I have a feeling the advice given to Jason Chen, Gizmoo and Gwaker media will have little hope of standing up in court. They're screwed...
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
The other documents are either court documents or addressed to the prosecution.
Of course not. I'm just saying that prison is serious business...and Giz is more a joke than reality. I have a hard time envisioning any of those clowns in jail.
I agree prison's serious and Giz are a joke. But it's fair for us to speculate as to how much damage they did to Apple. Don't criminals often accept 10 cents on the dollar? So if they were willing to pay $5K perhaps it was worth $50K to them? And if it was worth $50K to them did it cost Apple $500K? I definitely don't know, but I think it's a very big number that is in no way a joke. I imagine a month in jail would get a white collar guy's attention pretty well.
I realy don't know what all the fuss is about - if apple employees leave iphones on seats, then it is good to try and contact them (which they did) they then gave (sold) it to giz, who then looked at it, and after confirming it was an apple prototype, they gave it back. who lost? apple got brill publicity out of this
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
The other documents are either court documents or addressed to the prosecution.
Their COO also doubles as their legal counsel. This is not uncommon. The point of my post is not earth-shattering, but more comical.
They probably do have other council. Now that this has hit the fan.
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
I agree that it's not something that people need to have revenge fantasies over or a strong case of schadenfreude about. It's not life or death level at all.
However, your comparison of the stealing of actual physical property to the legal wrangling over IP which is pretty arguable who really owns (if anyone at all) since the whole system is pretty broken is just RIDICULOUS. Those things can only be decided in court if the parties involved can't agree. I was taking you seriously until then.
And I think what many people are reacting to is Gizmodo's cavalier flaunting of what they did and their treatment of the real people in these stories. That engineer did not need his name and life dragged through the mud like they did. And their "plea to save his job" to Apple while snidely laughing at his flub was just horrid behavior. This was not professional, just downright juvenile. They sound like they think they're "above it all". I believe that contributes to many people's extra feelings about the matter.
I realy don't know what all the fuss is about - if apple employees leave iphones on seats, then it is good to try and contact them (which they did) they then gave (sold) it to giz, who then looked at it, and after confirming it was an apple prototype, they gave it back. who lost? apple got brill publicity out of this
I seriously don't believe trying to contact Apple's main line is any excuse when you not only know the person's name, you've seen his Facebook page as well. And any reasonable person would have either left it to the bartender or the police. And no conjecture about the bartender's or police's ethics are at all pertinent to the finder's case. Heck, he could have emailed Steve Jobs with a picture of the phone in question.
As for who lost, I thought it fairly obvious that the big loser was the Apple engineer. The finder and Gizmodo profited off of his misfortune, and Gizmodo is pretty cavalier about what they did to him.
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
So by your analogy, if I buy a car that I suspect belongs to you then I am fully justified in dismantling your property to "prove" it actually belongs to you, instead of simply contacting you directly by, oh, calling your direct number or messaging your Facebook page which I know about. All this BEFORE I go to the trouble of dismantling your car to see what's inside (which is the REAL reason to buy it).
Or better yet, how would you feel if someone bought a bag/briefcase you lost and documented and published it's entire contents to "verify" it was you before actually trying to contact you even though they knew your name to begin with. Would you feel comfortable with that, and feel that their invasion of your privacy was justified because you were stupid enough to lose it in the first place and they needed to be "absolutely sure" it belonged to you before asking about it.
And if someone offers you stolen property that you wish to get back to the owner, you don't buy it, you call the police!
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
You might want to review your notes from criminal law regarding intent. Clearly Gizmodo intended to pay $5K for an iPhone that they knew did not belong to the seller. They didn't accidentally offer the seller $5K.
Likewise the "finder" clearly intended to sell the phone as opposed to send it to Apple, or turn it into the police, or contact the engineer (the finder saw the engineer's Facebook profile on the phone), or take it to an Apple Store. Clearly the "finder" intended to ignore California Civil Code 2080 in regards to the processes involving lost and found property.
Clearly Gizmodo intended to take apart the iPhone, that wasn't an accident either and thus take the property into their own use.
All of this is based on Gizmodo's own claims of what happened as posted on their site. It's pretty damning self-incriminating evidence that California Penal Code Sections 485 and 496 were violated, thus this was theft of property and receiving stolen goods.
So was the search unlawful according to section 1524(g) of the CA Penal Code? Also the warrant did not allow a night search but the police were there at 9:45pm. Gizmodo's site explained it pretty thoroughly here.
