I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
2 months may or may not be long enough to copy a phone, however it certainly gives the competition an edge and cuts down the lead time to copy it.
Apple may release the phone earlier than expected to compensate. Maybe even the day after its announced.
I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
I'm betting they are in deep sh*t. Time will tell.
For people who follow Apple closely, they are familiar with Apple's release cycles. I know a lot of Mac and iPhone users who have no clue about such stuff. There definitely is a significant dollar value in damages attached to this.
Regardless, I don't care what company you are, you cannot sit back idly and let this stuff happen, you just can't. I have no problem calling Apple on their sh*t, but they just cannot afford to ignore this.
In any case, I say Gizmodo is in sh*t. Hogan is in sh*t and possibly Hogan's buddy too. We still don't even know for sure, that there was a drunk that originally found the phone. That's just what Hogan "claims", and it obvious how trustworthy he is. Hogan could have easily lifted it right out of the engineers bag... I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility.
Once you need the services of a lawyer, I'll bet you change your mind.
Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!
..Its about Trade secrets folks. Simply put, if you find an item and think the item is Official Property of a company (Like Apple!!) you clarify it first (ask for a letter) before you photograph, teardown and analyze.. then PUBLISH the YET TO BE RELEASED(COPYRIGHTED) material/property. Shit- I've always wanted to meet Steve Jobs.. There are far more positive things to do. I'd request I personally meet with Jobs, appeal to his good side. That is PRICELESS! But $5000!!??
I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..
It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.
Hey I don't like everything that Apple does, especially lately. They are getting a bit heavy-handed. That said, they absolutely have no choice on this one. If they let this kind of stuff slide it will happen all of the time.
Their engineer screwed up (it appears). But it was an honest mistake. Hogan, his buddy and Gizmodo's actions were anything but. They're in deep sh*t.
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.
I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email
I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
They stole property [a felony] and then they sold it [another felony] knowing they were breaking the law.
..Its about Trade secrets folks. Simply put, if you find an item and think the item is Official Property of a company (Like Apple!!) you clarify it first (ask for a letter) before you photograph, teardown and analyze.. then PUBLISH the YET TO BE RELEASED(COPYRIGHTED) material/property. Shit- I've always wanted to meet Steve Jobs.. There are far more positive things to do. I'd request I personally meet with Jobs, appeal to his good side. That is PRICELESS! But $5000!!??
I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..
It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.
He's a nice guy. Very quick witted and at parties he is always very cordial.
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.
Not sure which way you are leaning there...
I'd say that while the letter normally would have no value in Giz's case it does. They generate revenue through page hits and ads I imagine. As such the letter equates to more hits.
I would suppose that if a porn site took a hot publically popular girl's dog and then refused to give it back without a steamy selection of vids for them to post that would be extortion.
Oh, affidavit does actually reveal a bunch of far more interesting things.
P16.
Quote:
Powell said [...] the last memory he had of the prototype phone was placing it in his bag, which he then put on the floor by his feet.
Wow, how so? What for? Field test is never carried out by intoxicated males off duty in a bar. It's very unlikely that software developer would be asked to field test an appliance. Every company --- not to mention one, which used to chain already announced products to developers' desks in rooms w/out windows --- prohibits taking stuff out of their premises.
P14.
Quote:
Hogan told Martinson than upon his return home to <address>, he removed the case (iPhone 3GS disguise) and saw that the phone was not a typical iPhone.
Why bother? How does that help restoring found property to its owner?
P14.
Quote:
Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool...
P16.
Quote:
Powell said that his bag was knocked over at one point in time and it was possible the prototype iPhone fell out of the bag and onto the floor.
P16.
Quote:
Powell said he left the restaurant when the restaurant started to close and believes the finder of the prototype iPhone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.
You guys ought to have first settled the account with one another.
P18.
Quote:
A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by <officer> for the outstanding warrants only.
P18.
Quote:
I [detective] believe it is highly likely that Warner was involved and/or conspired with Hogan in negotiation and subsequent sale of the prototype iPhone...
P16.
