IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
And at this point, nobody has even been charged with breaking the law, except by a bunch of armchair lawyers. When the DA decides to indict, then maybe the charges will have some credibility. When the jury decides to convict, then "breaking the law" will be more than what it is now: Idle Speculation.
There is actually no such thing as the public's "right to know" and this is especially true as it applies to private businesses and individuals. This imaginary "right" was coined by an Kent Cooper, an Associated Press executive director in the 40s, it is not part of our Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act came about in 1966, but this applies to information hidden away in the government's records.
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
And at this point, nobody has even been charged with breaking the law, except by a bunch of armchair lawyers. When the DA decides to indict, then maybe the charges will have some credibility. When the jury decides to convict, then "breaking the law" will be more than what it is now: Idle Speculation.
The public DOESN'T have a right to know. You are confused in what you believe are RIGHTS. The public has a right to have PUBLIC (government) decisions and processes out in the open.
The iPhone is not part of the GOVERNMENT and therefore doesn't fall into that category.
I keep thinking about all the spy pictures of new automobiles that are in the auto magazines. Are the pictures any different? A d if you know anything about pawn shops, a lot of what they buy are stolen items. The police are always coming in and taking items without charging the shop owners.
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There is actually no such thing as the public's "right to know" and this is especially true as it applies to private businesses and individuals. This imaginary "right" was coined by an Kent Cooper, an Associated Press executive director in the 40s, it is not part of our Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act came about in 1966, but this applies to information hidden away in the government's records.
Actually, there is a right to know in regards to private industry, but it has nothing to do with this. If, for instance, Apple was believed to be jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the public, then government agencies can in fact force them to divulge relevant information. But there is no such thing as a blanket "right to know" for all corporate information. If there was, we'd all know Colonel Sanders' "secret recipe."
WilliamG seems to keep selecting his own "facts" rather than facing reality, such as when he spent multiple comments insisting that universities were banning iPads even when the same universities posted clear denials of bans on their own websites.
I keep thinking about all the spy pictures of new automobiles that are in the auto magazines. Are the pictures any different? A d if you know anything about pawn shops, a lot of what they buy are stolen items. The police are always coming in and taking items without charging the shop owners.
You really should try to learn something about the law.
As for spy pictures, you're allowed to take pictures of something that appears in public. You may not trespass to take pictures. So, if a car company drives their car on a track that's within sight of the public, there's nothing they can do (except plant trees, perhaps. That's why so many of those auto spy photos are taken with very long lenses. If someone had simply seen a 4G iPhone in use in a public area, they could have taken a picture without any problems. That does NOT, however, give them the right to take the phone itself.
As for things taken from a pawn shop, the proprietor has no way of knowing that those things do not belong to the person who brings them in, so the proprietor isn't guilty of anything. In THIS case, however, Gizmodo clearly knew that they guy selling an Apple prototype 4G phone did not own the rights to it. Even if they didn't know what it was, they knew it was valuable enough to be worth $5 K. Furthermore, WHATEVER its value, it was clear that it was stolen (under CA law) simply from the story that the 'finder' told. So Gizmodo KNEW they were paying for stolen property. Quite different from a pawn shop where the owner has no way of knowing.
You really should try to learn something about the law.
As for spy pictures, you're allowed to take pictures of something that appears in public. You may not trespass to take pictures. So, if a car company drives their car on a track that's within sight of the public, there's nothing they can do (except plant trees, perhaps. That's why so many of those auto spy photos are taken with very long lenses.
As for things taken from a pawn shop, the proprietor has no way of knowing that those things do not belong to the person who brings them in, so the proprietor isn't guilty of anything. In THIS case, however, Gizmodo clearly knew that they guy selling an Apple prototype 4G phone did not own the rights to it. Even if they didn't know what it was, they knew it was valuable enough to be worth $5 K. Furthermore, WHATEVER its value, it was clear that it was stolen (under CA law) simply from the story that the 'finder' told. So Gizmodo KNEW they were paying for stolen property. Quite different from a pawn shop where the owner has no way of knowing.
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
Compounded with allowing your employees to join in festivities with said "super secret" prototype on their birthday, presumably drinking. Since he represents the company and their interests I have to think that any claim to stealing trade secrets or espionage would not easily be upheld.
