Let's say you left your wallet behind in a bar. A drunk finds it and I offer him $100.00 for it. I know the wallet is yours because your ID is inside. Do I contact you so we can make arrangements so it can be returned? No, I decide that since people are interested in other people's business, I'll post the contents of your wallet to my website, including credit cards, the personal notes from your girlfriend and the snapshots of you, her and a couple of small farm animals. I also pocket your cash. I finally agree to return the wallet AFTER you see my website and ASK ME for it back. That makes me innocent?
I knew the wallet was yours, but rather than return it, I made sure that I extracted every ounce of value out of it first and only returned it to you because you ASKED for it back. Sorry dude, that would make me a thief.
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
Fair enough... I'm not convinced that because no charges have been filed yet, means much of anything though. We'll soon find out.
I don't think that Apple is perfect by any stretch. In my opinion, hey have no option but deal with this. If they don't, it will happen again and maybe next time it will be something more critical to their business.
I don't take this stance just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was HP, Sony, Microsoft etc.
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
The police report is pretty firm on whether a crime was committed and who committed it. They state emphatically that 3 crimes were committed by Chen.
As for Apple denying that the phone was theres, that has been shown to be false. Gizmodo originally claimed that Hogan repeatedly called Apple and Apple denied that it was theres. Once Hogan was interviewed, it was found that a friend offered to call Apple but never did so.
Fair enough... I'm not convinced that because no charges have been filed yet, means much of anything though. We'll soon find out.
I don't think that Apple is perfect by any stretch. In my opinion, hey have no option but deal with this. If they don't, it will happen again and maybe next time it will be something more critical to their business.
I don't take this stance just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was HP, Sony, Microsoft etc.
Cheers, B
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
Agreed.
I have reservations with some of what Apple does these days. The App Store approval is a good example. If they have good reasons for rejecting an app, I can live with that. If they reject something for no other reason than it competes with something that they have, then that is just wrong.
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
Or maybe the media will just stop doing criminal things.
Engadget and Wired were smart enough not to purchase stolen property even in this case. Why would they care that Gizmodo got busted for doing something that they refused to do?
Or maybe the media will just stop doing criminal things.
Engadget and Wired were smart enough not to purchase stolen property even in this case. Why would they care that Gizmodo got busted for doing something that they refused to do?
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
No, it's not.
A journalist can legitimately receive information and protect the source - as long as they do not participate in theft of property.
If someone breaks an NDA and gives the information to AI (or anyone else), they can publish it without repercussions. They can NOT steal the property and then publish information.
There is nothing difficult about this - why is the simple concept so difficult for you?
A journalist can legitimately receive information and protect the source - as long as they do not participate in theft of property.
If someone breaks an NDA and gives the information to AI (or anyone else), they can publish it without repercussions. They can NOT steal the property and then publish information.
There is nothing difficult about this - why is the simple concept so difficult for you?
Because it's not that simple, if it were there would be arrests by now. And there's such a thing as intellectual property that can be stolen just if it were physical property. Every website had been reporting the eventual release of a new iPhone in June/July, you don't think people held of buying an iPhone because of that? If you say yes then that means all these reports are hurting Apple. Aside from the fact that Giz bought a device that was lost, what makes them different from all those other sites?
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
I heard an interview with the Engadget editor. He explicitly said that they phoned up their lawyers, and they told them to back off and stay off. The affadavit from the police officer is a pretty competent document, and that's not what the evidence points to.
The line is pretty clear. I was a reporter for about 18 years. The company gave us lessons on when taking pictures was legal and when it wasn't. When you could quote and when you couldn't. When permission was needed. What shield laws were for. If you had a borderline case, you took it to the editor. They'd call the lawyer, and get a briefing. Once you did that, and got the story, you now you had some solid legal backup, and you didn't have to worry in that regard.
