I admit I was relieved to hear you acquitted the guy -- so it's moot whether you were prejudiced. But otherwise your independent research squarely violated the rules. It could have cut the other way, too: If you'd convicted the guy on the merits and your independent research come to light, it could have caused a mistrial.

Generally "bad acts," including prior convictions, are not admissible because they are so deeply prejudicial; so the prosecutor couldn't have brought them in, either. The ideal is that trial be about the present issue, not a probability calculation based on the defendant's "badness" -- although in some cases like yours it may seem pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, in some places getting arrested for no reason is pretty common.

I think you implicitly respect the rule because you say "of course [you] never told any of the other jurors." So you trusted yourelf but not them. No harm, no foul here, but not a good thing to be doing. (Concession: I'm an attorney who has *almost* served on several juries, so I don't quite know what it's like; but I think I would find the temptation to poke around very strong, especially if I thought counsel was doing a crappy job.)

(1) The military has to do their job perfectly to survive. Um....
(2) We're arrogant and I doubt would see it coming. The Stark is an example, or the low-tech Yemen bombing.
(3) I've heard the anti-missile systems sometimes target our helicopter and they prefer to leave them off most of the time.

It's just not a risk worth running, if there is an alternative. There have been many successful attacks. Now name just one that was successfully thwarted.

... 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 .....

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.

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....