Since a pawn shop has no way of knowing if property is stolen so therefore he allowed to buy stolen property? ¿Que? As it's been stated many times, Giz may have suspected it was the G4 prototype but they also surely suspected it was a knockoff. Read the reviews after the first pics hit, going back to February's Twitter pic; the most common response was that it wasn't real, and rightly so as finding a prototype iPhone lost in a German bar is pretty much the most unlikely scenario of this whole ordeal. I had my doubts until I took a gander at the internals. everything else just looked to sqaurish for Apple's previous iPhone line. Even Andy Ihnatko stated as much based on the flat backing which is un-Apple and easier to fit components into, á la Chinese knock offs.
We have no idea what the paid the $5k for. It could have been for the "finder's" trouble, not for the prototype itself. If got him to sign a release for it, which I would expect they would have, they could easily have written in a great many things to protect themselves. Like, "if device turns out to be an Apple prototype we will gladly return to Apple immediately upon written proof", which they did.
They didn't rip into the thing as much as they could have. They could have removed the heatshield to reveal the chips or at elast x-rayed it, which are the parts I want to know about, and which iFixit will surely do.
The argument that any and all phones you don't recognize should be given to the police or that bartenders are upstanding people in which to entrust corporate prototype is simply not a very good argument. I personally think Gizmodo is in the wrong, but I also don't care enough to never read their site again at my own expense. If I did that every time a company was ethically or legally in the wrong i wouldn't be able to own anything. I also think they had their lawyers look at this before they bought it and before they published anything. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
I really wish some of you would listen to your nonsense. People steal/find things all the time. Beginning with Steve Jobs and the Xerox UI he stole. Oh yeah he compensated them just like we paid compensated the indians for Manhattan. We live in a stolen land, and had a president that stole 2 elections, Do you really think only Giz would've acted that way? Giz was probably the only one with the balls to investigate and it paid off. Nothing is gonna happen to them except not get invited to any Apple events. Big deal. There are still many tech companies that will have them.
Non - sense is what you are speaking. Don't take what isn't yours. Simple idea. Simple to execute. Encoded in law. Should be encoded in your moral being.
Can't help the past. Can behave better now. I can only hope other sites would act in a legal manner.
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
So your point is that you can't tell the difference between something being displayed in public vs taking something that isn't yours, taking it off the premises, and selling it for $5,000?
You REALLY can't see the difference? I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.
So your point is that you can't tell the difference between something being displayed in public vs taking something that isn't yours, taking it off the premises, and selling it for $5,000?
You REALLY can't see the difference? I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the method by which the item has been reportedly lost could be a defense against a claim regarding trade secret theft.
As I've repeatedly stated, I believe Giz/Gawker is guilty but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves they can be punished for it. Unfortunately, in this case, if you aren't against Gizmodo then you must be against Apple. I guess I'm just not one to swing an air gavel without a criminal or civil filing.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the method by which the item has been reportedly lost could be a defense against a claim regarding trade secret theft.
As I've repeatedly stated, I believe Giz/Gawker is guilty but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves they can be punished for it. Unfortunately, in this case, if you aren't against Gizmodo then you must be against Apple. I guess I'm just not one to swing an air gavel without a criminal or civil filing.
Actually, the manner in which it was lost isn't particularly relevant.
What MIGHT be relevant is whether Gizmodo knew it was an Apple trade secret. Since they spent $5 K on it AND took it apart AND identified it as a prototype 4G phone on their web site, they knew what it was - and therefore knew it was a trade secret.
Under NY AND CA law, they're guilty. It's about as close to a slam dunk as these things get.
Sorry, they're almost certainly guilty - their $5 K payment, immediate disassembly, and publishing that it was a 4G phone is about 99% of the proof needed. It won't be hard to get the rest.
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone. Trade secrets are considered misappropriated even if they were revealed by accident.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone. Trade secrets are considered misappropriated even if they were revealed by accident.
I agree, but I also don't think the situation is going to be that simple and that Giz/Gawker's lawyers first ran this through before giving the go ahead.
Sitting on the sidelines with pitchforks and torches screaming how everyone should ban Gizmodo after getting limited information is silly... and hypocritical if these people are still buying and using Apple et al. products.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone.
Actually, even that isn't particularly relevant.
