Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you.
You can't steal somebody's kid and then say, hey, I'll return him if you do me a favor.
You can't say you will claim you found a rat in your burger unless BK gives you one for free.
Gizmodo's Lam pretty clearly not only paid for stolen merch and then refused to return it, but he also, according to the affidavit (and in concert with what he published), demanded a written request he could publish for web traffic in exchange for doing what he was legally obligated to do. That's extortion, in addition to being a dick move.
This is pretty much the way I see it too and is probably a clearer explanation of one of my main points. That being said, it's always good to remember that we aren't lawyers and aren't in possession of all the facts.
Regardless of whether anything happens to them I'm just pleased overall that Gizmodo is being revealed for the collection of immoral ignorant jerks I always knew they were, but simultaneously a bit dismayed over the sheer number of people who seem to agree with them.
Read the CNET article on this. They are the most up to date. Interesting.
Hogan's room-mate turned him in on April 21. Hogan and his room-mates tried to clean themselves of the evidence as well. Yeah, stupidity:
Hogan told her that Gizmodo had offered him $10,000 for the phone, and showed her a camera box containing $5,000 in $100 bills, according to the affidavit. It says: "Martinson said Hogan also told her that he will receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo.com in July, if and when Apple makes an official product announcement regarding the new iPhone."
Broad, the San Mateo County detective, began to prepare a request to search the apartment on Farm Hill Blvd. the following day when, he said, he received an urgent phone call just before midnight from Martinson saying that Hogan and their roommate Thomas Warner were removing any evidence about the iPhone from the apartment and leaving in two separate cars. Broad said he tracked Hogan down at his father's house, also in Redwood City, and learned that Hogan's computer had been left at a nearby church.
Warner showed up the house at 1 a.m. and was arrested on two outstanding misdemeanor warrants. Warner claimed that a prototype sticker from the iPhone fell out of his wallet at a Chevron station, and later said that a 512 MB thumb drive and 1 GB Lexar compact flash card were under a bush on Harding Avenue, the affidavit says. Police say they recovered all the discarded hardware.
Yeah, those are the acts of some upstanding citizen who happened to be in possession of multi-million dollar device.
And yeah, Apple wants to bury Gawker and Gizmodo. Tulkas is right. If the judge or jury decides that the phone was still under trade secret protection after being lost, they are screwed. I think they are minimally in trouble for buying stolen property, but if they get caught with trade secrets, that's going to be something just a little bit bigger.
Except that other than as a titillating fact to include in their article for rumour seekers and Apple fans, the letter wouldn't have any value to Giz. If it was any other company in the world, asking for the letter wouldn't be considered extortion because no one would care to see that proof offered on a blog. The fact that without it their reputation would be in question to all the people that would comment "proof or it's fake", is why they asked for it.
In any other circumstance, asking someone to formalize a request wouldn't be considered extortion.
Well, if,
Quote:
The fact that without it their reputation would be in question to all the people that would comment "proof or it's fake", is why they asked for it.
that gives it a value, "other than as a titillating fact to include in their article."
But, I have no idea whether an extortion case could actually be made on that basis. Just throwing it out as a possibility.
I don't buy the "disinformation plant by Apple" theory for the phone disclosure. If that were the case, we'd probably have several versions and a variety of features. Apple would note the buzz and adjust accordingly.
For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record. No lawyer would expect it, although they might bluster about it. But you get a statement affirming ownership and a receipt for the device and that should be all it takes. That's not what Gizmodo.
It's a problem for them and they don't have my sympathy.
Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you. ...
So, perhaps that is in fact why that bit is in the affidavit.
Of course not, but the legal team behind his company can bury you when your illegal activities cost his company millions and millions of dollars.
It will be interesting if all of the media attention on a new secret iPhone will have an impact on the next quarterly earnings report. I'd imagine there's a segment out there not buying during April/May/June because they now know this is coming.
Even though the iPhone refresh cycle is obvious to us, it's not to the general public.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.
That's not too far-fetched. It's free publicity, therefore increasing market awareness. What hurts though is that people are not buying the 3GS while waiting for the 4G.
Having read through the unsealed documents today, it's clear that Gawker/Gizmoder are in big, big trouble. The timing of their publishing of subsequent tear-down photos (after having Steve Jobs claim the phone as belonging to Apple), the facts surrounding the cash payment, the attempts by the "finder" and his accomplice to hide, destroy, or remove evidence... Wow.
Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.
There are a lot of people I've come across who believe this is true. And, that Apple must be behind all the media orchestration for the continuing free publicity that it generates. While it is an obviously silly presumption, that is what is out there.
In any other circumstance, asking someone to formalize a request wouldn't be considered extortion.
I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.
