No it won't. Apple will do absolutely nothing concrete against Gizmodo. I doubt Apple has anything financial to gain by having Gizmodo become more critical of Apple products.
The financial penalties from one or several lawsuits could be quite severe. Gizmodo could be out of business in short order and Brian Lam could potentially be facing some jail time if Apple pursues this with a vengeance.
Interesting isn't it... look I subscribe to the philosophy "shit happens", but one does wonder just how messed up one has to be to forget an iPhone prototype on a bar stool...
He's a modem firmware engineer. He needs to know how geohot is bypassing security so he can counteract it by patching the modem firmware in the next update. I believe there are apple engineers who jailbreak their phones to just to patch the exploit.
Anybody who thinks Apple planned this or benefits from it in anyway is INSANE. It's GIZMODO! Apple carefully releases information to widely-read, mainstream news organisations. GIZMODO didn't even get review models of the iPad (and good luck getting into another Apple special event now). 3 million hits on GIZMODO is absolutely meaningless to Apple. Now the exclusive Apple offers Time or the New York Times is going to carry much less weight because some irrelevant internet blog stole the phone already. Apple represents a significant percentage of traffic for sites like GIZMODO and Engadget and GIZMODO just shot itself in the foot. If you want to know what value GIZMODO has to Apple try reading the comments section sometime; this is not a demographic Apple would gain anything from courting. It's blind anti-Apple rage in there. Every time a new Apple product is released they have to switch comments off because of all the ranting at the invisible enemy of "Apple zealots" who never actually show up.
Not much was revealed anyway that was not hinted at in OS 4.0. We still don't know how it all works in the OS, screen resolution, camera mp, who made the flash led, final shell, battery life, and there is probably more that I am not listing here.
He had already reported it lost/stolen at work, so he was already suffering whatever consequences were coming. if he reported it stolen and it is actually the case that he lost it, whether they named him or not, he is in for further discipline.
You know what's worse than being in trouble at work? Being in trouble at work whilst surrounded by a media circus. He's already had to lock his Facebook and Twitter accounts. If I make a mistake at work, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails about it too.
This is now affecting his professional and private life.
it doesn't matter. it was NOT their property to open up. you can't find something on the streets and assume it's yours until the owner asks for it back. and you damn sure can't open it up.
How about a newspaper found on the subway? Can you open that up?
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
Many people these days seem to forget (and I bet they learned that at schools) meaning of word "professional ethics". No? They did not? Well I wonder then what schools teach for profession.
I know of no professional ethics in journalism which prohibit the reporter from divulging secret information.
That's basically what journalism is all about. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Watergate?
Publishing secrets information which is of value to the readers is the first responsibility of a journalist. It is not a breach of ethics.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
Thanks for the input, Can you shed some light on why Giz has failed to mention what chips are running in the new iPhone or post pics of them on the logic board despite having taken the device apart? Is photographing a case different than photocopying the logic board?
How freakin' stupid can you be to not recognize stealing? If it is not yours and you take it, it is STEALING.
What if the property is abandoned? Like an old computer put out with the trash?
It is not mine. Is it theft if I take it?
These things are not really so simple as you think. There are numerous elements to "stealing", all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And there are many exceptions.
Could someone please tell me where all this gizmodo hate comes from? I love gizmodo, they talk about many different things and are always interesting to me.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.
So you believe Gizmodo's story? I'd say you're pretty gullible. But even if the story of how it was found were true, the person who found it knew it was something secret (why else would he have even contacted Gizmodo?), and of course Gizmodo knew it was secret - they mentioned when they published the pictures it was a secret prototype.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
You are wrong about pretty much everything here, but I'll pick apart the last part cause it's just so easy ...
There are two obvious criminal charges here, theft, and receiving of stolen goods. The person who "found" the phone became a thief the minute they sold it to Gizmodo. That much is as plain as day. Gizmodo (presumably Jason Chen or Brian Lam), were in receipt of stolen goods the moment they bought it and the law doesn't care whether they "knew" it was stolen or not. They might even be considered to have aided and abetted the theft by purchasing the device instead of telling the person they should give it back.
Brian Lam, by his own words ... "This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple's perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it—on record. " seems to have committed extortion based on the mistaken assumption that the party that lost such a thing "has three weeks to claim it." If Apple didn't claim the phone "on the record," he wouldn't give it to them. He doesn't have that right, therefore it's extortion (blackmail).
California law certainly states that if you find such a thing you are required to give it back to the owner in a "reasonable" amount of time. The "weeks" Gizmodo said they had it or knew of it, doesn't qualify. If they knew about it for such a period and were at the same time (also by their own admission), negotiating to buy it, they are certainly guilty. The law also says that you *have* to return it the moment you know who the real owner is, which they clearly knew long before they gave it back.
It's just a matter of whether it's a slap on the wrist or a jail term.
Comments
And read some book by William S Burroughs. Life is too short not to.
But you're not the guy from the Community Memory BBS, are you?