Quote:
...Witness Martinson telephoned me at approximately 2245 hours, and said that Hogan and Warner were aware of the investigation and were in the process of removing evidence from the residence.
Yeah right. And far more serious guys have finally managed it to the final end out there in Asia...
It smells like there is the real serious money hanging around intruding into Apple's secrets. (Yeah, Psystar lawyers are already seen to be in, too).
I cant stand the guy - who the fuck does he [Jobs} think he is?
The CEO of one of the most successful companies on the planet - which means he has a fiduciary responsibility to run the company to the best of his ability, including protecting trade secrets. Now that THAT is out of the way, who the f&ck do you think YOU are?
Classic....if you're into the juvenile, idiotic form of humor. Stewart never had an intelligent thought in his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
{A number of quotes}
"Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool..."
That's the interesting part. From that statement, it doesn't sound like the owner of the phone was drunk It sounds like some drunk found it, picked it up, and tried to give it to Hogan.
If that's what really happened, then all their public accusations that the Apple employee was drunk would be slander. They've subjected him to ridicule throughout the world due to their statements that he lost the phone while drunk. The story above sounds like there's no way of knowing if he was drunk or not. All they know is that a drunk found the phone on a bar stool.
I hope they get sued for a few million dollars for libel/slander, as well as the felony charges.
Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!
Uh, yeah, that's why they would like to settle it and avoid a trial, right.
Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
B
Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...
Whatever happened to being in a profession to help your fellow man in their time of crisis and misery instead of being in it only to profit from those times?
I think that died along with Norman Rockwell. Or maybe it was when doctors stopped riding horses to their houscalls.
There's a huge difference. This was recognized as an Apple prototype phone. It was also recognized right away that it belonged to an engineer at Apple. The CEO of Apple calls and asks for the phone back. At that point, there's more than enough proof that the phone belongs to Apple.
Now, if he had said "I need to know that it's really you, so I'll drive over to Apple HQ and deliver the phone in person to you", then that would not have been reasonable. Insisting on a letter from Legal is extreme.
It wasn't recognized as anything. Even the forum members here cried fake. I am sure the original person who acquired the phone may have known it was a prototype or atleast thought so but Gizmodo did not but was willing to pay money to find out, they even said in the original article it could be a fake. Regardless proof of ownership is required, period. Regardless that you may think something belongs to someone you still need that person to prove it.
Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...
There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?
The bargaining element ~ hey, we slide this iPhone back to you, and uh, you know, slide a little info our way from time to time, eh?
The coercion element ~ maybe Apple could say, you know, it's merely a test unit, get my drift?
The threatening ~ right now, we got nothing to lose... [ so watch out MOFOs...! ]
And the coup de grace ~ i have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's... [ so, you ain't getting this clearly ilegally obtained trade secret of yours unless you know, you scratch my back and say what I want you to say, kapish? ]
...............................
Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.
I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email
I am sure the letter was more than just proof. Steve Jobs is a Douche and end here was an opportunity to squeeze him, they may not like the results but they still had Stevie by the balls and Stevie knew it.
Comments
I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
2 months may or may not be long enough to copy a phone, however it certainly gives the competition an edge and cuts down the lead time to copy it.
Apple may release the phone earlier than expected to compensate. Maybe even the day after its announced.
I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
I'm betting they are in deep sh*t. Time will tell.
For people who follow Apple closely, they are familiar with Apple's release cycles. I know a lot of Mac and iPhone users who have no clue about such stuff. There definitely is a significant dollar value in damages attached to this.
Regardless, I don't care what company you are, you cannot sit back idly and let this stuff happen, you just can't. I have no problem calling Apple on their sh*t, but they just cannot afford to ignore this.
In any case, I say Gizmodo is in sh*t. Hogan is in sh*t and possibly Hogan's buddy too. We still don't even know for sure, that there was a drunk that originally found the phone. That's just what Hogan "claims", and it obvious how trustworthy he is. Hogan could have easily lifted it right out of the engineers bag... I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility.
Once you need the services of a lawyer, I'll bet you change your mind.
Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!
I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..
It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.
