Gizmodo editor Brian Lam's email to Steve Jobs(networkworld.com)
networkworld.com
Gizmodo editor Brian Lam's email to Steve Jobs
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/61295
127 comments
Very nice recap of the important points of the affidavit.
A couple other items of note:
The detective's summary relates the facts concisely in terms of the crimes believed to have been committed, as follows:
"Suspect Brian Hogan found or stole a prototype iPhone 4G that was accidentally left at a restaurant by Apple employee Robert 'Gray' Powell. Hogan identified the owner of the phone as Apple Engineer Gray Powell through the contents of the phone and through Internet searches. Rather than return the prototype phone to Powell and/or Apple, Hogan subsequently sold the iPhone [to] Jason Chen in Fremont for $5000. Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com."
California Penal Code 499c(b)provides: "Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following . . . (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret." ["Copy" is defined in 499c(a)(7) to mean "any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."] Violation of 499c(b)(3) is a felony.
The real damage here consists of revealing Apple's trade secrets to the world, and it was apparently done deliberately for direct financial gain (even if that gain did take the form of hits to the Gizmodo site).
The investigation is being led by the San Mateo County REACT unit, which often works in cooperative investigations between the local D.A.'s office and the U.S. Attorney's office. So far, we have not seen any involvement publicly of the U.S. Attorney's office in this case. That does not mean, though, that they are not involved. If the economic harm stemming from trade secret thefts is significant (as it appears to be here), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 might also be used as a basis for prosecution under federal law. It provides in relevant part as follows: "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
A final note on how these sorts of matters tend to unravel for the malefactors. The recitals of probable cause that one or more crimes have been committed, as set forth in the affidavit, concern Jason Chen individually and not his employer (meaning that he personally will be charged in any indictment that is filed). Mr. Chen has retained his own separate criminal defense lawyer to defend himself (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236). Prosecutors have broad discretion in such cases on how to fashion the charges brought and also concerning any plea deals struck. If the goal here is ultimately to get to Gizmodo/Gawker, who do you think will be the first to incriminate them?
A couple other items of note:
The detective's summary relates the facts concisely in terms of the crimes believed to have been committed, as follows:
"Suspect Brian Hogan found or stole a prototype iPhone 4G that was accidentally left at a restaurant by Apple employee Robert 'Gray' Powell. Hogan identified the owner of the phone as Apple Engineer Gray Powell through the contents of the phone and through Internet searches. Rather than return the prototype phone to Powell and/or Apple, Hogan subsequently sold the iPhone [to] Jason Chen in Fremont for $5000. Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com."
California Penal Code 499c(b)provides: "Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following . . . (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret." ["Copy" is defined in 499c(a)(7) to mean "any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."] Violation of 499c(b)(3) is a felony.
The real damage here consists of revealing Apple's trade secrets to the world, and it was apparently done deliberately for direct financial gain (even if that gain did take the form of hits to the Gizmodo site).
The investigation is being led by the San Mateo County REACT unit, which often works in cooperative investigations between the local D.A.'s office and the U.S. Attorney's office. So far, we have not seen any involvement publicly of the U.S. Attorney's office in this case. That does not mean, though, that they are not involved. If the economic harm stemming from trade secret thefts is significant (as it appears to be here), the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 might also be used as a basis for prosecution under federal law. It provides in relevant part as follows: "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
A final note on how these sorts of matters tend to unravel for the malefactors. The recitals of probable cause that one or more crimes have been committed, as set forth in the affidavit, concern Jason Chen individually and not his employer (meaning that he personally will be charged in any indictment that is filed). Mr. Chen has retained his own separate criminal defense lawyer to defend himself (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202453303236). Prosecutors have broad discretion in such cases on how to fashion the charges brought and also concerning any plea deals struck. If the goal here is ultimately to get to Gizmodo/Gawker, who do you think will be the first to incriminate them?
Thank you.
As to your question of who would be the first to incriminate Gawker, rather than Chen: Probably the Computer Hacking & Intellectual Property (CHIP) unit in the criminal division of the US Attorney's office for the Northern District of California, located in San Jose. Gawker's legal representative would have to be summoned and indicted by a grand jury, unless the firm chooses to waive that right and proceed to a hearing.
Gawker Media LLC is a Delaware company headquartered in New York. Title 18 §3237 provides that any offence begun in one district and completed in another (eg CA and NY) can be prosecuted in either district, but it would probably be most practical to do so in California.
Gaby Darbyshire is COO and legal representative of Gawker Media, and per a letter [1] taken into evidence during the search was fully apprised of the situation. The letter did not repudiate or disavow Chen's actions but rather emphasized his employment by Gawker and use of his home as his regular place of employment. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Gawker is liable for acts carried out by Chen because an agency relationship exists between them; and because he committed a crime, in the scope of his employment, with the purpose of benefiting his employer. Even under the stricter rules of MPC 2.07, Gawker's COO and CEO appear to have approved and even reveled in Chen's illegal actions, and thus acted with scienter.
1. http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer... 'Gawker's legal response to police'.
small voice I think... (edit: FYI grellas is a real attorney, whereas I'm just thinking about trying to become one...don't rely on anything I post!)
As to your question of who would be the first to incriminate Gawker, rather than Chen: Probably the Computer Hacking & Intellectual Property (CHIP) unit in the criminal division of the US Attorney's office for the Northern District of California, located in San Jose. Gawker's legal representative would have to be summoned and indicted by a grand jury, unless the firm chooses to waive that right and proceed to a hearing.
Gawker Media LLC is a Delaware company headquartered in New York. Title 18 §3237 provides that any offence begun in one district and completed in another (eg CA and NY) can be prosecuted in either district, but it would probably be most practical to do so in California.
Gaby Darbyshire is COO and legal representative of Gawker Media, and per a letter [1] taken into evidence during the search was fully apprised of the situation. The letter did not repudiate or disavow Chen's actions but rather emphasized his employment by Gawker and use of his home as his regular place of employment. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Gawker is liable for acts carried out by Chen because an agency relationship exists between them; and because he committed a crime, in the scope of his employment, with the purpose of benefiting his employer. Even under the stricter rules of MPC 2.07, Gawker's COO and CEO appear to have approved and even reveled in Chen's illegal actions, and thus acted with scienter.
1. http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer... 'Gawker's legal response to police'.
small voice I think... (edit: FYI grellas is a real attorney, whereas I'm just thinking about trying to become one...don't rely on anything I post!)
