... that he was changing for the making of the tapes, as opposed to the software himself. I recall reading this on his site maybe ten years ago. This seemed weird to me, to charge for the menial task rather than the inspired one, and of course the costs of software distribution have now all but evaporated. Besides, what if the coder just can't be bothered with that stuff? It's not what they are valued for perhaps even as a genius (who doesn't eat much).
See: http://beust.com/stallman.html ("RMS was beginning to be successful with Emacs by that time, shipping more and more tapes. These tapes were sold $150 but, he insisted on that point, it was only the price of s&h. The software on it was both free from a pecuniary point of view, but more importantly, free of any intellectual rights. Fearing that these terms might change, RMS felt that he had to quit the MIT if he wanted to be sure that his subsequent works would belong to him completely. The Free Software Foundation was created and took over the distribution of tapes. RMS could now focus on his quest.")
I respect the guy as much as anyone; amanzing contributions (I hadn't heard the EMACS angle, my ignorance). But his business model... well, I'd still like to know more. The voluntary payment model seemed predominant now, and frankly that's a tax on the nice, people who feel a moral obligation and not necessarily the people profiting most... and likely ignoring GNU obligations as well.
I'm not going to defend Microsoft. Aside from things they did that were incompetence, the malevolence summed up in Ballmer and arrogance in Gates -- well, enough.... I know MSFT is very popular around here. (Kidding.) The good news is they seem to be losing control.
I think people will get unhappy quick if/when Google starts pulling crap like Facebook has been trying to -- like dictating to us what the "new" privacy means for greedy data-mining reasons. Their sucking up to China (until China backstabbed?) is worrisome. Getting mad at having their email attacked and suddenly not liking censorship (in retaliation? or evolution?) is principled enough but could change. Heck, people change, companies are even less predictable as control shifts hands -- and wow, Google is getting its fingers into everything. Great monopoly opportunities if they start buying enemies like MSFT always has.
Google has been surprisingly benign and I tend to like them, and love their really competent tech work. The search engine alone has been an enormous contribution, and their pages still *aren't* littered with ads. But I think people should be more worried, and prevent MSFT II.
I agree they've been inept and they tend to "extinguish" things they get their hands on. I think they'll lose this largely on the merits - google does a good job. Also google has committed surprisingly few of the dick moves like happen with Facebook and msft; but can we count on that ?
What I want is a little(r) guy to have a shot at the title. Normal companies can't compete with cash firehoses and I think it stifles new stuff. Also I think at some point google will go evil or incompetent.
I agree. I'd like to see gizmodo take the hit, lose its profit from this, pay a fine and get on with life. Jail would be stupid. (ok, the guy who stole the thing can go to jail - that could have been MY phone). The arrogance pisses me off - they know they did something wrong and are trying to bluff their way out of it. That means they'll lie to readers, too - don't trust them!
I hope Apple doesnt fire Gray the engineer. I wouldn't give him any more prototypes, either.
I think it's more like the fabrications of the NYT reporter Blair. It tarred the profession. I imagine other reporters want Gizmodo and it's crappy journalists to rot because the profession as a whole has lost prestige, nit b/c they're afraid of prosecution.
Most judges and many attorneys aren't very technically sophisticated. I don't know what happened but my impression was that the whole thing was mishandled - and then Bush was "elected" so it all went away.
As for lying in court, that happens every day. They all had their eyes on the prize, not the sanctity of the process.
I don't think they'll succeed, either; but I also underestimated them in the Xbox thing. Maybe even Zune will succeed someday.
What I guess I was hinting at is my desire for SOMEONE ELSE to enter the fray. Of these characters I like Google the best, but I don't trust them either. Facebook I think it going to do themselves in, they're getting too hard to use. The "privacy settings" thing is ridiculous. But I also think they have a few years left before power changes hands.
I know Google is approaching FB page admins with offers to help them jump ship to Buzz and am intrigued by this poaching.
MSFT on privacy? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Thing is, FB is deliberately trying to screw its users, MSFT does it mostly by accident. Neither is OK but....
