11–20 of 59 posts
And it may be just me, but the whole thing seems to be a pretty easy case: The California law regarding lost items is pretty clear. If you think it's stolen, you have to report it.
The website shows a story admitting to buying the prototype for $5000 and showing lots of pictures holding it, disassembling, etc. They know who owned it, and you're not going to pay $5000 for something that you're not completely sure of.
Asking "Why were two completely different crime department cases in two completely different jurisdictions handled in two completely different ways?" is just glomming onto current news in an attempt to raise the profile of some other complaint. The complaint (her TRO should have been enforced) is valid, but has nothing to do with the handling of trade secrets investigation elsewhere in the country.
Because Apple has lots of money and political influence.
Justice is politics and politics is money. Its ugly when it shows up so explicitly, but it should be no surprise.
Asking "Why were two completely different crime department cases in two completely different jurisdictions handled in two completely different ways?" is just glomming onto current news in an attempt to raise the profile of some other complaint. The complaint (her TRO should have been enforced) is valid, but has nothing to do with the handling of trade secrets investigation elsewhere in the country.
They are simply showing how bad/corrupt/failed the current law system is.
That murder story was just awful. Who would want to read that at the start of their day?
If I just come out and say it can we move along to more newsworthy items? Because Apple has lots of money and political influence. Justice is politics and politics is money. Its ugly when it shows up so explicitly, but it should be no surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point wasn't that Apple is a business, and that other businesses should be treated the same. I was working on an idea of "size of the crime multiplied by the number of people impacted" might define where the threshold lies. So murdering one person is significant in that it affects one person ultimately , and a good chunk of other people in the second order. Losing one's own phone affects a single person only, and…
That's, by and large, what most district attorneys and police departments do, and that's what's so troubling about this action and the priority it was given. No one seriously believes that Gawker Media poses a continuing threat to anyone, including Apple. There's also no question about the disposition of the property; it's in Apple's hands. Further, the damage done is questionable. (I don't mean "frivolous." By "ques…
The case has lots and lots of media attention. And it may be just me, but the whole thing seems to be a pretty easy case: The California law regarding lost items is pretty clear. If you think it's stolen, you have to report it. The website shows a story admitting to buying the prototype for $5000 and showing lots of pictures holding it, disassembling, etc. They know who owned it, and you're not going to pay $5000 for…
Asking "Why were two completely different crime department cases in two completely different jurisdictions handled in two completely different ways?" is just glomming onto current news in an attempt to raise the profile of some other complaint. The complaint (her TRO should have been enforced) is valid, but has nothing to do with the handling of trade secrets investigation elsewhere in the country.
The complaint is that if the law is the law then every case should be handled the exact same. Regardless of who it is. A phone is a phone 3 daughters is 3 daughters. It should not matter whose phone or whose daughters. They are simply showing how bad/corrupt/failed the current law system is.