I'm not sure if this was taken down, but Gizmodo posted this detail at the time. And if you were listening to Leo Laporte's podcast Twit #245 "No Hitler for You," Becky Worley mentions this phone call.
Now, apparently, the "Back to Your Mac" software wasn't working, so why did it stop lighting up?
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.
Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.
Once the criminal investigation has been concluded, Apple may very well sue Gizmodo/Gawker Media for damages and maybe put them right out of business. The lawsuit could be for millions of dollars in lost sales, etc. etc. Put any number on it, hell, Apple's lawyers will... $100 million?
This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.
Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.
Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
There's a problem with your post, Gizmodo virtually admitted that they had the iPhone prototype. They published the name of the Apple engineer who lost( stolen) it all over the damn Web. They had proof of ownership already considering that Hogan told them that the phone belonged to Gary Powell and since it's a presumed prototype, the real owners can be argued as being Apple Inc.
Do you know what, if somebody video taped your son's bike being stolen and posted it in you tube, the cops will become very interested in that case. They have the evidence of it being stolen and they know the people they will have to arrest.
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.
Hahaha...very true!
For all the shitty things Steve has done to people throughout his life, he deserved it!
There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?
Well, I think we can guarantee that Gizmodo's access to information from Apple will definitely change as a result of this. From limited to none. Don't imagine they'll be able to offer any live coverage of future Apple events or keynotes either.
You really have to be amazed at the utter stupidity of Gizmodo/Gawker through this whole thing.
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Steve has no morals or ethics either!
Just Thursday, Steve parked his car in the handicapped spot...again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.
It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.
How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?
Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Sorry, I'm not going to justify criminal activity in order to gain a story. Where do you draw the line? Would it have been OK for them to steal the phone out of the engineer's pocket? Maybe break into his car or home and steal the phone? Or why not bypass the middleman and break into Apple's HQ?
Or, heck, why not kidnap Steve Jobs and say that they're not returning him until Apple gives them ALL the prototypes they're working on.
The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity in pursuit of a story. Nor should it.
Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.
Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.
Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sour Apple
It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.
How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?
Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
So your point is that you don't know the difference between extortion and selling a product? There's absolutely no extortion involved in Apple selling you a phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.
But, oddly, they paid $5 K for the phone - which suggests pretty strongly that they knew it wasn't a fake. Furthermore, their article said it was an Apple prototype. Even more importantly, it doesn't matter. They knew that it didn't belong to Hogan and they paid him for it. Therefore, they were paying for stolen property - even if it wasn't an Apple prototype. If it were a normal phone worth a couple hundred dollars, they could argue to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor, but that's not going to fly. They paid $5 K for it, so the value is $5 K - well into felony territory.
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.
I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.
I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.
It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.
Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.
Once the criminal investigation has been concluded, Apple may very well sue Gizmodo/Gawker Media for damages and maybe put them right out of business. The lawsuit could be for millions of dollars in lost sales, etc. etc. Put any number on it, hell, Apple's lawyers will... $100 million?
This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.
Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.
Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.
Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone
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
It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.
Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.
Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.
Comments
Now, apparently, the "Back to Your Mac" software wasn't working, so why did it stop lighting up?
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.
Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
True. He had Stevie by the sack and knew it. He may regret it later but you have to know Steve-o was pi$$ed, he had to stoop down and be nice.
Of course Brian Lam needed to Apple to claim it was theirs, that's fair enough. But if you look at the way he worded his email... tsk tsk Brian
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.
This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.
Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.
Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.
Extortion, far from it. Proof of ownership is required. My son had his bike stolen. A few weeks later I saw a kid riding one just like it. Since I had no proof of ownership there was nothing I could do but I knew it was his by the scratches and knicks in it but the cops could care less. Serial number and or receipt without that they do not want to here from me, trust me I tried.
There's a problem with your post, Gizmodo virtually admitted that they had the iPhone prototype. They published the name of the Apple engineer who lost( stolen) it all over the damn Web. They had proof of ownership already considering that Hogan told them that the phone belonged to Gary Powell and since it's a presumed prototype, the real owners can be argued as being Apple Inc.
Do you know what, if somebody video taped your son's bike being stolen and posted it in you tube, the cops will become very interested in that case. They have the evidence of it being stolen and they know the people they will have to arrest.
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.
Hahaha...very true!
For all the shitty things Steve has done to people throughout his life, he deserved it!
Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.
Nonsense. And only a complete fool would consider it anything but nonsense.
There's the revenge element ~ well, Apple PR has been cold, so we gotta do what we gotta do, yeah?
Well, I think we can guarantee that Gizmodo's access to information from Apple will definitely change as a result of this. From limited to none. Don't imagine they'll be able to offer any live coverage of future Apple events or keynotes either.