I think it's important to consider the unbelievable forces involved -- nearly limitless funds on both sides. How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning? When the rich guys go at it and it feels good that the rest of us pick a winner, what about the other companies that should have been contenders but couldn't buy admission? What Microsoft decides it wants, it tends to get. One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.
The Google/Facebook conflict is another one to watch. I don't think Google has abandoned Buzz by any means, and Facebook is really pissing off a lot of people these days.
In all cases, don't linger on the losses they're having. They can afford it.
Interesting. Yeah, "abandoned" does mean up for grabs so far as I know.
The law on what is abandoned is complicated and I don't know it; I do know that maritime and international law are very weird and difficult. There's even an "Abandoned Shipwreck Act." But I'm not so sure the fisherman's rule is the law. I bet you wouldn't have boarded OR scavenged a sinking U.S. Navy ship.....
Who owns U.S. Navy ship and aircraft wrecks?
The Department of the Navy retains custody of all its ship and aircraft wrecks unless specific, formal action is taken to dispose of them. The administrative act of striking an aircraft or ship from the active list does not constitute disposal. Even aircraft and ship wrecks that are stricken from the active list remain the property of the United States until such time affirmative action is taken to dispose of these properties, such as sale, or other action in accordance with law.
More to the point, civilian boats, I don't think that's the law but I don't know much. It definitely is not abandoned at the moment the crew flees (cowards!). Here is a Wikipedia entry you might like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipwreck#Salvage_of_wrecks ("As a general rule, non-historic civilian shipwrecks are considered fair game for salvage." -- but the Shipwreck Act says "The law specifies that any wreck that lies embedded a state's submerged lands is property of that state and subject to that state's jurisdiction if the wreck is determined as being abandoned.")
How was it, being a fisherman? Sounds like a tough life. THEY get their own set of laws, too (as seamen, for taxation, etc.).
I think Gizmodo's fear is entirely real. Their letter when they returned the phone was hilarious in a sad way. Apple gets ample publicity, they don't need crap like this. Besides, the prototype was UGLY! And didn't work. I have some serious issues with Apple like overly agressive legal actions, but I don't buy that they did this. I predict Gizmodo is going to get it hard. At the least, they're going to be very unwelcome at Apple.
As I said above, enforcing tech rights is very much in the Valley's interests. This is no stolen car, this is a multimillion-dollar gadget and huge investment (that doesn't save lives or anything but... it's Jesus 4.0). Other tech companies are going to want Gizmodo hung out to dry, to protect their interests.
Also, Apple *can't* stop the prosecution unless they confess. It's the prosecutor who brings or drops charges, not the victim, though for most things they don't pursue something the victim doesn't want to pursue (not of necessity -- the prosecutor can press on and if desired force the victim to testify, which may be important, and controversial, for certain crimes like rape).
Good point. I would like to know the politics behind the prosecutor's decision. I'm not into the self-righteous let's-get-'em thing, but I don't like money grubbing opportunist thieves either.
Arguably millions of dollars are involved, even if it was $5k for the hot property (stolen stuff sells at deep discount:). Apple spends millions even on what color to make a product. Regardless of Apple's fortunes, intellectual property is a huge part of the economy in the valley -- and the prosecutor incidentally would be a city employee, not state -- so they have reason to be rigid. You KNOW everyone out there is following the case and the result will affect their future behavior. Already, no one is going to try the "hey I found a 'lost' prototype" trick.
Again, I'd like to know the thought process and whether there was pressure from Apple. I would expect a pretty quick plea bargain, and I doubt the out-of-pocket expenses are much; the lawyers and cops are already on the payroll. It might be a diversion of resources from more important projects.
It would definitely be wasteful to put these guys in prison. Picking up trash on the roadside, on the other hand, works for me.
Disclaimer, I used to work for an appeals court and find this sort of story fascinating.:)
Always indicative. Private parties can't do that stuff, they use discovery, interrogatories, request subpoenas -- and risk a greater likelihood of destroyed evidence. Given that Gizmodo has already established it is unethical....
Good point. Well, miscarriages of justices are nothing new! I stated the principle, not the absolute practice.
I'd be more scared of Apple, assuming this is just about money and not jail time. Also, of course, the relevant employees are all vulnerable to criminal charges. I would especially hate to see company turn a profit while the "little people" go to jail or go broke.
