It's not some super secret spy satellite we're talking about. A judge will see it simply as it was a phone that was useless. It was newsworthy, and you might argue that you don't consider Giz a bonafide news outlet but once the story broke just about EVERY legitimate news outlet reported on it including AI. What Giz did was absolutely wrong but Chen will most likely get special consideration because of his intent and no prior criminal record. BTW Apple has been having a hard time keeping these super secret "worth millions" iPhones under wraps. They're popping up all over the place now, which can only help Giz's cause.
it doesn't matter if they are or they are not. THe laws in question are about forcing a journalist to give up information about a source. They are not about protecting someone, even a journalist, from the penalties of criminal activity. And in California finding something lost and not making a genuine effort to return it is considered theft and thus Gizmodo paying money for the phone was buying stolen property. And then there is the issue of trade secrets which could come into large play since they openly called it a prototype of an Apple device.
Had Mr Chen taken the photos etc and posted them saying they were form a reliable source, he could use Shield Laws. But he didn't, and he bragged about buying the phone (which he later tried to recant to 'buying the story') and at a level that places it in felony range. Oops.
Good point..
So that means even if they (Gizmodo and Chen) are to use journalist law to protect themselves, they are also screwing themselves at the same time..? And it's really funny if they're trying to say that they were just "buying the story", I thought they are the one who make stories since they call themselves journalists.
Steve might have looked at this as water under the bridge before a certain point in the sequence of events had arrived. The point where the unauthorized holders of Apple's property demanded a letter of authenticity to return the prototype, or whatever confirmation they required. Add that to Gizmodo's 'we can't get no Apple satisfaction' attitude, and perhaps Jobs felt a line had been crossed that was better left untouched. He may have felt Gizmodo had suddenly turned to rotten journalism, with Apple's core values unabashedly challenged. They picked the wrong guy and company to toy with.
A cantankerous, greedy, and downright sneaky "journalist" had fenced stolen (not lost) goods. How did Chen know he could trust Hogan, trust anything he said, assume everything he was told was true, and then call himself a journalist without knowing the veracity and background of his source or the means of how the device was obtained? Did he even care? Was he and Gizmodo so blinded and consumed by obtaining the device that they lost their rational train of thought? What kind of professional "journalist" would take those huge risks, and what company would risk damaging its hard won journalistic integrity in that way? Perhaps that was the intention the whole time, to use this special provision of the law to excuse this type of unlawful behavior. Engadget had the opportunity to obtain the prototype, but to their legal department's professionalism, they advised not to buy it in such a questionable manner. They realized how "hot" this device was, and if came too close you might get burned. So was Gizmodo that naive and green at what they did for a living and didn't have a clue of what they were getting in to (unlikely), or was it a case of law be damned because they knew they could fall back on the protection of the journalist shield law? It seems it was an unfortunate and costly assumption, if true.
These are the facts. It wasn't Hogan's property to take, and he didn't have any grounds (legally or morally) to assume he could take possession simply because someone had left or forgotten it there. Gizmodo knew it wasn't Hogan's property to sell but they "bought" it anyway. Having the title of journalist doesn't grant you an instant get out of jail free card, but yet people defend Hogan and Chen for some blatantly ignorant moves and extremely unprofessional conduct.
Need I remind you that justification belongs to saints and sinners.
So that means even if they (Gizmodo and Chen) are to use journalist law to protect themselves, they are also screwing themselves at the same time..? And it's really funny if they're trying to say that they were just "buying the story", I thought they are the one who make stories since they call themselves journalists.
So tell me genius what did he pay for? Was the phone able to be used in the manner it was designed and built to do? No. In its simplest form it was a totally useless phone. So what idiot would buy something thats seemingly worthless? Because it was newsworthy. That case was proven when the story was reported by all the tech blogs, most newspapers and even television. Shoot $5000 for a WORLDWIDE story is a bargin. Even if he gets fined several hundred thousand its still worth it. It's been over a month now and we're still talking about Giz.
