or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case - Page 2

post #41 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....

EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?
and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc
If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....

Its not about returning it to who made it.. its about returning it to its rightful owner. This wasn't a store bought product, it was a piece of prototype equipment that belonged to apple.

There is nothing random or coincidental about this. This guy new EXACTLY what he had which is proven by the fact that he went straight to gizmodo with a dollar figure. And considering his job is assentially to find out about new gizmos and be the first to blog about them, I would also personally find it a pretty hard sell that it was actually left behind and this was the guy that just happened to find it..
post #42 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

It isn't irrelevant. They possibly broke the law in California and they'll be investigated, charged if warranted and tried. We'll see what justice, if any, is meted out.

I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.

Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.
post #43 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.

Do you really believe that the brains behind Gawker was not complicit in this fiasco, from the very time he was informed of it?

A boss would fires his minions to deny his culpability

As to Jason Chen, he remains true to his "journalistic credo"

Japanese subway iPad Users Use Ingenious Trick to Hide iPad Shame

http://gizmodo.com/5553770/japanese-...ide-ipad-shame

Coming from Asia myself I would be surprised if any public transport would be this crowded during the day.

Shame??? It reminds me of another "journalist" (same last name but no relations) in another so-called online news, who claimed: "why the Japanese hate their iPhone".


Can any self-respecting Westerner spot what other odd things are betrayed in the photos included the article? If you could even call it an article.

CGC
post #44 of 93
There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc.

If the DA is trully interested in trying Chen he can argue the shield law does not apply, but if they are just looking to use the evidence collected against they guy who sold the phone, or looking to turn it over to Apple to use in a civil case against Gizmodo, the DA violated the shield law.

The case against Chen hinges on what he knew or believed at the time. If he believed the seller tried to contact Apple and return the phone, and that Apple declined (as was initially reported) Chen did not commit a crime paying for the device that was POTENTIALY an Apple prototype. If he knew the kid stole it and was looking to cash in before Apple caught up to him, Chen may be in a bit of trouble. I highly doubt jail time since the phone was returned to Apple when they asked for it and stated they were the rightful owner.

In fact the phone was returned before the police were involved which is likely to hold a lot of sway on jurors at trial and the judge at sentencing. There is no way I would vote to convict Chen based on what we know now. Unless they get 12 Apple fanboys on the jury it will be incredibly hard to get a felony conviction. The kid who found the phone is a different story, since his actions clearly demonstrate he knew what he was doing was wrong and he had no real intention of returning the phone to Apple.
post #45 of 93
I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!

Anyone need a perscription??
post #46 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....

EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?
and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc
If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....

Actually, Apple did tell Gizmodo that it was Apple's, and that they wanted it back, immediately. Gizmodo then, after knowing they had received stolen property, proceeded to attempt to extort a written "admission" out of Apple that it was Apple's, destroyed it by disassembly, took pictures of it , and published these pictures, which constituted trade secrets, on their website.

As for the "finder" it's pretty clear from his subsequent actions that he knew exactly what he had and what he was doing.

Apple is doing exactly the right thing by letting the full force of the law come down on these criminals.
post #47 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc. ...

Given that you can't distinguish between the quality of what's published by Gizmodo vs. the other companies you mention, I'm not surprised that you have no doubt.
post #48 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I do agree with your assessment of Job's answer to the Gizmodo/Chen question -- he is clearly what he is in terms of his code, and does not waver. That is truly admirable and deserves great respect. I say this as someone who has been (and still firmly is), since this story broke, on the side of "Apple should let it go."

I almost did mention your name in the previous post. But knowing how perceptive you are, it would have been received without stating the obvious.

It was not meant "to rub it in". Actually, I was just puzzled by your position and the rationale you put forward, while the case was unfolding. I was baffled (but opted not to comment) considering how much I thought you knew Steve Jobs while following his career or read his history.

Steve Jobs does care about Apple but it did not stop him to adopt measures or policies, since he came back, that would be viewed by so-called investors (some were more speculators) to affect Apple stock.

As it turned out, Apple stock price did not directly take a beating because of the case. Apple even surpassed Microsoft now in terms of capitalization. I do not think that this was due either to the conspiratory theory that Apple staged the "lost iPhone" incident.

Apple will continue to attract the media and fans (as well as haters) for as long at it continues to innovate, and be a game-changer. Rather than detract, Steve Jobs character adds to the the process.

