Originally Posted by jragosta
You are reading those articles incorrectly. It is illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist for purposes of identifying a source (in a free speech issue). It is NOT illegal to submit a warrant on a journalist when the journalist is being accused of a crime.
I'm afraid you're wrong. I didn't come up with this on my own. Read this:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html
We're not talking about a journalist that happens to commit a crime unrelated to his profession. This is the source material of actual journalism.
I don't believe that someone is guilty simply because they're accused of a crime. I do, however, believe that someone is probably guilty when they publish an article admitting that they purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets.
Weasel words, weasel words. They didn't admit purchasing stolen property, and I don't think you know what "misappropriated" means. In fact, whether or not the iPhone is considered "stolen" is highly debatable, and something for the courts to decide. According the to referenced 1872 CA law, the person who sold the prototype might be in more trouble than Gizmodo.
And purchasing and disassembling stolen property doesn't? I think the issues is that Gizmodo is operating with the same incorrect understanding of the law as some of the posters here. Maybe they can get Psystar's attorneys. Heck, they probably already use Psystar's attorneys.
There you go again..."stolen." That point is very much in debate.
First, purchasing stolen property with the intent to return is no less a crime.
If the property is stolen, yes.
Second, they didn't simply return it - they disassembled it to violate Apple's trade secret protection.
Agreed...but their intent was not to violate their trade secrets. Their intent was to inform. Not saying it's justified, but if they violated trade secrets laws, it was a byproduct--bot the original aim.
Third, they published the trade secret information which is clear misappropriation of trade secrets.
I would love to hear what my brother thinks of that. He's just about done with law school, focusing on IP and is a former patent examiner and member of the Patent Bar. I really don't know.
What they did was akin to stealing Coca Cola's formula, publishing it on your web page and then sending the formula back to Coke with a note saying 'no harm, no foul'. They did a great deal of damage with their shenanigans.
Not exactly. They didn't steal anything. Someone lost a prototype, and they bought it. Did they know they shouldn't have it? Surely. But as previously outlined, that may or may not be considered "theft." It may actually be considered theft for the person that sold it...depending.
There are a huge number of inconsistencies and hypocrisy in Gizmodo's story:
- They think it's OK to steal a phone with the intent to return it (under CA law, it's stolen), but object to the police legally seizing their computers - which will be returned to them.
No. It's not clear whether it's stolen under CA law. Also, these two are separate issues.
- They claim that they didn't know that it was an Apple phone, yet they paid $5 K for it (right, every time someone finds a phone they can't identify, Giz pays $5 K?)
I didn't see them claim that. Link?
- The claim that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - then they claim that they bought it in orrder to return it to Apple
- They offered a big reward for info on Apple's next phone, and then someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple engineers, and an Apple engineer just happens to leave a prototype phone ON A BARSTOOL (did you EVER leave anything on a bar stool?), then the Apple engineer leaves before the phone can be returned to him, then the person who finds it just happens to call Gizmodo - certainly the #1 name in national journalism.
Unless you can produce evidence to counter that story, shut up. And who HASN'T left something on a bar stool?
- They knew the name and facebook page of the owner, yet never attempted to contact him that way. For that matter, when the phone rang the night it was discovered, they failed to answer it
Wait..who owned the phone..Gray Powell---or Apple? Are they under a legal obligation to answer the phone? Morally, of course they are. But that's not what we're talking about.
- Gizmodo has extensive contacts within Apple (or so they'd have us believe), yet they were unable to use any of these contacts to get the phone back to Apple? After all, if they paid $5 K with the intention of returning it to Apple, don't you think they'd use one of their super secret contacts - in the hopes of further improving the relationship?
Does anyone deny they wanted to disassemble it? Try not to look so surprised.
Put that all together, and the bar stool story starts to sound a LOT less credible. Want to bet that "I found it on a bar stool" really turns out to be "I found it on a bar stool, but it was in the engineer's pocket at the time"?
The whole thing stinks and I hope Gizmodo is put out of business - and some jail time would probably be appropriate.
There you go again...unsupportable accusations. Not a single person has indicated that bar story is false, not even the man who lost it. Meanwhile, you're running around acting like you know what you're talking about. The questions for which you claim to know the answers can only be answered by the courts.