Do these laws have any tests for determining if the owner of a "trade secret" is protecting the secret appropriately? I'm not looking for a defense of the clearly unethical and illegal behavior of Chen, Hogan, etc. I do worry that a person in a bar I'm drinking at may accidentally leave a trade secret lying around. I can't imagine Coke allowing an employee to take home the secret formula.
Thanks for your analysis of the pertinent points of this case. Just one more thing I have to keep on my mental list of "things that can get you 5 to 10 in the 'Land of the Free'".
Thanks for your analysis of the pertinent points of this case. Just one more thing I have to keep on my mental list of "things that can get you 5 to 10 in the 'Land of the Free'".
It is usually pretty easy for a trade secret owner to show that it is protecting its property by taking reasonable and prudent steps to assure that the information is kept confidential (e.g., by making everybody who deals with it sign NDAs, etc.). Accordingly, most proprietary developments of tech companies do fall within the protectable trade secret category unless the company explicitly makes the information public (e.g., by open sourcing it).
I don't think there is any particular need to worry about stumbling upon trade secret information and incurring the risk of criminal prosecution. Anyone in such a position who has honest intentions can have a pretty good sense of what to do (report it, turn it in, etc.) and, if unsure, at least of what not to do (sell it for $$$, rip off serial numbers, photograph details and publish them on the web).
Remember, each of the criminal statutes requires that someone act in relation to trade secrets "with intent to" do something wrong (convert them to his own use, harm the owner, etc.), and prosecutors must prove this "intent" element (what the lawyers call mens rea or "evil intent") beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of us will be quite safe, then, even if we do happen to stumble upon lost property at a bar.
I don't think there is any particular need to worry about stumbling upon trade secret information and incurring the risk of criminal prosecution. Anyone in such a position who has honest intentions can have a pretty good sense of what to do (report it, turn it in, etc.) and, if unsure, at least of what not to do (sell it for $$$, rip off serial numbers, photograph details and publish them on the web).
Remember, each of the criminal statutes requires that someone act in relation to trade secrets "with intent to" do something wrong (convert them to his own use, harm the owner, etc.), and prosecutors must prove this "intent" element (what the lawyers call mens rea or "evil intent") beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of us will be quite safe, then, even if we do happen to stumble upon lost property at a bar.
YOU MAY DOWN VOTE ME but:
First thing first: Gizmodo should have taken high road, and that email was certainly a mistake ...
But it is also important to note that Steve Jobs called Gizmodo after the whole story was published (I guess so) this puts Gizmodo in very risky position if they don't give an CONVINCING explanation to their readers regarding whereabouts of iphone ... nobody will believe if they said that Steve Jobs called them and they returned the phone ...
If I were Gizmodo, I wud have called Jobs before publishing anything and got myself in his good books and I guess Jobs would have certainly returned my favor in one or other way ... alternatively If he (Jobs) called me after details were published, even then I wud have returned the phone by being as humble as possible at the same time making sure that I dont loose face in front of my readers (again I guess Steve Jobs wouldn't have ignored my favor)...
First thing first: Gizmodo should have taken high road, and that email was certainly a mistake ...
But it is also important to note that Steve Jobs called Gizmodo after the whole story was published (I guess so) this puts Gizmodo in very risky position if they don't give an CONVINCING explanation to their readers regarding whereabouts of iphone ... nobody will believe if they said that Steve Jobs called them and they returned the phone ...
If I were Gizmodo, I wud have called Jobs before publishing anything and got myself in his good books and I guess Jobs would have certainly returned my favor in one or other way ... alternatively If he (Jobs) called me after details were published, even then I wud have returned the phone by being as humble as possible at the same time making sure that I dont loose face in front of my readers (again I guess Steve Jobs wouldn't have ignored my favor)...
I'm sorry, but this logic is like saying that after you've paid for and beaten the hooker, well, you pretty much have to kill her, because otherwise she'll probably turn you in to the police...
what i'm trying to say is Gizmodo could have been humble and got more in return from Steve Jobs ...
I am certain that it gets Steve off when people do this for him. Humble themselves in his presence, grovel a little and hope that a scrap of fat from the Apple table will be flung their way. Because as we all know Steve should be in charge of the direction of their totaly independant company.
I am not educated enough on the details of this situation to comment on the actions of the parties, but good for him for standing up to Steve in that email and telling him, you have never scratched my back, you have kicked me a few times and now it is your turn. I am sure that really chapped Steve's bum.
I am not educated enough on the details of this situation to comment on the actions of the parties, but good for him for standing up to Steve in that email and telling him, you have never scratched my back, you have kicked me a few times and now it is your turn. I am sure that really chapped Steve's bum.
Two things stand out to me from today's details.
First, upon being contacted by Steve Jobs directly to recover the stolen prototype, Gizmodo's answer wasn't "yes", but instead "not until...". However bad you think that is by itself, amplify it by the fact that of 28 sentences in Brian Lam's mail to Steve Jobs, no fewer then 17 of them directly reference the business benefits to Gawker Media of unlawfully retaining the phone, and at least 3 of them make direct reference to the possible harm to Apple that could occur should the details of the phone be disclosed.
Second, Apple legal, presumably as an affiant during the process of securing these warrants, stated directly that it's measuring damages in terms of how much the disclosure hurts the current sales pipeline of iPhone 3GS devices. I hadn't considered that, but it makes perfect sense, and it's a pretty scary thought. A very tiny percentage of current iPhone sales can safely be presumed to completely swamp all of Gawker's top-line revenue.
Also "news" to me, but less important, because Brian Hogan is clearly a douchebag who is going to lose more from this event than he could possibly ever have sold the phone for:
Hogan knew who the rightful owner of the phone was before he talked to Gizmodo. There's no pretense here of helping to effect the return of the phone. He straight-up stole it.
First, upon being contacted by Steve Jobs directly to recover the stolen prototype, Gizmodo's answer wasn't "yes", but instead "not until...". However bad you think that is by itself, amplify it by the fact that of 28 sentences in Brian Lam's mail to Steve Jobs, no fewer then 17 of them directly reference the business benefits to Gawker Media of unlawfully retaining the phone, and at least 3 of them make direct reference to the possible harm to Apple that could occur should the details of the phone be disclosed.
