Why did Giz not just call Apple BEFORE they pulled the device apart to see if it was real?
They did NOT need to pull it apart and publish photos to prove if it was real. There was no NEED to pull it apart at all, other than to MAKE MONEY.
You really are trying to give Giz a way out of their shady and quite dishonest actions.
Really? Because there were an awful lot of people that saw the tear down photos and still thought it was fake. Giz would know by examining the case and not opening it? Smart guys I suppose. (and please don't say they should have known because it had an Apple logo on it)
Really? Because there were an awful lot of people that saw the tear down photos and still thought it was fake. Giz would know by examining the case and not opening it? Smart guys I suppose. (and please don't say they should have known because it had an Apple logo on it)
The moment that Jobs called Gizmodo is the moment they should have been 100% certain. (And they should have been 99.9% certain before that.) They should have then: (1) gotten the phone back to Apple ASAP, and (2) not published any more damaging information.
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
Does this get them off the hook? NO! I have said that. I am not arguing that it does. Clear as mud?
Perhaps the bonus was predicated on whether it turned out to be the same phone that Apple ultimately shipped, as opposed to just one potential Apple iPhone prototype amongst several. So I don't think that the existence of a bonus necessarily shows that Gizmodo was skeptical about whether this was Apple property. It could be that they are just skeptical about the significance of this model.
(Although at this stage in the game, if a device is being field tested, it seems fairly certain that it has passed the blessing of Jobs and is likely the "gold master" candidate. But you never know with Steve. He can pull the plug at the last minute if he wants, and reputedly has done so on several occasions.)
It seems to me that Gizmodo was already convinced that the property was Apple's, but they realized that the scoop would even loom larger in retrospect if the device that shipped was the same. Hence the bonus. I know that Gizmodo has said otherwise... but of course they have.
The moment that Jobs called Gizmodo is the moment they should have been 100% certain. (And they should have been 99.9% certain before that.) They should have then: (1) gotten the phone back to Apple ASAP, and (2) not published any more damaging information.
They did not.
Thompson
Cat was already out of the bag, damage was already done and the genie was out of the bottle. 100% agree that once they received the call from Jobs, the should have driven it over handed to Jobs and apologized.
I would disagree that they should have necessarily withheld the info they had previously gather and photos they had previously taken. After their initial story and the details and photos it contained, what would be the point of holding back the remaining photos? They actually didn't reveal much additional info over the initial story. It might have shown them to be more sincere in their apology, but other than that, it wouldn't have fixed anything. For their own benefit, it might not have further enraged Jobs and perhaps he would have just let the whole thing die. Also, they might not have looked like such dicks if they were contrite at that point and explained to their readers that once they received confirmation from Jobs that they decided to be respectful and not post the additional details. But them being assholes or not doesn't make them more or less guilty.
Perhaps the bonus was predicated on whether it turned out to be the same phone that Apple ultimately shipped, as opposed to just one potential Apple iPhone prototype amongst several. So I don't think that the existence of a bonus necessarily shows that Gizmodo was skeptical about whether this was Apple property. It could be that they are just skeptical about the significance of this model.
(Although at this stage in the game, if a device is being field tested, it seems fairly certain that it has passed the blessing of Jobs and is likely the "gold master" candidate. But you never know with Steve. He can pull the plug at the last minute if he wants, and reputedly has done so on several occasions.)
It seems to me that Gizmodo was already convinced that the property was Apple's, but they realized that the scoop would even loom larger in retrospect if the device that shipped was the same. Hence the bonus. I know that Gizmodo has said otherwise... but of course they have.
Thompson
Possibly, but given the timing, it was a pretty good assumption that either it was real and very close to a final spec or it was fake.
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
You keep ignoring the fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was a real prototype or not.
Gizmodo repeated the story that it was found in a bar and little or no effort was made to return it to its owner (they knew the name of the owner and did not try to contact him. They ignored the ringing phone. They did not take it back to the bar. They did not do any of the 100 other things a rational person would do. *). That makes it stolen property under CA law.
The fact that Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for it make it felony theft.
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
After their initial story and the details and photos it contained, what would be the point of holding back the remaining photos? They actually didn't reveal much additional info over the initial story.
I'm not sure the fact that the "cat was already out of the bag, so what more harm can it do" is going to win the day if Gizmodo gets charged with divulging corporate secrets via the tear down photos. Especially since Gizmodo were the ones that initially let the cat out of the bag. Interesting concept that: "I was innocent because I didn't know what the cat was when I let it out of the bag, and I was also innocent later when I encouraged it to run around the neighborhood because what harm could it do... it was already out of the bag and was going to run around anyway."