About the most shocking thing I saw was practices like this: somebody is killed in a horrible accident. You get the assignment of interviewing the parents. Some reporters, particularly if they're known, will get a family to talk. In the meanwhile, they'll steal a picture when they're in another room, or when they're crying. Heartless. Illegal, except that hey, you're the big business, they're just some shlub. If they phone up, you return it. All so you could get a nice engraving for the newspaper, or some nice animation for the TV news. But that was dying out when I was there.
As for the amount of legal damages, here's the way it goes: if the criminal verdict is guilty, then the civil case is a walkover. All you have to do is set the damages. There will be a lot of testimony about that, and the judge or jury will settle on an amount. Believe me, they've done this stuff many times before. Speculating how much, before all the evidence is in, is pretty hard. But I'd say so far it will be substantial, and it won't be that hard. And here's the thing. Gawker will settle. Or try to settle. If Apple wants to pin them to the wall, they can.
Because it's not that simple, if it were there would be arrests by now. And there's such a thing as intellectual property that can be stolen just if it were physical property. Every website had been reporting the eventual release of a new iPhone in June/July, you don't think people held of buying an iPhone because of that? If you say yes then that means all these reports are hurting Apple. Aside from the fact that Giz bought a device that was lost, what makes them different from all those other sites?
Sorry, arrests don't always happen right away. Sometimes it takes a while to put the whole story together-particularly when there are multiple people involved. In addition, they could also be looking at conspiracy charges - given that Gizmodo was offering a reward before all of these events happened.
Please read what I wrote - because you apparently posted without reading. If a reporter receives information without breaking the law, they can publish that information. If person X violates an NDA and calls a reporter with information about product Y, the reporter can publish it.
The reporter can NOT bribe someone to violate an NDA, nor can they steal a product in order to get a story. It's really quite a simple concept.
Sorry, arrests don't always happen right away. Sometimes it takes a while to put the whole story together-particularly when there are multiple people involved. In addition, they could also be looking at conspiracy charges - given that Gizmodo was offering a reward before all of these events happened.
Please read what I wrote - because you apparently posted without reading. If a reporter receives information without breaking the law, they can publish that information. If person X violates an NDA and calls a reporter with information about product Y, the reporter can publish it.
The reporter can NOT bribe someone to violate an NDA, nor can they steal a product in order to get a story. It's really quite a simple concept.
I think we need to respect the fact that there is a big difference here between a blurry, leaked photo or product speculation (which are often not true or at best inaccurate) and detailed photos and a clear autopsy tear-down video.
While not great, an occasional leaked photo isn't likely to hurt a company much. An exposé like one Giz did on the other hand does. I'd hate to see that type tabloid style, scum-bag reporting become the norm. Talk about biting the hand that feeds, why would ANY tech company want to deal with them after this?
I enjoy reading the rumor sites, speculating about what is being worked on in the labs. It's fun guessing what will becoming next. I think that these type of sites can survive just fine while still maintaining some level of integrity... and many of them do just that. What Giz did in my opinion, was just wrong.
There are no arrests because this case is very complex not simple as some people here think it is. What was Giz buying? Was it a simple piece of hardware? No, they were buying a story, something newsworthy. That's what they $5000-8500 for. Now a case for damages had gotten really complicated since a second iPhone was lost and surfaced in Vietnam a week later and pics posted all over the internet with a more thorough breakdown of the device than Giz did. These new pics are very damning for Apple and any case they might've had against Giz.
There are no arrests because this case is very complex not simple as some people here think it is. What was Giz buying? Was it a simple piece of hardware? No, they were buying a story, something newsworthy. That's what they $5000-8500 for. Now a case for damages had gotten really complicated since a second iPhone was lost and surfaced in Vietnam a week later and pics posted all over the internet with a more thorough breakdown of the device than Giz did. These new pics are very damning for Apple and any case they might've had against Giz.
Damages have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police are investigating a CRIMINAL case - and damages will not enter the picture (other than needing to show that the value was great enough for it to be grand theft - but the amount Gizmodo paid is sufficient for that.