I agree. This is an ordinary criminal investigation re stolen goods, maybe throw in some conspiracy etc. The "journalist" and others were involved in the actual purchase (!) of the phone. Just imagine the possibilities if the journalist could engage in criminal activity while pursuing a story. We'd probably be seeing a lot of stories on prostitution and illegal drug use, for starters.
And to the OP, it's prima facie, and the concept is not relevant here anyway. The shield law would be raised as a *defense* to a prima facie valid claim, i.e., a charging document stating the case. IAAL.
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that. Treasure in shipwrecks leads to big arguments over ownership centuries later. You don't lose you property rights just because you misplace or are deprived of something (in the old days the big problem was property that departed on its own, i.e., livestock... the owner had to pay damages for what the critter ate or broke, but it was still his). Only if something is *abandoned* is it up for grabs. Would any reasonable person things the prototype was abandoned? Reportedly they even sought legal counsel, knowing they were pushing it.
The only reason the iPhone was worth $5k to them was that even possessing it was wrongful. Buying something from a thief, even unknowingly, also gives you no prperty right, and it's just silly for them to say it was "lost." They knew what they were doing by paying that much alone, and I'm sure more evidence will pop up when the suspects squeal on each other.
Arguably Apple's profit could be damaged here. I have no idea how they could prove that (and Apple can sue for civil damages, using the conviction as a slam-dunk proof of the facts), and I assume it will go to settlement anyway given the legal fees it would cost to defend it. It could get ugly.
Gizmodo did a very dumb thing. (Not to mention the party who found and sold the phone, knowing it wasn't his, either.) Remember though that it's the gov't not Apple that decides whether to bring criminal charges. Apple could ask them to drop it, but it sounds like they're OK with the brute force approach, or else the prosecutor wants to do what the prosecutor wants to do.
No: If there's a conviction, the government is going to want the ill-gotten gains and then some -- like several times the total. You don't send a company to jail; you fine the heck out of it. A criminal is not supposed to keep the profits, and the conviction is supposed to deter others.
I wonder what Apple wants in all this? They can bring a civil claim as well, and a conviction would make that a quick fit b/c the facts would already be established against the defendant.
The EFF offers a copy of the developer's agreement here.
If the relevant clause appears to be this:
3.3.14 Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.
I don't see how Fiore is "obscene, pornographic, or defamatory" though I guess there is some off-color content. But the "objectionable" line seems hopelessly vague, and I have no idea what limit "reasonable" places on Apple. I think they can block virtually whomever they want but question whether this clause is particularly meaningful as a contract. Because Apple can "revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time," the developer has little or no protection; a court might (?) have a problem with the reckless exercise of this -- contractual obligations aren't always spelled out in full on paper.
Certainly Apple has a monopoly over iPhone/iPad apps, one they will hold as long as they can. Some argue that vertical integration like this is bad for companies, and Apple is the unusual exception in pulling it off. The only solution may be for consumers to vote with their feet -- Android.
I have heard even human rights groups have qualms about going after retailers running (or more often doing business with contractors who run) sweatshops because the alternative may be to lose the job altogether and end up worse off. In China crappy wages can actually be good wages, though the conditions are unconscionable by our standards, the laborers choose the jobs intelligently over the alternatives.
If we hold the company (e.g., Nike) accountable, the company may, instead of correcting the problem, which again is probably with a contractor not a directly owned factory, switch to a supplier possibly in another country where labor standards are adequate. Again, the victims lose their jobs.
I'm not trying to rationalize the cheap shoes from sweatshops, just describe unintentional consequences I don't like, either. The host country -- all of them -- stepping up regulation of all companies would work, but it's not going to happen anytime soon in, say, China.
So what to do. No, nothing is not the answer, but the answer can be tough even for a well-meaning company, if there are any of those left. Certainly some of them do better jobs than others.
Apple recently revealed finding children and excessive (60+/7 days) hours in unidentified Asian contract factories. And so it... terminated the contract. OK, good, noble even. And the workers did what?
(Apple had similar problems in 2008 and 2006, too.)