You'd be surprised how much info competitors can glean from tear down pictures. Publishing them is another act of releasing privileged information, even though you could (correctly) argue that the competitors will have their own phones (not just pictures!) to tear down within a few of months. Now you could ask all day long about how those additional photos could have done any harm, but that's not for me to answer - nor do I have the knowledge to in the first place. Once Gizmodo knew that this was Apple property (Jobs' call) they needed to ask the question: "am I 100% certain that there's no way these photos could do any additional harm to Apple"? If they had asked that with an open mind, the only correct answer they could have come back with is, no, we can't be 100% certain. And if they asked the question: "are these photos protected by any sort of IP laws" they should have reached the conclusion "yes, probably". Remember, this is not the case of a journalist obtaining information to support whistle-blowing and the "greater good". This is sneakily getting information to support business (click-throughs) on a website. Big difference.
The bottom line is that even after Gizmodo knew for sure that they had an Apple prototype, they engaged in more acts of revealing IP. I kind of doubt that "well, we had already let the cat out of the bag back when we didn't know, so we figured what more harm can it do" is going to get much traction. It certainly doesn't with me. Guilty as hell.
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
Hey, wow! I just noticed this response was to me! Perhaps I could be forgiven, though, because as far as I could tell, you were calling somebody "wrong" for something that I never said. I have never claimed any knowledge of when the actual disassembly took place. I only stated that the pictures were run after. To which you say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
The pictures were run AFTER.
Exactly so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
Hey! My point exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try.
That is true: I cannot dispute the fact that I was correct and you have just proven it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
And you did a fantastic job of damning Gizmodo. Guilty as hell.
Hey, wow! I just noticed this response was to me! Perhaps I could be forgiven, though, because as far as I could tell, you were calling somebody "wrong" for something that I never said. I have never claimed any knowledge of when the actual disassembly took place. I only stated that the pictures were run after. To which you say...
Exactly so.
Hey! My point exactly!
That is true: I cannot dispute the fact that I was correct and you have just proven it.
And you did a fantastic job of damning Gizmodo. Guilty as hell.
Thank you for your support.
Thompson
I've actually been reading your responses to others on this vein and chose not to respond. My reason for that was due to, just as you did in this response, your need to backtrack what you previously said.
This entire exchange is based upon your statements that Gizmodo had not published pictures showing disassembly on the 19th, but instead on the 20th, AFTER SJ called Brian Lam. The report refutes this, and you have elected to backtrack stating you never said that.
There is no point even engaging someone in this mode of argument and therefore I elected not to.
I have decided to no longer shout into the wind. You can carry on with everyone else.
You keep ignoring the fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was a real prototype or not.
Gizmodo repeated the story that it was found in a bar and little or no effort was made to return it to its owner (they knew the name of the owner and did not try to contact him. They ignored the ringing phone. They did not take it back to the bar. They did not do any of the 100 other things a rational person would do. *). That makes it stolen property under CA law.
The fact that Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for it make it felony theft.
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
And again, I am NOT arguing that it isn't stolen property. I am saying that to use the story the published after they had disassembled it as proof that they knew is was stolen before they saw it is logically flawed. The story in no way proves that they may have known before looking at it. You are right, that might not matter to the case, at all. It matters only in a logical, rational examination of what people are posting here.
I'm not sure the fact that the "cat was already out of the bag, so what more harm can it do" is going to win the day if Gizmodo gets charged with divulging corporate secrets via the tear down photos. Especially since Gizmodo were the ones that initially let the cat out of the bag. Interesting concept that: "I was innocent because I didn't know what the cat was when I let it out of the bag, and I was also innocent later when I encouraged it to run around the neighborhood because what harm could it do... it was already out of the bag and was going to run around anyway."
You'd be surprised how much info competitors can glean from tear down pictures. Publishing them is another act of releasing privileged information, even though you could (correctly) argue that the competitors will have their own phones (not just pictures!) to tear down within a few of months. Now you could ask all day long about how those additional photos could have done any harm, but that's not for me to answer - nor do I have the knowledge to in the first place. Once Gizmodo knew that this was Apple property (Jobs' call) they needed to ask the question: "am I 100% certain that there's no way these photos could do any additional harm to Apple"? If they had asked that with an open mind, the only correct answer they could have come back with is, no, we can't be 100% certain. And if they asked the question: "are these photos protected by any sort of IP laws" they should have reached the conclusion "yes, probably". Remember, this is not the case of a journalist obtaining information to support whistle-blowing and the "greater good". This is sneakily getting information to support business (click-throughs) on a website. Big difference.