Apple may or may not file a civil case. If they do, THAT is when damages would be relevant. But it would NOT be delaying the criminal case.
There are no arrests because this case is very complex not simple as some people here think it is. What was Giz buying? Was it a simple piece of hardware? No, they were buying a story, something newsworthy. That's what they $5000-8500 for. Now a case for damages had gotten really complicated since a second iPhone was lost and surfaced in Vietnam a week later and pics posted all over the internet with a more thorough breakdown of the device than Giz did. These new pics are very damning for Apple and any case they might've had against Giz.
Hey I agree that this case is reasonably complex.
Damning for Apple? Are you serious?
First off how do you know that was another "lost" phone? Is it not conceivable that it was stolen? We don't even know for a fact that the Apple engineer's phone was "lost" and not stolen right out of his bag... even HE isn't sure. Furthermore why does that even matter? That doesn't change what Giz and Hogan did?
Any way that you slice it, the iphone prototype that Hogan had (according to California law) is considered stolen. According to a witness, his reply was "Sucks to be him", when it was pointed out to him that someone could lose their job over this if he sells the phone. Nice, Brian. really nice.
In a sense Giz were buying a story, but in order to get that story, they first needed to commit a felony by purchasing stolen property, then publish another company's trade secrets.
I don't see where Apple have done anything wrong here, outside of one of their engineer's making an honest mistake... and unless it is proven that HE actually is actually more involved than we know it WAS an honest mistake. What happened afterwards was in no way honest.
As far as the police raiding Chen's home? I don't know whether that was warranted or not. Time will tell. I certainly don't think that Chen has behaved like a reputable and honest journalist and should not be able to hide behind the skirt of protection that reputable and honest journalists are entitled to.
I still predict that both Giz and Hogan are in very hot water. The fact that charges have not been filed yet, doesn't worry me in the slightest, the investigation is on-going... charges will come soon enough.
Damages have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police are investigating a CRIMINAL case - and damages will not enter the picture (other than needing to show that the value was great enough for it to be grand theft - but the amount Gizmodo paid is sufficient for that.
Apple may or may not file a civil case. If they do, THAT is when damages would be relevant. But it would NOT be delaying the criminal case.
Again they didn't value the phone itself at that price. It was a newsworthy story they were buying. That complicates things, plus normally when a stolen item is purchased the person doesn't put it on display for the whole world to see. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested a long time ago. The media gets special consideration in cases like this. In this instance its not right but still necessary.
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.
I am curious what the reaction to the media is going to have with this. After the release of the affidavit, it looks like the media are simply going to shut-up. It's been 3 or 4 days now, and the media basically has said nothing. I don't hear people talking about it on podcasts, I don't read about it on websites, and I haven't seen media brethren try to defend Gizmodo.
Basically, I think what happened was once media read the affidavit, they were repulsed by Gizmodo's actions and simply prefer not to talk about it anymore as it is unsavory and indefensible. Really, Gizmodo may have set back all of the efforts to the court that prove bloggers are journalists by 10 years.
So, if the DA continues its case and charges everyone involved, I think the media will generally be as neutral as possible on it. That's, surprisingly, what their job is to be. Report the news, not make it.
Quote:
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.
Any kind of damage will be unknowable and unprovable, I agree. I do feel that it is damaging as it totally FUBARed the iPad media cycle, the iPhone media cycle, and even hurt the Apple brand a little bit.
And it wasn't pre-launch publicity. There's a difference between talking about the device and talking about the controversy over the device.
Quote:
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.
You give people too much credit in following tech news, and they are not dumb or even uninformed. They simply aren't interesting in devoting time or following the tech cycle. My barber didn't know, and I told him to wait 2 months.
For it to matter, it doesn't take a lot of numbers. Take 5 million cell phones in Q2 or so. If 0.1% don't buy, that means 5000 phones. Those 5000 phones are worth 3 million in revenue. Every million probably counts to Apple. Who knows how the math works out in margins on a year old iPhone 3GS, on a brand new iPhone 2010 and deferred sales and stuff.