CGC

N.B.
There is however a certain degree of realism in Steve Jobs. It would be too distracting, specially after the example with Gizmodo, to go after every violator, especially in places where Apple really does not have as much influence, and foreign meddling might be viewed differently.

I would not speculate what is being done behind the scene, but it would not be unlikely that if there is any truth behind those other leaks it is most likely that the very least he might have done was to call the head of his suppliers in Asia.

Depending on the outcome of the Gizmodo case, or whatever the outcome of the case, it is unlikely that any blogger would take lightly to repeating what Gizmodo has done. The reality of the legal cost must really have been impressed by now among those involved.

The irony is that other bloggers and mainstream media may have profited more from the fiasco created by Gizmodo, without incurring the cost of acquisition, and the legal costs that must be piling for all the characters in the "movie".
post #49 of 93
I have followed the whole story...thank you......Just because i post soemthing you don't agree with don't attack me personally...thanks.

The poster I quoted said it had an Apple logo on it so it should have been returned to Apple. That just because it had an Apple logo ownership had been defined by that logo.
That was what I was commenting about. Not that it was stolen or any other point. The other facts i was not disputing.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

reducing a point to an absurd level. Yep. Can you be any more obtuse about this - did you not even follow a miniscule amount of what happpened in this case at all???

The guy - according to his own comments - took the phone accidentally left behind by the engineer, took it home checked it out enough to get the engineers name, claims he called Apple support to find out who it belongs to, and then sold it to the highest bidder. He did not take it back to the bar, which would be the logical first place for the engineer to look for it (and where he called several times to find out if anyone had turned it in).

I mean geez dude. Try to keep up with the batting lineup here. We are way downstream from anywhere your comments would make any logical sense whatsoever.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #50 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


I would hate to be on his bad side!

Wow. Scared of spiders as well?
post #51 of 93
I agree with you completely........
That was not what I was commenting about. The post that I quoted said "it had a Apple logo on it so he knew who it belonged to" The Apple logo does not define ownership....


Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

Its not about returning it to who made it.. its about returning it to its rightful owner. This wasn't a store bought product, it was a piece of prototype equipment that belonged to apple.

There is nothing random or coincidental about this. This guy new EXACTLY what he had which is proven by the fact that he went straight to gizmodo with a dollar figure. And considering his job is assentially to find out about new gizmos and be the first to blog about them, I would also personally find it a pretty hard sell that it was actually left behind and this was the guy that just happened to find it..

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #52 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Given that you can't distinguish between the quality of what's published by Gizmodo vs. the other companies you mention, I'm not surprised that you have no doubt.

Considering the "news" orgs I mentioned have all been caught publishing out right lies/fraud I think Gizmodo may be the one that stands out for higher quality and ethics. Higher obviously being a relative term since they are all organizations of dishonest scum. Ethics in journalism is a lot like ethics for lawyers and politicians. They all think rules don't apply to them, and most of the time they seem to be correct.
post #53 of 93
I can't wait to see a link on Apple's home page:

"The story of Jason Chen's shit. An Apple Exclusive."
post #54 of 93
Weather he is a jornalist will be irelivant. The fourth esate/freedom of the press protects freedom of speech through spoken or writen opinions and expressions.

This is about stolen property.
post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.

Stop spouting nonsense, and get a clue.

There is not ONE post I have made where I have defended Gawker/Gizmodo.

Every one of my posts has been based on: (i) What makes sense for Apple; (ii) Whether and how we all, as members of forums such as AI (which thrive on non-official information) are wallowing in hypocrisy since we are a part of the problem -- our curiosity/eyeballs is what drives ads is what drives dollars is what drives sites like these to go out and get the information. (It is the same kind of rank hypocrisy when it comes to China-bashing over products that we merrily consume).
post #56 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.

See above.
post #57 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

I almost did mention your name in the previous post. But knowing how perceptive you are, it would have been received without stating the obvious.

It was not meant "to rub it in". Actually, I was just puzzled by your position and the rationale you put forward, while the case was unfolding. I was baffled (but opted not to comment) considering how much I thought you knew Steve Jobs while following his career or read his history.

Thanks for the benefit of doubt.

See Post #55 above where I attempt to explain where (I hope) all my posts have come from on this issue.
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.

http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm

Sorry, but according to the blog post you cited, the court made no such decision:

"But the New Jersey appeals court ruled that Hale was not a member of a news organization and thus not entitled to journalistic protection under shield laws.