Hey I don't like everything that Apple does, especially lately. They are getting a bit heavy-handed. That said, they absolutely have no choice on this one. If they let this kind of stuff slide it will happen all of the time.
Their engineer screwed up (it appears). But it was an honest mistake. Hogan, his buddy and Gizmodo's actions were anything but. They're in deep sh*t.
This is the best reply I have seen:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-apple-2010-4
Classic.
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.
I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email
I doubt they are in deep shit. Stolen property at best.
As to the rest, Apple is very predictable in their release cycles, and there is always lots of press. I don't have the sales figures, but they are probably available, and I willing to bet that Apple sees a drop in sales in the April-May time frame because of the impending new model that regularly occurs in the June/July time frame. So I doubt they lost many sales because of this.
They did not lose anything to their competitors really. The initial iPhone was revolutionary, but subsequent models have not been (processor and memory bumps mostly). The press has been speculating on the new model, and predicted the new chip. So, the competition probably had a good idea what was coming. Besides, I would not think 2 months is long enough to design a phone, optimize the OS, and get it into production.
I am not a lawyer, but I would not think that Apple would have much of a case for revealing trade secrets, as the engineer took it out of Apple and into the wild so to speak. It is forseeable that the phone might be lost and thus I would not think that Apple would have much of an expectation of maintaining secrecy once it left the campus.
Just my 2 cents
They stole property [a felony] and then they sold it [another felony] knowing they were breaking the law.
..Its about Trade secrets folks. Simply put, if you find an item and think the item is Official Property of a company (Like Apple!!) you clarify it first (ask for a letter) before you photograph, teardown and analyze.. then PUBLISH the YET TO BE RELEASED(COPYRIGHTED) material/property. Shit- I've always wanted to meet Steve Jobs.. There are far more positive things to do. I'd request I personally meet with Jobs, appeal to his good side. That is PRICELESS! But $5000!!??
I think the better story here would have been something out of Mission Impossible... they might as well just stole it from the campus... But, Gizmodo, it typical 'journalist' fashion had to be the first, had to prove themselves journalistic hacks who intrude on people business for profit and glory..
To quote Christian Bale in his now famous on-set explosion -,"OHHhh Gooood for Yoooou"..
It is my hope that this Lesson for Gizmodo and ALL of the world will illustrate how important ownership and privacy is... Facebook Lawyers should be paying close attention.. this could be groundbreaking result.
He's a nice guy. Very quick witted and at parties he is always very cordial.
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.
Not sure which way you are leaning there...
I'd say that while the letter normally would have no value in Giz's case it does. They generate revenue through page hits and ads I imagine. As such the letter equates to more hits.
I would suppose that if a porn site took a hot publically popular girl's dog and then refused to give it back without a steamy selection of vids for them to post that would be extortion.
Then again who knows, I'm not a criminal lawyer.
P16.
Powell said [...] the last memory he had of the prototype phone was placing it in his bag, which he then put on the floor by his feet.
Wow, how so? What for? Field test is never carried out by intoxicated males off duty in a bar. It's very unlikely that software developer would be asked to field test an appliance. Every company --- not to mention one, which used to chain already announced products to developers' desks in rooms w/out windows --- prohibits taking stuff out of their premises.
P14.
Hogan told Martinson than upon his return home to <address>, he removed the case (iPhone 3GS disguise) and saw that the phone was not a typical iPhone.
Why bother? How does that help restoring found property to its owner?
P14.
Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool...
P16.
Powell said that his bag was knocked over at one point in time and it was possible the prototype iPhone fell out of the bag and onto the floor.
P16.
Powell said he left the restaurant when the restaurant started to close and believes the finder of the prototype iPhone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.
You guys ought to have first settled the account with one another.
P18.
A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by <officer> for the outstanding warrants only.
P18.
I [detective] believe it is highly likely that Warner was involved and/or conspired with Hogan in negotiation and subsequent sale of the prototype iPhone...
P16.
...Witness Martinson telephoned me at approximately 2245 hours, and said that Hogan and Warner were aware of the investigation and were in the process of removing evidence from the residence.
Yeah right. And far more serious guys have finally managed it to the final end out there in Asia...
