Gizmodo editor's devices being examined in prototype iPhone case

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post


    It isn't irrelevant. They possibly broke the law in California and they'll be investigated, charged if warranted and tried. We'll see what justice, if any, is meted out.



    I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.



    Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • Reply 42 of 92
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Chen and Lam's careers in journalism/blogging are over. They're probably on unpaid leave of absence right now and Nick Denton will drop them like hot potatoes once this is quietly settled.



    Do you really believe that the brains behind Gawker was not complicit in this fiasco, from the very time he was informed of it?



    A boss would fires his minions to deny his culpability



    As to Jason Chen, he remains true to his "journalistic credo"



    Japanese subway iPad Users Use Ingenious Trick to Hide iPad Shame



    http://gizmodo.com/5553770/japanese-...ide-ipad-shame



    Coming from Asia myself I would be surprised if any public transport would be this crowded during the day.



    Shame??? It reminds me of another "journalist" (same last name but no relations) in another so-called online news, who claimed: "why the Japanese hate their iPhone".





    Can any self-respecting Westerner spot what other odd things are betrayed in the photos included the article? If you could even call it an article.



    CGC
  • Reply 43 of 92
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc.



    If the DA is trully interested in trying Chen he can argue the shield law does not apply, but if they are just looking to use the evidence collected against they guy who sold the phone, or looking to turn it over to Apple to use in a civil case against Gizmodo, the DA violated the shield law.



    The case against Chen hinges on what he knew or believed at the time. If he believed the seller tried to contact Apple and return the phone, and that Apple declined (as was initially reported) Chen did not commit a crime paying for the device that was POTENTIALY an Apple prototype. If he knew the kid stole it and was looking to cash in before Apple caught up to him, Chen may be in a bit of trouble. I highly doubt jail time since the phone was returned to Apple when they asked for it and stated they were the rightful owner.



    In fact the phone was returned before the police were involved which is likely to hold a lot of sway on jurors at trial and the judge at sentencing. There is no way I would vote to convict Chen based on what we know now. Unless they get 12 Apple fanboys on the jury it will be incredibly hard to get a felony conviction. The kid who found the phone is a different story, since his actions clearly demonstrate he knew what he was doing was wrong and he had no real intention of returning the phone to Apple.
  • Reply 44 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    I checked my girlfriend's temperature last week to see if she had a flu, That makes me a Doctor now!!



    Anyone need a perscription??
  • Reply 45 of 92
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    Whats not clear about all this is....so if your point is clear and valid....



    EVERY lost Apple product should be sent to Apple as it has their logo on it?

    and every lost Sony, Motorola, etc...etc...etc

    If I found a lost iphone that was not functional....i would have turned it in to employee or lost and found dept. This guy didn't do that so he is culpable. But I would not turn over something to Apple unless they admitted it was theirs.....



    Actually, Apple did tell Gizmodo that it was Apple's, and that they wanted it back, immediately. Gizmodo then, after knowing they had received stolen property, proceeded to attempt to extort a written "admission" out of Apple that it was Apple's, destroyed it by disassembly, took pictures of it , and published these pictures, which constituted trade secrets, on their website.



    As for the "finder" it's pretty clear from his subsequent actions that he knew exactly what he had and what he was doing.



    Apple is doing exactly the right thing by letting the full force of the law come down on these criminals.
  • Reply 46 of 92
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    There is no doubt in my mind that Chen's profession is as much journalism as the crap put out by the LA Times, NY Times, CNN etc. ...



    Given that you can't distinguish between the quality of what's published by Gizmodo vs. the other companies you mention, I'm not surprised that you have no doubt.
  • Reply 47 of 92
    cgc0202cgc0202 Posts: 624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    I do agree with your assessment of Job's answer to the Gizmodo/Chen question -- he is clearly what he is in terms of his code, and does not waver. That is truly admirable and deserves great respect. I say this as someone who has been (and still firmly is), since this story broke, on the side of "Apple should let it go."



    I almost did mention your name in the previous post. But knowing how perceptive you are, it would have been received without stating the obvious.



    It was not meant "to rub it in". Actually, I was just puzzled by your position and the rationale you put forward, while the case was unfolding. I was baffled (but opted not to comment) considering how much I thought you knew Steve Jobs while following his career or read his history.



    Steve Jobs does care about Apple but it did not stop him to adopt measures or policies, since he came back, that would be viewed by so-called investors (some were more speculators) to affect Apple stock.



    As it turned out, Apple stock price did not directly take a beating because of the case. Apple even surpassed Microsoft now in terms of capitalization. I do not think that this was due either to the conspiratory theory that Apple staged the "lost iPhone" incident.



    Apple will continue to attract the media and fans (as well as haters) for as long at it continues to innovate, and be a game-changer. Rather than detract, Steve Jobs character adds to the the process.



    CGC



    N.B.

    There is however a certain degree of realism in Steve Jobs. It would be too distracting, specially after the example with Gizmodo, to go after every violator, especially in places where Apple really does not have as much influence, and foreign meddling might be viewed differently.



    I would not speculate what is being done behind the scene, but it would not be unlikely that if there is any truth behind those other leaks it is most likely that the very least he might have done was to call the head of his suppliers in Asia.



    Depending on the outcome of the Gizmodo case, or whatever the outcome of the case, it is unlikely that any blogger would take lightly to repeating what Gizmodo has done. The reality of the legal cost must really have been impressed by now among those involved.