Again they didn't value the phone itself at that price. It was a newsworthy story they were buying. .
That's nonsense. Both Gizmodo and Hogan claimed that Gizmodo paid $5 K for the phone. Even if they hadn't made a clear statement like that, it would be impossible to convince a jury that they were really paying for the story. If they weren't paying for the phone, then Hogan would have kept the phone and Gizmodo would have paid the money for the right to take pictures. They didn't - the took full access of the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike
I am curious what the reaction to the media is going to have with this. After the release of the affidavit, it looks like the media are simply going to shut-up. It's been 3 or 4 days now, and the media basically has said nothing. I don't hear people talking about it on podcasts, I don't read about it on websites, and I haven't seen media brethren try to defend Gizmodo.
Basically, I think what happened was once media read the affidavit, they were repulsed by Gizmodo's actions and simply prefer not to talk about it anymore as it is unsavory and indefensible. Really, Gizmodo may have set back all of the efforts to the court that prove bloggers are journalists by 10 years.
So, if the DA continues its case and charges everyone involved, I think the media will generally be as neutral as possible on it. That's, surprisingly, what their job is to be. Report the news, not make it.
The media does that all the time. They make a lot of noise about something in the hopes that it will turn out to be a coverup or misuse of government power, but when it turns out that the government acted appropriately, they simply go away. They never go back and admit that they were wrong and the government right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike
Any kind of damage will be unknowable and unprovable, I agree. I do feel that it is damaging as it totally FUBARed the iPad media cycle, the iPhone media cycle, and even hurt the Apple brand a little bit..
That's not true. I'm sure Apple could find 50 marketing experts to testify to the damages.
This is not that unusual. When someone dies in a wrongful death, how do you know exactly what the damages are? Or when someone loses an arm? Or when someone infringes a patent and the patent holder wins a judgment against them? There are all sorts of situations where damages must be estimated - and plenty of people who are able to do so.
Granted, the number will not be exact and there will undoubtedly be disagreement, but Apple will certainly be able to prove damages. All that matters is that the damages are likely to be many times higher than Gizmodo can pay.
That's nonsense. Both Gizmodo and Hogan claimed that Gizmodo paid $5 K for the phone. Even if they hadn't made a clear statement like that, it would be impossible to convince a jury that they were really paying for the story. If they weren't paying for the phone, then Hogan would have kept the phone and Gizmodo would have paid the money for the right to take pictures. They didn't - the took full access of the phone.
HA you just made a case for Giz without wanting to. "Access" to the phone is exactly what they paid for. Stop getting caught up in that they gave Hogan $5000 for the phone, its not that cut and dry. If it were they'd all be in jail.
HA you just made a case for Giz without wanting to. "Access" to the phone is exactly what they paid for. Stop getting caught up in that they gave Hogan $5000 for the phone, its not that cut and dry. If it were they'd all be in jail.
That's absurd.
Gizmodo took possession of the phone, knowing that it did not belong to Hogan. That's a clear cut felony, not just gaining access to the phone.
I wonder why the Gizmodo defenders have to outright lie about the facts in order to try to defend Gizmodo. Oh, wait - it's because their position is so untenable if you stick to reality.
Comments
Let's say you left your wallet behind in a bar. A drunk finds it and I offer him $100.00 for it. I know the wallet is yours because your ID is inside. Do I contact you so we can make arrangements so it can be returned? No, I decide that since people are interested in other people's business, I'll post the contents of your wallet to my website, including credit cards, the personal notes from your girlfriend and the snapshots of you, her and a couple of small farm animals. I also pocket your cash. I finally agree to return the wallet AFTER you see my website and ASK ME for it back. That makes me innocent?
