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.
.
But 'proper channels' don't consist of a guy named Vinnie in a parking lot at midnight.
Well, I don't think additional charges can't be added to that list. But, as I said, I don't have any legal opinion (not being a lawyer) on whether they could actually make a case for extortion.
Hope he doesn't resist arrest when they go to pick him up after the courts close on a Friday evening.
If they are considering that charge, I suppose they would have had the evidence the needed without the search, for that specific issue. If so, perhaps that would be why the wouldn't include it in the search warrant...only include issues being investigated by the warrant itself.
Even if Apple had not wanted to pursue this case, there are dozens of other companies in the Silicon Valley (who spend megabucks on R&D) who do not want to see a precedent set that bloggers can offer a bounty for the theft of trade secrets. The DA is pretty much obliged to try to prosecute the Gizmodo guys, whether Apple likes the PR ramifications or not.
Jesus Diaz responds via Twitter, says he?s not in Spain and that yours truly is a ?loser?, ?assclown?, ?Apple spokesman?, ?liar?, and ?clown?. Happy to clear that up.
The arrogance by the journalist to stall the return of stolen property will cost him. If he were smart he would have visited the main campus, requested a visit with executive staff and returned it over to them in hopes of possibly getting a story.
Instead, he did what he did.
Exactly!! And could have had some exclusive pictures (external) to boot. Pictures going into Apple Security etc etc
Why they did it the way they did, not sure. He claims its to say that it was not a coordinated plant... but that seems week for the trouble they are gathering. He could have gotten a note from Apples saying they had taken receipt... many options other than the path they took.
then that's just extortion on top of the illegalities of releasing the trade secrets.
A - "Give us back our phone"
G - "How do we know it's yours?"
A - "I'm telling you that's my phone and I want you to give it back."
G - "Put it in writing and I'll give it back. Meantime, I want to play with it"
.
Then I guess every lost in found in the country is guilty of extortion then. Last time I went to a lost and found and asked for something I lost, I had to be able to prove that it was mine.
I guess I should have asked for everything in the lost and found, and when they refused to give it to me, have the clerk arrested for extortion.
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."
Okay, first off anyone who thinks that this information getting released did not cost Apple a heck of a lot more than the retail value of an already released phone can't possibly have even two brain cells to rub together.
If you were on Apple's board and suggested that, I'd fire your ass so fast you wouldn't even have time to see it coming. Apple HAS NO CHOICE but to deal with this very harshly or everyone and their dog will consider it open season on Apple's intellectual property. The HAVE to.
Had Hogan or even Gizmodo handled things differently, and made some better choices, I'd agree with you that Apple might come out looking badly. In light of how things really played out, Apple has no choice but to release the dogs. No one with half a brain is going to feel sorry for Hogan or Gizmodo. To quote Hogan, himself, "Sucks to be him".
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."
I don't think there will be any long term damage to Apple's reputation from pursuing this, and I think the long term benefits outweigh the cost by sending a message that you can't just do this and expect there to not be consequences. Not pursuing it would send the opposite message -- i.e., that Apple is fair game and you can get away with anything. The media will end up looking self-serving, to their own detriment. And I think most people -- the ones who don't visit AI -- will likely see the very real difference between "reporters" engaging in industrial espionage, where there is no compelling public interest served, and reporters investigating issues like public corruption.
I wonder if the way Chen (or Gizmodo) phrased it, 'confirm it's yours in writing, then we'll send it' could possibly constitute blackmail?
Or maybe proof of ownership. Just because it has an Apple logo on it doesn't make it Apple's. If I lost my iPhone and someone found it and someone other than me tried to claim it I would hope the person who had it would ask for some kind of proof it was theirs and not just hand it over because they said it was, blackmail funny.
Then I guess every lost in found in the country is guilty of extortion then. Last time I went to a lost and found and asked for something I lost, I had to be able to prove that it was mine.
I guess I should have asked for everything in the lost and found, and when they refused to give it to me, have the clerk arrested for extortion.
Exactly. Just because it has an Apple logo on it doesn't make it Apples. I sure hope if I lose my iPhone and someone finds it they do not drop it in the mail to Stevie.
Comments
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.
.
But 'proper channels' don't consist of a guy named Vinnie in a parking lot at midnight.
Well, I don't think additional charges can't be added to that list. But, as I said, I don't have any legal opinion (not being a lawyer) on whether they could actually make a case for extortion.
Hope he doesn't resist arrest when they go to pick him up after the courts close on a Friday evening.