The bottom line is that even after Gizmodo knew for sure that they had an Apple prototype, they engaged in more acts of revealing IP. I kind of doubt that "well, we had already let the cat out of the bag back when we didn't know, so we figured what more harm can it do" is going to get much traction. It certainly doesn't with me. Guilty as hell.
Thompson
Except that if they are guilty of violating trade secret laws, then again, that was already done with the initial story, pictures and video. Perhaps the subsequent info was beneficial to competitors, but any crime they committed with the initial release was already committed, without or without the subsequent release.
And again, I am NOT arguing that it isn't stolen property. I am saying that to use the story the published after they had disassembled it as proof that they knew is was stolen before they saw it is logically flawed. The story in no way proves that they may have known before looking at it.
You're ignoring the second half of my post that you responded to. Let me repeat it:
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
I've actually been reading your responses to others on this vein and chose not to respond. My reason for that was due to, just as you did in this response, your need to backtrack what you previously said.
This entire exchange is based upon your statements that Gizmodo had not published pictures showing disassembly on the 19th, but instead on the 20th, AFTER SJ called Brian Lam. The report refutes this, and you have elected to backtrack stating you never said that.
There is no point even engaging someone in this mode of argument and therefore I elected not to.
I have decided to no longer shout into the wind. You can carry on with everyone else.
Ah, and never mind the fact that you backtracked my statement to something about when the disassembly actual took place something which could not be definitively construed from my original statement, even though it was (understandably) misinterpreted to mean what you suggested (i.e. that Gizmodo hadn't posted anything prior).
This is my point, if you care to respond: Jobs calls and asks for phone back. Gizmodo subsequently runs a story with detailed internal pictures. Guilty, regardless of when or what Gizmodo did prior. (Actually, I have them as guilty before anyway, but this angle is undeniable... which is why even you called it a damning action.)
Funny how you (and Tulkas) jump all over other people's modes of argument, when you are doing the same thing (e.g. backtracking). Funny also that you both carefully slip out from under the current point which is, as you acknowledged in your previous post, that Gizmodo should not have run the tear down story after receiving the Jobs' call, and that that evidence is, in fact, damning.
I think that it is fairly obvious now, in spite of your desperate nitpicking, that Gizmodo is guilty of (at least) three things:
(1) receiving stolen property, per the CA law.
(2) divulging corporate secrets, which is clear because they ran more stories after Jobs' call, and
(3) damaging other's property.
None of your desperate attempts to focus on me have managed to provide any sort of defense for Gizmodo.
You're arguing with a classic set of Sea Lawyers. Facts mean nothing, common sense is abolished.
Don't give up, just realize the impossible task of getting them to coexist in the rational universe that most of the rest of us inhabit.
Let them to their oddities, because if they get ignored they lose, they can't keep their alternate reality alive. They only have a forum for their self indulgent logic if somebody plays the foil. Let them be the guy in the pic.
Ah, and never mind the fact that you backtracked my statement to something about when the disassembly actual took place something which could not be definitively construed from my original statement, even though it was (understandably) misinterpreted to mean what you suggested (i.e. that Gizmodo hadn't posted anything prior).
This is my point, if you care to respond: Jobs calls and asks for phone back. Gizmodo subsequently runs a story with detailed internal pictures. Guilty, regardless of when or what Gizmodo did prior. (Actually, I have them as guilty before anyway, but this angle is undeniable... which is why even you called it a damning action.)
Funny how you (and Tulkas) jump all over other people's modes of argument, when you are doing the same thing (e.g. backtracking). Funny also that you both carefully slip out from under the current point which is, as you acknowledged in your previous post, that Gizmodo should not have run the tear down story after receiving the Jobs' call, and that that evidence is, in fact, damning.
I think that it is fairly obvious now, in spite of your desperate nitpicking, that Gizmodo is guilty of (at least) three things:
(1) receiving stolen property, per the CA law.
(2) divulging corporate secrets, which is clear because they ran more stories after Jobs' call, and
(3) damaging other's property.
None of your desperate attempts to focus on me have managed to provide any sort of defense for Gizmodo.
You're ignoring the second half of my post that you responded to. Let me repeat it:
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
Actually, the claim that they posted was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple, not one, but that is beside the point for our discussion here. Regardless of the story that Hogan gave Giz and that they later published and accepted, the content of his story (his calls) doesn't imply that Giz knew he was being honest before they looked at the phone. The withheld payment is an indication that they did not believe his story completely.