Hale's blogposts amount to "no more than a letter to the editor comment on an article published by the 'newspaper," the court wrote. "

Hale is not a journalist. That is what the court decided. And it sounds like she is not really even a blogger.
post #59 of 93
In order for someone to be considered a "journalist", what steps does the person have to go through?
post #60 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Considering the "news" orgs I mentioned have all been caught publishing out right lies/fraud I think Gizmodo may be the one that stands out for higher quality and ethics. Higher obviously being a relative term since they are all organizations of dishonest scum. Ethics in journalism is a lot like ethics for lawyers and politicians. They all think rules don't apply to them, and most of the time they seem to be correct.

Uh, right.
post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I agree with you completely........
That was not what I was commenting about. The post that I quoted said "it had a Apple logo on it so he knew who it belonged to" The Apple logo does not define ownership....

ahh, my mistake.
post #62 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatdoro View Post

"The chief executive openly questioned whether Chen is considered to be a journalist, drawing gasps from the audience."

I've watched the whole Gizmodo clip, and read the initial "quick and dirty transcript". I heard SJ call Chen a journalist, but I never heard him question whether he was a journalist. And I never heard the crowd gasp.

Are you just making that up?

BTW, I personally don't think Chen is a journalist, and I doubt SJ does either.

I never heard gasps either. Sounds like a dramatic retelling to favor bloggers.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.

http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm

Journalist's shield laws may not apply, but freedom of speech still does, which includes criticism, satire and mocking public figures, so long as there is no slander or libel involved. Criminal acts are not protected.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #64 of 93
Judge Lance Ito.
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

The girl friend who ratted them out is definitely not get any now.

She's the only one who acted in a sensible manner!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #66 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!

Anyone need a perscription??

I don't believe you have a girlfriend.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I don't believe you have a girlfriend.

touche!!
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I have followed the whole story...thank you......Just because i post soemthing you don't agree with don't attack me personally...thanks.

The poster I quoted said it had an Apple logo on it so it should have been returned to Apple. That just because it had an Apple logo ownership had been defined by that logo.
That was what I was commenting about. Not that it was stolen or any other point. The other facts i was not disputing.....

I did not recognize the irony in your commentary.
post #69 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!

Anyone need a perscription??

Not from a doctor that thinks it's perscription when it should be prescription.
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.

http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm

The law is quite clear, but you cited a New Jersey case that is only of possible persuasive value in California, but which is not binding on California courts. There is a California case on point that is much more liberal in its interpretation of what a journalist is that is binding.

So, it's clear enough. Just not in the way you think. Maybe you shouldn't rely on Google for all of your knowledge.

In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a "journalist" or not. It's not a carte blanche to commit crimes. The shield laws do not extend to a journalist's own criminal conduct, which is also a matter decided by California law.

That explains why Chen's lawyer agreed to this process. It will give his client a modicum of privacy and will ensure that irrelevant private matters don't enter the record, but the notion of some huge all encompassing immunity was always totally false.
post #71 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

I can't wait to see a link on Apple's home page:

"The story of Jason Chen's shit. An Apple Exclusive."

I thought this was funny enough to deserve another look. From http://topherchris.com/post/551530253:

post #72 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?

...the role of the journalists, due to the fact that ANYONE can be a blogger...traditional journalists in their role belong to the average blogger simply because they have created, or participate in, or are labelled "journalist" by the company supporting them in blogging activity...

...formally trained as a journalist...if potentially everyone can be a journalist (blogger)...anyone can assume the role of journalist de facto as a blogger...standards and controls - the role of journalist is ...

"Journalists" are everything that is wrong with modern media. They are a foul despicable bunch, who deserve no respect whatsoever.

All journalists are bloggers. Self-appointed, self-important keepers of some holy tradition that began in the 1930s when WHearst realized that by coloring his reporters' articles with particular phrases and detail in or out of context, he could sway public opinion about the subjects of the article.

That is when "Reporting" died, and "Journalism" was born.