Second, Apple legal, presumably as an affiant during the process of securing these warrants, stated directly that it's measuring damages in terms of how much the disclosure hurts the current sales pipeline of iPhone 3GS devices. I hadn't considered that, but it makes perfect sense, and it's a pretty scary thought. A very tiny percentage of current iPhone sales can safely be presumed to completely swamp all of Gawker's top-line revenue.
Also "news" to me, but less important, because Brian Hogan is clearly a douchebag who is going to lose more from this event than he could possibly ever have sold the phone for:
Hogan knew who the rightful owner of the phone was before he talked to Gizmodo. There's no pretense here of helping to effect the return of the phone. He straight-up stole it.
In light of this, Gizmodo would have most likely done much better overall if they would have beat a path right to Steve Job's door and returned the phone when he personally called and asked them to.
Why?
First, Jobs himself would appreciate the ethics and honesty that could have been prevalent throughout this "transaction." Second, you can bet that what comes around, goes around, and Gizmodo would have most likely been rewarded in July when new products are released.
Instead, Gizmodo took the low road, and directly snubbed Jobs in the process. I bet Jobs told his legal team to do whatever it takes and whatever it costs to bring Gizmodo down. If someone had a lost prototype of one of my products and decided to extort/ransom me, and I had 40 billion dollars of cash reserves, I would release the hounds.
This does not look good at all for Gizmodo.
Why?
First, Jobs himself would appreciate the ethics and honesty that could have been prevalent throughout this "transaction." Second, you can bet that what comes around, goes around, and Gizmodo would have most likely been rewarded in July when new products are released.
Instead, Gizmodo took the low road, and directly snubbed Jobs in the process. I bet Jobs told his legal team to do whatever it takes and whatever it costs to bring Gizmodo down. If someone had a lost prototype of one of my products and decided to extort/ransom me, and I had 40 billion dollars of cash reserves, I would release the hounds.
This does not look good at all for Gizmodo.
If someone had a lost prototype of one of my products and decided to extort/ransom me, and I had 40 billion dollars of cash reserves, I would release the hounds.
Yes, very stupid on Gizmodo's part. They are lousy business journalists if they don't know who has a bigger legal war chest.
Yes, very stupid on Gizmodo's part. They are lousy business journalists if they don't know who has a bigger legal war chest.
The should expect Apple doing that and should treat the matter with utmost care. Theydhould never refuse to return the phone promptly, nor damage it. They could film it, photograph it and then return it.
I like, personally, to go by the "what goes around comes around" rule and would probably return the lost prototype, because if I ever misplace a prototype, I would like it back.
I don't, however, like when the press offers some favor to a company in return for future favors. The press has certain obligations that are frequently at odds with simple courtesy.
Imagine, for a moment, not a phone, but documents proving "Apple Energy" bribed government officials in order to build an unsafe nuclear power plant and Gizmodo offering to return then in exchange for monetary gain.
There was a line crossed somewhere between these points.
Also, this whole idea the press should be friends with the subjects of their reporting is pretty much everthing that can be wrong with the press.
I don't, however, like when the press offers some favor to a company in return for future favors. The press has certain obligations that are frequently at odds with simple courtesy.
Imagine, for a moment, not a phone, but documents proving "Apple Energy" bribed government officials in order to build an unsafe nuclear power plant and Gizmodo offering to return then in exchange for monetary gain.
There was a line crossed somewhere between these points.
Also, this whole idea the press should be friends with the subjects of their reporting is pretty much everthing that can be wrong with the press.
He did not say, or even imply "not until." He said it doesn't make sense to give Apple the phone until Apple says that it is officially theirs. But, they didn't refuse to return the phone, conditionally or unconditionally.
It seems to me (IANAL) that Gizmodo took on a lot of legal liability in that email. They basically admitted they knew:
* the property was in their possession inappropriately
* it was a trade secret
* it would significantly damage Apple by publishing the story
It's also clear that the letter is used to substantiate the story for Gawker's benefit, not because there was any doubt about the legitimacy of the phone.
What the hell were they thinking putting all of that in writing?
* the property was in their possession inappropriately
* it was a trade secret
* it would significantly damage Apple by publishing the story
It's also clear that the letter is used to substantiate the story for Gawker's benefit, not because there was any doubt about the legitimacy of the phone.
What the hell were they thinking putting all of that in writing?
What the hell were they thinking putting all of that in writing?
It was clearly not "The e in email stands for Evidence."
It was clearly not "The e in email stands for Evidence."
Every time I imagine him talking to his legal counsel, I see Brian Lam and Dr. Gonzo cruising down a desert road in a red 1971 Chevrolet Impala. “No point in mentioning Steve Jobs. Poor bastard will see him soon enough.”
I don't believe they had that much fun, but the quality of the legal advice seems comparable.
They are press (for some values of "press", at least). They should not take item 3 in consideration. Having your secrets leaked is a risk Apple has factored in their processes.
[deleted]
"I understand the position you're in, BUT".
"Something like that [...] WOULD MAKE UP FOR GIVING THE PHONE BACK RIGHT AWAY".
"I want to get the phone back to you ASAP [...] BUT".
This was not Apple asking Gizmodo for a favor. Gizmodo had a legal obligation to promptly return the phone.
"Something like that [...] WOULD MAKE UP FOR GIVING THE PHONE BACK RIGHT AWAY".
"I want to get the phone back to you ASAP [...] BUT".
This was not Apple asking Gizmodo for a favor. Gizmodo had a legal obligation to promptly return the phone.
Do we get an apology from all the Gizmodo apologists who ran around with pitchforks and torches against Apple?
edit: To all the people who screamed that Apple was just being an evil corporation when they executed a search warrant:
Hogan's roommate cooperated fully with authorities and assisted them when Hogan and an acquaintance removed several pieces of evidence from his apartment. The evidence, which included a desktop computer, USB flash drive and memory card, and stickers from the iPhone prototype, were found in a church, under a bush, and in a gas station parking lot.
edit: To all the people who screamed that Apple was just being an evil corporation when they executed a search warrant:
Hogan's roommate cooperated fully with authorities and assisted them when Hogan and an acquaintance removed several pieces of evidence from his apartment. The evidence, which included a desktop computer, USB flash drive and memory card, and stickers from the iPhone prototype, were found in a church, under a bush, and in a gas station parking lot.
What a brilliant way to discard evidence.