You really have to be amazed at the utter stupidity of Gizmodo/Gawker through this whole thing.
http://gizmodo.com/5495765/hello-steve-jobs
I wonder if SJ still reads Giz, and what happened that day. Did he find out by someone telling him about the story, or did he see it himself first.
i'm sure it'll be in the movie!
Extortion comes to mind as well as blackmail and an admission that what they did was wrong and they want Apple to cover it up for them . Of course, the postscript revealed their lack of morality, ethics as well as sympathy to the Apple engineer who had the prototype stolen( lost, for some) from him.
Steve has no morals or ethics either!
Just Thursday, Steve parked his car in the handicapped spot...again!
Asking for proof of ownership is one thing. Asking for it with a whole bunch of strings and "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"s attached, is another.
It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.
How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?
Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Sorry, I'm not going to justify criminal activity in order to gain a story. Where do you draw the line? Would it have been OK for them to steal the phone out of the engineer's pocket? Maybe break into his car or home and steal the phone? Or why not bypass the middleman and break into Apple's HQ?
Or, heck, why not kidnap Steve Jobs and say that they're not returning him until Apple gives them ALL the prototypes they're working on.
The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity in pursuit of a story. Nor should it.
Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.
Using your logic I assume you never go over the speed limit because "The law specifically doesn't allow for criminal activity" or do you just go above the speed limit? If the posted speed limit is 55, do you go 60, 65, maybe 70 MPH, why stop there? You're already breaking the law, why not go 100 MPH? Because its too f'ing dangerous to do so, that's why, and that's where the line is drawn. Giz didn't go looking for the iphone it was offered to them. That's very different from the examples you gave.
Just what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any concept at all of what we're talking about?
It's not extortion, It's business! Apple does the same thing.
How many iPhone users had to agree to a 2yr contract with a data plan? When the iPhone first came out, where there any other phones that required the same?
Depending on which analyst you believe, Apple is receiving anywhere from $11 to $18 per month, per subscriber from AT&T. This is part of Apple's iPhone "Revenue Sharing Pact" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
So your point is that you don't know the difference between extortion and selling a product? There's absolutely no extortion involved in Apple selling you a phone.
Exactly. Everyone here immediately called it a fake, so why wouldn't they? Regardless, you need to show proof of ownership period.
But, oddly, they paid $5 K for the phone - which suggests pretty strongly that they knew it wasn't a fake. Furthermore, their article said it was an Apple prototype. Even more importantly, it doesn't matter. They knew that it didn't belong to Hogan and they paid him for it. Therefore, they were paying for stolen property - even if it wasn't an Apple prototype. If it were a normal phone worth a couple hundred dollars, they could argue to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor, but that's not going to fly. They paid $5 K for it, so the value is $5 K - well into felony territory.
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.
I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.
I'm no journalist, but I doubt Gizmodo would pay thousands of dollars for something they thought was fake. Maybe that's how they make money though: by spending thousands of dollars on $100 iPhone knockoffs. Makes sense.
It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.
Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.
Once the criminal investigation has been concluded, Apple may very well sue Gizmodo/Gawker Media for damages and maybe put them right out of business. The lawsuit could be for millions of dollars in lost sales, etc. etc. Put any number on it, hell, Apple's lawyers will... $100 million?
This could really be a big test case for US / California trade secret laws, particularly in the digital age and print media becoming less and less important for any sort of major, widespread dissemination of breaking news. Remember as well digital media provides far, far more information of potential trade secrets than print could ever imagine.
Or maybe it could go either way. Let it slide as criminal offences seen through in the court, or, if Steve-O is real pissed, they could shut them down by sheer weight and financial encumberances of lawsuits.
Oh, the price we pay for our shiny little Apple baubles.
Here is the thing I am not sure the trade secret argument works because an apple employee took the phone off the apple campus and then he lost it. It is not like the phone was stolen in the traditional meaning, nor was this a case of industrial espionage. I am not a lawyer but I would think that since apple let the phone out that it no longer had an expectation of secrecy especially since the engineer undoubtably used the phone in public and many people probably saw the Phone
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 agree that the reqest had multiple purposes.
It doesn't matter if they thought it was fake or real. They knew it didn't belong to Hogan because he found it in a bar. That makes it stolen property.
Gizmodo put a value of $5,000 on it for whatever reason. That makes it a felony.
Let us do this one more time. If you pick up a lost item you are not a thief and he item is not Stolen property. If this were true pretty much everyone would be a thief.
It becomes stolen property when one fails to make a reasonable effort to return the item to he owner or uses the item for their benefit.