...Depending on who got ahold of it. You say you could do a great deal with it - Okay... - At what age? The one you are now, or the one you were in 1975? (It's a gamble on my part, you could be in your 60s now... Not in my 60s, but in 79 I made a science project in which I made a robot arm that could move up and down... and I had to wire a circuit board and bridge it to my Apple II computer and made a program to allow the user to control it from the keyboard. A few years later... but not much.
Cool. In 79 I did my first solo engine rebuild, actually I rebuilt the whole bike (CB450 Honda twin) from the ground up.
Keep in mind the intention was to share a glimmer of thing to come with the throng of frothing accolades - Not to copy Uber Secret Chip X and rush it into production at competitor Y. Apple created "the Monster" that got off the chain - Gizmodo just gave it a carrot. A is business as usual. Were B the case I'd (still laugh, but) agree with you.No matter what their intent was, they were still doing it by illegal means that they just thought they could get away with. It's not the size of the incident, but the principle behind it. You traffic in stolen goods, you get slammed if caught.
Fortunately the world isn't quite that black & white, reality is really more a myriad shades of gray. I've seen a multitude of these discussions go into the wall because somebody just had to play the nursery school marm stealing bad/momma spank cut and dried nonsense. As I've mentioned before, any time there is enough money involved, the rules change - That's just life in the big mean corporate world.
And even for the average Joe types, it's not always quite so crystal clear. for example, by the definition you're eluding to I submit this summery:Any time
one sets forth by stealth of design to willfully and intentionally with or without deception acquire property that they have no legal right of ownership to from the legal owner of said property they are without exception guilty of theft
, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Now in some countries, the penalty for theft is to cut off the thief's hand - So we'll set the bar there (come on you just new I was headed for some manner of crazy ass-ed extreme).
Now, lets say your buddy, is drunk. I don't mean the slightly tipsy "legally drunk", I'm talking flat out smashed, blind, staggering, can't hold onto the floor drunk. In an attempt to prevent him from driving (obviously a bad idea) ... you orchestrate the separation of him and his car keys (e.g. you steal
them). Hence by definition above a crime despite the best of intentions
... Guilty - and off goes the hand. Cut, dried, completely in accordance with the law, done.
But wait... There's more! Lets say - you draw the short straw - and get a still sopping wet fresh from graduation public defender, and the prosecuting attorney is in a bad mood (it's an election year, he's down on points, & looking for a good quick kill). So now due to the fact that your actions directly impaired said party's ability to leave...they tack on unlawful detention. Yeah now it's a party - I wonder what they cut off for that one?
Point being stealing
is not always
-Legal fees = a vacuum.Not if it goes like you think it should and nothing happens to them legally. See how that works?
Sure do, It's called a gamble, and is a standard part of any business. Large corporation dump toxic waste where they like, because the fines are cheaper than the cost of proper disposal. They're gambling on the price of the fine not changing. When it comes to politics vs. tax money - They're probably right too.
Accountable for what? Depriving Lord Jobs of a teensy weensy little spark from his next over-the-top release worship revival light show? If they actually had a product... other than their immense marketing hype inducer machine, this would be a total non-issue.
No... accountability for breaking the law. And I'm no apple apologist, but its just the rule of law at work. And you start breaking it down at these levels, and you pave the way for future grander violations.
That actually happened years ago. Hay if Diplomatic Immunity hasn't gotten us all killed by now - I'm not seeing this as a real issue.
Which is one of the reasons it's lame of them to bring the journalistic shield into play since you're using something that's meant to protect real journalists in a way that in the future could limit it when it really needs to be used.
If they tossed in a dead nun and a few pound of heroin (making an obvious stretch for Tech Journalism...) I'd agree with ya. But IMO, this is just what that shield be for.