So tell me genius what did he pay for? Was the phone able to be used in the manner it was designed and built to do? No. In its simplest form it was a totally useless phone. So what idiot would buy something thats seemingly worthless? Because it was newsworthy. That case was proven when the story was reported by all the tech blogs, most newspapers and even television. Shoot $5000 for a WORLDWIDE story is a bargin. Even if he gets fined several hundred thousand its still worth it. It's been over a month now and we're still talking about Giz.
I really-really don't understand what you're trying to say (to me) there..
You sounded like you're dishing on my comment, but I was just merely asking and repeating on 'charlituna' previous post, so WTF the "genius" up there for?
It's not like I was replying to your post.
And 'charlituna' post wasn't replying to your post either.
I really-really don't understand what you're trying to say (to me) there..
You sounded like you're dishing on my comment, but I was just merely asking and repeating on 'charlituna' previous post, so WTF the "genius" up there for?
It's not like I was replying to your post.
And 'charlituna' post wasn't replying to your post either.
So, enlighten me if you can please.
Since when is genius an insult? Lol. I should've added more quotes than just yours. Paying for a story isn't uncommon. The smart thing to do was to send a underling or intern to snap some pics of it and not run the ENTIRE story, but looking back I think Chen wanted the spotlight as well since he appeared on video almost as much as the iPhone and was interviewed on numerous TV news outlets. It worked since we all know what a dumbass he is, but he has cojones.
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....
Can we parse this out any more absurdly?
It's really quite simple:
1. A phone with an Apple logo
2. It's one never before seen
Therefore it's a Apple prototype. Therefore it's Apple's phone and not some random end user/consumer.
That's why the Apple logo is significant! Not some obtuse argument about ownership of the phone.
Obviously the "finder" of the phone agrees with my analysis - he sold it to a gadget blog instead of returning it to Apple. And if the "finder" of the phone was operating under your absurd assumption why did they bother to call Applecare to establish ownership?
Since when is genius an insult? Lol. I should've added more quotes than just yours. Paying for a story isn't uncommon. The smart thing to do was to send a underling or intern to snap some pics of it and not run the ENTIRE story, but looking back I think Chen wanted the spotlight as well since he appeared on video almost as much as the iPhone and was interviewed on numerous TV news outlets. It worked since we all know what a dumbass he is, but he has cojones.
It is an insult if you're using it in an acerbic-toned sentence like you did in that previous post..
I don't understand why you don't understand this; you asked me by referring me as a genius and then you answered the question yourself, it's obvious you're trying to make me look like a fool instead of a 'genius'.
So are you talking to me, or not? Because you said that you should have added more quotes other than mine, but whenever I try to read your posts when you were starting to quote me, I really don't understand where was the connection.
I take it whenever someone quotes somebody's post, it means he/she is trying to answer the quoted post, or in my case I was trying to ask 'charlituna' regarding his post.
But did you read my post right when you quoted it? Did you fully understand what I was trying to ask/say, especially about Gizmodo changed its statement from "buying the phone" into "buying the story".
Honestly, I can't relate what you were saying (when you started quoting my posts). Like that last post of yours that I quoted above, what is "paying for a story isn't uncommon" got to do with "send an underling or intern to snap some pics"?? Or are you just trying to say something about the subject, but unfortunately you quoted my posts instead of the ones you actually trying to answer to?
It is an insult if you're using it in an acerbic-toned sentence like you did in that previous post..
I don't understand why you don't understand this; you asked me by referring me as a genius and then you answered the question yourself, it's obvious you're trying to make me look like a fool instead of a 'genius'.
So are you talking to me, or not? Because you said that you should have added more quotes other than mine, but whenever I try to read your posts when you were starting to quote me, I really don't understand where was the connection.
I take it whenever someone quotes somebody's post, it means he/she is trying to answer the quoted post, or in my case I was trying to ask 'charlituna' regarding his post.
But did you read my post right when you quoted it? Did you fully understand what I was trying to ask/say, especially about Gizmodo changed its statement from "buying the phone" into "buying the story".
Honestly, I can't relate what you were saying (when you started quoting my posts). Like that last post of yours that I quoted above, what is "paying for a story isn't uncommon" got to do with "send an underling or intern to snap some pics"?? Or are you just trying to say something about the subject, but unfortunately you quoted my posts instead of the ones you actually trying to answer to?
