or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo - Page 4

post #121 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Hey I don't like everything that Apple does, especially lately. They are getting a bit heavy-handed. That said, they absolutely have no choice on this one. If they let this kind of stuff slide it will happen all of the time.

Their engineer screwed up (it appears). But it was an honest mistake. Hogan, his buddy and Gizmodo's actions were anything but. They're in deep sh*t.

I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.

As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.

They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.

Just my 2 cents
post #122 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.

As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.

They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.

Just my 2 cents

2 months may or may not be long enough to copy a phone, however it certainly gives the competition an edge and cuts down the lead time to copy it.
Apple may release the phone earlier than expected to compensate. Maybe even the day after its announced.
post #123 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.

As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.

They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.

Just my 2 cents

I'm betting they are in deep sh*t. Time will tell.

For people who follow Apple closely, they are familiar with Apple's release cycles. I know a lot of Mac and iPhone users who have no clue about such stuff. There definitely is a significant dollar value in damages attached to this.

Regardless, I don't care what company you are, you cannot sit back idly and let this stuff happen, you just can't. I have no problem calling Apple on their sh*t, but they just cannot afford to ignore this.

In any case, I say Gizmodo is in sh*t. Hogan is in sh*t and possibly Hogan's buddy too. We still don't even know for sure, that there was a drunk that originally found the phone. That's just what Hogan "claims", and it obvious how trustworthy he is. Hogan could have easily lifted it right out of the engineers bag... I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility.
post #124 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Once you need the services of a lawyer, I'll bet you change your mind.

Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!
post #125 of 250
..Its about Trade secrets folks. Simply put, if you find an item and think the item is Official Property of a company (Like Apple!!) you clarify it first (ask for a letter) before you photograph, teardown and analyze.. then PUBLISH the YET TO BE RELEASED(COPYRIGHTED) material/property. Shit- I've always wanted to meet Steve Jobs.. There are far more positive things to do. I'd request I personally meet with Jobs, appeal to his good side. That is PRICELESS! But $5000!!??

I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..

It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.
post #126 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Hey I don't like everything that Apple does, especially lately. They are getting a bit heavy-handed. That said, they absolutely have no choice on this one. If they let this kind of stuff slide it will happen all of the time.

Their engineer screwed up (it appears). But it was an honest mistake. Hogan, his buddy and Gizmodo's actions were anything but. They're in deep sh*t.


This is the best reply I have seen:

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-apple-2010-4

Classic.
post #127 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

Then I guess every lost in found in the country is guilty of extortion then. Last time I went to a lost and found and asked for something I lost, I had to be able to prove that it was mine.

I guess I should have asked for everything in the lost and found, and when they refused to give it to me, have the clerk arrested for extortion.

I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email
post #128 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.

As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.

They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.

Just my 2 cents

They stole property [a felony] and then they sold it [another felony] knowing they were breaking the law.
post #129 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikraz View Post

..Its about Trade secrets folks. Simply put, if you find an item and think the item is Official Property of a company (Like Apple!!) you clarify it first (ask for a letter) before you photograph, teardown and analyze.. then PUBLISH the YET TO BE RELEASED(COPYRIGHTED) material/property. Shit- I've always wanted to meet Steve Jobs.. There are far more positive things to do. I'd request I personally meet with Jobs, appeal to his good side. That is PRICELESS! But $5000!!??

I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..

It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.

He's a nice guy. Very quick witted and at parties he is always very cordial.
post #130 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Except that other than as a titillating fact to include in their article for rumour seekers and Apple fans, the letter wouldn't have any value to Giz. If it was any other company in the world, asking for the letter wouldn't be considered extortion because no one would care to see that proof offered on a blog. The fact that without it their reputation would be in question to all the people that would comment "proof or it's fake", is why they asked for it.

In any other circumstance, asking someone to formalize a request wouldn't be considered extortion.

Not sure which way you are leaning there...

I'd say that while the letter normally would have no value in Giz's case it does. They generate revenue through page hits and ads I imagine. As such the letter equates to more hits.

I would suppose that if a porn site took a hot publically popular girl's dog and then refused to give it back without a steamy selection of vids for them to post that would be extortion.

Then again who knows, I'm not a criminal lawyer.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #131 of 250
Oh, affidavit does actually reveal a bunch of far more interesting things.

P16.
Quote:
Powell said [...] the last memory he had of the prototype phone was placing it in his bag, which he then put on the floor by his feet.

Wow, how so? What for? Field test is never carried out by intoxicated males off duty in a bar. It's very unlikely that software developer would be asked to field test an appliance. Every company --- not to mention one, which used to chain already announced products to developers' desks in rooms w/out windows --- prohibits taking stuff out of their premises.

