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 2

post #41 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Well, you have the right to ask for your lost or stolen property back. You don't need to be a law enforcement member to do so. However, I think that Gizmodo asking for written request was more to publish the request than legal.

I wonder if the way Chen (or Gizmodo) phrased it, 'confirm it's yours in writing, then we'll send it' could possibly constitute blackmail?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you.

You can't steal somebody's kid and then say, hey, I'll return him if you do me a favor.
You can't say you will claim you found a rat in your burger unless BK gives you one for free.

Gizmodo's Lam pretty clearly not only paid for stolen merch and then refused to return it, but he also, according to the affidavit (and in concert with what he published), demanded a written request he could publish for web traffic in exchange for doing what he was legally obligated to do. That's extortion, in addition to being a dick move.

This is pretty much the way I see it too and is probably a clearer explanation of one of my main points. That being said, it's always good to remember that we aren't lawyers and aren't in possession of all the facts.

Regardless of whether anything happens to them I'm just pleased overall that Gizmodo is being revealed for the collection of immoral ignorant jerks I always knew they were, but simultaneously a bit dismayed over the sheer number of people who seem to agree with them.
post #43 of 250
Rubbing Steve's nose in your arrogance is a verrrrry stupid thing to do, on top of several blatant felonies.
post #44 of 250
Read the CNET article on this. They are the most up to date. Interesting.

Hogan's room-mate turned him in on April 21. Hogan and his room-mates tried to clean themselves of the evidence as well. Yeah, stupidity:

Hogan told her that Gizmodo had offered him $10,000 for the phone, and showed her a camera box containing $5,000 in $100 bills, according to the affidavit. It says: "Martinson said Hogan also told her that he will receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo.com in July, if and when Apple makes an official product announcement regarding the new iPhone."

Broad, the San Mateo County detective, began to prepare a request to search the apartment on Farm Hill Blvd. the following day when, he said, he received an urgent phone call just before midnight from Martinson saying that Hogan and their roommate Thomas Warner were removing any evidence about the iPhone from the apartment and leaving in two separate cars. Broad said he tracked Hogan down at his father's house, also in Redwood City, and learned that Hogan's computer had been left at a nearby church.

Warner showed up the house at 1 a.m. and was arrested on two outstanding misdemeanor warrants. Warner claimed that a prototype sticker from the iPhone fell out of his wallet at a Chevron station, and later said that a 512 MB thumb drive and 1 GB Lexar compact flash card were under a bush on Harding Avenue, the affidavit says. Police say they recovered all the discarded hardware.


Yeah, those are the acts of some upstanding citizen who happened to be in possession of multi-million dollar device.

And yeah, Apple wants to bury Gawker and Gizmodo. Tulkas is right. If the judge or jury decides that the phone was still under trade secret protection after being lost, they are screwed. I think they are minimally in trouble for buying stolen property, but if they get caught with trade secrets, that's going to be something just a little bit bigger.
post #45 of 250
Just jail them. Meanwhile, I am saving my pennies for next month...
post #46 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.

Well, if,

Quote:
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.

that gives it a value, "other than as a titillating fact to include in their article."

But, I have no idea whether an extortion case could actually be made on that basis. Just throwing it out as a possibility.
post #47 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".

I don't think so.

This constitutes theft of intellectual property.
post #48 of 250
I don't buy the "disinformation plant by Apple" theory for the phone disclosure. If that were the case, we'd probably have several versions and a variety of features. Apple would note the buzz and adjust accordingly.

For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record. No lawyer would expect it, although they might bluster about it. But you get a statement affirming ownership and a receipt for the device and that should be all it takes. That's not what Gizmodo.

It's a problem for them and they don't have my sympathy.
post #49 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you. ...

So, perhaps that is in fact why that bit is in the affidavit.
post #50 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by modul8tr View Post

Of course not, but the legal team behind his company can bury you when your illegal activities cost his company millions and millions of dollars.

It will be interesting if all of the media attention on a new secret iPhone will have an impact on the next quarterly earnings report. I'd imagine there's a segment out there not buying during April/May/June because they now know this is coming.


Even though the iPhone refresh cycle is obvious to us, it's not to the general public.

1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.

2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.

3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
post #51 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.

That's not too far-fetched. It's free publicity, therefore increasing market awareness. What hurts though is that people are not buying the 3GS while waiting for the 4G.
post #52 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Gizmodo just wants everything to be handled "legally".
And Apple's like you want legal? This is how legal's done.