So was the search unlawful according to section 1524(g) of the CA Penal Code? Also the warrant did not allow a night search but the police were there at 9:45pm. Gizmodo's site explained it pretty thoroughly here.
except a night search is legally defined from the hours of 22:00 - 6:00. and Chen even stated the cops were there at least a few hours before his arrival.
It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.
1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection
2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.
I"m glad to see there is some objective posters chiming in on this. Too many emotional responses on this topic. I was eating alive yesterday for suggesting what you said.
On number 1, I don't think so. There is no public good they are protecting. By their on publishing, they were party to a felony. They could have protected themselves by having the "seller" do the reveal and send videos and pictures and by not taking possession of the property, but once they took possession of the property - real live equipment, not information - they crossed the line into perpetuating a crime. Not only that, they knowingly disassembled someone else's property and revealed their trade secrets. The chassis design was a trade secret. If they had the seller do the reveal, they are reporting the news. When they did it, they were making up the news and partaking in a felony. All they needed to do was pay the seller fees for exclusive video and pictures.
Nevermind that since the seller shopped the phone to Engadget after selling it to Gizmodo, the seller would have set up a bidding war for it. How do you think Engadget published those pictures first? The seller was trying to make more money by emailing photos to engadget, even though the seller didn't have it anymore!
On number 2, yes they knew it was an iPhone prototype and that it wasn't being sold to them by Apple. This is Gizmodo, one of the two most highly trafficked gadget sites on the Internet. They see gazillions of gadgets everyday and are intimate with the ways of Apple and the gadget industry. They know what looks like a fake and what looks like the real deal. There's always a shred of doubt about things, but taking that route of defense takes reasonableness out the door and chopping its head off.
The iPhone prototype was encased in a custom made case to disguise it as an iPhone 3GS + form fitting case. It was a perfectly made case that fit the iPhone prototype exactly. The iPhone prototype has Apple unique identification (prototype stickers, trademarks, fonts) and Apple unique design language (fit and finish of the product). And I think, as part of the deal, what sealed the monetary exchange, was the seller revealing the name of the Apple employee the seller got it from and verification of the Apple employee's employment.
At what point in the thought train does Gizmodo think that the iPhone prototype does not belong to the seller? When the seller was offering the phone for money? (This is pretty much where they should have known the seller wasn't representing Apple and didn't own the device.) The custom made case and prototype numbering? (This is where they should have known it was an Apple device). It's an elaborate ruse that Apple is viral marketing? No, they know as well as anybody that Apple does not do that. When the seller identified the Apple employee? How did Gizmodo know that the Apple employee was a "baseband developer"? How about Gizmodo finally being convinced that the prototype belonged to Apple when they disassembled the device? This would be a laughable action.
Not sure why you guys are hesitating about this. In Gizmodo's own words as published on their website, they are party to perpetuating grand theft (subject to criminal investigation), and revealing trade secrets (subject to criminal and civil cases).
I'm sure a lot of people have their reasons to be against Gizmodo on this. It's simple for a lot of folks. Gizmodo simply didn't do the decent and ethical thing, rather, they did everything shady. People do not like it when other people do shady things. The decent thing was not taking the device apart. The decent thing was not turning on the device. The decent thing was not accepting the device, not paying money for it, and reporting the seller to the authorities.
Not a lot people seem to want the seller found. Well, I do. I want the seller found and prosecuted. People say the seller attempted to return the phone to Apple, and making a call to customer service was reasonable, yet the seller had no problems making contact with Gizmodo, making the deal with them, then shopping it to Engadget and attempting to make a deal with them. This is the story as Gizmodo and Engadget tells it. It's not reasonable to believe the seller made a reasonable attempt to return it to its owner.
Since Gizmodo perpetuated the crime, yes, they should not be protected. If they do not want to reveal the identity of the seller, they should get more penalties for it.
And we haven't even discussed the eventual, possible civil case against Gawker/Gizmodo. It's going to be a long summer.
Aren't you going a bit over the top here? I'm a leftie, and a Canadian leftie at that, so I would be a leftist socialist commie by USA standards and this kind of police action doesn't bother me at all.
Also, the police didn't "raid the homes of (Steve's) enemies," they acted on a complaint from a citizen. They also weren't "legally notified their warrant is invalid," they were presented with a printout of an email from Jason Chen's boss. A totally different story than the one you're pushing.
I'm a european leftie so I have no idea what that makes me by USA standards. Can you go so far left and come out on the far right?
Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?! What happened to their legendary culture of secrecy?! You know, with red flash lights and sliding doors ? it looks like a joke right now, doesn't it?