Which, and I actually don't want sound to be too cold, sits a lot better with me than the other people they take with them. Usually the other guy, the green light guy, gets the worst of it when the "runner" spears them. Often the other guy is on a bicycle or on foot. Running red lights is a leading cuse of lethal accidents here because, I suppose, of the angle and speed involved, and the frequency of the offense. It really sucks.
Interesting story. The ruling seems to turn partly on an odd (?) FL rule that a ticket must be issued by an officer who witnesses the infraction. Now, arguably the pictures are a form of "witnessing" if they were reviewed by an officer? Do you think it would be OK to isue a ticket for infractions observed over closed-circuit TV? Does it matter if it is recorded and reviewed later? Are still pictures fundamenetally different? Etc.
I think you're right re the photos, I've seen them here in VA, outside DC.
I got tagged by a speeding camera, and I have to credit them with using pavement markings and a time stamp to calculate speed, rather than an unreliable radar gun. The thing is, by the time you get the ticket it is unlikely you'll remember much about the incident let alone preserved any evidence -- so in effect there is no defense. They (MD) took pains not to make in a criminal defense affecting my insurance, and the fine was just $40 so I wasn't going to drive out there to contest it. I barely remembered why I was on that road at all.
With this yellow-light thing, what is needed is class action to get the government's attention. With piecemeal defense by people like the guy in the article, they have great financial incentive not to fix the problem.
Only in Chicago have I ever seen signs at intersections admonishing "OBEY YOUR SIGNAL ONLY" I suppose Chicago drivers might just go with the signal that most appeals to them.
(Yes, before someone pipes up, I understand the sign is a warning not to get confused choosing a light in Chicago's wonderful 8-way intersections, but I cracked up the first time I saw that, and I knew I'd arrived in a different place.)
Thanks for the laugh. I haven't lived there in a dozen years.
You may have read my comment too quickly, because I noted that most of entitlement spending is funded by specific taxes ("programs like Social Security are directly funded (for now) by specific taxes"). Look to the link for the chart "receipts." I suspect people would complain, for example, if you cancelled social security but kept on collecting social security taxes (42% of receipts). Big spending, sure, but big taxes, too. Also Social Security or Medicare are not what people are thinking about when they're ranting about people cheating the government.
As I indicated, defense spending is also larger that it appears in the graph because of hidden costs in other area of the budget. (I don't agree with these guys, so I didn't cite them, but some useful points are made here: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm ) I think we should factor in what we would gain if some of the people currently working in defense were in more constructive pursuits, for example building bridges in the US instead of blowing them up somewhere else. I'm not a utopian, we need a military, but the cost is staggering. Welfare is trivial by comparison and cheap political BS in terms of balancing the budget -- the few pundits who know anything also know they're lying. Although there are moral reasons to be cautious in giving out aid, you'll never balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
The "killing people" sector of the U.S. budget dwarfs the "suck on the teat" portion, many times over in real dollars, and the more so when you consider the current military expenses for open-ended wars that aren't being paid for with current funds, the hidden costs in "non-military" parts of the budget related to veterans etc., and that programs like Social Security are directly funded (for now) by specific taxes. The military expense is relatively (and absolutely) HUGE, like $ billions versus millions.
I won't defend the freeloaders for a second. But if you want moral outrage, there is a lot more money being ripped off from or misspent by the military. Eliminating every penny of welfare programs well spent or not would not make any real difference to fixing the deficit or reducing taxes. It's just some blood the pundits sprinkle in the water to keep their own financial interests going. Now, if we dealt with just the folks ripping off the military, or eliminating some really stupid expenses like maintaining a nuclear arsenal STILL capable of destroying the world over and over and over -- that's real money. We spend more than the next dozen countries combined on defense.
A diplomat friend mentioned yesterday that we still spend millions maintaining tactical nukes in Europe. Why? Basically, the Army just doesn't want to give them up. The price of a few warheads could fund some serious science.
Of course it was military competition that ignited our interest on rockets in the first place, not reaching the Moon.