It smells like there is the real serious money hanging around intruding into Apple's secrets. (Yeah, Psystar lawyers are already seen to be in, too).
I cant stand the guy - who the fuck does he [Jobs} think he is?
The CEO of one of the most successful companies on the planet - which means he has a fiduciary responsibility to run the company to the best of his ability, including protecting trade secrets. Now that THAT is out of the way, who the f&ck do you think YOU are?
This is the best reply I have seen:
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-apple-2010-4
Classic.
Classic....if you're into the juvenile, idiotic form of humor. Stewart never had an intelligent thought in his life.
{A number of quotes}
"Hogan told her that he was drinking with friends when an intoxicated male tried to gave him an iPhone that was left on a stool..."
That's the interesting part. From that statement, it doesn't sound like the owner of the phone was drunk It sounds like some drunk found it, picked it up, and tried to give it to Hogan.
If that's what really happened, then all their public accusations that the Apple employee was drunk would be slander. They've subjected him to ridicule throughout the world due to their statements that he lost the phone while drunk. The story above sounds like there's no way of knowing if he was drunk or not. All they know is that a drunk found the phone on a bar stool.
I hope they get sued for a few million dollars for libel/slander, as well as the felony charges.
-----------------------------
From: brian lam <[email protected]>
Date: April 19, 2010 4:08:07 PM PDT
To: Steve Jobs <[email protected]>
Subject: Let's see if this goes through
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
B
Nope! Ur screwed! One of the reasons Goldman Sachs is going to 'settle' is they know if they fight it, all they are doing is giving money to the bloodsucking lawyers!
Uh, yeah, that's why they would like to settle it and avoid a trial, right.
Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder
-----------------------------
From: brian lam <[email protected]>
Date: April 19, 2010 4:08:07 PM PDT
To: Steve Jobs <[email protected]>
Subject: Let's see if this goes through
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
B
Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...
Whatever happened to being in a profession to help your fellow man in their time of crisis and misery instead of being in it only to profit from those times?
I think that died along with Norman Rockwell. Or maybe it was when doctors stopped riding horses to their houscalls.
So, help me understand this. You're arguing that they didn't know it was an Apple iPhone prototype?
Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.
There's a huge difference. This was recognized as an Apple prototype phone. It was also recognized right away that it belonged to an engineer at Apple. The CEO of Apple calls and asks for the phone back. At that point, there's more than enough proof that the phone belongs to Apple.
Now, if he had said "I need to know that it's really you, so I'll drive over to Apple HQ and deliver the phone in person to you", then that would not have been reasonable. Insisting on a letter from Legal is extreme.
It wasn't recognized as anything. Even the forum members here cried fake. I am sure the original person who acquired the phone may have known it was a prototype or atleast thought so but Gizmodo did not but was willing to pay money to find out, they even said in the original article it could be a fake. Regardless proof of ownership is required, period. Regardless that you may think something belongs to someone you still need that person to prove it.
Well, it walks like extortion, and it quacks like extortion...
There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?
The bargaining element ~ hey, we slide this iPhone back to you, and uh, you know, slide a little info our way from time to time, eh?
The coercion element ~ maybe Apple could say, you know, it's merely a test unit, get my drift?
The threatening ~ right now, we got nothing to lose... [ so watch out MOFOs...! ]
And the coup de grace ~ i have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's... [ so, you ain't getting this clearly ilegally obtained trade secret of yours unless you know, you scratch my back and say what I want you to say, kapish? ]
...............................
Looks like after Brian Lam does some time in the slammer he'll be all set to head an organised crime syndicate.
I totally agree with you that asking for a written request is fair request. However, in his email to SJ, Lam clearly stated many times that the main reason they want the written request was to publish it online as a proof of authenticity. He sounded like he wanted to get back at Apple for not giving them early access to their devices (iPad) like they usually did with Walt and Pogue. I think Lam was crying when he wrote that email
I am sure the letter was more than just proof. Steve Jobs is a Douche and end here was an opportunity to squeeze him, they may not like the results but they still had Stevie by the balls and Stevie knew it.