I knew the wallet was yours, but rather than return it, I made sure that I extracted every ounce of value out of it first and only returned it to you because you ASKED for it back. Sorry dude, that would make me a thief.
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
Was that property returned? Yes it was. So what judge and jury is going to convict them? I'm sure the state of California has other criminals they'd rather go after than Giz. Countless crimes go unpunished and this will be one of them. Here's an example I'm sure you'll agree that buying stolen property is ok. Let's say your friends iPhone gets stolen, the very next day a guy offers you that very iPhone for $20. Calling the police will take too long, so what are you to do, ne an upstanding citizen and let the phone get away or do you do your friend a favor and recover their phone? I know I'd buy it, but then I'd be guilty of purchasing stolen property and should punished to the full extent of the law according to you. If you agree with me then that means laws aren't always black and white, that there are gray areas within the law, and that's where this case is. I'm not siding with anyone. All I'm saying is that what Giz did although criminal was still great for business.
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
Fair enough... I'm not convinced that because no charges have been filed yet, means much of anything though. We'll soon find out.
I don't think that Apple is perfect by any stretch. In my opinion, hey have no option but deal with this. If they don't, it will happen again and maybe next time it will be something more critical to their business.
I don't take this stance just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was HP, Sony, Microsoft etc.
Cheers, B
I never said Giz was innocent. My example pertained to laws not always being black and white. And each day that passes without an arrest or charges being filed proves my point. People get arrested everyday for lesser crimes. Btw Apple initially denied the phone was theirs.
The police report is pretty firm on whether a crime was committed and who committed it. They state emphatically that 3 crimes were committed by Chen.
As for Apple denying that the phone was theres, that has been shown to be false. Gizmodo originally claimed that Hogan repeatedly called Apple and Apple denied that it was theres. Once Hogan was interviewed, it was found that a friend offered to call Apple but never did so.
Fair enough... I'm not convinced that because no charges have been filed yet, means much of anything though. We'll soon find out.
I don't think that Apple is perfect by any stretch. In my opinion, hey have no option but deal with this. If they don't, it will happen again and maybe next time it will be something more critical to their business.
I don't take this stance just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was HP, Sony, Microsoft etc.
Cheers, B
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
H
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
Agreed.
I have reservations with some of what Apple does these days. The App Store approval is a good example. If they have good reasons for rejecting an app, I can live with that. If they reject something for no other reason than it competes with something that they have, then that is just wrong.
H
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do anything but they need to be careful. If they're too harsh then ALL media will be in fear of them and we'll only hear from all the media outlets that are Apple approved. Do we really want that?
Or maybe the media will just stop doing criminal things.
Engadget and Wired were smart enough not to purchase stolen property even in this case. Why would they care that Gizmodo got busted for doing something that they refused to do?
Or maybe the media will just stop doing criminal things.
Engadget and Wired were smart enough not to purchase stolen property even in this case. Why would they care that Gizmodo got busted for doing something that they refused to do?
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
No, it's not.
A journalist can legitimately receive information and protect the source - as long as they do not participate in theft of property.
If someone breaks an NDA and gives the information to AI (or anyone else), they can publish it without repercussions. They can NOT steal the property and then publish information.
There is nothing difficult about this - why is the simple concept so difficult for you?
No, it's not.
A journalist can legitimately receive information and protect the source - as long as they do not participate in theft of property.
If someone breaks an NDA and gives the information to AI (or anyone else), they can publish it without repercussions. They can NOT steal the property and then publish information.
There is nothing difficult about this - why is the simple concept so difficult for you?
Because it's not that simple, if it were there would be arrests by now. And there's such a thing as intellectual property that can be stolen just if it were physical property. Every website had been reporting the eventual release of a new iPhone in June/July, you don't think people held of buying an iPhone because of that? If you say yes then that means all these reports are hurting Apple. Aside from the fact that Giz bought a device that was lost, what makes them different from all those other sites?