They're not natural born killers, that's for sure. If they killed someone, they'd hide the weapon in a church and just throw the body behind a bush. I've always wondered why most criminals are so stupid sometimes...
Generally it goes hand-in-hand with being dumb enough to commit a crime in the first place.
How did they find the evidence in these random places? I suppose that Hogan told the police where they were... I can't imagine the police went all CSI and traced it to bushes and churches (!?).
It was mentioned in the affidavit. Warner was the one who went around hiding the evidence. When confronted, he divulged the secret locations. Both Hogan & Warner seem like ultra sketchy people. It's funny that Hogan made the remark "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.” when referring to Gary Powell who might lose his job over losing the phone. Hogan & Warner will probably have a felony record stamped on their foreheads for life.
The more I hear about this story the more I believe the phone was stolen and never lost.
What a coincidence that a bunch of characters like this would 'find' a phone.
What a coincidence that a bunch of characters like this would 'find' a phone.
I think we have all had situations where we would have forgotten something if not for someone calling us back as we left or holding onto it and giving it back next time.
It's hard to believe that these guys thought it a good idea to make a couple of thousand dealing with something a company has literally billions invested in the product line.
It's hard to believe that these guys thought it a good idea to make a couple of thousand dealing with something a company has literally billions invested in the product line.
Sure, that happens all the time. But the usual is then indeed to follow the path back and alert the owner, not to sell off their property.
The way they went about it is stupid, the way it is playing out right now could very well put one of the IT trash sites out of business, and Apple will have made a point.
Alls well that ends well.
The way they went about it is stupid, the way it is playing out right now could very well put one of the IT trash sites out of business, and Apple will have made a point.
Alls well that ends well.
[deleted]
The EFF still feels the warrant was definitely improper, now that they've seen the whole thing (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/iphone-warrant-affidavi...) citing section 1524(g) of the CA penal code, which says no warrants can be issued for [unpublished information obtained/prepared by a journalist].
I am not so sure about this legal theory. Courts have upheld judgments against CA journalists for engaging in actual criminal activity. Also, attorney privilege, which considerably exceeds that of reporters, falls in a case where there is probable to cause to believe an attorney obtained information by committing a crime (CPC 1524(h)). So, debatable.
I am not so sure about this legal theory. Courts have upheld judgments against CA journalists for engaging in actual criminal activity. Also, attorney privilege, which considerably exceeds that of reporters, falls in a case where there is probable to cause to believe an attorney obtained information by committing a crime (CPC 1524(h)). So, debatable.
I have been a longtime supporter of the EFF but I think they should stay out of this. The knee-jerk response related to journalistic privilege seems incorrect and as time goes on it is becoming very clear crimes were committed.
Agreed, and I emailed the attorney who wrote that piece and told him as much. That affidavit reads like a Coen Brothers screenplay, and I don't see any room for EFF to defend anyone involved in the whole sordid affair. (Except maybe the roommate who tried to talk Hogan out of selling the phone.)
[deleted]
Is receiving a good for your own personal use or resale the same thing as receiving it for the purpose of reporting on it then returning it right after? Intent here seems to be overlooked by quite a bit of the commentary.
That said, is there a public good for having obvious trade secrets reported on to the public? I am not sure a good case can be made there. However, there are like 3 secret IPhones running around. Clearly, if it's a trade secret Apple is not working as hard as usual on keeping it for some reason. How many times have we seen leaks like this from Apple? Not very frequently.
That said, is there a public good for having obvious trade secrets reported on to the public? I am not sure a good case can be made there. However, there are like 3 secret IPhones running around. Clearly, if it's a trade secret Apple is not working as hard as usual on keeping it for some reason. How many times have we seen leaks like this from Apple? Not very frequently.
Well, reporting isn't a selfless act, most of the time - the goal is to match eyeballs to advertisements. You're right that they would have been a lot better off to get rid of the thing before they published a word, rather than waiting for Jobs to call. Perhaps they were nervous about the fact that they damaged it during the teardown.
Is receiving a good for your own personal use or resale the same thing as receiving it for the purpose of reporting on it then returning it right after? Intent here seems to be overlooked by quite a bit of the commentary.
I don't see that the specific crime is important here; what's important is that goods which were technically stolen under California law were received by Gizmodo for the purpose of committing another crime under California law (revealing trade secrets).
And no, calling a tech-support line in Uttar Pradesh and asking if they've recently misplaced an engineering prototype would not be considered a legitimate attempt to return the phone.
As a longstanding EFF member, I just wrote to Matt Zimmerman to ask what this case could possibly have to do with journalistic privilege.
I don't see that the specific crime is important here; what's important is that goods which were technically stolen under California law were received by Gizmodo for the purpose of committing another crime under California law (revealing trade secrets).
And no, calling a tech-support line in Uttar Pradesh and asking if they've recently misplaced an engineering prototype would not be considered a legitimate attempt to return the phone.
As a longstanding EFF member, I just wrote to Matt Zimmerman to ask what this case could possibly have to do with journalistic privilege.
This bit made me do a double-take:
While in the residence, I observed Hogan utilize a black LG cellular telephone (bearing SN 911 KPFX363699) to make and receive telephone calls. Based upon my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email, and/or text message. I also know that the continued use of the phone would likely overwrite and destroy evidence that currently exists on the phone. Based upon the above facts and the fact that the cellular device was in plain view, I seized the phone as evidence and to prevent any further destruction of the digital evidence.
But then Warner seems pretty sketchy:
A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by Deputy Jim Goulart of the Sheriff's Office for the outstanding warrants only. While seated in the back of a patrol car, Warner made a spontaneous statement to Det. Josh McFall that he knew where the missing flash drive was located. Det. McFall read a Miranda Advisement to Warner and Warner waived his rights. Warner subsequently directed us to a bush located on the north side of Harding Ave at the intersection of Lancaster Way, Redwood City. In the bush, I located a 512 MB Memorex thumb drive and a 1GB Lexar Media compact flash card. The Lexar 1GB flash card appeared to be of the same type that would be utilized by the previously mentioned and seized Canon SLR camera.
At approximately 0230 hours, I went to the Chevron Gas Station located at 585 Whipple Avenue in Redwood City. I conducted a search of the premises and located the missing Apple prototype sticker in the parking lot near the entrance
And this line was another odd one.
I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued.