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
Glad to see all the tinfoil-hat people moved on from "It's obviously a PR stunt!" to "The police are in Apple's pocket!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O
Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?! What happened to their legendary culture of secrecy?! You know, with red flash lights and sliding doors ? it looks like a joke right now, doesn't it?
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
Huh? Of course people have to see the real design. Jonny doesn't magically do everything himself, trot over to China and build the manufacturing line. People forget that Apple is more than just the figure heads. There are many people who work incredibly hard to get these products out and it's almost insulting that they get forgotten.
Anyway - cell phones need to be tested in real world conditions. That includes form factor. If they didn't how could they properly test to see if materials or enclosures had a potentially fatal flaw in the Real World?.
I'm a european leftie so I have no idea what that makes me by USA standards. Can you go so far left and come out on the far right?
IN the US we have two types of idiots and only one type that has a prayer at achieving common sense. People that call themselves Left or Right, are not the latter.
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Comments
I have a feeling the advice given to Jason Chen, Gizmoo and Gwaker media will have little hope of standing up in court. They're screwed...
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Gaby Darbyshire
Take a close look at the pic.
Here is the link to the gizmodo page listing the court documents. On the page listing out the contents seized you will see Gaby's name listed on a document stating the search warrant is invalid. As well as her letter below.
The very last pages are Chens and him describing the events. He references the letter... I wonder why Giz did not post a copy of said letter??
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
The other documents are either court documents or addressed to the prosecution.
....like a deer in the "headlights" screwed.
funny, and accurate.
Of course not. I'm just saying that prison is serious business...and Giz is more a joke than reality. I have a hard time envisioning any of those clowns in jail.
I agree prison's serious and Giz are a joke. But it's fair for us to speculate as to how much damage they did to Apple. Don't criminals often accept 10 cents on the dollar? So if they were willing to pay $5K perhaps it was worth $50K to them? And if it was worth $50K to them did it cost Apple $500K? I definitely don't know, but I think it's a very big number that is in no way a joke. I imagine a month in jail would get a white collar guy's attention pretty well.
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
First, you're making the call against Gizmodo based on pictures of their COO?
Second, the letter from the COO says "copies to counsel". This can probably be read to mean that Gawker has some sort of outside counsel representing them, probably a major law firm.
The copy of the "e-mail" you're looking for is addressed to Jason Chen and is an internal document. As the general counsel to Gawker, Darbyshire is in an attorney-client relationship with Chen, thus the communication is privileged. Posting the e-mail would make it subject to discovery by the prosecution/Apple, and thus theres no reason for them to post the e-mail and it could only harm them.
The other documents are either court documents or addressed to the prosecution.
Their COO also doubles as their legal counsel. This is not uncommon. The point of my post is not earth-shattering, but more comical.
They probably do have other council. Now that this has hit the fan.
As I stated, none of this affects me so I can't get emotional and want to see Chen ass raped in prison or whatever sick perversion some people might have against Gizmodo.
Also, none of this is as serious people make it out to be so I can't get upset about one company taking advantage of another company. How many people are still living in tents in Haiti? How many people died of malaria in yesterday? I simply can't see grabbing a pitchfork and torch over alleged crimes between two companies. I read and enjoy the drama, but that is it.
PS: I'll ask this again. If the problem is the alleged crime and lack of ethics, then what are the same posters shunning Gizmodo also not doing the same thing to Apple, who have lost in court for stealing other's IP.
I agree that it's not something that people need to have revenge fantasies over or a strong case of schadenfreude about. It's not life or death level at all.
However, your comparison of the stealing of actual physical property to the legal wrangling over IP which is pretty arguable who really owns (if anyone at all) since the whole system is pretty broken is just RIDICULOUS. Those things can only be decided in court if the parties involved can't agree. I was taking you seriously until then.
And I think what many people are reacting to is Gizmodo's cavalier flaunting of what they did and their treatment of the real people in these stories. That engineer did not need his name and life dragged through the mud like they did. And their "plea to save his job" to Apple while snidely laughing at his flub was just horrid behavior. This was not professional, just downright juvenile. They sound like they think they're "above it all". I believe that contributes to many people's extra feelings about the matter.
I realy don't know what all the fuss is about - if apple employees leave iphones on seats, then it is good to try and contact them (which they did) they then gave (sold) it to giz, who then looked at it, and after confirming it was an apple prototype, they gave it back. who lost? apple got brill publicity out of this
I seriously don't believe trying to contact Apple's main line is any excuse when you not only know the person's name, you've seen his Facebook page as well. And any reasonable person would have either left it to the bartender or the police. And no conjecture about the bartender's or police's ethics are at all pertinent to the finder's case. Heck, he could have emailed Steve Jobs with a picture of the phone in question.