Once they knew it was Apple's (after disassembly by their account)then yes, they should have then known it qualifies as stolen and returned it. What we don't know is how long the gap was between them being convinced it was Apple's and them publishing the article and returning it to Apple. All the knew, by their story, before the looked it over, was that Hogan claimed it was real and Hogan claimed he had called Apple. If it wasn't real, i.e. was Hogan property legally, then his story about calling Apple wouldn't even matter, as it would have simply been his story in trying to boost the price.
Except that if they are guilty of violating trade secret laws, then again, that was already done with the initial story, pictures and video. Perhaps the subsequent info was beneficial to competitors, but any crime they committed with the initial release was already committed, without or without the subsequent release.
Leading to the interesting defense I suggested above, namely:
(1) Prior to Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent because they were only 99% sure that the phone was legit, therefore they could not be divulging trade secrets, and
(2) After Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent of divulging trade secrets, because those details were no longer secret, they themselves having already spilled the beans at a time when it was apparently OK to do so. (See argument 1. How freaking convenient.)
Don't you see a problem with this? Are you kidding me?
Under this defense, Gizmodo could continue posting articles until the cows come home, and all they have to do is testify to their original state of mind as not being 100% certain.
You're arguing with a classic set of Sea Lawyers. Facts mean nothing, common sense is abolished.
Don't give up, just realize the impossible task of getting them to coexist in the rational universe that most of the rest of us inhabit.
Let them to their oddities, because if they get ignored they lose, they can't keep their alternate reality alive. They only have a forum for their self indulgent logic if somebody plays the foil. Let them be the guy in the pic.
Another valuable post by Hiro, full of meaningful contribution to the thread and discussion.
I love drive-by posters. I think they believe what they post has any meaning at all. The hit and run post takes some practice to be truly meaningful. By all means, please keep practicing.
Thanks Hiro. Your input is always valued for what it is worth.
Edit: You closing in on 1400 posts. Congrats. Any chance of actually contributing to a thread soon, or are you content with your interrupt-a-post pattern?
Leading to the interesting defense I suggested above, namely:
(1) Prior to Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent because they were only 99% sure that the phone was legit, therefore they could not be divulging trade secrets, and
(2) After Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent of divulging trade secrets, because those details were no longer secret, they themselves having already spilled the beans at a time when it was apparently OK to do so. (See argument 1. How freaking convenient.)
Don't you see a problem with this? Are you kidding me?
Under this defense, Gizmodo could continue posting articles until the cows come home, and all they have to do is testify to their original state of mind as not being 100% certain.
Thompson
I didn't present a defense. I said that if they were guilty, then the crime was committed prior to the call from Jobs. Afterwards, they would still be guilty because of their actions prior to the call, regardless of if they published additional info. They didn't get more guilty. They either were and are guilty or they are not guilty (of trade secret violations).
Actually, the claim that they posted was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple, not one, but that is beside the point for our discussion here. Regardless of the story that Hogan gave Giz and that they later published and accepted, the content of his story (his calls) doesn't imply that Giz knew he was being honest before they looked at the phone. The withheld payment is an indication that they did not believe his story completely..
Are you completely incapable of understanding simple logic or is it that I've only posted the same message twice.
The fact is that it doesn't matter if they made one call to Apple or a million calls to Apple. Gizmodo has the same dilemma.
If they thought that making x calls to Apple constituted a reasonable effort to return the phone, that could only be true if they believed that the phone belonged to Apple - in which case the phone was stolen by CA state law.
If, OTOH, they want to argue that they didn't know for sure if the phone belonged to Apple, then even a billion calls to Apple would not constitute a reasonable effort to return the phone - and again, the phone is stolen under CA law.
No matter how you try to spin it, their own arguments prove them to be guilty of trafficking in stolen goods.
Comments
Why did Giz not just call Apple BEFORE they pulled the device apart to see if it was real?
They did NOT need to pull it apart and publish photos to prove if it was real. There was no NEED to pull it apart at all, other than to MAKE MONEY.
You really are trying to give Giz a way out of their shady and quite dishonest actions.
Really? Because there were an awful lot of people that saw the tear down photos and still thought it was fake. Giz would know by examining the case and not opening it? Smart guys I suppose. (and please don't say they should have known because it had an Apple logo on it)
Really? Because there were an awful lot of people that saw the tear down photos and still thought it was fake. Giz would know by examining the case and not opening it? Smart guys I suppose. (and please don't say they should have known because it had an Apple logo on it)
The moment that Jobs called Gizmodo is the moment they should have been 100% certain. (And they should have been 99.9% certain before that.) They should have then: (1) gotten the phone back to Apple ASAP, and (2) not published any more damaging information.