While in the residence, I observed Hogan utilize a black LG cellular telephone (bearing SN 911 KPFX363699) to make and receive telephone calls. Based upon my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email, and/or text message. I also know that the continued use of the phone would likely overwrite and destroy evidence that currently exists on the phone. Based upon the above facts and the fact that the cellular device was in plain view, I seized the phone as evidence and to prevent any further destruction of the digital evidence.
But then Warner seems pretty sketchy:
A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by Deputy Jim Goulart of the Sheriff's Office for the outstanding warrants only. While seated in the back of a patrol car, Warner made a spontaneous statement to Det. Josh McFall that he knew where the missing flash drive was located. Det. McFall read a Miranda Advisement to Warner and Warner waived his rights. Warner subsequently directed us to a bush located on the north side of Harding Ave at the intersection of Lancaster Way, Redwood City. In the bush, I located a 512 MB Memorex thumb drive and a 1GB Lexar Media compact flash card. The Lexar 1GB flash card appeared to be of the same type that would be utilized by the previously mentioned and seized Canon SLR camera.
At approximately 0230 hours, I went to the Chevron Gas Station located at 585 Whipple Avenue in Redwood City. I conducted a search of the premises and located the missing Apple prototype sticker in the parking lot near the entrance
And this line was another odd one.
I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued.
"Pray" is a legal term. See definition (b) here:
http://www.lawyers.com/glossary/pray.html
http://www.lawyers.com/glossary/pray.html
As in the phrase "pray tell". I had no idea the archaic meaning survives in legalese. I wonder what other pieces of Middle English are floating in there.
A surprising amount. I quite like it because it adds a little gravity or austerity to the situation.
gravity + obfuscation for the masses, hence the growing movement to do away with legalese:
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/usingPL/legal/index.cfm
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/usingPL/legal/index.cfm
In the UK it's not unheard of to use the term "pray tell" in parlance. Particularly in phrases like "And pray tell what did you get up to last night" expecting a stretching of the truth in return or tales of derring-do or misdemeanour moral offences.
That's the point: "Pray tell" is still common enough in contemporary English, while "pray" hasn't meant that for a long time. Archaisms survive in idioms.
It's not unheard of in the US, either. Though I doubt most people who say it really know what it means.
Pretty much. Legal language has some fun nooks and crannies (with my favorite, of course, being "To all whom these presents shall come...").
[deleted]
So now we know why a search warrant was issued...
I wonder what was in the flash drives? Pictures of the iPhone? Seems like it would be easier to just format the drive instead of physically disposing it somewhere...
I wonder what was in the flash drives? Pictures of the iPhone? Seems like it would be easier to just format the drive instead of physically disposing it somewhere...
Let me see if I have this straight. It's alleged that Mr. Hogan was handed the phone in the bar by somebody else who thought it belonged to Mr. Hogan. Mr. Hogan then removed the phone, which didn't belong to him, from the bar, premises which didn't belong to him, without informing employees of the establishment where the phone was found and handed to him.
In what sense did Mr. Hogan "find" the phone?
I have previously suggested that removing a chattel that doesn't belong to you from property that doesn't belong to you is theft. Hearing these allegations doesn't change my view in any way. In the hypothetical case that someone hands you something that doesn't belong to you or to them, the correct thing to do on the spot is to refuse. Accepting something that doesn't belong to you is already wrong. The simplest and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "Not mine, but thanks."
In what sense did Mr. Hogan "find" the phone?
I have previously suggested that removing a chattel that doesn't belong to you from property that doesn't belong to you is theft. Hearing these allegations doesn't change my view in any way. In the hypothetical case that someone hands you something that doesn't belong to you or to them, the correct thing to do on the spot is to refuse. Accepting something that doesn't belong to you is already wrong. The simplest and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "Not mine, but thanks."
I think everyone assumed he "found" the phone... until now. Previously we didn't have the whole story, so we just gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt.
> gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt.
I feel for Mr. Hogan and Mr. Lam. Of course, none of these allegations have been proven in court, so I have no idea what they actually did or did not do.
But my short time on this ball of rock and water has taught me that when people support you only to discover that you were a blackguard all along, their goodwill becomes countered by an equal and opposite reaction of contempt.
The people who shrugged their shoulders initially are probably still shrugging. But I predict that many of those who stood up and defended Mr. Hogan's and Mr. Lam's actions will swing to become their most vocal critics if these allegations are borne out. Nobody wants to feel like their good nature and trust has been abused, even if indirectly.
I feel for Mr. Hogan and Mr. Lam. Of course, none of these allegations have been proven in court, so I have no idea what they actually did or did not do.
But my short time on this ball of rock and water has taught me that when people support you only to discover that you were a blackguard all along, their goodwill becomes countered by an equal and opposite reaction of contempt.
The people who shrugged their shoulders initially are probably still shrugging. But I predict that many of those who stood up and defended Mr. Hogan's and Mr. Lam's actions will swing to become their most vocal critics if these allegations are borne out. Nobody wants to feel like their good nature and trust has been abused, even if indirectly.
"Steve Jobs himself called Gizmodo editorial director Brian Lam to personally request that Gizmodo return the iPhone to Apple"
I imagine not going volcanic on that call was the hardest thing Steve Jobs has ever done.
I imagine not going volcanic on that call was the hardest thing Steve Jobs has ever done.
I was going to mention when Jobs left Apple to create NeXT but creating the company that now is Apple is more or less going nuclear.
I know you may not agree current Apple is NeXT, but:
- Apple makes beautiful computers
- ... that run a descendant of NeXTSTEP
- ... with development tools that are direct descendants of the NeXT tools (down to the use of Objective-C)
Apple is a well funded NeXT. Jobs turned the post-Jobs Apple into NeXT 2.0
And that's a high compliment both to him and to Apple. Nobody would like to be 90's Apple.
- Apple makes beautiful computers
- ... that run a descendant of NeXTSTEP
- ... with development tools that are direct descendants of the NeXT tools (down to the use of Objective-C)
Apple is a well funded NeXT. Jobs turned the post-Jobs Apple into NeXT 2.0
And that's a high compliment both to him and to Apple. Nobody would like to be 90's Apple.
You think "going volcanic" is a un-common occurrence for Jobs? For some reason I would think it happens to him daily, and unfortunately it essentially means Job's is a giant asshole. A very, very, very successful rich and powerful asshole, but an asshole nonetheless.