No it won't. Apple will do absolutely nothing concrete against Gizmodo. I doubt Apple has anything financial to gain by having Gizmodo become more critical of Apple products.
The financial penalties from one or several lawsuits could be quite severe. Gizmodo could be out of business in short order and Brian Lam could potentially be facing some jail time if Apple pursues this with a vengeance.
Looking around Twitter... @graypowell follows @geohot
Interesting isn't it... look I subscribe to the philosophy "shit happens", but one does wonder just how messed up one has to be to forget an iPhone prototype on a bar stool...
He's a modem firmware engineer. He needs to know how geohot is bypassing security so he can counteract it by patching the modem firmware in the next update. I believe there are apple engineers who jailbreak their phones to just to patch the exploit.
I'm hoping that it is a rejected prototype.
B
It is just plain FUGLY.
I don't believe that Apple wold release anything that looks like that.
He had already reported it lost/stolen at work, so he was already suffering whatever consequences were coming. if he reported it stolen and it is actually the case that he lost it, whether they named him or not, he is in for further discipline.
You know what's worse than being in trouble at work? Being in trouble at work whilst surrounded by a media circus. He's already had to lock his Facebook and Twitter accounts. If I make a mistake at work, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to be bombarded with phone calls and e-mails about it too.
This is now affecting his professional and private life.
Chances are that this iPhone is a good predictor how the actual phone will look but that the final product will not look exactly like it.
I sure hope that you are right. This prototype looks like a crude early idea rather than a finished product.
it doesn't matter. it was NOT their property to open up. you can't find something on the streets and assume it's yours until the owner asks for it back. and you damn sure can't open it up.
How about a newspaper found on the subway? Can you open that up?
If so, what is the difference?
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
Many people these days seem to forget (and I bet they learned that at schools) meaning of word "professional ethics". No? They did not? Well I wonder then what schools teach for profession.
I know of no professional ethics in journalism which prohibit the reporter from divulging secret information.
That's basically what journalism is all about. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Watergate?
Publishing secrets information which is of value to the readers is the first responsibility of a journalist. It is not a breach of ethics.
Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
Thanks for the input, Can you shed some light on why Giz has failed to mention what chips are running in the new iPhone or post pics of them on the logic board despite having taken the device apart? Is photographing a case different than photocopying the logic board?
How freakin' stupid can you be to not recognize stealing? If it is not yours and you take it, it is STEALING.
What if the property is abandoned? Like an old computer put out with the trash?
It is not mine. Is it theft if I take it?
These things are not really so simple as you think. There are numerous elements to "stealing", all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And there are many exceptions.
It is not in the public interest to reveal Apple's trade secrets to the public, u
It most certainly is in the public interest.
Take me, for example. The Nexus One is now available on ATT. I was waiting to see what Apple would come up with for their A+ iPhone update.
Now that I know, I'm not going to wait around, but instead, I'm going to pull the plug and get a Nexus One.
I'm a member of the public, and it is in my interest that Gizmodo published this news. That's what journalism is all abut.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.
So you believe Gizmodo's story? I'd say you're pretty gullible. But even if the story of how it was found were true, the person who found it knew it was something secret (why else would he have even contacted Gizmodo?), and of course Gizmodo knew it was secret - they mentioned when they published the pictures it was a secret prototype.
Goodbye Gizmodo and yeah that was really wrong for revealing trade secrets, which could lose Apple billions in revenue.
What did Gizmodo do that "could lose Apple billions"?
Care to make your point clear?
Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.
You are wrong about pretty much everything here, but I'll pick apart the last part cause it's just so easy ...
There are two obvious criminal charges here, theft, and receiving of stolen goods. The person who "found" the phone became a thief the minute they sold it to Gizmodo. That much is as plain as day. Gizmodo (presumably Jason Chen or Brian Lam), were in receipt of stolen goods the moment they bought it and the law doesn't care whether they "knew" it was stolen or not. They might even be considered to have aided and abetted the theft by purchasing the device instead of telling the person they should give it back.
Brian Lam, by his own words ... "This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple's perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it—on record. " seems to have committed extortion based on the mistaken assumption that the party that lost such a thing "has three weeks to claim it." If Apple didn't claim the phone "on the record," he wouldn't give it to them. He doesn't have that right, therefore it's extortion (blackmail).
California law certainly states that if you find such a thing you are required to give it back to the owner in a "reasonable" amount of time. The "weeks" Gizmodo said they had it or knew of it, doesn't qualify. If they knew about it for such a period and were at the same time (also by their own admission), negotiating to buy it, they are certainly guilty. The law also says that you *have* to return it the moment you know who the real owner is, which they clearly knew long before they gave it back.
It's just a matter of whether it's a slap on the wrist or a jail term.
There are numerous elements to "stealing", all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The 'finder' was sitting next to the phone's owner.
The phone was full of Apple telephone numbers.
The Facebook app went straight to Gray Powell's page.
The 'finder' kept the phone for "some weeks"
The 'finder' sold the phone to a third party for $ 5000.00
?