It's funny though, when I think of the car example and the fact that Gizmodo PAID for stolen/lost merchandise, I find it harder and harder to justify what they did as being acceptable under any journalism ethics code.
Having read through the unsealed documents today, it's clear that Gawker/Gizmoder are in big, big trouble. The timing of their publishing of subsequent tear-down photos (after having Steve Jobs claim the phone as belonging to Apple), the facts surrounding the cash payment, the attempts by the "finder" and his accomplice to hide, destroy, or remove evidence... Wow.
Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
The call from Jobs was after the tear down and publication of the photos.
The slam dunks seems to against Hogan, with regard to most of your info here. The payment is what will cost Giz.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. Gizmodo was looking for advertising revenue and fame and they got it via illegal means. They should be made a cautionary tale for all of the budding "journos" out there who are willing to break laws with impunity.
I realize that in the age of "everything must be free", this makes Apple look uncool to the communist-freetard mindset. This too shall pass. As soon as people get their hands on the next new Apple wondertoy, they'll forget all about how it came to be.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
Won't happen. The media will close ranks around Gizmodo like you would not believe. Apple would end up getting cast as the villain here, regardless of facts, law, and such. It will be unbelievably damaging PR for the company, and that would worry me a lot as a shareholder.
If I was on Apple's board, this is the advice I would be giving SJ: "It's not worth the fight; move along."
Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. ......... BLAH BLAH
Excuse me, but do you follow basic English?
Where did I say that theft is inconsequential!? Did you even read what I wrote?
Comments
Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you.
You can't steal somebody's kid and then say, hey, I'll return him if you do me a favor.
You can't say you will claim you found a rat in your burger unless BK gives you one for free.
Gizmodo's Lam pretty clearly not only paid for stolen merch and then refused to return it, but he also, according to the affidavit (and in concert with what he published), demanded a written request he could publish for web traffic in exchange for doing what he was legally obligated to do. That's extortion, in addition to being a dick move.
This is pretty much the way I see it too and is probably a clearer explanation of one of my main points. That being said, it's always good to remember that we aren't lawyers and aren't in possession of all the facts.
Regardless of whether anything happens to them I'm just pleased overall that Gizmodo is being revealed for the collection of immoral ignorant jerks I always knew they were, but simultaneously a bit dismayed over the sheer number of people who seem to agree with them.
Hogan's room-mate turned him in on April 21. Hogan and his room-mates tried to clean themselves of the evidence as well. Yeah, stupidity:
Hogan told her that Gizmodo had offered him $10,000 for the phone, and showed her a camera box containing $5,000 in $100 bills, according to the affidavit. It says: "Martinson said Hogan also told her that he will receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo.com in July, if and when Apple makes an official product announcement regarding the new iPhone."
Broad, the San Mateo County detective, began to prepare a request to search the apartment on Farm Hill Blvd. the following day when, he said, he received an urgent phone call just before midnight from Martinson saying that Hogan and their roommate Thomas Warner were removing any evidence about the iPhone from the apartment and leaving in two separate cars. Broad said he tracked Hogan down at his father's house, also in Redwood City, and learned that Hogan's computer had been left at a nearby church.
Warner showed up the house at 1 a.m. and was arrested on two outstanding misdemeanor warrants. Warner claimed that a prototype sticker from the iPhone fell out of his wallet at a Chevron station, and later said that a 512 MB thumb drive and 1 GB Lexar compact flash card were under a bush on Harding Avenue, the affidavit says. Police say they recovered all the discarded hardware.
Yeah, those are the acts of some upstanding citizen who happened to be in possession of multi-million dollar device.
And yeah, Apple wants to bury Gawker and Gizmodo. Tulkas is right. If the judge or jury decides that the phone was still under trade secret protection after being lost, they are screwed. I think they are minimally in trouble for buying stolen property, but if they get caught with trade secrets, that's going to be something just a little bit bigger.
Except that other than as a titillating fact to include in their article for rumour seekers and Apple fans, the letter wouldn't have any value to Giz. If it was any other company in the world, asking for the letter wouldn't be considered extortion because no one would care to see that proof offered on a blog. The fact that without it their reputation would be in question to all the people that would comment "proof or it's fake", is why they asked for it.
In any other circumstance, asking someone to formalize a request wouldn't be considered extortion.
Well, if,
The fact that without it their reputation would be in question to all the people that would comment "proof or it's fake", is why they asked for it.
that gives it a value, "other than as a titillating fact to include in their article."
But, I have no idea whether an extortion case could actually be made on that basis. Just throwing it out as a possibility.
"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".
I don't think so.
This constitutes theft of intellectual property.