Love the fact that Brian had the stones to not take Steve's call that day.
Love the fact that Brian had the stones to not take Steve's call that day.
It's pretty easy to not take a call. I would praise his stones a lot more if he had taken Steve's call.
I can't believe he just wrote that to Steve Jobs. No wonder Apple reacted the way they did. Gizmodo/Gawker is in big trouble.
Yes, the phrase "Right now, we have nothing to lose." in particular stood out to me from the email - I think the author was being insufficiently imaginative.
I have to thank you, "insufficiently imaginative" is one of the phrases I am going to remember for a very long time.
I like “failure of imagination” myself:
The phrase failure of imagination has been used to describe the cause of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. The term was attributed to astronaut Frank Borman, speaking at the Apollo 1 investigation hearings (dramatized in the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon in 1998.) — wikipedia
The phrase failure of imagination has been used to describe the cause of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. The term was attributed to astronaut Frank Borman, speaking at the Apollo 1 investigation hearings (dramatized in the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon in 1998.) — wikipedia
I quite like "sufficiently unimaginative" as well.
I like to imagine a clenched fist and an utterance of 'crush them like insects' coming soon after in the story.
And how could any serious business person not want to CYA enough to be in touch with his own lawyer before trying to pull this publicity stunt?
Indeed. The sheer dumbitude of this astounds me. The lens that Gizmodo must have been viewing this whole event has to have been so incredibly bizarre. It makes you wonder how much you can trust anything else being emitted from their little bubble of unreality.
It certainly sounds shady to me. What I can't believe is Apple would even bend to Gizmodo by sending them the publishable letter.
It surprises me because I can't imagine Gizmodo having any right to withhold the phone from its rightful owner (Apple). Like "Oh we have your missing property, and we'd love to give it back, but you have to do something for us first". I don't know the legal system, but that just can't be right.
It surprises me because I can't imagine Gizmodo having any right to withhold the phone from its rightful owner (Apple). Like "Oh we have your missing property, and we'd love to give it back, but you have to do something for us first". I don't know the legal system, but that just can't be right.
To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe Gizmodo was asking for proof that it was actually Apple's phone before they give it back. It would have (almost) been ok to state "give me proof." Instead, he rambled on about profits, and how this might hurt Apple, etc, which is pretty damning evidence IMHO - IANAL though.
That's quite some benefit you've got there. The letter doesn't seem to be more proof than Steve calling and asking for his stuff back whilst gritting his teeth. It could be fake Steve calling, but having it sent to Apple, c/o Steve Jobs, 1 Infinite Loop should put it in the owner's hands.
They needed proof that an unreleased Apple device belonged to Apple? Who else could it possibly have belonged to?
Ah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.
If I find a cell phone, I'm not going to give it away to the first person who comes forward about the "lost phone ad". I'm going to ask the person 20 questions to make sure it's really their phone (what color, brand, etc). If you look at this "at just the right light" you could almost see it... until the editor went on about profits, etc.
It's an apple-branded phone ffs. The Gawker editor clearly dug a hole for himself with that email, and Jobs was right to send in the dogs (as much as I hate to admit it)
It's an apple-branded phone ffs. The Gawker editor clearly dug a hole for himself with that email, and Jobs was right to send in the dogs (as much as I hate to admit it)
At a certain point they probably have to do whatever they can to mitigate damages. Because they expect this stuff to get reviewed carefully in civil court.
It's hard for me to believe that Bran Lam would feel invincible enough to write that response to Jobs, who is well known for going ballistic to end all ballistic when he gets wound up, without Denton’s hand directly at his back . . .
What's missing is how much of this unfolding debacle (including the letter) was approved directly by Nick Denton?
What's missing is how much of this unfolding debacle (including the letter) was approved directly by Nick Denton?
Brian Lam: worst poker face in the history of tech 'journalism'?
Wow. What a seriously damaging email. Has this guy not heard of lunch?
This is Gizmodo we're talking about - the depth of their talents include things like griefing a conference by walking around with universal remotes turning people's presentation screens off, and inserting puns into technology news.
Extortion and coercion are clearly not their strength, though they seemed to think it was :)
Extortion and coercion are clearly not their strength, though they seemed to think it was :)
It does seem as if they relied on their wide readership as insurance against legal trouble, to the point of making multiple public postings undermining their own (legal) position.
I wonder whether the investigation continues, or whether Apple have requested the DA's office not to file charges and the DA has agreed. As prosecutors objected to the unsealing of the warrant, I guess the former.
I wonder whether the investigation continues, or whether Apple have requested the DA's office not to file charges and the DA has agreed. As prosecutors objected to the unsealing of the warrant, I guess the former.
I can't wait for them to do a story on Blackwater/Xe.
I'd rather have Blackwater pissed at me than Jobs. I can deal with being gunned down in an alley by mercenaries, but the idea of landing on Jobs's personal shit list is just plain scary.
There's a great line in The Usual Suspects: "How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?" Lam must have thought that was a rhetorical question when he wrote that email. I'm sure he thinks different now.
There's a great line in The Usual Suspects: "How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?" Lam must have thought that was a rhetorical question when he wrote that email. I'm sure he thinks different now.
Yeah, because being gunned down in an alleyway is much better than being indicted on counts of grand larceny and trade secret appropriation. Geez, have some perspective!!
"Extortion and coercion are clearly not their strength, though they seemed to think it was :)"
They should look it up in the dictionary. It's right next to money-laundering :)
They should look it up in the dictionary. It's right next to money-laundering :)
There was nothing extortive or coercive about the email. In the email, Gizmodo didn't ask for any compensation. And, they didn't make any threats. The email boils down to "Give us an official confirmation that the phone is yours" and complaints about their relationship with Apple. That's it. In particular, they didn't even say that they wouldn't return the phone if they didn't get an official confirmation.
"They didn't even say that they wouldn't return the phone if they didn't get an official confirmation." That is a ridiculous statement. It is clearly implied.
Furthermore, 'do as we say and you can have your property back' IS coercion. They were forcing Apple to behave in a way that they didn't want to.
Furthermore, 'do as we say and you can have your property back' IS coercion. They were forcing Apple to behave in a way that they didn't want to.
It's very hard to argue anything is "clearly implied," because the reader's bias going into the reading has a big effect on how they interpret what is implied. And, he definitely didn't say anything like "do as we say and you can have your property back." He said he wants Apple to make it clear that it is their phone and that it wasn't a marketing stunt.