If he had been carrying an undisguised iPhone 4G into the bar, other patrons would have been able to legally take pictures of the phone and distribute the pictures as widely as they wish. Taking the phone into a public place eliminates the expectation of privacy AT THAT LEVEL.
But it does NOT give someone permission to pick up the phone and sell it - or to buy such a phone from the 'finder'. If you know that the phone is a trade secret, publication of non-public information about it is illegal in both CA AND NY.
Besides, I strongly suspect that there's far more involved than we've heard. Look at the sequence of events:
Gizmodo offers a large reward for info on iPhone 4G.
Someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple employees.
That person just happens to strike up a conversation with an Apple employee who has one of a small number of iPhone 4G samples.
The iPhone 4G owner happens to leave it on a bar stool (who leaves things on a bar stool, anyway? The bar or a table, sure, but the bar stool????)
The 'finder' can't figure out that the person calling the phone is either the owner or knows the owner. They can't be bothered to post a message to the facebook page. They don't call Apple HQ to ask to speak to the owner (since they know his name). Instead, they call AppleCare - probably the LAST department in Apple who would know about it.
Now, that same person who isn't smart enough to figure out how to get the phone back to someone in Apple just happens to call Gizmodo - hardly a household name, and just 'coincidentally' the site that has offered a large reward.
Do you really believe that it happened that way? There are far too many 'coincidences' for that to make ANY sense.
Comments
I never said they were my heroes. They just took a risk and it paid off.
It's a little to early to know if it paid off.
How many hits on your web site would you trade for 5-10 years in a California State Penitentiary and a few hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses?
It depends entirely upon the law in question.
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
And at this point, nobody has even been charged with breaking the law, except by a bunch of armchair lawyers. When the DA decides to indict, then maybe the charges will have some credibility. When the jury decides to convict, then "breaking the law" will be more than what it is now: Idle Speculation.
There is actually no such thing as the public's "right to know" and this is especially true as it applies to private businesses and individuals. This imaginary "right" was coined by an Kent Cooper, an Associated Press executive director in the 40s, it is not part of our Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act came about in 1966, but this applies to information hidden away in the government's records.
It's a little to early to know if it paid off.
How many hits on your web site would you trade for 5-10 years in a California State Penitentiary and a few hundred thousand dollars in legal expenses?
Trust me its not gonna happen. Giz will come out if this unscathed.
It depends entirely upon the law in question.
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
And at this point, nobody has even been charged with breaking the law, except by a bunch of armchair lawyers. When the DA decides to indict, then maybe the charges will have some credibility. When the jury decides to convict, then "breaking the law" will be more than what it is now: Idle Speculation.
The public DOESN'T have a right to know. You are confused in what you believe are RIGHTS. The public has a right to have PUBLIC (government) decisions and processes out in the open.
The iPhone is not part of the GOVERNMENT and therefore doesn't fall into that category.
IMO, the public's right to know facts usually trumps a private, profit-seeking motive to keep secrets.
There is actually no such thing as the public's "right to know" and this is especially true as it applies to private businesses and individuals. This imaginary "right" was coined by an Kent Cooper, an Associated Press executive director in the 40s, it is not part of our Constitution. The Freedom of Information Act came about in 1966, but this applies to information hidden away in the government's records.
Actually, there is a right to know in regards to private industry, but it has nothing to do with this. If, for instance, Apple was believed to be jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the public, then government agencies can in fact force them to divulge relevant information. But there is no such thing as a blanket "right to know" for all corporate information. If there was, we'd all know Colonel Sanders' "secret recipe."
WilliamG seems to keep selecting his own "facts" rather than facing reality, such as when he spent multiple comments insisting that universities were banning iPads even when the same universities posted clear denials of bans on their own websites.
I keep thinking about all the spy pictures of new automobiles that are in the auto magazines. Are the pictures any different? A d if you know anything about pawn shops, a lot of what they buy are stolen items. The police are always coming in and taking items without charging the shop owners.
You really should try to learn something about the law.
As for spy pictures, you're allowed to take pictures of something that appears in public. You may not trespass to take pictures. So, if a car company drives their car on a track that's within sight of the public, there's nothing they can do (except plant trees, perhaps. That's why so many of those auto spy photos are taken with very long lenses. If someone had simply seen a 4G iPhone in use in a public area, they could have taken a picture without any problems. That does NOT, however, give them the right to take the phone itself.