They did not.
Thompson
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
Does this get them off the hook? NO! I have said that. I am not arguing that it does. Clear as mud?
Perhaps the bonus was predicated on whether it turned out to be the same phone that Apple ultimately shipped, as opposed to just one potential Apple iPhone prototype amongst several. So I don't think that the existence of a bonus necessarily shows that Gizmodo was skeptical about whether this was Apple property. It could be that they are just skeptical about the significance of this model.
(Although at this stage in the game, if a device is being field tested, it seems fairly certain that it has passed the blessing of Jobs and is likely the "gold master" candidate. But you never know with Steve. He can pull the plug at the last minute if he wants, and reputedly has done so on several occasions.)
It seems to me that Gizmodo was already convinced that the property was Apple's, but they realized that the scoop would even loom larger in retrospect if the device that shipped was the same. Hence the bonus. I know that Gizmodo has said otherwise... but of course they have.
Thompson
The moment that Jobs called Gizmodo is the moment they should have been 100% certain. (And they should have been 99.9% certain before that.) They should have then: (1) gotten the phone back to Apple ASAP, and (2) not published any more damaging information.
They did not.
Thompson
Cat was already out of the bag, damage was already done and the genie was out of the bottle. 100% agree that once they received the call from Jobs, the should have driven it over handed to Jobs and apologized.
I would disagree that they should have necessarily withheld the info they had previously gather and photos they had previously taken. After their initial story and the details and photos it contained, what would be the point of holding back the remaining photos? They actually didn't reveal much additional info over the initial story. It might have shown them to be more sincere in their apology, but other than that, it wouldn't have fixed anything. For their own benefit, it might not have further enraged Jobs and perhaps he would have just let the whole thing die. Also, they might not have looked like such dicks if they were contrite at that point and explained to their readers that once they received confirmation from Jobs that they decided to be respectful and not post the additional details. But them being assholes or not doesn't make them more or less guilty.
Perhaps the bonus was predicated on whether it turned out to be the same phone that Apple ultimately shipped, as opposed to just one potential Apple iPhone prototype amongst several. So I don't think that the existence of a bonus necessarily shows that Gizmodo was skeptical about whether this was Apple property. It could be that they are just skeptical about the significance of this model.
(Although at this stage in the game, if a device is being field tested, it seems fairly certain that it has passed the blessing of Jobs and is likely the "gold master" candidate. But you never know with Steve. He can pull the plug at the last minute if he wants, and reputedly has done so on several occasions.)
It seems to me that Gizmodo was already convinced that the property was Apple's, but they realized that the scoop would even loom larger in retrospect if the device that shipped was the same. Hence the bonus. I know that Gizmodo has said otherwise... but of course they have.
Thompson
Possibly, but given the timing, it was a pretty good assumption that either it was real and very close to a final spec or it was fake.
Beyond the fact that yes, if it was fake then it certainly could have been his fake, i am not trying to 'get them off the hook'. I am simply pointing out the flawed logic in asserting that the fact that they paid Hogan for it proves they knew is was his. That is exactly why the held back part of the payment...because they couldn't have known if it was genuine or some fake that Hogan cobbled together or bought in China. Obviously they felt strongly that it was, but not certain and hence the withheld payment.
You keep ignoring the fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was a real prototype or not.
Gizmodo repeated the story that it was found in a bar and little or no effort was made to return it to its owner (they knew the name of the owner and did not try to contact him. They ignored the ringing phone. They did not take it back to the bar. They did not do any of the 100 other things a rational person would do. *). That makes it stolen property under CA law.
The fact that Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for it make it felony theft.
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
After their initial story and the details and photos it contained, what would be the point of holding back the remaining photos? They actually didn't reveal much additional info over the initial story.
I'm not sure the fact that the "cat was already out of the bag, so what more harm can it do" is going to win the day if Gizmodo gets charged with divulging corporate secrets via the tear down photos. Especially since Gizmodo were the ones that initially let the cat out of the bag. Interesting concept that: "I was innocent because I didn't know what the cat was when I let it out of the bag, and I was also innocent later when I encouraged it to run around the neighborhood because what harm could it do... it was already out of the bag and was going to run around anyway."