    The irony is that other bloggers and mainstream media may have profited more from the fiasco created by Gizmodo, without incurring the cost of acquisition, and the legal costs that must be piling for all the characters in the "movie".
  • Reply 48 of 92
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    I have followed the whole story...thank you......Just because i post soemthing you don't agree with don't attack me personally...thanks.



    The poster I quoted said it had an Apple logo on it so it should have been returned to Apple. That just because it had an Apple logo ownership had been defined by that logo.

    That was what I was commenting about. Not that it was stolen or any other point. The other facts i was not disputing.....



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by masternav View Post


    reducing a point to an absurd level. Yep. Can you be any more obtuse about this - did you not even follow a miniscule amount of what happpened in this case at all???



    The guy - according to his own comments - took the phone accidentally left behind by the engineer, took it home checked it out enough to get the engineers name, claims he called Apple support to find out who it belongs to, and then sold it to the highest bidder. He did not take it back to the bar, which would be the logical first place for the engineer to look for it (and where he called several times to find out if anyone had turned it in).



    I mean geez dude. Try to keep up with the batting lineup here. We are way downstream from anywhere your comments would make any logical sense whatsoever.





  • Reply 49 of 92
    hellacoolhellacool Posts: 759member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post




    I would hate to be on his bad side!



    Wow. Scared of spiders as well?
  • Reply 50 of 92
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    I agree with you completely........

    That was not what I was commenting about. The post that I quoted said "it had a Apple logo on it so he knew who it belonged to" The Apple logo does not define ownership....





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post


    Its not about returning it to who made it.. its about returning it to its rightful owner. This wasn't a store bought product, it was a piece of prototype equipment that belonged to apple.



    There is nothing random or coincidental about this. This guy new EXACTLY what he had which is proven by the fact that he went straight to gizmodo with a dollar figure. And considering his job is assentially to find out about new gizmos and be the first to blog about them, I would also personally find it a pretty hard sell that it was actually left behind and this was the guy that just happened to find it..



  • Reply 51 of 92
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Given that you can't distinguish between the quality of what's published by Gizmodo vs. the other companies you mention, I'm not surprised that you have no doubt.



    Considering the "news" orgs I mentioned have all been caught publishing out right lies/fraud I think Gizmodo may be the one that stands out for higher quality and ethics. Higher obviously being a relative term since they are all organizations of dishonest scum. Ethics in journalism is a lot like ethics for lawyers and politicians. They all think rules don't apply to them, and most of the time they seem to be correct.
  • Reply 52 of 92
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member
    I can't wait to see a link on Apple's home page:



    "The story of Jason Chen's shit. An Apple Exclusive."

  • Reply 53 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    Weather he is a jornalist will be irelivant. The fourth esate/freedom of the press protects freedom of speech through spoken or writen opinions and expressions.



    This is about stolen property.
  • Reply 54 of 92
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post


    I know you're a defender of the Gawker/Gimodo side, but just because leaks have gotten out overseas doesn't make what G/G did right.



    Stop spouting nonsense, and get a clue.



    There is not ONE post I have made where I have defended Gawker/Gizmodo.



    Every one of my posts has been based on: (i) What makes sense for Apple; (ii) Whether and how we all, as members of forums such as AI (which thrive on non-official information) are wallowing in hypocrisy since we are a part of the problem -- our curiosity/eyeballs is what drives ads is what drives dollars is what drives sites like these to go out and get the information. (It is the same kind of rank hypocrisy when it comes to China-bashing over products that we merrily consume).
  • Reply 55 of 92
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post


    Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.



    See above.
  • Reply 56 of 92
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post


    I almost did mention your name in the previous post. But knowing how perceptive you are, it would have been received without stating the obvious.



    It was not meant "to rub it in". Actually, I was just puzzled by your position and the rationale you put forward, while the case was unfolding. I was baffled (but opted not to comment) considering how much I thought you knew Steve Jobs while following his career or read his history.



    Thanks for the benefit of doubt.



    See Post #55 above where I attempt to explain where (I hope) all my posts have come from on this issue.
  • Reply 57 of 92
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    The law is quite clear, Bloggers are NOT journalists.



    http://journalism.about.com/b/2010/0...rt-says-no.htm



    Sorry, but according to the blog post you cited, the court made no such decision:



    "But the New Jersey appeals court ruled that Hale was not a member of a news organization and thus not entitled to journalistic protection under shield laws.



    Hale's blogposts amount to "no more than a letter to the editor comment on an article published by the 'newspaper," the court wrote. "



    Hale is not a journalist. That is what the court decided. And it sounds like she is not really even a blogger.
  • Reply 58 of 92
    ajmasajmas Posts: 557member
    In order for someone to be considered a "journalist", what steps does the person have to go through?
  • Reply 59 of 92
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    Considering the "news" orgs I mentioned have all been caught publishing out right lies/fraud I think Gizmodo may be the one that stands out for higher quality and ethics. Higher obviously being a relative term since they are all organizations of dishonest scum. Ethics in journalism is a lot like ethics for lawyers and politicians. They all think rules don't apply to them, and most of the time they seem to be correct.



    Uh, right.
  • Reply 60 of 92
    rorybalmerrorybalmer Posts: 169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    I agree with you completely........

    That was not what I was commenting about. The post that I quoted said "it had a Apple logo on it so he knew who it belonged to" The Apple logo does not define ownership....



    ahh, my mistake.
Sign In or Register to comment.