Again, enlighten me if you can please.
Well I was posting from my phone so multi quoting was difficult. I was being sarcastic when I wrote genius did not mean it to be insulting. You're one of the few posters that I agree with (most times). I was actually replying to you and a few other replies to my previous posts. Of course Giz's lawyers are gonna spin the story to however makes it seem less criminal, thats their job. They're gonna say Chen paid for "access to the phone" or "for the story" and in reality its not wrong because the phone as a "phone" was utterly useless. Does that clear things up?
Therefore it's a Apple prototype. Therefore it's Apple's phone and not some random end user/consumer.
That's why the Apple logo is significant! Not some obtuse argument about ownership of the phone.
Obviously the "finder" of the phone agrees with my analysis - he sold it to a gadget blog instead of returning it to Apple. And if the "finder" of the phone was operating under your absurd assumption why did they bother to call Applecare to establish ownership?
See that could be the case but with so many Apple knockoffs with an Apple logo it could be very easy to dismiss a obviously different device from being genuinely an Apple product. If you remember that day the first reports were that Giz had the new iPhone and then a hour or two later the reports were that it was a fake and a few hours after that confirmed that it was indeed the new yet to be released iPhone that Giz had obtained, once that happened the story spread like wildfire throughout the world.
Well I was posting from my phone so multi quoting was difficult. I was being sarcastic when I wrote genius did not mean it to be insulting. You're one of the few posters that I agree with (most times). I was actually replying to you and a few other replies to my previous posts. Of course Giz's lawyers are gonna spin the story to however makes it seem less criminal, thats their job. They're gonna say Chen paid for "access to the phone" or "for the story" and in reality its not wrong because the phone as a "phone" was utterly useless. Does that clear things up?
Yeah, that clear things up..
We're good, and thanks for the small compliment there.
Comments
It's not some super secret spy satellite we're talking about. A judge will see it simply as it was a phone that was useless. It was newsworthy, and you might argue that you don't consider Giz a bonafide news outlet but once the story broke just about EVERY legitimate news outlet reported on it including AI. What Giz did was absolutely wrong but Chen will most likely get special consideration because of his intent and no prior criminal record. BTW Apple has been having a hard time keeping these super secret "worth millions" iPhones under wraps. They're popping up all over the place now, which can only help Giz's cause.
my lol-meter just rofl'd.
my lol-meter just rofl'd.
I
it doesn't matter if they are or they are not. THe laws in question are about forcing a journalist to give up information about a source. They are not about protecting someone, even a journalist, from the penalties of criminal activity. And in California finding something lost and not making a genuine effort to return it is considered theft and thus Gizmodo paying money for the phone was buying stolen property. And then there is the issue of trade secrets which could come into large play since they openly called it a prototype of an Apple device.
Had Mr Chen taken the photos etc and posted them saying they were form a reliable source, he could use Shield Laws. But he didn't, and he bragged about buying the phone (which he later tried to recant to 'buying the story') and at a level that places it in felony range. Oops.
Good point..
So that means even if they (Gizmodo and Chen) are to use journalist law to protect themselves, they are also screwing themselves at the same time..? And it's really funny if they're trying to say that they were just "buying the story", I thought they are the one who make stories since they call themselves journalists.
A cantankerous, greedy, and downright sneaky "journalist" had fenced stolen (not lost) goods. How did Chen know he could trust Hogan, trust anything he said, assume everything he was told was true, and then call himself a journalist without knowing the veracity and background of his source or the means of how the device was obtained? Did he even care? Was he and Gizmodo so blinded and consumed by obtaining the device that they lost their rational train of thought? What kind of professional "journalist" would take those huge risks, and what company would risk damaging its hard won journalistic integrity in that way? Perhaps that was the intention the whole time, to use this special provision of the law to excuse this type of unlawful behavior. Engadget had the opportunity to obtain the prototype, but to their legal department's professionalism, they advised not to buy it in such a questionable manner. They realized how "hot" this device was, and if came too close you might get burned. So was Gizmodo that naive and green at what they did for a living and didn't have a clue of what they were getting in to (unlikely), or was it a case of law be damned because they knew they could fall back on the protection of the journalist shield law? It seems it was an unfortunate and costly assumption, if true.