Slashdot Mirror
... that he was changing for the making of the tapes, as opposed to the software himself. I recall reading this on his site maybe ten years ago. This seemed weird to me, to charge for the menial task rather than the inspired one, and of course the costs of software distribution have now all but evaporated. Besides, what if the coder just can't be bothered with that stuff? It's not what they are valued for perhaps even as a genius (who doesn't eat much).
See: http://beust.com/stallman.html ("RMS was beginning to be successful with Emacs by that time, shipping more and more tapes. These tapes were sold $150 but, he insisted on that point, it was only the price of s&h. The software on it was both free from a pecuniary point of view, but more importantly, free of any intellectual rights. Fearing that these terms might change, RMS felt that he had to quit the MIT if he wanted to be sure that his subsequent works would belong to him completely. The Free Software Foundation was created and took over the distribution of tapes. RMS could now focus on his quest.")
So ... transient idealism?
It is interesting to now read the 1993 Wired view of Stallman's work: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/stallman.html
I respect the guy as much as anyone; amanzing contributions (I hadn't heard the EMACS angle, my ignorance). But his business model ... well, I'd still like to know more. The voluntary payment model seemed predominant now, and frankly that's a tax on the nice, people who feel a moral obligation and not necessarily the people profiting most ... and likely ignoring GNU obligations as well.
I'm not going to defend Microsoft. Aside from things they did that were incompetence, the malevolence summed up in Ballmer and arrogance in Gates -- well, enough.... I know MSFT is very popular around here. (Kidding.) The good news is they seem to be losing control.
I think people will get unhappy quick if/when Google starts pulling crap like Facebook has been trying to -- like dictating to us what the "new" privacy means for greedy data-mining reasons. Their sucking up to China (until China backstabbed?) is worrisome. Getting mad at having their email attacked and suddenly not liking censorship (in retaliation? or evolution?) is principled enough but could change. Heck, people change, companies are even less predictable as control shifts hands -- and wow, Google is getting its fingers into everything. Great monopoly opportunities if they start buying enemies like MSFT always has.
Google has been surprisingly benign and I tend to like them, and love their really competent tech work. The search engine alone has been an enormous contribution, and their pages still *aren't* littered with ads. But I think people should be more worried, and prevent MSFT II.
I agree they've been inept and they tend to "extinguish" things they get their hands on. I think they'll lose this largely on the merits - google does a good job. Also google has committed surprisingly few of the dick moves like happen with Facebook and msft; but can we count on that ?
What I want is a little(r) guy to have a shot at the title. Normal companies can't compete with cash firehoses and I think it stifles new stuff. Also I think at some point google will go evil or incompetent.
I agree. I'd like to see gizmodo take the hit, lose its profit from this, pay a fine and get on with life. Jail would be stupid. (ok, the guy who stole the thing can go to jail - that could have been MY phone). The arrogance pisses me off - they know they did something wrong and are trying to bluff their way out of it. That means they'll lie to readers, too - don't trust them!
I hope Apple doesnt fire Gray the engineer. I wouldn't give him any more prototypes, either.
I think it's more like the fabrications of the NYT reporter Blair. It tarred the profession. I imagine other reporters want Gizmodo and it's crappy journalists to rot because the profession as a whole has lost prestige, nit b/c they're afraid of prosecution.
Any reporters out there?
Most judges and many attorneys aren't very technically sophisticated. I don't know what happened but my impression was that the whole thing was mishandled - and then Bush was "elected" so it all went away.
As for lying in court, that happens every day. They all had their eyes on the prize, not the sanctity of the process.
I said "I'd be" to imply "if I were in Gizmodo's shoes." That's also why I mentioned jail time - apple can't do that (yet).
I'm not in love with Apple ... but I am also typing this on a iPhone 3GS....
I don't think they'll succeed, either; but I also underestimated them in the Xbox thing. Maybe even Zune will succeed someday.
What I guess I was hinting at is my desire for SOMEONE ELSE to enter the fray. Of these characters I like Google the best, but I don't trust them either. Facebook I think it going to do themselves in, they're getting too hard to use. The "privacy settings" thing is ridiculous. But I also think they have a few years left before power changes hands.
I know Google is approaching FB page admins with offers to help them jump ship to Buzz and am intrigued by this poaching.