I copied that directly from your comment which you have since edited. Why don't you stop being deceptive?
Edit: Wow, you just edited that comment too. If you are going to edit your comments so heavily could you please leave what you originally said at the top of the message.
Edit: Wow, you just edited that comment too. If you are going to edit your comments so heavily could you please leave what you originally said at the top of the message.
I did edit my comment but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "do as we say" because that is not what I think of the situation.
FWIW, it is normal for me to go through a couple drafts of my comments on any topic. If you look at my posts on Reddit you will see they almost all have a "*" that shows they were edited, for the same reason. I don't know why some people are so quick to try to find malicious intent in everything.
FWIW, it is normal for me to go through a couple drafts of my comments on any topic. If you look at my posts on Reddit you will see they almost all have a "*" that shows they were edited, for the same reason. I don't know why some people are so quick to try to find malicious intent in everything.
Hacker News tries to set a higher standard of discourse than Reddit.
In these sorts of threads, it is polite to readers to post
After edit:
if a comment is substantially edited. I give examples of this in my threads. The possibility of posts being edited is one reason why I always select-copy-and-paste to quote text from other people's comments here, to avoid introducing misquotations through my own typing mistakes.
In these sorts of threads, it is polite to readers to post
After edit:
if a comment is substantially edited. I give examples of this in my threads. The possibility of posts being edited is one reason why I always select-copy-and-paste to quote text from other people's comments here, to avoid introducing misquotations through my own typing mistakes.
You two are arguing from opposing hyperboles. The mail wasn't prima facie extortion, but neither was it a good-faith offer to return Apple's property.
I agree it wasn't extortion and I agree it wasn't an offer to give Apple the phone either.
You're threading an interesting needle here, between saying they weren't offering to give Apple the phone, while (in earlier comments on this thread) saying they weren't refusing to return the phone. What's the word you would use for their action in response to Apple's request?
He wasn't offering to return the phone and he wasn't refusing to return the phone. He was trying (successfully) to get Apple to acknowledge that they lost the phone, that they want it back, and that it wasn't a marketing stunt, all in a way that Gizmodo can report. I guess his point at the end was "you thought you could blackball us, but we showed you we don't need your help." Not very classy, IMO, but smugness isn't a crime.
I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about the legal ramifications of the case for many reasons. I am trying as best I can to interpret the email literally and objectively, because I think that's the only way that it will be interpreted in court in any future court cases on this matter.
I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about the legal ramifications of the case for many reasons. I am trying as best I can to interpret the email literally and objectively, because I think that's the only way that it will be interpreted in court in any future court cases on this matter.
Wait. What? Apple asked for the phone back. If I take your phone away, and you ask for it back, and my response doesn't offer to give the phone back to you, what's the thing I can be doing other than refusing to return the phone?
It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found an iPhone (or bag of cash) on the street and posted a "Found iPhone" (or "Found Bag of Cash") ad on Craigslist. I bet somebody--probably multiple people--would reply that it is theirs pretty quickly. Are you going to ask them to verify in some way that it is theirs? If so, would your request for verification constitute a refusal to return it to the rightful owner? I don't think so. In particular, if you "returned" it to someone who wasn't the rightful owner, the rightful owner could sue you and/or worse, so it's in your best interest to verify that you are returning it to the correct people.
I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)
I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)
And here we run right off the cliff, with the tendentious message board argument that Gizmodo had any reasonable expectation that the phone might not have been Apple's after Steve Jobs called them to get the phone back. Due respect, but give me a break, Brian.
In a nutshell, Lam was bargaining with Jobs - 'your phone, which is my possession, for documentation I can use to post another story on the subject.' Consider - it's not good enough for Jobs to come by the gizmodo office and collect it - that leaves gizmodo open to jibes that they are just part of Apple's PR machine. Lam wants a written admission, the publication of which will inevitably undermine Apple's reputation a bit.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel pretty sure than any objective reading of it will be interpreted by a court as withholding of stolen property, which is yet another felony offense in what seems to have been a long string surrounding this device. I wonder if Lam has hired an attorney yet, as Chen did.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel pretty sure than any objective reading of it will be interpreted by a court as withholding of stolen property, which is yet another felony offense in what seems to have been a long string surrounding this device. I wonder if Lam has hired an attorney yet, as Chen did.
I doubt Jobs would have lunch with him.
It seems Brian Lam has a little inferiority complex here. He wants to use the tactics of a tabloid and get the respect and access of the WSJ and NYT. The interesting part to me is Jobs said a few months ago he read Gizmodo. That's a pretty big nod of respect and legitimacy yet Brian Lam seems to have wanted even more validation from Apple. It almost sounds like he was trolling for an unreasonable PR gift from Apple or some other grand gesture. It would probably be unreasonable to prod or extort for equal access much less special privileges. Gizmodo just isn't that important compared to the WSJ and NYT. For the record I'm coming from the perspective of not being offended or upset Gizmodo perused this story aggressively. They're a tabloid. That's what they do. If you want real journalism go somewhere else. I'm more offended that they would try to extort Apple in an attempt to get special access. This e-mail reads like someone carefully skirting the line of blackmail. That makes it a much bigger issue than simply trade secrets.
Check out the story, starting on page 16 of the embedded Scribd doc in this article, of the police making contact with the guys who found the phone. They allegedly tried to hide evidence in a church and a bush.
I know this is O/T, but I'm finding it incredibly aggravating that I have to put my mouse in the border of the page to scroll the article, lest the Scribd Flash box steal my mousewheel movements... I'm guessing this is to do with the OSX Flash plugin's lack of internal mousewheel support.
Great example of when you DON'T put shit in writing! Take note, fellas.
Take note that if each man had been on the telephone, later recalling what was said, or perhaps taking notes during the conversation, Lam would have been in just as much trouble if all those things were said. The only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence. A finder of fact at trial could still believe Jobs over Lam even if nothing were put in writing.
The only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence
IMO indisputability is a HUGE deal.
IMO indisputability is a HUGE deal.
[deleted]
Not to mitigate Brian Lam's douchiness. But while Apple's implicit filter on the media via "access journalism" might not be quite as blatant, it is far more evil.
What dumbass thinks email is off the record?!
