In the legal field powerpoint slides can be incredibly useful when presenting to juries, when you want to simplify/clarify (or alternately, confuse).
I believe you, but in that case (no pun intended) it's not an unnecessary presentation. I was referring to the typical corporate setting where someone uses PowerPoint mainly because he/she can without regard to whether it adds anything to what is being said.
On the other hand, I have made only one PP presentation in my life, but it was a good one. It was on typography, given to a group of architects and used it only to show graphic illustrations of why the way they were using type was wrong. PP was perfect for that.
but it sure would be great if this were the beginning of the end of unnecessary PowerPoint presentations. I can't think of many times when I saw one that was actually helpful.
WTF, you've got some serious Apple-haters on your ass. Hope your karma survives.
Yeah, I couldn't help but notice...
I've got excellent karma--I think I hit the cap some time back--so it's not an issue. Thanks anyway, though; just the fact that you noticed made me feel a little better.
The finder tried to return it to Apple. They didn't want it.
I would call that reasonable effort to return it
You really think that calling Apple's tech support line can be considered a reasonable effort? That the entry-level employees answering the phones there would know anything about a missing iPhone prototype or (assuming that they're even Apple employees and not working for some call center in Bangalore) who to contact about one?
Admittedly, IANAL, but I think that you'd have a hard time convincing a jury of that.
Yeah, maybe that applies in this case, but we're getting into far more complicated stuff here than I'm qualified to argue. IANAL but I've been following this thing pretty closely and have read a few things written by people who are. Once we get past that, though, I'm out of my depth.
Really? I don't see anything there which makes specific reference to bringing it to the police.
That's because it's in another part that I didn't include:
California civil code, section 2080.1:
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.
What happens when it is revealed that this whole affair is nothing more than a marketing ploy.
Who goes to jail/ to the unemployment line/ the lawyers?
If it is revealed that it was nothing more than a marketing ploy, Apple will be a world of legal hurt. No one will end up in jail in this fiasco no matter how it turns but someone is gonna end up with a fine, a conviction of some sort, or both.
but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if--
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate...
Since there is probable cause to believe Chen received stolen property, the San Mateo County Sheriff is in the clear.
journalistic privilege arguably applies to protecting the identity of the original finder of the phone.
I'm not sure that journalistic privilege applies to protecting the identity of someone from whom the journalist in question purchased stolen property. And, per California law, that's exactly what the iPhone prototype was. I've already posted the relevant section of the California penal code above, you can check it out.
Ruined? He did lose the phone didn't he? Without the publicity he may have already been fired.
You think? Since when has Steve Jobs ever cared about that? If he thinks that the engineer deserves to be fired (and I've been canned for much less), he'll go ahead and do it without a second thought.
Perhaps someone knows more about this story than I do. But is it truly stolen property? If you find something on the ground, it is my understanding that it is yours [...] Are my assumptions true for the state of California?
No, they are not. Here's the relevant section of California law:
California penal code, section 485:L
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.
Since the finder knew who lost the phone (he found that info on the phone itself), he was obligated by law to either return it to the owner or bring it to the police so they could see the owner gets it back.
1. Dude#1 takes someone's high value phone (a prototype next gen iPhone).
should perhaps read:
1. Dude#1 takes someone's high value phone (a prototype next gen iPhone) (Felony Grand theft).
since, according to California law, he was guilty of theft of when he failed to make a real effort to return the phone to the owner (calling Apple's tech support line hardly counts--there's no way the entry-level employees there would know anything about a lost iPhone prototype), then sold it.
No one will do any jail time, though--there will be some sort of plea agreement that will keep it from ever going to court. San Mateo County is hurting financially and would no doubt prefer to avoid the cost of a trial.
When the Gizmodo punks outed the name of the Apple Engineer who lost the phone for, as near as I could tell, no good reason other than to pile on, I lost all sympathy for them.
Yeah, same here. And their so-called reasoning for doing it--to protect him from being fired--was pathetic to say the least. If I were in that guy's shoes, the last thing I'd want after losing a valuable piece of my employer's property would be to have the fact that I'd done it plastered all over the Internet. In any case, the least they could have done for the poor guy is ask if he wanted them to publish his name or not. There's no evidence that they did.
All the bastards were interested in was increasing page hits.
Wouldn't that be the best way to turn a simple mistake INTO a publicity stunt? Even if it turns out to be false, got people talking for another week, right?
Yeah, and open up Apple for a world of legal troubles, too, if the whole truth were to ever come out. And you can bet it would, eventually. No matter how a good employer they may be overall, you can bet that would be at least one disgruntled (ex-)employee who would know the truth and was just itching to hurt Apple.
U.S. law is mainly based on British Common Law and the laws pertaining to lost property even predate that at least to Roman times. If you would like to educate yourself, here are a couple of places to start:
Slashdot Mirror
Good sir, you repeat yourself.
A good point. Stamp out redundancy and do away with it.
In the legal field powerpoint slides can be incredibly useful when presenting to juries, when you want to simplify/clarify (or alternately, confuse).
I believe you, but in that case (no pun intended) it's not an unnecessary presentation. I was referring to the typical corporate setting where someone uses PowerPoint mainly because he/she can without regard to whether it adds anything to what is being said.
On the other hand, I have made only one PP presentation in my life, but it was a good one. It was on typography, given to a group of architects and used it only to show graphic illustrations of why the way they were using type was wrong. PP was perfect for that.
but it sure would be great if this were the beginning of the end of unnecessary PowerPoint presentations. I can't think of many times when I saw one that was actually helpful.
no one is willing to get his karma downgraded for something that's not worth talking about: Apple.