Yeah but for all we know Engadget and Wired didn't because they didn't believe it was true. So how does AI get their rumors? Leaked by Apple? I think not. Someone is giving tidbits of information and I'm sure for something in return. Is that criminal? Should Apple now be allowed to sic the police on them? Confiscate their computers and find out who the leak is? That's exactly the door that's in danger of being opened if they prevail against Giz.
I heard an interview with the Engadget editor. He explicitly said that they phoned up their lawyers, and they told them to back off and stay off. The affadavit from the police officer is a pretty competent document, and that's not what the evidence points to.
The line is pretty clear. I was a reporter for about 18 years. The company gave us lessons on when taking pictures was legal and when it wasn't. When you could quote and when you couldn't. When permission was needed. What shield laws were for. If you had a borderline case, you took it to the editor. They'd call the lawyer, and get a briefing. Once you did that, and got the story, you now you had some solid legal backup, and you didn't have to worry in that regard.
About the most shocking thing I saw was practices like this: somebody is killed in a horrible accident. You get the assignment of interviewing the parents. Some reporters, particularly if they're known, will get a family to talk. In the meanwhile, they'll steal a picture when they're in another room, or when they're crying. Heartless. Illegal, except that hey, you're the big business, they're just some shlub. If they phone up, you return it. All so you could get a nice engraving for the newspaper, or some nice animation for the TV news. But that was dying out when I was there.
As for the amount of legal damages, here's the way it goes: if the criminal verdict is guilty, then the civil case is a walkover. All you have to do is set the damages. There will be a lot of testimony about that, and the judge or jury will settle on an amount. Believe me, they've done this stuff many times before. Speculating how much, before all the evidence is in, is pretty hard. But I'd say so far it will be substantial, and it won't be that hard. And here's the thing. Gawker will settle. Or try to settle. If Apple wants to pin them to the wall, they can.
Because it's not that simple, if it were there would be arrests by now. And there's such a thing as intellectual property that can be stolen just if it were physical property. Every website had been reporting the eventual release of a new iPhone in June/July, you don't think people held of buying an iPhone because of that? If you say yes then that means all these reports are hurting Apple. Aside from the fact that Giz bought a device that was lost, what makes them different from all those other sites?
Sorry, arrests don't always happen right away. Sometimes it takes a while to put the whole story together-particularly when there are multiple people involved. In addition, they could also be looking at conspiracy charges - given that Gizmodo was offering a reward before all of these events happened.
Please read what I wrote - because you apparently posted without reading. If a reporter receives information without breaking the law, they can publish that information. If person X violates an NDA and calls a reporter with information about product Y, the reporter can publish it.
The reporter can NOT bribe someone to violate an NDA, nor can they steal a product in order to get a story. It's really quite a simple concept.
Sorry, arrests don't always happen right away. Sometimes it takes a while to put the whole story together-particularly when there are multiple people involved. In addition, they could also be looking at conspiracy charges - given that Gizmodo was offering a reward before all of these events happened.
Please read what I wrote - because you apparently posted without reading. If a reporter receives information without breaking the law, they can publish that information. If person X violates an NDA and calls a reporter with information about product Y, the reporter can publish it.
The reporter can NOT bribe someone to violate an NDA, nor can they steal a product in order to get a story. It's really quite a simple concept.
I think we need to respect the fact that there is a big difference here between a blurry, leaked photo or product speculation (which are often not true or at best inaccurate) and detailed photos and a clear autopsy tear-down video.
While not great, an occasional leaked photo isn't likely to hurt a company much. An exposé like one Giz did on the other hand does. I'd hate to see that type tabloid style, scum-bag reporting become the norm. Talk about biting the hand that feeds, why would ANY tech company want to deal with them after this?
I enjoy reading the rumor sites, speculating about what is being worked on in the labs. It's fun guessing what will becoming next. I think that these type of sites can survive just fine while still maintaining some level of integrity... and many of them do just that. What Giz did in my opinion, was just wrong.