As for who lost, I thought it fairly obvious that the big loser was the Apple engineer. The finder and Gizmodo profited off of his misfortune, and Gizmodo is pretty cavalier about what they did to him.
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
So by your analogy, if I buy a car that I suspect belongs to you then I am fully justified in dismantling your property to "prove" it actually belongs to you, instead of simply contacting you directly by, oh, calling your direct number or messaging your Facebook page which I know about. All this BEFORE I go to the trouble of dismantling your car to see what's inside (which is the REAL reason to buy it).
Or better yet, how would you feel if someone bought a bag/briefcase you lost and documented and published it's entire contents to "verify" it was you before actually trying to contact you even though they knew your name to begin with. Would you feel comfortable with that, and feel that their invasion of your privacy was justified because you were stupid enough to lose it in the first place and they needed to be "absolutely sure" it belonged to you before asking about it.
And if someone offers you stolen property that you wish to get back to the owner, you don't buy it, you call the police!
I really think it's a stretch to say that Gizmodo "stole" the iPhone and this is why:
Gizmodo had every intention of returning the iPhone to Apple once they got their hands on it. This can be shown in that they were very careful not to damage during disassembly, even though doing so would have revealed alot more about the phone (processor, memory, other capabilities). Also, returning the iPhone would serve two purposes: it would confirm that Apple was the owner of the phone and thus it was indeed a prototype and it would make for a better story (basically forcing Apple to own up to its mishap).
This is the reason why I feel it can be distinguished from the analogies involving car theft. The more accurate analogy would be someone buying a stolen car with the intention of finding out who the owner is and returning the car to the owner. I really don't see how this can be a crime.
And if you take any first year law school crim law class, you will quickly learn that specific intent is a major requirement most crimes and certainly of those involving theft.
You might want to review your notes from criminal law regarding intent. Clearly Gizmodo intended to pay $5K for an iPhone that they knew did not belong to the seller. They didn't accidentally offer the seller $5K.
Likewise the "finder" clearly intended to sell the phone as opposed to send it to Apple, or turn it into the police, or contact the engineer (the finder saw the engineer's Facebook profile on the phone), or take it to an Apple Store. Clearly the "finder" intended to ignore California Civil Code 2080 in regards to the processes involving lost and found property.
Clearly Gizmodo intended to take apart the iPhone, that wasn't an accident either and thus take the property into their own use.
All of this is based on Gizmodo's own claims of what happened as posted on their site. It's pretty damning self-incriminating evidence that California Penal Code Sections 485 and 496 were violated, thus this was theft of property and receiving stolen goods.
I highly recommend reading 485, 486 and 2080.
So was the search unlawful according to section 1524(g) of the CA Penal Code? Also the warrant did not allow a night search but the police were there at 9:45pm. Gizmodo's site explained it pretty thoroughly here.
except a night search is legally defined from the hours of 22:00 - 6:00. and Chen even stated the cops were there at least a few hours before his arrival.
Originally Posted by hmurchison
+1
It is certainly a gray area here. You've encapsulated the two main issues that will come to bear and decide the case.
1. Does Gawker Media/Gizmodo have journalistic protection
2. Can it be proven that they knew the item was stolen.
I"m glad to see there is some objective posters chiming in on this. Too many emotional responses on this topic. I was eating alive yesterday for suggesting what you said.
On number 1, I don't think so. There is no public good they are protecting. By their on publishing, they were party to a felony. They could have protected themselves by having the "seller" do the reveal and send videos and pictures and by not taking possession of the property, but once they took possession of the property - real live equipment, not information - they crossed the line into perpetuating a crime. Not only that, they knowingly disassembled someone else's property and revealed their trade secrets. The chassis design was a trade secret. If they had the seller do the reveal, they are reporting the news. When they did it, they were making up the news and partaking in a felony. All they needed to do was pay the seller fees for exclusive video and pictures.
Nevermind that since the seller shopped the phone to Engadget after selling it to Gizmodo, the seller would have set up a bidding war for it. How do you think Engadget published those pictures first? The seller was trying to make more money by emailing photos to engadget, even though the seller didn't have it anymore!
On number 2, yes they knew it was an iPhone prototype and that it wasn't being sold to them by Apple. This is Gizmodo, one of the two most highly trafficked gadget sites on the Internet. They see gazillions of gadgets everyday and are intimate with the ways of Apple and the gadget industry. They know what looks like a fake and what looks like the real deal. There's always a shred of doubt about things, but taking that route of defense takes reasonableness out the door and chopping its head off.