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
"Off the record" is meant strictly in a journalistic sense there (ignoring questions of whether Gizmodo constitutes journalism). He's saying that any response Jobs gives cannot be quoted or referenced by Gizmodo in an article. He doesn't mean "this e-mail will self-destruct in 60 seconds."
"off the record" has a fairly specific meaning(s) in journalism, none of which mean "never to be seen or read by anyone"
When you exchange mail with journalists (yeah, yeah, have the argument about whether Gizmodo staff are journalists elsewhere) it's fairly common for them to clarify when they will not plan to directly quote a reply you send to them in a story.
If you want something off the record with journalists you CALL THEM. E-mail is never, EVER, off the record.
My phone can record every conversation that goes through it. I suspect any modern phone can do that.
But recordings of those calls are not always legal, and when they are legal to create, they are not always legal to use in court. There are much stricter laws around phone recordings than emails (because laws take half a century to change, and email's only been in wide use for 25)
My state follows the federal rule that EITHER party to a telephone conversation may record the entire conversation. What is admissible in court as evidence may not be as broad (in a particular case) as what evidence can be gathered by either party, but as I just mentioned in a comment I posted elsewhere in this thread, a conversation like that between Lam and Jobs can blow up in Lam's face even if the only evidence offered is courtroom testimony by Jobs regarding what Lam spoke, from Jobs's recollection of the conversation.
"Shady email"? How about a post title without the idiotic editorializing?
Shady is right.
I'm surprised he had the audacity to write some of this stuff..
"I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me."
wait for it... wait for it...
Gizmodo: "WE FOUND THE NEXT IPHONE!"
I'm surprised he had the audacity to write some of this stuff..
"I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me."
wait for it... wait for it...
Gizmodo: "WE FOUND THE NEXT IPHONE!"
Shady is right.
In fact one could say it is perilously close to blackmail.
In fact one could say it is perilously close to blackmail.
"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer "extortion". The "X" makes it sound cool."
I think he meant: 'it would hurt sales [for Apple] to say this is the next iphone.'
How about calling out headline editorializing in a more civil manner?
Yeah, I don't really see this as shady. Disagree with the headline for sure.
I hate the general journalism bashing attitude being taken here. What Gizmodo did is unquestionably good for society as a whole, regardless of the legal technicalities.
Apple tries to maximize their profits by duping their customers. In the affidavit the Apple lawyer complains to the detective about all the sales they're going to lose when people find out about the new phone and don't buy the old model. But those lost sales are ill-gotten gains. That money comes out of the pockets of ill-informed customers that would not make the purchase if they had all the facts available to them.
It is exactly this kind of market manipulation that a free press helps protect us from. When a journalist writes a bad review or tells you that there are better deals elsewhere, he is "hurting overall sales and negatively effecting earnings" of that company, but it is benefiting consumers and society as a whole, and creating better more efficient markets.
Legally there might be some dispute, mainly because of the BS "trade secret" laws written by businesses for businesses, but morally I side 100% with Gizmodo's right to uncover and report the truth.
On a side note, the idea that cops can go around "seizing" cell phones and cameras without even having warrant is disgusting. And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of".
Apple tries to maximize their profits by duping their customers. In the affidavit the Apple lawyer complains to the detective about all the sales they're going to lose when people find out about the new phone and don't buy the old model. But those lost sales are ill-gotten gains. That money comes out of the pockets of ill-informed customers that would not make the purchase if they had all the facts available to them.
It is exactly this kind of market manipulation that a free press helps protect us from. When a journalist writes a bad review or tells you that there are better deals elsewhere, he is "hurting overall sales and negatively effecting earnings" of that company, but it is benefiting consumers and society as a whole, and creating better more efficient markets.
Legally there might be some dispute, mainly because of the BS "trade secret" laws written by businesses for businesses, but morally I side 100% with Gizmodo's right to uncover and report the truth.
On a side note, the idea that cops can go around "seizing" cell phones and cameras without even having warrant is disgusting. And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of".
"And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of"."
Wow. Three seconds of research would have told you that this "insane law" does discuss the disposal of Chen's property... back to Chen. He's asking that as a courtesy to Chen, to make sure he gets his stuff back as soon as possible.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen...
Wow. Three seconds of research would have told you that this "insane law" does discuss the disposal of Chen's property... back to Chen. He's asking that as a courtesy to Chen, to make sure he gets his stuff back as soon as possible.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen...
OK, looks like I was wrong about that last line.
By your logic almost all of any company's revenue is ill-gotten gains. There is almost always an update or refresh to a product line in the pipeline. Consumers could always wait to get something better and cheaper.
Apple are not preying on uninformed customers, they are selling a product to a consumer who wants that product as-is, if they didn't want the product they would not buy it.
Apple are not preying on uninformed customers, they are selling a product to a consumer who wants that product as-is, if they didn't want the product they would not buy it.
if they didn't want the product they would not buy it.
If they had all the information available to them they would not buy it. Those are the loss sales that Apple is worried about.
If they had all the information available to them they would not buy it. Those are the loss sales that Apple is worried about.
Gray Powell last saw the phone when he put it in his bag on the floor, which was subsequently knocked over. He left with his uncle at closing time, unaware of his loss. A drunk guy gave the device to Hogan in the belief that it was his. Hogan took it home and realized it was worth money. Next day, he and a roommate found Gray Powell on LinkedIn and Hogan recognized him from the previous evening in the bar. Hogan removed the stickers with serial numbers.
Gizmodo, via Chen, paid Hogan $8500 or $7500, including $5000 in cash, and promised a bonus if Apple launched a phone by July and it was the same device. Chen damaged the phone during his teardown, rendering it inoperable. Gizmodo published their story on 4/19. Hogan's roommate called Apple the same day and informed them of Hogan's possession and plans to sell it. Gizmodo editor Brian Lam refused a telephone request from Steve jobs to return the device, demanding a written confirmation from Apple.
When police attempted to contact Hogan and his other roommate (not the informant), they tried to destroy evidence by throwing away Hogan's computer and SD cards, all of which were later found, along with the phone stickers. Hogan's roommate was arrested on unrelated outstanding warrants.
...
On the facts in the affidavit, it looks bad for Gizmodo/Gawker. Admittedly, I've said that since the outset. Much depends on who authorized payment and how, and what Chen was told by his supervisor(s) about his legal position, if anything.
Edit: corrected an inaccuracy about when the roommate called Apple, which I had put in the wrong paragraph.