pretty quick even with the $5000 price tag.
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person
saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value
of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn
the property over to the police department of the city or city and
county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county
if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating
when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly
describing it. -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
If Apple didn't claim it, then it must be turned over to the police station, not sold for $5000.
But no one in their right mind would pay $5000 for a Chinese knockoff that wouldn't even power on.
These Apple rumor experts inspected the prototype in person. Even an average Joe knows that no iPhone has a camera in the front, let alone the Apple crusaders at Gizmodo.
It's going to be pretty hard to convince the jury that these people who spread Apple prototype spy-shots for a living couldn't differentiate an iPhone prototype from a Chinese knockoff and yet they still paid $5000 for it.
Thanks for the quoting of the code, and the correction. However Gizmodo DID return the property to the original owner, so it met the requirements of the law.
However the penal code mentioned "within a reasonable time". Remember, Gizmodo kept the iPhone prototype in their possession for almost a month, during which 3 different editors made 10 related postings about it and had the free time to disassemble the whole thing and put it back together again.
This is clearly a case of misappropriation under the California Civil Code 3426, otherwise known as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
(a) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
(b) “Misappropriation” means:(1) Acquisition of a secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:(A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the secret; or (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the secret was: (i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
iANAL, but Apple definitely has a case here.
This is, of course, in addition to the criminal charges Gizmodo is facing for purchasing stolen goods.
Seems like California’s penal code disagree with you:
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him
knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who
appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another
person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just
efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is
guilty of theft. -- California’s penal code, section 485
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person
saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value
of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn
the property over to the police department of the city or city and
county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county
if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating
when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly
describing it. -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
Obligatory car analogy: how would you like it if someone yelled "losers weepers; finder's keepers" and drove away your car after you forgot your keys in it?
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." -- California’s penal code, section 485
"If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it." -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
The person who "found" the iPhone prototype committed theft. Plain and simple.
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." -- California penal code, section 496
Gizmodo knowingly brought stolen goods, which is also a crime under the California penal code.
Display resolution and pixel pitch peaked back in 2001 with the introduction of IBM T220. Even now, no production display can top its resolution and pixel pitch.
Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
Simple, there's no demand for it.
Why isn't there any demand for it?
Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.
Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.
Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).
Slashdot Mirror
I found your writing contained considerable artistic merit so it doesn't count as CP.
When did Apple abandon it?
In order to prove that something was abandoned in court, you must demonstrate:
(1) an act by the owner that clearly shows that he or she has given up rights to the property; and
(2) an intention that demonstrates that the owner has knowingly relinquished control over it.
Yeah, you can try to stop one Russian company from selling these weapons
Why should they not sell them?
Because car bombs and other terrorist incidents are still a monthly occurrence in Russia. Selling these missiles to anyone other than the Russian military will increase the odds of these missiles being used against Russian civilians, including the company making the missiles.
Getting revenge on an ex-enemy from 20 years ago is not worth putting yourself and your family and friends at risk.
"An atom-blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways." — Isaac Asimov
The owner needs to take reasonable measures and the recipient needs to know that it's a trade secret.
By paying $5000 for the prototype, Gizmodo already acknowledged that it's a trade secret. Plus their job of speculating on unreleased Apple products makes them experts on what is and isn't an Apple trade secret.
Says the guy with an UID of 1285.
the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if—
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public; and
Since the iPhone prototype was purposely disguised as an iPhone 3GS I'd say apple has "taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret".
And the prototype obviously has "economic value" because it sold pretty quick even with the $5000 price tag.
Guess I'd better write "JOURNALIST" in huge block letters on my tinfoil hat then.
Now the cops won't be able to arrest me for buying stolen goods anymore.
Double negatives makes a positive!
I believe the UTSA applies here, since the trade secret was acquired illegally.
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
If Apple didn't claim it, then it must be turned over to the police station, not sold for $5000.
But no one in their right mind would pay $5000 for a Chinese knockoff that wouldn't even power on.
These Apple rumor experts inspected the prototype in person. Even an average Joe knows that no iPhone has a camera in the front, let alone the Apple crusaders at Gizmodo.
It's going to be pretty hard to convince the jury that these people who spread Apple prototype spy-shots for a living couldn't differentiate an iPhone prototype from a Chinese knockoff and yet they still paid $5000 for it.
Thanks for the quoting of the code, and the correction. However Gizmodo DID return the property to the original owner, so it met the requirements of the law.
However the penal code mentioned "within a reasonable time". Remember, Gizmodo kept the iPhone prototype in their possession for almost a month, during which 3 different editors made 10 related postings about it and had the free time to disassemble the whole thing and put it back together again.
(a) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means.
(b) “Misappropriation” means:(1) Acquisition of a secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:(A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the secret; or (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the secret was: (i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
iANAL, but Apple definitely has a case here.
This is, of course, in addition to the criminal charges Gizmodo is facing for purchasing stolen goods.
Journalists have *more* rights than the rest of us. This is a good thing.
So a select group of people having *more* rights than the rest of the population is "a good thing"?
Doesn't that mean the rest of the population had some of their rights taken away?
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft. -- California’s penal code, section 485
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
Obligatory car analogy: how would you like it if someone yelled "losers weepers; finder's keepers" and drove away your car after you forgot your keys in it?
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." -- California’s penal code, section 485
"If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it." -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1
The person who "found" the iPhone prototype committed theft. Plain and simple.
Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year." -- California penal code, section 496
Gizmodo knowingly brought stolen goods, which is also a crime under the California penal code.
iANAL
I give this thread 2 more minutes before it gets deleted through the Slashdot backdo{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Phew, good thing this doesn't apply to me. I managed to retroactively reject their privacy policy update.
Don't forget to zero it out!
Better yet, use the Gutmann method.
From the story title I was expecting a group of scientists in lab coats karate kicking an iceberg back to the south pole.
Boy, was I disappointed.
by the way it was estimated that 7,000 Americans match that 'name'
I sure hope these 7,000 potential terrorists have been arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay already.
Especially that senator. He's the most suspicious one out of all of them, being a senator and all.
you have no right to travel by air.
Does any article of the Constitution specifically deny me the right to air travel?
If not, then the Ninth Amendment grants me that right.
I was deliberating whether to mod you "troll" or "offtopic" when I finally realized you were talking about me.
:(
Sorry, I'll stop now
Display resolution and pixel pitch peaked back in 2001 with the introduction of IBM T220. Even now, no production display can top its resolution and pixel pitch.
Why aren't we all using WQUXGA, WHSXGA, or even WHUXGA display right now?
Simple, there's no demand for it.
Why isn't there any demand for it?
Because 90% of the consumers are still watching 480p DVD and DTV broadcasts.
Because lots of websites are still designed to be optimally viewing in 1024x768.
Because most operating systems and applications have their font sizes hardcoded (Windows 7 only allow system fonts to be enlarged by 150% while OSX cannot adjust its system font size at all).