Not worth talking about and yet, here you are reading an Apple thread and taking the time to comment on it.
why hasn't anyone noticed that the next ice-age is due soon, and maybe it might be a good idea to do something about it?
Martinis and beer are why. They're both better cold.
It's always in the last place you look.
Yeah. Now I wonder if they could help me find my keys.
I'm not sure what we gave them to keep quiet about 9/11; perhaps the location of Tesla's base on Mars after he escaped from Earth.
The formula for Coca-Cola and the recipe for McDonald's Secret Sauce.
WTF, you've got some serious Apple-haters on your ass. Hope your karma survives.
Yeah, I couldn't help but notice...
I've got excellent karma--I think I hit the cap some time back--so it's not an issue. Thanks anyway, though; just the fact that you noticed made me feel a little better.
The finder tried to return it to Apple. They didn't want it.
I would call that reasonable effort to return it
You really think that calling Apple's tech support line can be considered a reasonable effort? That the entry-level employees answering the phones there would know anything about a missing iPhone prototype or (assuming that they're even Apple employees and not working for some call center in Bangalore) who to contact about one?
Admittedly, IANAL, but I think that you'd have a hard time convincing a jury of that.
Yeah, maybe that applies in this case, but we're getting into far more complicated stuff here than I'm qualified to argue. IANAL but I've been following this thing pretty closely and have read a few things written by people who are. Once we get past that, though, I'm out of my depth.
Really? I don't see anything there which makes specific reference to bringing it to the police.
That's because it's in another part that I didn't include:
What happens when it is revealed that this whole affair is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Who goes to jail/ to the unemployment line/ the lawyers?
If it is revealed that it was nothing more than a marketing ploy, Apple will be a world of legal hurt. No one will end up in jail in this fiasco no matter how it turns but someone is gonna end up with a fine, a conviction of some sort, or both.
You forgot to read this part:
Since there is probable cause to believe Chen received stolen property, the San Mateo County Sheriff is in the clear.
journalistic privilege arguably applies to protecting the identity of the original finder of the phone.
I'm not sure that journalistic privilege applies to protecting the identity of someone from whom the journalist in question purchased stolen property. And, per California law, that's exactly what the iPhone prototype was. I've already posted the relevant section of the California penal code above, you can check it out.
Ruined? He did lose the phone didn't he? Without the publicity he may have already been fired.
You think? Since when has Steve Jobs ever cared about that? If he thinks that the engineer deserves to be fired (and I've been canned for much less), he'll go ahead and do it without a second thought.
Perhaps someone knows more about this story than I do. But is it truly stolen property? If you find something on the ground, it is my understanding that it is yours [...] Are my assumptions true for the state of California?
No, they are not. Here's the relevant section of California law:
Since the finder knew who lost the phone (he found that info on the phone itself), he was obligated by law to either return it to the owner or bring it to the police so they could see the owner gets it back.
Bravo. I'd suggest one slight change, however:
1. Dude#1 takes someone's high value phone (a prototype next gen iPhone).
should perhaps read:
1. Dude#1 takes someone's high value phone (a prototype next gen iPhone) (Felony Grand theft).
since, according to California law, he was guilty of theft of when he failed to make a real effort to return the phone to the owner (calling Apple's tech support line hardly counts--there's no way the entry-level employees there would know anything about a lost iPhone prototype), then sold it.
No one will do any jail time, though--there will be some sort of plea agreement that will keep it from ever going to court. San Mateo County is hurting financially and would no doubt prefer to avoid the cost of a trial.
When the Gizmodo punks outed the name of the Apple Engineer who lost the phone for, as near as I could tell, no good reason other than to pile on, I lost all sympathy for them.
Yeah, same here. And their so-called reasoning for doing it--to protect him from being fired--was pathetic to say the least. If I were in that guy's shoes, the last thing I'd want after losing a valuable piece of my employer's property would be to have the fact that I'd done it plastered all over the Internet. In any case, the least they could have done for the poor guy is ask if he wanted them to publish his name or not. There's no evidence that they did.
All the bastards were interested in was increasing page hits.
The phone was not stolen.
Actually, according to California law, which is the only thing that's relevant in this matter, it was stolen.
Why not?
Wouldn't that be the best way to turn a simple mistake INTO a publicity stunt? Even if it turns out to be false, got people talking for another week, right?
Yeah, and open up Apple for a world of legal troubles, too, if the whole truth were to ever come out. And you can bet it would, eventually. No matter how a good employer they may be overall, you can bet that would be at least one disgruntled (ex-)employee who would know the truth and was just itching to hurt Apple.
"Finders keepers, losers weepers" doesn't apply in the real world.
actually it does in a great deal of cases.
Really? Then please cite the relevant California case law.
the idiot LEFT IT ON THE BAR. it was FOUND.
Once again, wrong.
The phone was not stolen, it was left unprotected and unattended
Wrong.
The phone was lost, not stolen and as such, no laws that prohibit the purchase of known stolen property will not apply.
Wrong.
You know, your ignorance is startling.
U.S. law is mainly based on British Common Law and the laws pertaining to lost property even predate that at least to Roman times. If you would like to educate yourself, here are a couple of places to start:
http://www.federalism.ch/files/documents/legalsystems_fulltext_209.02_final.pdf
http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/1728/read/continental_law_vs_common_law/roman_law_and_the_history_of_law/