Unfortunately they disassembled the thing they bought for $5k,

You mean "unfortunately they purchased it".
Simply purchasing it for $5K was their first bad step (and probably the worst). Anything after that is gravy for the prosecution.
post #53 of 250
Having read through the unsealed documents today, it's clear that Gawker/Gizmoder are in big, big trouble. The timing of their publishing of subsequent tear-down photos (after having Steve Jobs claim the phone as belonging to Apple), the facts surrounding the cash payment, the attempts by the "finder" and his accomplice to hide, destroy, or remove evidence... Wow.

Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.

I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
post #54 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.

There are a lot of people I've come across who believe this is true. And, that Apple must be behind all the media orchestration for the continuing free publicity that it generates. While it is an obviously silly presumption, that is what is out there.
post #55 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, perhaps that is in fact why that bit is in the affidavit.

But not in the list of crimes investigated.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #56 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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

I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.

It's funny though, when I think of the car example and the fact that Gizmodo PAID for stolen/lost merchandise, I find it harder and harder to justify what they did as being acceptable under any journalism ethics code.
post #57 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But not in the list of crimes investigated.

What's in the list? And how do we know the crimes being investigated are limited to that list?
post #58 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicedbread View Post

Having read through the unsealed documents today, it's clear that Gawker/Gizmoder are in big, big trouble. The timing of their publishing of subsequent tear-down photos (after having Steve Jobs claim the phone as belonging to Apple), the facts surrounding the cash payment, the attempts by the "finder" and his accomplice to hide, destroy, or remove evidence... Wow.

Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.

I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.

The call from Jobs was after the tear down and publication of the photos.

The slam dunks seems to against Hogan, with regard to most of your info here. The payment is what will cost Giz.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #59 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.

2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.

3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.

Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. Gizmodo was looking for advertising revenue and fame and they got it via illegal means. They should be made a cautionary tale for all of the budding "journos" out there who are willing to break laws with impunity.

I realize that in the age of "everything must be free", this makes Apple look uncool to the communist-freetard mindset. This too shall pass. As soon as people get their hands on the next new Apple wondertoy, they'll forget all about how it came to be.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #60 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicedbread View Post

I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.

Won't happen. The media will close ranks around Gizmodo like you would not believe. Apple would end up getting cast as the villain here, regardless of facts, law, and such. It will be unbelievably damaging PR for the company, and that would worry me a lot as a shareholder.

If I was on Apple's board, this is the advice I would be giving SJ: "It's not worth the fight; move along."

Btw, sorry to re-post this, but take a look at the hugely popular pop icon, Jon Stewart on this issue (it's side-splittingly funny too!): http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2010/appholes
post #61 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. ......... BLAH BLAH

Excuse me, but do you follow basic English?

Where did I say that theft is inconsequential!? Did you even read what I wrote?
post #62 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

What's in the list? And how do we know the crimes being investigated are limited to that list?

-Buy or receive stolen property
-Theft; without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photography) of any article representing a trade secret
-Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400

order is here in full

edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #63 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

While I don't think that Chen requesting a formal letter requesting the phone back was legally any more damning than the rest of the episode, it was a dick move to make during a call from Jobs asking for the phone back. Very likely, if he had simply said OK and returned it, this would have all been forgotten. Getting on Jobs bad side is a good way to have a bad day.

No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.

It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.

In California the law clearly says if you find a lost object and don't make a true effort to return it, you stole it. According to the Gizmodo articles, a half assed at best effort was made, likely utilizing a method no one actually believed would work. On top of not merely leaving it at the bar with or without sending a facebook message (since the guy says he knew whose phone it was because it was logged into the service). Gizmodo then knowingly paid money for something that wasn't this man's to sell, at a level that makes the offense a felony. Admitted to the purchase and the amount publicly etc. They latter tried to recant and say the money was for merely the story but they had already published articles saying they purchased the phone full stop.

And after the Valleywag stunt it should be no shock if it turns out that the DA and this task force have been watching all of Gawker closely and captured every article as it came out as proof of what was said. The raid is merely to see if there's additional confirmation like Chen telling the guy to call AppleCare, the phrasing of the deal being "to buy the phone unit" etc. And to see what else might have been said.

In the end, Gizmodo got stupid and did this to themselves. They can't claim shield laws because it is a confessed criminal act. What they should have done was taken the photos and video with no voices, faces etc attached and posted them as 'provided by a reliable source'. THEN they could make a claim for shield laws.