There are no arrests because this case is very complex not simple as some people here think it is. What was Giz buying? Was it a simple piece of hardware? No, they were buying a story, something newsworthy. That's what they $5000-8500 for. Now a case for damages had gotten really complicated since a second iPhone was lost and surfaced in Vietnam a week later and pics posted all over the internet with a more thorough breakdown of the device than Giz did. These new pics are very damning for Apple and any case they might've had against Giz.
Damages have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police are investigating a CRIMINAL case - and damages will not enter the picture (other than needing to show that the value was great enough for it to be grand theft - but the amount Gizmodo paid is sufficient for that.
Apple may or may not file a civil case. If they do, THAT is when damages would be relevant. But it would NOT be delaying the criminal case.
There are no arrests because this case is very complex not simple as some people here think it is. What was Giz buying? Was it a simple piece of hardware? No, they were buying a story, something newsworthy. That's what they $5000-8500 for. Now a case for damages had gotten really complicated since a second iPhone was lost and surfaced in Vietnam a week later and pics posted all over the internet with a more thorough breakdown of the device than Giz did. These new pics are very damning for Apple and any case they might've had against Giz.
Hey I agree that this case is reasonably complex.
Damning for Apple? Are you serious?
First off how do you know that was another "lost" phone? Is it not conceivable that it was stolen? We don't even know for a fact that the Apple engineer's phone was "lost" and not stolen right out of his bag... even HE isn't sure. Furthermore why does that even matter? That doesn't change what Giz and Hogan did?
Any way that you slice it, the iphone prototype that Hogan had (according to California law) is considered stolen. According to a witness, his reply was "Sucks to be him", when it was pointed out to him that someone could lose their job over this if he sells the phone. Nice, Brian. really nice.
In a sense Giz were buying a story, but in order to get that story, they first needed to commit a felony by purchasing stolen property, then publish another company's trade secrets.
I don't see where Apple have done anything wrong here, outside of one of their engineer's making an honest mistake... and unless it is proven that HE actually is actually more involved than we know it WAS an honest mistake. What happened afterwards was in no way honest.
As far as the police raiding Chen's home? I don't know whether that was warranted or not. Time will tell. I certainly don't think that Chen has behaved like a reputable and honest journalist and should not be able to hide behind the skirt of protection that reputable and honest journalists are entitled to.
I still predict that both Giz and Hogan are in very hot water. The fact that charges have not been filed yet, doesn't worry me in the slightest, the investigation is on-going... charges will come soon enough.
Damages have absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police are investigating a CRIMINAL case - and damages will not enter the picture (other than needing to show that the value was great enough for it to be grand theft - but the amount Gizmodo paid is sufficient for that.
Apple may or may not file a civil case. If they do, THAT is when damages would be relevant. But it would NOT be delaying the criminal case.
Again they didn't value the phone itself at that price. It was a newsworthy story they were buying. That complicates things, plus normally when a stolen item is purchased the person doesn't put it on display for the whole world to see. Had it been you or I, we would've been arrested a long time ago. The media gets special consideration in cases like this. In this instance its not right but still necessary.
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.
I am curious what the reaction to the media is going to have with this. After the release of the affidavit, it looks like the media are simply going to shut-up. It's been 3 or 4 days now, and the media basically has said nothing. I don't hear people talking about it on podcasts, I don't read about it on websites, and I haven't seen media brethren try to defend Gizmodo.
Basically, I think what happened was once media read the affidavit, they were repulsed by Gizmodo's actions and simply prefer not to talk about it anymore as it is unsavory and indefensible. Really, Gizmodo may have set back all of the efforts to the court that prove bloggers are journalists by 10 years.
So, if the DA continues its case and charges everyone involved, I think the media will generally be as neutral as possible on it. That's, surprisingly, what their job is to be. Report the news, not make it.
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.