You'd be surprised how much info competitors can glean from tear down pictures. Publishing them is another act of releasing privileged information, even though you could (correctly) argue that the competitors will have their own phones (not just pictures!) to tear down within a few of months. Now you could ask all day long about how those additional photos could have done any harm, but that's not for me to answer - nor do I have the knowledge to in the first place. Once Gizmodo knew that this was Apple property (Jobs' call) they needed to ask the question: "am I 100% certain that there's no way these photos could do any additional harm to Apple"? If they had asked that with an open mind, the only correct answer they could have come back with is, no, we can't be 100% certain. And if they asked the question: "are these photos protected by any sort of IP laws" they should have reached the conclusion "yes, probably". Remember, this is not the case of a journalist obtaining information to support whistle-blowing and the "greater good". This is sneakily getting information to support business (click-throughs) on a website. Big difference.
The bottom line is that even after Gizmodo knew for sure that they had an Apple prototype, they engaged in more acts of revealing IP. I kind of doubt that "well, we had already let the cat out of the bag back when we didn't know, so we figured what more harm can it do" is going to get much traction. It certainly doesn't with me. Guilty as hell.
Thompson
In the end, you are wrong. The phone was disassembled BEFORE the call, not after.
Hey, wow! I just noticed this response was to me! Perhaps I could be forgiven, though, because as far as I could tell, you were calling somebody "wrong" for something that I never said. I have never claimed any knowledge of when the actual disassembly took place. I only stated that the pictures were run after. To which you say...
The pictures were run AFTER.
Exactly so.
They just elected to run the story after, though too be honest they shouldn't have.
Hey! My point exactly!
This cannot be disputed no matter how much you try.
That is true: I cannot dispute the fact that I was correct and you have just proven it.
I will point out ALL the evidence, even if it damns Gizmodo.
And you did a fantastic job of damning Gizmodo. Guilty as hell.
Thank you for your support.
Thompson
Hey, wow! I just noticed this response was to me! Perhaps I could be forgiven, though, because as far as I could tell, you were calling somebody "wrong" for something that I never said. I have never claimed any knowledge of when the actual disassembly took place. I only stated that the pictures were run after. To which you say...
Exactly so.
Hey! My point exactly!
That is true: I cannot dispute the fact that I was correct and you have just proven it.
And you did a fantastic job of damning Gizmodo. Guilty as hell.
Thank you for your support.
Thompson
I've actually been reading your responses to others on this vein and chose not to respond. My reason for that was due to, just as you did in this response, your need to backtrack what you previously said.
This entire exchange is based upon your statements that Gizmodo had not published pictures showing disassembly on the 19th, but instead on the 20th, AFTER SJ called Brian Lam. The report refutes this, and you have elected to backtrack stating you never said that.
There is no point even engaging someone in this mode of argument and therefore I elected not to.
I have decided to no longer shout into the wind. You can carry on with everyone else.
You keep ignoring the fact that IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was a real prototype or not.
Gizmodo repeated the story that it was found in a bar and little or no effort was made to return it to its owner (they knew the name of the owner and did not try to contact him. They ignored the ringing phone. They did not take it back to the bar. They did not do any of the 100 other things a rational person would do. *). That makes it stolen property under CA law.
The fact that Gizmodo paid at least $5 K for it make it felony theft.
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
And again, I am NOT arguing that it isn't stolen property. I am saying that to use the story the published after they had disassembled it as proof that they knew is was stolen before they saw it is logically flawed. The story in no way proves that they may have known before looking at it. You are right, that might not matter to the case, at all. It matters only in a logical, rational examination of what people are posting here.
I'm not sure the fact that the "cat was already out of the bag, so what more harm can it do" is going to win the day if Gizmodo gets charged with divulging corporate secrets via the tear down photos. Especially since Gizmodo were the ones that initially let the cat out of the bag. Interesting concept that: "I was innocent because I didn't know what the cat was when I let it out of the bag, and I was also innocent later when I encouraged it to run around the neighborhood because what harm could it do... it was already out of the bag and was going to run around anyway."
You'd be surprised how much info competitors can glean from tear down pictures. Publishing them is another act of releasing privileged information, even though you could (correctly) argue that the competitors will have their own phones (not just pictures!) to tear down within a few of months. Now you could ask all day long about how those additional photos could have done any harm, but that's not for me to answer - nor do I have the knowledge to in the first place. Once Gizmodo knew that this was Apple property (Jobs' call) they needed to ask the question: "am I 100% certain that there's no way these photos could do any additional harm to Apple"? If they had asked that with an open mind, the only correct answer they could have come back with is, no, we can't be 100% certain. And if they asked the question: "are these photos protected by any sort of IP laws" they should have reached the conclusion "yes, probably". Remember, this is not the case of a journalist obtaining information to support whistle-blowing and the "greater good". This is sneakily getting information to support business (click-throughs) on a website. Big difference.