MSFT on privacy? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Thing is, FB is deliberately trying to screw its users, MSFT does it mostly by accident. Neither is OK but....
I think it's important to consider the unbelievable forces involved -- nearly limitless funds on both sides. How many companies would like to take in the amount Microsoft casually loses? How much did they lose on Xbox in the beginning? When the rich guys go at it and it feels good that the rest of us pick a winner, what about the other companies that should have been contenders but couldn't buy admission? What Microsoft decides it wants, it tends to get. One of the government attorneys involved in the antitrust suit commented that they had legal resources that rivaled the Department of Justice.
The Google/Facebook conflict is another one to watch. I don't think Google has abandoned Buzz by any means, and Facebook is really pissing off a lot of people these days.
In all cases, don't linger on the losses they're having. They can afford it.
Interesting. Yeah, "abandoned" does mean up for grabs so far as I know.
The law on what is abandoned is complicated and I don't know it; I do know that maritime and international law are very weird and difficult. There's even an "Abandoned Shipwreck Act." But I'm not so sure the fisherman's rule is the law. I bet you wouldn't have boarded OR scavenged a sinking U.S. Navy ship .....
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq28-1.htm#anchor74432
More to the point, civilian boats, I don't think that's the law but I don't know much. It definitely is not abandoned at the moment the crew flees (cowards!). Here is a Wikipedia entry you might like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipwreck#Salvage_of_wrecks ("As a general rule, non-historic civilian shipwrecks are considered fair game for salvage." -- but the Shipwreck Act says "The law specifies that any wreck that lies embedded a state's submerged lands is property of that state and subject to that state's jurisdiction if the wreck is determined as being abandoned.")
How was it, being a fisherman? Sounds like a tough life. THEY get their own set of laws, too (as seamen, for taxation, etc.).
I think Gizmodo's fear is entirely real. Their letter when they returned the phone was hilarious in a sad way. Apple gets ample publicity, they don't need crap like this. Besides, the prototype was UGLY! And didn't work. I have some serious issues with Apple like overly agressive legal actions, but I don't buy that they did this. I predict Gizmodo is going to get it hard. At the least, they're going to be very unwelcome at Apple.
As I said above, enforcing tech rights is very much in the Valley's interests. This is no stolen car, this is a multimillion-dollar gadget and huge investment (that doesn't save lives or anything but ... it's Jesus 4.0). Other tech companies are going to want Gizmodo hung out to dry, to protect their interests.
Also, Apple *can't* stop the prosecution unless they confess. It's the prosecutor who brings or drops charges, not the victim, though for most things they don't pursue something the victim doesn't want to pursue (not of necessity -- the prosecutor can press on and if desired force the victim to testify, which may be important, and controversial, for certain crimes like rape).
Good point. I would like to know the politics behind the prosecutor's decision. I'm not into the self-righteous let's-get-'em thing, but I don't like money grubbing opportunist thieves either.
Arguably millions of dollars are involved, even if it was $5k for the hot property (stolen stuff sells at deep discount :). Apple spends millions even on what color to make a product. Regardless of Apple's fortunes, intellectual property is a huge part of the economy in the valley -- and the prosecutor incidentally would be a city employee, not state -- so they have reason to be rigid. You KNOW everyone out there is following the case and the result will affect their future behavior. Already, no one is going to try the "hey I found a 'lost' prototype" trick.
Again, I'd like to know the thought process and whether there was pressure from Apple. I would expect a pretty quick plea bargain, and I doubt the out-of-pocket expenses are much; the lawyers and cops are already on the payroll. It might be a diversion of resources from more important projects.
It would definitely be wasteful to put these guys in prison. Picking up trash on the roadside, on the other hand, works for me.
Disclaimer, I used to work for an appeals court and find this sort of story fascinating. :)
Always indicative. Private parties can't do that stuff, they use discovery, interrogatories, request subpoenas -- and risk a greater likelihood of destroyed evidence. Given that Gizmodo has already established it is unethical....
Good point. Well, miscarriages of justices are nothing new! I stated the principle, not the absolute practice.
I'd be more scared of Apple, assuming this is just about money and not jail time. Also, of course, the relevant employees are all vulnerable to criminal charges. I would especially hate to see company turn a profit while the "little people" go to jail or go broke.