Any kind of damage will be unknowable and unprovable, I agree. I do feel that it is damaging as it totally FUBARed the iPad media cycle, the iPhone media cycle, and even hurt the Apple brand a little bit.
And it wasn't pre-launch publicity. There's a difference between talking about the device and talking about the controversy over the device.
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.
You give people too much credit in following tech news, and they are not dumb or even uninformed. They simply aren't interesting in devoting time or following the tech cycle. My barber didn't know, and I told him to wait 2 months.
For it to matter, it doesn't take a lot of numbers. Take 5 million cell phones in Q2 or so. If 0.1% don't buy, that means 5000 phones. Those 5000 phones are worth 3 million in revenue. Every million probably counts to Apple. Who knows how the math works out in margins on a year old iPhone 3GS, on a brand new iPhone 2010 and deferred sales and stuff.
Again they didn't value the phone itself at that price. It was a newsworthy story they were buying. .
That's nonsense. Both Gizmodo and Hogan claimed that Gizmodo paid $5 K for the phone. Even if they hadn't made a clear statement like that, it would be impossible to convince a jury that they were really paying for the story. If they weren't paying for the phone, then Hogan would have kept the phone and Gizmodo would have paid the money for the right to take pictures. They didn't - the took full access of the phone.
I am curious what the reaction to the media is going to have with this. After the release of the affidavit, it looks like the media are simply going to shut-up. It's been 3 or 4 days now, and the media basically has said nothing. I don't hear people talking about it on podcasts, I don't read about it on websites, and I haven't seen media brethren try to defend Gizmodo.
Basically, I think what happened was once media read the affidavit, they were repulsed by Gizmodo's actions and simply prefer not to talk about it anymore as it is unsavory and indefensible. Really, Gizmodo may have set back all of the efforts to the court that prove bloggers are journalists by 10 years.
So, if the DA continues its case and charges everyone involved, I think the media will generally be as neutral as possible on it. That's, surprisingly, what their job is to be. Report the news, not make it.
The media does that all the time. They make a lot of noise about something in the hopes that it will turn out to be a coverup or misuse of government power, but when it turns out that the government acted appropriately, they simply go away. They never go back and admit that they were wrong and the government right.
Any kind of damage will be unknowable and unprovable, I agree. I do feel that it is damaging as it totally FUBARed the iPad media cycle, the iPhone media cycle, and even hurt the Apple brand a little bit..
That's not true. I'm sure Apple could find 50 marketing experts to testify to the damages.
This is not that unusual. When someone dies in a wrongful death, how do you know exactly what the damages are? Or when someone loses an arm? Or when someone infringes a patent and the patent holder wins a judgment against them? There are all sorts of situations where damages must be estimated - and plenty of people who are able to do so.
Granted, the number will not be exact and there will undoubtedly be disagreement, but Apple will certainly be able to prove damages. All that matters is that the damages are likely to be many times higher than Gizmodo can pay.
That's nonsense. Both Gizmodo and Hogan claimed that Gizmodo paid $5 K for the phone. Even if they hadn't made a clear statement like that, it would be impossible to convince a jury that they were really paying for the story. If they weren't paying for the phone, then Hogan would have kept the phone and Gizmodo would have paid the money for the right to take pictures. They didn't - the took full access of the phone.
HA you just made a case for Giz without wanting to. "Access" to the phone is exactly what they paid for. Stop getting caught up in that they gave Hogan $5000 for the phone, its not that cut and dry. If it were they'd all be in jail.
HA you just made a case for Giz without wanting to. "Access" to the phone is exactly what they paid for. Stop getting caught up in that they gave Hogan $5000 for the phone, its not that cut and dry. If it were they'd all be in jail.
That's absurd.
Gizmodo took possession of the phone, knowing that it did not belong to Hogan. That's a clear cut felony, not just gaining access to the phone.
I wonder why the Gizmodo defenders have to outright lie about the facts in order to try to defend Gizmodo. Oh, wait - it's because their position is so untenable if you stick to reality.