For Gizmodo to ask for a letter confirming that the device belonged to Apple was reasonable and prudent. I wouldn't turn over a valuable device based upon a phone call and no written record. No lawyer would expect it, although they might bluster about it. But you get a statement affirming ownership and a receipt for the device and that should be all it takes. That's not what Gizmodo.
It's a problem for them and they don't have my sympathy.
Actually its pretty clearly extortion. You can't say you're going to do something illegal (not return stolen property) on a condition that forces the victim to do something for you. ...
So, perhaps that is in fact why that bit is in the affidavit.
Of course not, but the legal team behind his company can bury you when your illegal activities cost his company millions and millions of dollars.
It will be interesting if all of the media attention on a new secret iPhone will have an impact on the next quarterly earnings report. I'd imagine there's a segment out there not buying during April/May/June because they now know this is coming.
Even though the iPhone refresh cycle is obvious to us, it's not to the general public.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.
That's not too far-fetched. It's free publicity, therefore increasing market awareness. What hurts though is that people are not buying the 3GS while waiting for the 4G.
Gizmodo just wants everything to be handled "legally".
And Apple's like you want legal? This is how legal's done.
Unfortunately they disassembled the thing they bought for $5k,
You mean "unfortunately they purchased it".
Simply purchasing it for $5K was their first bad step (and probably the worst). Anything after that is gravy for the prosecution.
Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
or maybe it was all an elaborate plot to get EVERYONE all jazzed up and TONS of free media coverage for what will be a major advance for the iPhone and they will have record sales in the coming quarter.
There are a lot of people I've come across who believe this is true. And, that Apple must be behind all the media orchestration for the continuing free publicity that it generates. While it is an obviously silly presumption, that is what is out there.
So, perhaps that is in fact why that bit is in the affidavit.
But not in the list of crimes investigated.
In any other circumstance, asking someone to formalize a request wouldn't be considered extortion.
I have to agree. If it's known that, for example, you found a Lamborghini, you aren't going to relinquish it to anyone who calls. A formal request or a request made through proper channels would seem to be prudent.
It's funny though, when I think of the car example and the fact that Gizmodo PAID for stolen/lost merchandise, I find it harder and harder to justify what they did as being acceptable under any journalism ethics code.
But not in the list of crimes investigated.
What's in the list? And how do we know the crimes being investigated are limited to that list?
Having read through the unsealed documents today, it's clear that Gawker/Gizmoder are in big, big trouble. The timing of their publishing of subsequent tear-down photos (after having Steve Jobs claim the phone as belonging to Apple), the facts surrounding the cash payment, the attempts by the "finder" and his accomplice to hide, destroy, or remove evidence... Wow.
Apple has what appears to be a slam-dunk trade secrets case against Gizmodo here. Damages can be awarded in the tens of millions of dollars, quite possibly even much more, considering that iPhone sales revenues are in the billions.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
The call from Jobs was after the tear down and publication of the photos.
The slam dunks seems to against Hogan, with regard to most of your info here. The payment is what will cost Giz.
1) The impact of negative PR from public perceptions of Apple 'burying' a small, seemingly inconsequential player like Gizmodo -- regardless of your opinion about them -- could be devastating for Apple.
2) There is no evidence that it cost Apple anything. Indeed, even if it did, it would be impossible to prove in court. More important, it actually provided phenomenal pre-launch publicity for the 4G.
3) You've got to be pretty dumb and/or uninformed if you did not know that Apple has been coming out with a new iPhone every year, mid-year, since the original version and would do so this year too. I don't think most people are so dumb/uninformed, so this argument does not wash.
Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. Gizmodo was looking for advertising revenue and fame and they got it via illegal means. They should be made a cautionary tale for all of the budding "journos" out there who are willing to break laws with impunity.
I realize that in the age of "everything must be free", this makes Apple look uncool to the communist-freetard mindset. This too shall pass. As soon as people get their hands on the next new Apple wondertoy, they'll forget all about how it came to be.
I don't know what Gawker's bank account looks like, but unless they've got a lot more money thn I think they have, this could put them out of business in a hurry.
Won't happen. The media will close ranks around Gizmodo like you would not believe. Apple would end up getting cast as the villain here, regardless of facts, law, and such. It will be unbelievably damaging PR for the company, and that would worry me a lot as a shareholder.
If I was on Apple's board, this is the advice I would be giving SJ: "It's not worth the fight; move along."
Btw, sorry to re-post this, but take a look at the hugely popular pop icon, Jon Stewart on this issue (it's side-splittingly funny too!): http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2010/appholes
Inconsequential? Theft is hardly inconsequential, and this one was carried out to such a public degree that it should be prosecuted with the harshest possible sentence to discourage future thefts for notoriety. ......... BLAH BLAH
Excuse me, but do you follow basic English?
Where did I say that theft is inconsequential!? Did you even read what I wrote?