Reporters get my respect. Report the facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bloggers and "journalists" are a dime a dozen, and the former are sometimes worth reading. The latter never are.
post #73 of 93
Its a misdemeanor charge at best. What Chen paid will not dictate the phone's value. He put a price on the story not what he thought a useless phone was worth. So at what value do you put? The sum of its parts, how much it cost Apple to build, how much Apple sells it to Att for, or how much would it cost a consumer? I highly doubt that Apple will sue Giz, they wouldn't gain much and will be perceived as a bully. It seemed like SJ is satisfied with whatever the DA decides to do and leave it at that.
"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 #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its a misdemeanor charge at best. What Chen paid will not dictate the phone's value. He put a price on the story not what he thought a useless phone was worth. So at what value do you put? The sum of its parts, how much it cost Apple to build, how much Apple sells it to Att for, or how much would it cost a consumer? I highly doubt that Apple will sue Giz, they wouldn't gain much and will be perceived as a bully. It seemed like SJ is satisfied with whatever the DA decides to do and leave it at that.

As a prototype, its value would easily be in the millions.
post #75 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

As a prototype, its value would easily be in the millions.

It's not some super secret spy satellite we're talking about. A judge will see it simply as it was a phone that was useless. It was newsworthy, and you might argue that you don't consider Giz a bonafide news outlet but once the story broke just about EVERY legitimate news outlet reported on it including AI. What Giz did was absolutely wrong but Chen will most likely get special consideration because of his intent and no prior criminal record. BTW Apple has been having a hard time keeping these super secret "worth millions" iPhones under wraps. They're popping up all over the place now, which can only help Giz's cause.
"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 #76 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I watched as much of that interview as could on YouTube and Jobs comes as a very thoughtful, serious and focused individual....he doesn't seen to want to let this one go!

I would hate to be on his bad side!

Hope we can get a link to the video for the entire interview

The truth is, he can't let it go now. He might decide to let Gawker/Gizmodo off the civil suit, but once the investigation begins, it ends in no charges or charges. If Steve Jobs said, "No, stop!", the D.A. would find that amusing but irrelevant.
post #77 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc.

If the DA is trully interested in trying Chen he can argue the shield law does not apply, but if they are just looking to use the evidence collected against they guy who sold the phone, or looking to turn it over to Apple to use in a civil case against Gizmodo, the DA violated the shield law.

First, all this says is, "I don't know squat about journalism." CNN? I might put that on the level of Gawker these days. But both coast's Times are actual newspapers. Read some more, and read less sensationalist bullshit.
post #78 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Wow. Scared of spiders as well?

The deadly, venomous kind? Yes.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #79 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

The law is quite clear, but you cited a New Jersey case that is only of possible persuasive value in California, but which is not binding on California courts. There is a California case on point that is much more liberal in its interpretation of what a journalist is that is binding.

So, it's clear enough. Just not in the way you think. Maybe you shouldn't rely on Google for all of your knowledge.

In any event, it doesn't matter if he is a "journalist" or not. It's not a carte blanche to commit crimes. The shield laws do not extend to a journalist's own criminal conduct, which is also a matter decided by California law.

That explains why Chen's lawyer agreed to this process. It will give his client a modicum of privacy and will ensure that irrelevant private matters don't enter the record, but the notion of some huge all encompassing immunity was always totally false.

The relevant case is in California, and it says bloggers ARE journalists. So now, Think Secret is free to... Hey, what happened to Think Secret?

The case has NOTHING to do with journalism or what anybody wrote. It is a case of theft, pure and simple. We'll see how it goes.

Chen's lawyer, I'm quite sure, did not "agree" to this procedure. The judge decided. I'm quite sure, from things said before, that he was going to argue that the shield law applied, and therefore the DA would have to return all the matter seized, and the DA would then send a request for specific information. The JUDGE said, no, that doesn't apply, but since I agree there may be irrelevant personal information and research for irrelevant news items here too, we'll have a special master searching the drive (I'd bet this includes searches for recent erasures, no?) for relevant communications, etc.
post #80 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Are bloggers to be considered journalists, and therefore covered under the explicit rights and responsibilities tacitly and assumed to be granted as "4th estate" agents?

it doesn't matter if they are or they are not. THe laws in question are about forcing a journalist to give up information about a source. They are not about protecting someone, even a journalist, from the penalties of criminal activity. And in California finding something lost and not making a genuine effort to return it is considered theft and thus Gizmodo paying money for the phone was buying stolen property. And then there is the issue of trade secrets which could come into large play since they openly called it a prototype of an Apple device.

Had Mr Chen taken the photos etc and posted them saying they were form a reliable source, he could use Shield Laws. But he didn't, and he bragged about buying the phone (which he later tried to recant to 'buying the story') and at a level that places it in felony range. Oops.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case