The iPhone prototype was encased in a custom made case to disguise it as an iPhone 3GS + form fitting case. It was a perfectly made case that fit the iPhone prototype exactly. The iPhone prototype has Apple unique identification (prototype stickers, trademarks, fonts) and Apple unique design language (fit and finish of the product). And I think, as part of the deal, what sealed the monetary exchange, was the seller revealing the name of the Apple employee the seller got it from and verification of the Apple employee's employment.
At what point in the thought train does Gizmodo think that the iPhone prototype does not belong to the seller? When the seller was offering the phone for money? (This is pretty much where they should have known the seller wasn't representing Apple and didn't own the device.) The custom made case and prototype numbering? (This is where they should have known it was an Apple device). It's an elaborate ruse that Apple is viral marketing? No, they know as well as anybody that Apple does not do that. When the seller identified the Apple employee? How did Gizmodo know that the Apple employee was a "baseband developer"? How about Gizmodo finally being convinced that the prototype belonged to Apple when they disassembled the device? This would be a laughable action.
Not sure why you guys are hesitating about this. In Gizmodo's own words as published on their website, they are party to perpetuating grand theft (subject to criminal investigation), and revealing trade secrets (subject to criminal and civil cases).
I'm sure a lot of people have their reasons to be against Gizmodo on this. It's simple for a lot of folks. Gizmodo simply didn't do the decent and ethical thing, rather, they did everything shady. People do not like it when other people do shady things. The decent thing was not taking the device apart. The decent thing was not turning on the device. The decent thing was not accepting the device, not paying money for it, and reporting the seller to the authorities.
Not a lot people seem to want the seller found. Well, I do. I want the seller found and prosecuted. People say the seller attempted to return the phone to Apple, and making a call to customer service was reasonable, yet the seller had no problems making contact with Gizmodo, making the deal with them, then shopping it to Engadget and attempting to make a deal with them. This is the story as Gizmodo and Engadget tells it. It's not reasonable to believe the seller made a reasonable attempt to return it to its owner.
Since Gizmodo perpetuated the crime, yes, they should not be protected. If they do not want to reveal the identity of the seller, they should get more penalties for it.
And we haven't even discussed the eventual, possible civil case against Gawker/Gizmodo. It's going to be a long summer.
Aren't you going a bit over the top here? I'm a leftie, and a Canadian leftie at that, so I would be a leftist socialist commie by USA standards and this kind of police action doesn't bother me at all.
Also, the police didn't "raid the homes of (Steve's) enemies," they acted on a complaint from a citizen. They also weren't "legally notified their warrant is invalid," they were presented with a printout of an email from Jason Chen's boss. A totally different story than the one you're pushing.
I'm a european leftie so I have no idea what that makes me by USA standards. Can you go so far left and come out on the far right?
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?! What happened to their legendary culture of secrecy?! You know, with red flash lights and sliding doors ? it looks like a joke right now, doesn't it?
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
Okay, if this were to be a marketing stunt from Apple, it is getting pretty nasty for Gizmodo.
Again, I do not understand why Apple could be so clumsy in handing out the real thing to a 27 year old employee?! What happened to their legendary culture of secrecy?! You know, with red flash lights and sliding doors ? it looks like a joke right now, doesn't it?
I am pretty sure that only Jonathan Ive & Steve Jobs have seen the real design of the iPhone 4G. If not, I'd be truly amazed.
Huh? Of course people have to see the real design. Jonny doesn't magically do everything himself, trot over to China and build the manufacturing line. People forget that Apple is more than just the figure heads. There are many people who work incredibly hard to get these products out and it's almost insulting that they get forgotten.
Anyway - cell phones need to be tested in real world conditions. That includes form factor. If they didn't how could they properly test to see if materials or enclosures had a potentially fatal flaw in the Real World?.
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
LOL...you think Apple did this? All I can picture is Steve sitting in a huge chair petting a bald cat with a huge gold pinky ring on.
I greatly approve of this post.
I'm a european leftie so I have no idea what that makes me by USA standards. Can you go so far left and come out on the far right?
IN the US we have two types of idiots and only one type that has a prayer at achieving common sense. People that call themselves Left or Right, are not the latter.
I have heard a picture is worth a thousand words, but check out Gwakers legal team (the woman in the middle, mentioned by name in the court documents. I did a simple google search of Gaby and then found this image in three clicks... (Not exactly safe for work, ya really)
Gaby Darbyshire
Take a close look at the pic.?
If they reported how they received the phone accurately and she's their council, they are screwed.
....like a deer in the "headlights" screwed.
Goodbye Giz...