As for things taken from a pawn shop, the proprietor has no way of knowing that those things do not belong to the person who brings them in, so the proprietor isn't guilty of anything. In THIS case, however, Gizmodo clearly knew that they guy selling an Apple prototype 4G phone did not own the rights to it. Even if they didn't know what it was, they knew it was valuable enough to be worth $5 K. Furthermore, WHATEVER its value, it was clear that it was stolen (under CA law) simply from the story that the 'finder' told. So Gizmodo KNEW they were paying for stolen property. Quite different from a pawn shop where the owner has no way of knowing.
You really should try to learn something about the law.
As for spy pictures, you're allowed to take pictures of something that appears in public. You may not trespass to take pictures. So, if a car company drives their car on a track that's within sight of the public, there's nothing they can do (except plant trees, perhaps. That's why so many of those auto spy photos are taken with very long lenses.
As for things taken from a pawn shop, the proprietor has no way of knowing that those things do not belong to the person who brings them in, so the proprietor isn't guilty of anything. In THIS case, however, Gizmodo clearly knew that they guy selling an Apple prototype 4G phone did not own the rights to it. Even if they didn't know what it was, they knew it was valuable enough to be worth $5 K. Furthermore, WHATEVER its value, it was clear that it was stolen (under CA law) simply from the story that the 'finder' told. So Gizmodo KNEW they were paying for stolen property. Quite different from a pawn shop where the owner has no way of knowing.
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
Compounded with allowing your employees to join in festivities with said "super secret" prototype on their birthday, presumably drinking. Since he represents the company and their interests I have to think that any claim to stealing trade secrets or espionage would not easily be upheld.
Since a pawn shop has no way of knowing if property is stolen so therefore he allowed to buy stolen property? ¿Que? As it's been stated many times, Giz may have suspected it was the G4 prototype but they also surely suspected it was a knockoff. Read the reviews after the first pics hit, going back to February's Twitter pic; the most common response was that it wasn't real, and rightly so as finding a prototype iPhone lost in a German bar is pretty much the most unlikely scenario of this whole ordeal. I had my doubts until I took a gander at the internals. everything else just looked to sqaurish for Apple's previous iPhone line. Even Andy Ihnatko stated as much based on the flat backing which is un-Apple and easier to fit components into, á la Chinese knock offs.
We have no idea what the paid the $5k for. It could have been for the "finder's" trouble, not for the prototype itself. If got him to sign a release for it, which I would expect they would have, they could easily have written in a great many things to protect themselves. Like, "if device turns out to be an Apple prototype we will gladly return to Apple immediately upon written proof", which they did.
They didn't rip into the thing as much as they could have. They could have removed the heatshield to reveal the chips or at elast x-rayed it, which are the parts I want to know about, and which iFixit will surely do.
The argument that any and all phones you don't recognize should be given to the police or that bartenders are upstanding people in which to entrust corporate prototype is simply not a very good argument. I personally think Gizmodo is in the wrong, but I also don't care enough to never read their site again at my own expense. If I did that every time a company was ethically or legally in the wrong i wouldn't be able to own anything. I also think they had their lawyers look at this before they bought it and before they published anything. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
I really wish some of you would listen to your nonsense. People steal/find things all the time. Beginning with Steve Jobs and the Xerox UI he stole. Oh yeah he compensated them just like we paid compensated the indians for Manhattan. We live in a stolen land, and had a president that stole 2 elections, Do you really think only Giz would've acted that way? Giz was probably the only one with the balls to investigate and it paid off. Nothing is gonna happen to them except not get invited to any Apple events. Big deal. There are still many tech companies that will have them.
Non - sense is what you are speaking. Don't take what isn't yours. Simple idea. Simple to execute. Encoded in law. Should be encoded in your moral being.
Can't help the past. Can behave better now. I can only hope other sites would act in a legal manner.
Acted and spoke? Or the way they think?
Acted and spoke. Thinking expressed in speech.
Or perhaps empty heads with no brains. It would explain behaviour
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
So your point is that you can't tell the difference between something being displayed in public vs taking something that isn't yours, taking it off the premises, and selling it for $5,000?
You REALLY can't see the difference? I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.
