Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
litigationandtrial.com
Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#2Because in this day and age we value our gadgets more than our freedom. If isn't happy, then no one is happy.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#3"He did it and got away with it" isn't a defense for breaking the law.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#4Asking "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.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#5People are ignoring the media aspect to all of this. You do not want such a public case to go unpunished or ignored by the state.
If some random phone gets lost obviously you aren't going to spend too much resources on this because there aren't enough available. I'm pretty sure not all such individual cases are ignored, so it's not like only the corporations "receive justice".
But, having such a public case about a presumably lost prototype, etc. be ignored is a sign that the state considers this to be ok or of low importance. You do not want that idea to spread into the mainstream. Justice isn't just about busting dors, it's also a marketing (or propaganda) issue.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#6The OP's counterexample, the Gonzales case, is just an example of "won't someone think of the children?", and I have little patience for such arguments, designed to evoke emotion rather than reason.
While you might not like it, Apple's marketing plans probably do have a larger impact on our society than does OP's hypothetical lost phone. It's unfortunate, but the realities of life force us to draw lines somewhere.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#7Asking "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 problem in both cases is the absence of any standards governing the exercise of the prosecutor's and investigator's discretion. The appearance of impropriety in both cases magnifies the problem.
If REACT wants to make it a high priority to issue subpoenas to recover information from third parties that might relate to someone else's wrongful possession of a phone for a brief amount of time, then so be it. Last I read they were focused on major counterfeit software operations.
At the moment, though, it appears REACT suddenly developed a zeal for prosecuting a trivial offense merely because the offense is high profile and involved an influential victim. That's a problem, and it's the same problem in the Gonzales case: the improper exercise of discretion. The public is entitled to know how and why REACT is utilizing its limited resources.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#8The OP's counterexample, the Gonzales case, is just an example of "won't someone think of the children?", and I have little patience for such arguments, designed to evoke emotion rather than reason. While you might not like it, Apple's marketing plans probably do have a larger impact on our society than does OP's hypothetical lost phone. It's unfortunate, but the realities of life force us to draw lines somewhere.
Maybe so. But if so, then REACT shouldn't have any trouble explaining why the investigation of this single phone was so important. There are thousands of IT businesses that have been cheated, defrauded, stolen from, and counterfeited, and yet Apple's already-returned single phone gets preferential treatment.
Why? Your explanation might be perfectly valid, but it's not the explanation REACT has given. They haven't explained anything at all.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#9The OP's counterexample, the Gonzales case, is just an example of "won't someone think of the children?", and I have little patience for such arguments, designed to evoke emotion rather than reason. While you might not like it, Apple's marketing plans probably do have a larger impact on our society than does OP's hypothetical lost phone. It's unfortunate, but the realities of life force us to draw lines somewhere.
Maybe so. But if so, then REACT shouldn't have any trouble explaining why the investigation of this single phone was so important. There are thousands of IT businesses that have been cheated, defrauded, stolen from, and counterfeited, and yet Apple's already-returned single phone gets preferential treatment. Why? Your explanation might be perfectly valid, but it's not the explanation REACT has given. They haven't exp…
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 not very significantly at that. Apple's losing their prototype is analogous in the actual act, but the effect on Apple's marketing multiplies it out big-time.
Other test cases for the thought experiment: bank robbery; simple assault; rape; creating a public nuisance. I think the idea can be applied successfully across all of these.
I don't know anything specific about the stolen iPhone case. I find the whole "zOMG I saw a picture of the new iPhone!!!1!!" thing to be ridiculous. So I can't address anyone's behavior in this instance.
Re: Why Is Apple's iPhone Prototype Entitled To More Justice?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe so. But if so, then REACT shouldn't have any trouble explaining why the investigation of this single phone was so important. There are thousands of IT businesses that have been cheated, defrauded, stolen from, and counterfeited, and yet Apple's already-returned single phone gets preferential treatment. Why? Your explanation might be perfectly valid, but it's not the explanation REACT has given. They haven't exp…
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 "questionable," I mean that there's a legitimate dispute as to whether or not anyone suffered legally-recognized damages from the leak, as compared to, say, someone running a counterfeit-iPhone operation.)
In such a situation, most cops and DAs would put the investigation at the bottom of their pile, tell the victim to file a civil lawsuit, and then focus their resources at on-going criminal activity or crimes with substantial damages to the public.
Here, however, REACT raced into action with a particularly aggressive maneuver: a subpoena and unannounced seizure of a journalist's property. That's among the most aggressive actions they could have taken, and the decision-making behind it deserves an explanation.