Now at the least they put their rep and the rep of their parent company at risk. Apple is not likely to provide them with any review materials and might ban them from all media events. Other companies might follow suit, at least in regards to pulling ads etc from Gawker sites. And that could hurt more than any criminal penalties or civil suits.
post #64 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

that would worry me a lot as a shareholder.

I see your point about Apple's public perception, but at the same time, 3GS sales may be hindered (at an as yet unknown level) by the fact that people are now holding off on buying a 3GS in lieu of a 4G.

You've also got to consider that all of Apple's competition examined those teardowns and are possibly improving or redesigning their upcoming products as a result, potentially costing Apple months in the Cold War of smartphones. That could potentially result in lost revenue and lost marketshare.

Think about it.
post #65 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

-Buy or receive stolen property
-Theft; without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photography) of any article representing a trade secret
-Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400

order is here in full

edit: these are the charges investigated against Chen. The same order contains Chens email to Jobs after Jobs phone call, where he requests the letter. What might be damning and could lead to a charge of extortion is that he asks not just for a formal letter from Apple confirming ownership (which I think would be legal and in some case prudent) but he is clear he wants confirmation that it is 'real'. Asking for a formal request could be called for, in a CYA sort of way. Asking for confirmation that it is 'real' i.e. an actual prototype of an unreleased product could be going too far. He should have just agreed during the call.

Well, I don't think additional charges can't be added to that list. But, as I said, I don't have any legal opinion (not being a lawyer) on whether they could actually make a case for extortion.

Hope he doesn't resist arrest when they go to pick him up after the courts close on a Friday evening.
post #66 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".

I don't think so.

We don't even have intelligent trolls anymore. If you take a 'top secret' document from a government agency, and take a picture of it, even if you return the document you have stolen said document.

Please keep your trolling to things you understand, which should really cut down on your posts.
post #67 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Please wake me when someone goes to jail.

Jail for a very long time! This is one prime example of very unethical behaviour on the part of the media. It is about time somebody be held accountable for this.

Of course being a first offense they will likely walk.

Dave
post #68 of 250
This is an interesting piece (via Gruber):

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/
post #69 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


For instance, the first pictures appeared on Gizmodo's website, and then only a couple of days later did the pictures appear of the device "tear down." We now know that Apple contacted them about the phone when they saw it on the web, seemingly immediately.

If the tear-down was done *after* Apple contacted them about the phone, then it's straight industrial espionage and the defence that they "didn't know it was an Apple phone until they opened it" looks specious.

Even if the tear-down was done *before* Apple contacted them, but then published *after* Apple has already contacted them and said it was their phone then it's still clearly illegal. They would be releasing trade secrets about what appeared to be a multi-million dollar secret phone project after being told by the purported owners of the phone that it was in fact theirs and was in fact exactly that.

exactly. And even if they claim they didn't know it was an Apple phone, the story of finding it an a bar tells us that it was NOT Mr Hogan's phone and those only Cali's 'attempt to return' rules, it was a stolen item.

Quote:
It just looks more and more like these guys were just ignorant and acting on a lot of high-school legal advice. Gizmodo's staff has always seemed a bit dim and uneducated to me, but the level of ignorance (seemingly) demonstrated here is just astounding.

egotistic douches that thought they could get away with anything because they are 'journalists'.

Amusing thing, I know a lot of folks that refuse to read the site because Gizmodo has a policy of banning commenters with opinions they don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clickmyface View Post

What site? The only people to report on the direct contact with Apple was Gizmodo, who never once reported that Steve Jobs personally called them.

I don't get why people (aka you) feel the need to make stuff up.

it was in the court papers that Jobs was the one referred to by Gizmodo's report that "Apple contacted us and asked for the return of the phone. Proof positive that it is real"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, but it seems that Apple didn't report it stolen until after the story broke.

As stated in what document.

Cause all the articles I saw were phrased "Apple and Powell did in fact report the phone as stolen in March but due to current laws, there is little the police can actually do to recover it"
post #70 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

No it wouldn't. Because this isn't a civil issue brought about by Apple.

It is a criminal issue. And the action was taken by the DA.

Apple hadn't yet filed a report with the police. No report, no case by the DA. If they hadn't taken extra steps to piss off Jobs, it is possible they would have let it stop there. They might have filed anyway, just playing games with him just helped ensure they would.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #71 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post

The only people who come out ahead in situations like this are lawyers, which, by the way, is why I went to law school!