P14.
Quote:
Hogan told Martinson than upon his return home to <address>, he removed the case (iPhone 3GS disguise) and saw that the phone was not a typical iPhone.

Why bother? How does that help restoring found property to its owner?

P14.
Quote:
Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool...

P16.
Quote:
Powell said that his bag was knocked over at one point in time and it was possible the prototype iPhone fell out of the bag and onto the floor.

P16.
Quote:
Powell said he left the restaurant when the restaurant started to close and believes the finder of the prototype iPhone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.

You guys ought to have first settled the account with one another.

P18.
Quote:
A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by <officer> for the outstanding warrants only.

P18.
Quote:
I [detective] believe it is highly likely that Warner was involved and/or conspired with Hogan in negotiation and subsequent sale of the prototype iPhone...

P16.
Quote:
...Witness Martinson telephoned me at approximately 2245 hours, and said that Hogan and Warner were aware of the investigation and were in the process of removing evidence from the residence.

Yeah right. And far more serious guys have finally managed it to the final end out there in Asia...
It smells like there is the real serious money hanging around intruding into Apple's secrets. (Yeah, Psystar lawyers are already seen to be in, too).

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #132 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post

I cant stand the guy - who the fuck does he [Jobs} think he is?

The CEO of one of the most successful companies on the planet - which means he has a fiduciary responsibility to run the company to the best of his ability, including protecting trade secrets. Now that THAT is out of the way, who the f&ck do you think YOU are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post

This is the best reply I have seen:

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-apple-2010-4

Classic.

Classic....if you're into the juvenile, idiotic form of humor. Stewart never had an intelligent thought in his life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

{A number of quotes}
"Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool..."

That's the interesting part. From that statement, it doesn't sound like the owner of the phone was drunk It sounds like some drunk found it, picked it up, and tried to give it to Hogan.

If that's what really happened, then all their public accusations that the Apple employee was drunk would be slander. They've subjected him to ridicule throughout the world due to their statements that he lost the phone while drunk. The story above sounds like there's no way of knowing if he was drunk or not. All they know is that a drunk found the phone on a bar stool.

I hope they get sued for a few million dollars for libel/slander, as well as the felony charges.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #133 of 250
Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder

-----------------------------

From: brian lam <blam@brianlam.net>
Date: April 19, 2010 4:08:07 PM PDT
To: Steve Jobs <sjobs@apple.com>
Subject: Let's see if this goes through

Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.

I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.

Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.

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.

Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.

Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.

I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.

And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.

B
post #134 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!

Uh, yeah, that's why they would like to settle it and avoid a trial, right.
post #135 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder

-----------------------------

From: brian lam <blam@brianlam.net>
Date: April 19, 2010 4:08:07 PM PDT
To: Steve Jobs <sjobs@apple.com>
Subject: Let's see if this goes through

Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.

I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.

Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.

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.

Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.

Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.

I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.

And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.

B

Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...
post #136 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Whatever happened to being in a profession to help your fellow man in their time of crisis and misery instead of being in it only to profit from those times?



I think that died along with Norman Rockwell. Or maybe it was when doctors stopped riding horses to their houscalls.
post #137 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, help me understand this. You're arguing that they didn't know it was an Apple iPhone prototype?

Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.
post #138 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's a huge difference. This was recognized as an Apple prototype phone. It was also recognized right away that it belonged to an engineer at Apple. The CEO of Apple calls and asks for the phone back. At that point, there's more than enough proof that the phone belongs to Apple.

Now, if he had said "I need to know that it's really you, so I'll drive over to Apple HQ and deliver the phone in person to you", then that would not have been reasonable. Insisting on a letter from Legal is extreme.

It wasn't recognized as anything. Even the forum members here cried fake. I am sure the original person who acquired the phone may have known it was a prototype or atleast thought so but Gizmodo did not but was willing to pay money to find out, they even said in the original article it could be a fake. Regardless proof of ownership is required, period. Regardless that you may think something belongs to someone you still need that person to prove it.
post #139 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...

There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?

The bargaining element ~ hey, we slide this iPhone back to you, and uh, you know, slide a little info our way from time to time, eh?

The coercion element ~ maybe Apple could say, you know, it's merely a test unit, get my drift?

The threatening ~ right now, we got nothing to lose... [ so watch out MOFOs...! ]

And the coup de grace ~ i have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's... [ so, you ain't getting this clearly ilegally obtained trade secret of yours unless you know, you scratch my back and say what I want you to say, kapish? ]

...............................

Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.

post #140 of 250
This stuff just gets better and better. Worth a two-part TV miniseries, at least. To be then sold on iTunes Store as well.
post #141 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email

I am sure the letter was more than just proof. Steve Jobs is a Douche and end here was an opportunity to squeeze him, they may not like the results but they still had Stevie by the balls and Stevie knew it.
post #142 of 250
I'm not sure if this was taken down, but Gizmodo posted this detail at the time. And if you were listening to Leo Laporte's podcast Twit #245 "No Hitler for You," Becky Worley mentions this phone call.

Now, apparently, the "Back to Your Mac" software wasn't working, so why did it stop lighting up?
post #143 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

It wasn't recognized as anything. Even the forum members here cried fake. I am sure the original person who acquired the phone may have known it was a prototype or atleast thought so but Gizmodo did not but was willing to pay money to find out, they even said in the original article it could be a fake. Regardless proof of ownership is required, period. Regardless that you may think something belongs to someone you still need that person to prove it.

Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
post #144 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian

True. He had Stevie by the sack and knew it. He may regret it later but you have to know Steve-o was pi$$ed, he had to stoop down and be nice.
post #145 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian

Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
post #146 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.

Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
post #147 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.

Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.
post #148 of 250
Once the criminal investigation has been concluded, Apple may very well sue Gizmodo/Gawker Media for damages and maybe put them right out of business. The lawsuit could be for millions of dollars in lost sales, etc. etc. Put any number on it, hell, Apple's lawyers will... $100 million?

This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.

Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.

Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.
post #149 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.

There's a problem with your post, Gizmodo virtually admitted that they had the iPhone prototype. They published the name of the Apple engineer who lost( stolen) it all over the damn Web. They had proof of ownership already considering that Hogan told them that the phone belonged to Gary Powell and since it's a presumed prototype, the real owners can be argued as being Apple Inc.

Do you know what, if somebody video taped your son's bike being stolen and posted it in you tube, the cops will become very interested in that case. They have the evidence of it being stolen and they know the people they will have to arrest.
post #150 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

I am sure the letter was more than just proof. Steve Jobs is a Douche and end here was an opportunity to squeeze him, they may not like the results but they still had Stevie by the balls and Stevie knew it.

Hahaha...very true!

For all the shitty things Steve has done to people throughout his life, he deserved it!
post #151 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.

Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.
post #152 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?

Well, I think we can guarantee that Gizmodo's access to information from Apple will definitely change as a result of this. From limited to none. Don't imagine they'll be able to offer any live coverage of future Apple events or keynotes either.

You really have to be amazed at the utter stupidity of Gizmodo/Gawker through this whole thing.
post #153 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

http://gizmodo.com/5495765/hello-steve-jobs

I wonder if SJ still reads Giz, and what happened that day. Did he find out by someone telling him about the story, or did he see it himself first.

i'm sure it'll be in the movie!
post #154 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.


Steve has no morals or ethics either!
Just Thursday, Steve parked his car in the handicapped spot...again!



Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.


It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.

How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?

Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
post #155 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, I'm not going to justify criminal activity in order to gain a story. Where do you draw the line? Would it have been OK for them to steal the phone out of the engineer's pocket? Maybe break into his car or home and steal the phone? Or why not bypass the middleman and break into Apple's HQ?

Or, heck, why not kidnap Steve Jobs and say that they're not returning him until Apple gives them ALL the prototypes they're working on.

The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity in pursuit of a story. Nor should it.

Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #156 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.

Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Apple View Post

It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.

How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?

Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

So your point is that you don't know the difference between extortion and selling a product? There's absolutely no extortion involved in Apple selling you a phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.

But, oddly, they paid $5 K for the phone - which suggests pretty strongly that they knew it wasn't a fake. Furthermore, their article said it was an Apple prototype. Even more importantly, it doesn't matter. They knew that it didn't belong to Hogan and they paid him for it. Therefore, they were paying for stolen property - even if it wasn't an Apple prototype. If it were a normal phone worth a couple hundred dollars, they could argue to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor, but that's not going to fly. They paid $5 K for it, so the value is $5 K - well into felony territory.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #157 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

It wasn't recognized as anything. Even the forum members here cried fake. I am sure the original person who acquired the phone may have known it was a prototype or atleast thought so but Gizmodo did not but was willing to pay money to find out, they even said in the original article it could be a fake. Regardless proof of ownership is required, period. Regardless that you may think something belongs to someone you still need that person to prove it.

I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.
post #158 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia View Post

I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.

It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.

Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #159 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Once the criminal investigation has been concluded, Apple may very well sue Gizmodo/Gawker Media for damages and maybe put them right out of business. The lawsuit could be for millions of dollars in lost sales, etc. etc. Put any number on it, hell, Apple's lawyers will... $100 million?

This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.

Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.

Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.

Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone
post #160 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email

I agree that the reqest had multiple purposes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Affidavit in prototype iPhone case reveals Steve Jobs contacted Gizmodo