The bottom line is that even after Gizmodo knew for sure that they had an Apple prototype, they engaged in more acts of revealing IP. I kind of doubt that "well, we had already let the cat out of the bag back when we didn't know, so we figured what more harm can it do" is going to get much traction. It certainly doesn't with me. Guilty as hell.
Thompson
Except that if they are guilty of violating trade secret laws, then again, that was already done with the initial story, pictures and video. Perhaps the subsequent info was beneficial to competitors, but any crime they committed with the initial release was already committed, without or without the subsequent release.
And again, I am NOT arguing that it isn't stolen property. I am saying that to use the story the published after they had disassembled it as proof that they knew is was stolen before they saw it is logically flawed. The story in no way proves that they may have known before looking at it.
You're ignoring the second half of my post that you responded to. Let me repeat it:
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
I've actually been reading your responses to others on this vein and chose not to respond. My reason for that was due to, just as you did in this response, your need to backtrack what you previously said.
This entire exchange is based upon your statements that Gizmodo had not published pictures showing disassembly on the 19th, but instead on the 20th, AFTER SJ called Brian Lam. The report refutes this, and you have elected to backtrack stating you never said that.
There is no point even engaging someone in this mode of argument and therefore I elected not to.
I have decided to no longer shout into the wind. You can carry on with everyone else.
Ah, and never mind the fact that you backtracked my statement to something about when the disassembly actual took place something which could not be definitively construed from my original statement, even though it was (understandably) misinterpreted to mean what you suggested (i.e. that Gizmodo hadn't posted anything prior).
This is my point, if you care to respond: Jobs calls and asks for phone back. Gizmodo subsequently runs a story with detailed internal pictures. Guilty, regardless of when or what Gizmodo did prior. (Actually, I have them as guilty before anyway, but this angle is undeniable... which is why even you called it a damning action.)
Funny how you (and Tulkas) jump all over other people's modes of argument, when you are doing the same thing (e.g. backtracking). Funny also that you both carefully slip out from under the current point which is, as you acknowledged in your previous post, that Gizmodo should not have run the tear down story after receiving the Jobs' call, and that that evidence is, in fact, damning.
I think that it is fairly obvious now, in spite of your desperate nitpicking, that Gizmodo is guilty of (at least) three things:
(1) receiving stolen property, per the CA law.
(2) divulging corporate secrets, which is clear because they ran more stories after Jobs' call, and
(3) damaging other's property.
None of your desperate attempts to focus on me have managed to provide any sort of defense for Gizmodo.
Thompson
Don't give up, just realize the impossible task of getting them to coexist in the rational universe that most of the rest of us inhabit.
Let them to their oddities, because if they get ignored they lose, they can't keep their alternate reality alive. They only have a forum for their self indulgent logic if somebody plays the foil. Let them be the guy in the pic.
Ah, and never mind the fact that you backtracked my statement to something about when the disassembly actual took place something which could not be definitively construed from my original statement, even though it was (understandably) misinterpreted to mean what you suggested (i.e. that Gizmodo hadn't posted anything prior).
This is my point, if you care to respond: Jobs calls and asks for phone back. Gizmodo subsequently runs a story with detailed internal pictures. Guilty, regardless of when or what Gizmodo did prior. (Actually, I have them as guilty before anyway, but this angle is undeniable... which is why even you called it a damning action.)
Funny how you (and Tulkas) jump all over other people's modes of argument, when you are doing the same thing (e.g. backtracking). Funny also that you both carefully slip out from under the current point which is, as you acknowledged in your previous post, that Gizmodo should not have run the tear down story after receiving the Jobs' call, and that that evidence is, in fact, damning.
I think that it is fairly obvious now, in spite of your desperate nitpicking, that Gizmodo is guilty of (at least) three things:
(1) receiving stolen property, per the CA law.
(2) divulging corporate secrets, which is clear because they ran more stories after Jobs' call, and
(3) damaging other's property.
None of your desperate attempts to focus on me have managed to provide any sort of defense for Gizmodo.
Thompson
Whatever you say.
You're ignoring the second half of my post that you responded to. Let me repeat it:
* Here's the interesting hole in the Gizmodo story. The phone becomes stolen property if the finder did not make a reasonable effort to return it to its owner. Gizmodo is claiming that a phone call to AppleCare (which actually never occurred) is a reasonable effort to return it to the owner. That would be true ONLY IF APPLE WERE THE OWNER.