I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.
Including yourself now, I presume..... ok, go sulk now.....
So your point is that you can't tell the difference between something being displayed in public vs taking something that isn't yours, taking it off the premises, and selling it for $5,000?
You REALLY can't see the difference? I feel very sorry for everyone you come in contact with.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
Wrong again. Look up misappropriation of trade secrets. It's still illegal.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the method by which the item has been reportedly lost could be a defense against a claim regarding trade secret theft.
As I've repeatedly stated, I believe Giz/Gawker is guilty but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves they can be punished for it. Unfortunately, in this case, if you aren't against Gizmodo then you must be against Apple. I guess I'm just not one to swing an air gavel without a criminal or civil filing.
No. He's saying that if a company loses hold of their trade secret, it is no longer a trade secret.
If that's what he's saying, he's 100% wrong. PLEASE make some effort to learn something about the law before spouting off any further.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the method by which the item has been reportedly lost could be a defense against a claim regarding trade secret theft.
As I've repeatedly stated, I believe Giz/Gawker is guilty but I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves they can be punished for it. Unfortunately, in this case, if you aren't against Gizmodo then you must be against Apple. I guess I'm just not one to swing an air gavel without a criminal or civil filing.
Actually, the manner in which it was lost isn't particularly relevant.
What MIGHT be relevant is whether Gizmodo knew it was an Apple trade secret. Since they spent $5 K on it AND took it apart AND identified it as a prototype 4G phone on their web site, they knew what it was - and therefore knew it was a trade secret.
Under NY AND CA law, they're guilty. It's about as close to a slam dunk as these things get.
CA:
http://www.ndasforfree.com/UTSA.html
NY:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...s-law-new-york
Sorry, they're almost certainly guilty - their $5 K payment, immediate disassembly, and publishing that it was a 4G phone is about 99% of the proof needed. It won't be hard to get the rest.
But they took pictures of the iPhone after it was brought out in public by Apple. It doesn't appear to have been taken from Apple's premises or from the employee's person. That is the first thing that is being argued about this being "super secret". You take it into public and you are putting the device the at risk.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone. Trade secrets are considered misappropriated even if they were revealed by accident.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone. Trade secrets are considered misappropriated even if they were revealed by accident.
I agree, but I also don't think the situation is going to be that simple and that Giz/Gawker's lawyers first ran this through before giving the go ahead.
Sitting on the sidelines with pitchforks and torches screaming how everyone should ban Gizmodo after getting limited information is silly... and hypocritical if these people are still buying and using Apple et al. products.
Which is why it was disguised as a current model iPhone. It's one thing if they take it out bare naked for everyone to see. That they're hiding it when in public means it is still considered to have trade secret protection. Besides, it was not "brought out by Apple." It was carried by an employee and he didn't publicly announce that it was a next-gen iPhone.
Actually, even that isn't particularly relevant.
If he had been carrying an undisguised iPhone 4G into the bar, other patrons would have been able to legally take pictures of the phone and distribute the pictures as widely as they wish. Taking the phone into a public place eliminates the expectation of privacy AT THAT LEVEL.
But it does NOT give someone permission to pick up the phone and sell it - or to buy such a phone from the 'finder'. If you know that the phone is a trade secret, publication of non-public information about it is illegal in both CA AND NY.
Besides, I strongly suspect that there's far more involved than we've heard. Look at the sequence of events:
Gizmodo offers a large reward for info on iPhone 4G.
Someone just happens to be in a bar frequented by Apple employees.
That person just happens to strike up a conversation with an Apple employee who has one of a small number of iPhone 4G samples.
The iPhone 4G owner happens to leave it on a bar stool (who leaves things on a bar stool, anyway? The bar or a table, sure, but the bar stool????)
The 'finder' can't figure out that the person calling the phone is either the owner or knows the owner. They can't be bothered to post a message to the facebook page. They don't call Apple HQ to ask to speak to the owner (since they know his name). Instead, they call AppleCare - probably the LAST department in Apple who would know about it.
Now, that same person who isn't smart enough to figure out how to get the phone back to someone in Apple just happens to call Gizmodo - hardly a household name, and just 'coincidentally' the site that has offered a large reward.
Do you really believe that it happened that way? There are far too many 'coincidences' for that to make ANY sense.