Once u need the services of a lawyer ur already screwed!

Heard of the 'rat race?' Well the rats (lawyers) have already won!
post #72 of 250
For some reason I can't find the post from the person who posted the court documents on Scribd...anyway, thank you.

There is some interesting stuff in there, and yes, Jason Chen is hosed.

Highlights:

His property was seized because, and I typed in some stuff from the scans:

X it was used as the means of committing a felony;
X it tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony;


X = there is a check in that box

Further along in the document:

the crime(s) of

496(a) PC - Buy or receive stolen property (a felony)

499c(b)(3) PC - Theft; Without authority make or cause to be made a copy (definition includes photograph) of any article representing a trade secret (a felony)

594(b)(1) - Maliciously damages property of another valued at over $400 (a felony)

was/were committed by Jason Shao Chen



GOOD LUCK IN COURT LOL
post #73 of 250
Quote:
After Gizmodo paid $5,000 to obtain a prototype iPhone that was lost by an Apple engineer, the company's chief executive personally called the website's editor to request that the phone be returned.

The affidavit in the case was unsealed Friday by Judge Clifford Cretan in San Mateo County, Calif. CNet had a first look at the document, which revealed the phone call between Steve Jobs and Gizmodo editor Brian Lam.

"... after Gizmodo.com released its story regarding the iPhone prototype on or about 4/19/2010, Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) contacted the editor of Gizmodo.com, Brian Lam," the document reads. "Jobs requested that Lam return the phone to Apple. Lam responded via the e-mail address...that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple."


I knew it. The affidavit was sealed to protect the identity of the police informant, a certain Steven P. Jobs who had nothing better to do than surf the internet during office hours to read idle gossip published by Apple rumor sites like Gizmodo.


post #74 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Once u need the services of a lawyer ur already screwed!

Heard of the 'rat race?' Well the rats (lawyers) have already won!

Once you need the services of a lawyer, I'll bet you change your mind.
post #75 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Much as I like and admire the guy, Jobs is not law enforcement.

Yes, and your point is?
Are you saying that if something is stolen from you you don't have a right to call the police?
(And the thing stolen was not just the physical phone, but the proprietary information leaked to competitors via the teardown and even the photos.)
post #76 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is an interesting piece (via Gruber):

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/

Thanks for the article; now that is an example of REAL journalism.

It also corroborates a lot of what we have believed all along, but now we have actual facts instead of speculation.
post #77 of 250
post #78 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record.

A letter from someone saying 'Its mine' doesn't constitute proof that it really is theirs. That's not what the requested letter was for... it was to obtain more web-traffic bait when they published it. I.e. a thing of value in and of itself, i.e. extortion.
post #79 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

In that line of thinking, doesn't that mean that iFixIt's teardowns are also violations of trade secret laws?

iFixit usually tears down commercial products. Once an item has been sold to the public, tearing it down to determine its composition is legal.

To go one step further, even tearing down a prototype is not necessarily illegal. If you believe that you have acquired the prototype legally and that the person who delivered it to you had the right to do so, then Journalistic Shield laws would protect you. The problem in this case is that Chen knew it was stolen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.

Depends. In the case of the Lamborghini, there would be no way to establish ownership without looking at the registration in the car and identifying the owner. (Although I would imagine the best thing to do with a Lamborghini would be to leave it alone instead of taking it home because you found it in a parking lot. Even if it mysteriously appears in front of your house, you would almost certainly call the police).

In the case of the iPhone, Steve Jobs is widely recognized, especially to a Gizmodo reporter. If Steve Jobs called and said it was his phone, that would be sufficient for a rational person (especially knowing that it was stolen). It MIGHT have been plausible for him to say "OK, I'll bring it by your HQ this afternoon and give it to you personally" to verify that it really was Jobs calling, but that's about it.
"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 #80 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.

2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.

3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.

1) And rolling over for some 2 bit stolen property fencers would be WAY worse for their image and ability to protect their intellectual property.
2) Are you f***ing nuts? I don't know ANYONE who's considering buying before June now, including myself.
3) You overestimate the degree to which the public is conscious of Apple's release cycles, as obvious as it is we who follow such trivia. But I may have upgraded now, thinking that new features don't outweigh my ability to get value between now and then, but if I know that, say, there's for sure a front facing camera that I really want, then I'm definitely holding off my purchase.

Finally, Apple lost more than 2 months lead time over competitors. In this industry, that's an enormous amount of time.
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