If they are considering that charge, I suppose they would have had the evidence the needed without the search, for that specific issue. If so, perhaps that would be why the wouldn't include it in the search warrant...only include issues being investigated by the warrant itself.
not sure if any posted this link, but this article tells me that Hogan is not very smart chap and should be pulled through court for his actions
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ommate-iphone/
and then there's this:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/jesus_diaz
Not true:
UPDATE, 40 MINUTES AFTER POSTING:
Jesus Diaz responds via Twitter, says he?s not in Spain and that yours truly is a ?loser?, ?assclown?, ?Apple spokesman?, ?liar?, and ?clown?. Happy to clear that up.
...or does it?
I'm only asking questions here...
Excuse me, but do you follow basic English?
Where did I say that theft is inconsequential!? Did you even read what I wrote?
I did read what you wrote. You called Gizmodo inconsequential. Gizmodo became 'consequential' because of the theft.
Please please delete the iPhone formatted web site!
Seriosly it makes the site far less enjoyable on the iPhone. We have suffered enough.
I couldn't agree more. The mobile version of AI is a disaster. Better to create an iPhone app that would reformat the pages.
http://yfrog.com/6bxg3wj
It all makes perfect sense! If I looked like Non I'd be pretty pissed off too...
The arrogance by the journalist to stall the return of stolen property will cost him. If he were smart he would have visited the main campus, requested a visit with executive staff and returned it over to them in hopes of possibly getting a story.
Instead, he did what he did.
Exactly!! And could have had some exclusive pictures (external) to boot. Pictures going into Apple Security etc etc
Why they did it the way they did, not sure. He claims its to say that it was not a coordinated plant... but that seems week for the trouble they are gathering. He could have gotten a note from Apples saying they had taken receipt... many options other than the path they took.
I couldn't agree more. The mobile version of AI is a disaster. Better to create an iPhone app that would reformat the pages.
its those darn headers popping in and out, very poor
Thanks for the article; now that is an example of REAL journalism.
It also corroborates a lot of what we have believed all along, but now we have actual facts instead of speculation.
Good article on Wired. Clearly illustrates the 'bag of hurt' those involved now find themselves in.
its those darn headers popping in and out, very poor
Exactly. Other apps I've seen have the pop-in effect happen in a more sensible fashion. These seem to pop-in when they shouldn't.
"Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video".
I don't think so.
Yeah, like he literally *cloned* the prototype .
then that's just extortion on top of the illegalities of releasing the trade secrets.
A - "Give us back our phone"
G - "How do we know it's yours?"
A - "I'm telling you that's my phone and I want you to give it back."
G - "Put it in writing and I'll give it back. Meantime, I want to play with it"
.
Then I guess every lost in found in the country is guilty of extortion then. Last time I went to a lost and found and asked for something I lost, I had to be able to prove that it was mine.
I guess I should have asked for everything in the lost and found, and when they refused to give it to me, have the clerk arrested for extortion.
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
Okay, first off anyone who thinks that this information getting released did not cost Apple a heck of a lot more than the retail value of an already released phone can't possibly have even two brain cells to rub together.
If you were on Apple's board and suggested that, I'd fire your ass so fast you wouldn't even have time to see it coming. Apple HAS NO CHOICE but to deal with this very harshly or everyone and their dog will consider it open season on Apple's intellectual property. The HAVE to.
Had Hogan or even Gizmodo handled things differently, and made some better choices, I'd agree with you that Apple might come out looking badly. In light of how things really played out, Apple has no choice but to release the dogs. No one with half a brain is going to feel sorry for Hogan or Gizmodo. To quote Hogan, himself, "Sucks to be him".
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."
I don't think there will be any long term damage to Apple's reputation from pursuing this, and I think the long term benefits outweigh the cost by sending a message that you can't just do this and expect there to not be consequences. Not pursuing it would send the opposite message -- i.e., that Apple is fair game and you can get away with anything. The media will end up looking self-serving, to their own detriment. And I think most people -- the ones who don't visit AI -- will likely see the very real difference between "reporters" engaging in industrial espionage, where there is no compelling public interest served, and reporters investigating issues like public corruption.
I wonder if the way Chen (or Gizmodo) phrased it, 'confirm it's yours in writing, then we'll send it' could possibly constitute blackmail?
Or maybe proof of ownership. Just because it has an Apple logo on it doesn't make it Apple's. If I lost my iPhone and someone found it and someone other than me tried to claim it I would hope the person who had it would ask for some kind of proof it was theirs and not just hand it over because they said it was, blackmail funny.
Then I guess every lost in found in the country is guilty of extortion then. Last time I went to a lost and found and asked for something I lost, I had to be able to prove that it was mine.
I guess I should have asked for everything in the lost and found, and when they refused to give it to me, have the clerk arrested for extortion.
Exactly. Just because it has an Apple logo on it doesn't make it Apples. I sure hope if I lose my iPhone and someone finds it they do not drop it in the mail to Stevie.