I agree. This is an ordinary criminal investigation re stolen goods, maybe throw in some conspiracy etc. The "journalist" and others were involved in the actual purchase (!) of the phone. Just imagine the possibilities if the journalist could engage in criminal activity while pursuing a story. We'd probably be seeing a lot of stories on prostitution and illegal drug use, for starters.
And to the OP, it's prima facie, and the concept is not relevant here anyway. The shield law would be raised as a *defense* to a prima facie valid claim, i.e., a charging document stating the case. IAAL.
Finders keepers isn't the rule generally. Even small children are taught that. Treasure in shipwrecks leads to big arguments over ownership centuries later. You don't lose you property rights just because you misplace or are deprived of something (in the old days the big problem was property that departed on its own, i.e., livestock ... the owner had to pay damages for what the critter ate or broke, but it was still his). Only if something is *abandoned* is it up for grabs. Would any reasonable person things the prototype was abandoned? Reportedly they even sought legal counsel, knowing they were pushing it.
The only reason the iPhone was worth $5k to them was that even possessing it was wrongful. Buying something from a thief, even unknowingly, also gives you no prperty right, and it's just silly for them to say it was "lost." They knew what they were doing by paying that much alone, and I'm sure more evidence will pop up when the suspects squeal on each other.
Arguably Apple's profit could be damaged here. I have no idea how they could prove that (and Apple can sue for civil damages, using the conviction as a slam-dunk proof of the facts), and I assume it will go to settlement anyway given the legal fees it would cost to defend it. It could get ugly.
Gizmodo did a very dumb thing. (Not to mention the party who found and sold the phone, knowing it wasn't his, either.) Remember though that it's the gov't not Apple that decides whether to bring criminal charges. Apple could ask them to drop it, but it sounds like they're OK with the brute force approach, or else the prosecutor wants to do what the prosecutor wants to do.
No: If there's a conviction, the government is going to want the ill-gotten gains and then some -- like several times the total. You don't send a company to jail; you fine the heck out of it. A criminal is not supposed to keep the profits, and the conviction is supposed to deter others.
I wonder what Apple wants in all this? They can bring a civil claim as well, and a conviction would make that a quick fit b/c the facts would already be established against the defendant.
The EFF offers a copy of the developer's agreement here.
If the relevant clause appears to be this:
I don't see how Fiore is "obscene, pornographic, or defamatory" though I guess there is some off-color content. But the "objectionable" line seems hopelessly vague, and I have no idea what limit "reasonable" places on Apple. I think they can block virtually whomever they want but question whether this clause is particularly meaningful as a contract. Because Apple can "revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time," the developer has little or no protection; a court might (?) have a problem with the reckless exercise of this -- contractual obligations aren't always spelled out in full on paper.
Certainly Apple has a monopoly over iPhone/iPad apps, one they will hold as long as they can. Some argue that vertical integration like this is bad for companies, and Apple is the unusual exception in pulling it off. The only solution may be for consumers to vote with their feet -- Android.
I have heard even human rights groups have qualms about going after retailers running (or more often doing business with contractors who run) sweatshops because the alternative may be to lose the job altogether and end up worse off. In China crappy wages can actually be good wages, though the conditions are unconscionable by our standards, the laborers choose the jobs intelligently over the alternatives.
If we hold the company (e.g., Nike) accountable, the company may, instead of correcting the problem, which again is probably with a contractor not a directly owned factory, switch to a supplier possibly in another country where labor standards are adequate. Again, the victims lose their jobs.
I'm not trying to rationalize the cheap shoes from sweatshops, just describe unintentional consequences I don't like, either. The host country -- all of them -- stepping up regulation of all companies would work, but it's not going to happen anytime soon in, say, China.
So what to do. No, nothing is not the answer, but the answer can be tough even for a well-meaning company, if there are any of those left. Certainly some of them do better jobs than others.
Apple recently revealed finding children and excessive (60+/7 days) hours in unidentified Asian contract factories. And so it ... terminated the contract. OK, good, noble even. And the workers did what?