So Gizmodo painted themselves into a corner. If they claim that Hogan tried to return it to the owner, then they must have believed Apple to be the owner. If, OTOH, they want to claim that they didn't know Apple to be the owner, then a phone call (or even 100 phone calls) to Apple would not be a reasonable attempt to return it.
Either way, Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property.
Actually, the claim that they posted was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple, not one, but that is beside the point for our discussion here. Regardless of the story that Hogan gave Giz and that they later published and accepted, the content of his story (his calls) doesn't imply that Giz knew he was being honest before they looked at the phone. The withheld payment is an indication that they did not believe his story completely.
Once they knew it was Apple's (after disassembly by their account)then yes, they should have then known it qualifies as stolen and returned it. What we don't know is how long the gap was between them being convinced it was Apple's and them publishing the article and returning it to Apple. All the knew, by their story, before the looked it over, was that Hogan claimed it was real and Hogan claimed he had called Apple. If it wasn't real, i.e. was Hogan property legally, then his story about calling Apple wouldn't even matter, as it would have simply been his story in trying to boost the price.
Except that if they are guilty of violating trade secret laws, then again, that was already done with the initial story, pictures and video. Perhaps the subsequent info was beneficial to competitors, but any crime they committed with the initial release was already committed, without or without the subsequent release.
Leading to the interesting defense I suggested above, namely:
(1) Prior to Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent because they were only 99% sure that the phone was legit, therefore they could not be divulging trade secrets, and
(2) After Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent of divulging trade secrets, because those details were no longer secret, they themselves having already spilled the beans at a time when it was apparently OK to do so. (See argument 1. How freaking convenient.)
Don't you see a problem with this? Are you kidding me?
Under this defense, Gizmodo could continue posting articles until the cows come home, and all they have to do is testify to their original state of mind as not being 100% certain.
Thompson
You're arguing with a classic set of Sea Lawyers. Facts mean nothing, common sense is abolished.
Don't give up, just realize the impossible task of getting them to coexist in the rational universe that most of the rest of us inhabit.
Let them to their oddities, because if they get ignored they lose, they can't keep their alternate reality alive. They only have a forum for their self indulgent logic if somebody plays the foil. Let them be the guy in the pic.
Another valuable post by Hiro, full of meaningful contribution to the thread and discussion.
I love drive-by posters. I think they believe what they post has any meaning at all. The hit and run post takes some practice to be truly meaningful. By all means, please keep practicing.
Thanks Hiro. Your input is always valued for what it is worth.
Edit: You closing in on 1400 posts. Congrats. Any chance of actually contributing to a thread soon, or are you content with your interrupt-a-post pattern?
Leading to the interesting defense I suggested above, namely:
(1) Prior to Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent because they were only 99% sure that the phone was legit, therefore they could not be divulging trade secrets, and
(2) After Jobs' call, Gizmodo was innocent of divulging trade secrets, because those details were no longer secret, they themselves having already spilled the beans at a time when it was apparently OK to do so. (See argument 1. How freaking convenient.)
Don't you see a problem with this? Are you kidding me?
Under this defense, Gizmodo could continue posting articles until the cows come home, and all they have to do is testify to their original state of mind as not being 100% certain.
Thompson
I didn't present a defense. I said that if they were guilty, then the crime was committed prior to the call from Jobs. Afterwards, they would still be guilty because of their actions prior to the call, regardless of if they published additional info. They didn't get more guilty. They either were and are guilty or they are not guilty (of trade secret violations).
Actually, the claim that they posted was that Hogan made calls to multiple numbers at Apple, not one, but that is beside the point for our discussion here. Regardless of the story that Hogan gave Giz and that they later published and accepted, the content of his story (his calls) doesn't imply that Giz knew he was being honest before they looked at the phone. The withheld payment is an indication that they did not believe his story completely..
Are you completely incapable of understanding simple logic or is it that I've only posted the same message twice.
The fact is that it doesn't matter if they made one call to Apple or a million calls to Apple. Gizmodo has the same dilemma.
If they thought that making x calls to Apple constituted a reasonable effort to return the phone, that could only be true if they believed that the phone belonged to Apple - in which case the phone was stolen by CA state law.
If, OTOH, they want to argue that they didn't know for sure if the phone belonged to Apple, then even a billion calls to Apple would not constitute a reasonable effort to return the phone - and again, the phone is stolen under CA law.
No matter how you try to spin it, their own arguments prove them to be guilty of trafficking in stolen goods.