(Apple had similar problems in 2008 and 2006, too.)
Which, and I actually don't want sound to be too cold, sits a lot better with me than the other people they take with them. Usually the other guy, the green light guy, gets the worst of it when the "runner" spears them. Often the other guy is on a bicycle or on foot. Running red lights is a leading cuse of lethal accidents here because, I suppose, of the angle and speed involved, and the frequency of the offense. It really sucks.
Interesting story. The ruling seems to turn partly on an odd (?) FL rule that a ticket must be issued by an officer who witnesses the infraction. Now, arguably the pictures are a form of "witnessing" if they were reviewed by an officer? Do you think it would be OK to isue a ticket for infractions observed over closed-circuit TV? Does it matter if it is recorded and reviewed later? Are still pictures fundamenetally different? Etc.
In looking up the story I noticed the FL legislature is considering banning red light cameras completely.
I think you're right re the photos, I've seen them here in VA, outside DC.
I got tagged by a speeding camera, and I have to credit them with using pavement markings and a time stamp to calculate speed, rather than an unreliable radar gun. The thing is, by the time you get the ticket it is unlikely you'll remember much about the incident let alone preserved any evidence -- so in effect there is no defense. They (MD) took pains not to make in a criminal defense affecting my insurance, and the fine was just $40 so I wasn't going to drive out there to contest it. I barely remembered why I was on that road at all.
With this yellow-light thing, what is needed is class action to get the government's attention. With piecemeal defense by people like the guy in the article, they have great financial incentive not to fix the problem.
Only in Chicago have I ever seen signs at intersections admonishing "OBEY YOUR SIGNAL ONLY" I suppose Chicago drivers might just go with the signal that most appeals to them.
(Yes, before someone pipes up, I understand the sign is a warning not to get confused choosing a light in Chicago's wonderful 8-way intersections, but I cracked up the first time I saw that, and I knew I'd arrived in a different place.)
Thanks for the laugh. I haven't lived there in a dozen years.
You may have read my comment too quickly, because I noted that most of entitlement spending is funded by specific taxes ("programs like Social Security are directly funded (for now) by specific taxes"). Look to the link for the chart "receipts." I suspect people would complain, for example, if you cancelled social security but kept on collecting social security taxes (42% of receipts). Big spending, sure, but big taxes, too. Also Social Security or Medicare are not what people are thinking about when they're ranting about people cheating the government.
As I indicated, defense spending is also larger that it appears in the graph because of hidden costs in other area of the budget. (I don't agree with these guys, so I didn't cite them, but some useful points are made here: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm ) I think we should factor in what we would gain if some of the people currently working in defense were in more constructive pursuits, for example building bridges in the US instead of blowing them up somewhere else. I'm not a utopian, we need a military, but the cost is staggering. Welfare is trivial by comparison and cheap political BS in terms of balancing the budget -- the few pundits who know anything also know they're lying. Although there are moral reasons to be cautious in giving out aid, you'll never balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
The actual #'s are instructive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
The "killing people" sector of the U.S. budget dwarfs the "suck on the teat" portion, many times over in real dollars, and the more so when you consider the current military expenses for open-ended wars that aren't being paid for with current funds, the hidden costs in "non-military" parts of the budget related to veterans etc., and that programs like Social Security are directly funded (for now) by specific taxes. The military expense is relatively (and absolutely) HUGE, like $ billions versus millions.
I won't defend the freeloaders for a second. But if you want moral outrage, there is a lot more money being ripped off from or misspent by the military. Eliminating every penny of welfare programs well spent or not would not make any real difference to fixing the deficit or reducing taxes. It's just some blood the pundits sprinkle in the water to keep their own financial interests going. Now, if we dealt with just the folks ripping off the military, or eliminating some really stupid expenses like maintaining a nuclear arsenal STILL capable of destroying the world over and over and over -- that's real money. We spend more than the next dozen countries combined on defense.
A diplomat friend mentioned yesterday that we still spend millions maintaining tactical nukes in Europe. Why? Basically, the Army just doesn't want to give them up. The price of a few warheads could fund some serious science.
Of course it was military competition that ignited our interest on rockets in the first place, not reaching the Moon.