These are the facts. It wasn't Hogan's property to take, and he didn't have any grounds (legally or morally) to assume he could take possession simply because someone had left or forgotten it there. Gizmodo knew it wasn't Hogan's property to sell but they "bought" it anyway. Having the title of journalist doesn't grant you an instant get out of jail free card, but yet people defend Hogan and Chen for some blatantly ignorant moves and extremely unprofessional conduct.
Need I remind you that justification belongs to saints and sinners.
Good point..
So that means even if they (Gizmodo and Chen) are to use journalist law to protect themselves, they are also screwing themselves at the same time..? And it's really funny if they're trying to say that they were just "buying the story", I thought they are the one who make stories since they call themselves journalists.
So tell me genius what did he pay for? Was the phone able to be used in the manner it was designed and built to do? No. In its simplest form it was a totally useless phone. So what idiot would buy something thats seemingly worthless? Because it was newsworthy. That case was proven when the story was reported by all the tech blogs, most newspapers and even television. Shoot $5000 for a WORLDWIDE story is a bargin. Even if he gets fined several hundred thousand its still worth it. It's been over a month now and we're still talking about Giz.
So tell me genius what did he pay for? Was the phone able to be used in the manner it was designed and built to do? No. In its simplest form it was a totally useless phone. So what idiot would buy something thats seemingly worthless? Because it was newsworthy. That case was proven when the story was reported by all the tech blogs, most newspapers and even television. Shoot $5000 for a WORLDWIDE story is a bargin. Even if he gets fined several hundred thousand its still worth it. It's been over a month now and we're still talking about Giz.
I really-really don't understand what you're trying to say (to me) there..
You sounded like you're dishing on my comment, but I was just merely asking and repeating on 'charlituna' previous post, so WTF the "genius" up there for?
It's not like I was replying to your post.
And 'charlituna' post wasn't replying to your post either.
So, enlighten me if you can please.
I really-really don't understand what you're trying to say (to me) there..
You sounded like you're dishing on my comment, but I was just merely asking and repeating on 'charlituna' previous post, so WTF the "genius" up there for?
It's not like I was replying to your post.
And 'charlituna' post wasn't replying to your post either.
So, enlighten me if you can please.
Since when is genius an insult? Lol. I should've added more quotes than just yours. Paying for a story isn't uncommon. The smart thing to do was to send a underling or intern to snap some pics of it and not run the ENTIRE story, but looking back I think Chen wanted the spotlight as well since he appeared on video almost as much as the iPhone and was interviewed on numerous TV news outlets. It worked since we all know what a dumbass he is, but he has cojones.
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....
Can we parse this out any more absurdly?
It's really quite simple:
1. A phone with an Apple logo
2. It's one never before seen
Therefore it's a Apple prototype. Therefore it's Apple's phone and not some random end user/consumer.
That's why the Apple logo is significant! Not some obtuse argument about ownership of the phone.
Obviously the "finder" of the phone agrees with my analysis - he sold it to a gadget blog instead of returning it to Apple. And if the "finder" of the phone was operating under your absurd assumption why did they bother to call Applecare to establish ownership?
Since when is genius an insult? Lol. I should've added more quotes than just yours. Paying for a story isn't uncommon. The smart thing to do was to send a underling or intern to snap some pics of it and not run the ENTIRE story, but looking back I think Chen wanted the spotlight as well since he appeared on video almost as much as the iPhone and was interviewed on numerous TV news outlets. It worked since we all know what a dumbass he is, but he has cojones.
It is an insult if you're using it in an acerbic-toned sentence like you did in that previous post..
I don't understand why you don't understand this; you asked me by referring me as a genius and then you answered the question yourself, it's obvious you're trying to make me look like a fool instead of a 'genius'.
So are you talking to me, or not? Because you said that you should have added more quotes other than mine, but whenever I try to read your posts when you were starting to quote me, I really don't understand where was the connection.
I take it whenever someone quotes somebody's post, it means he/she is trying to answer the quoted post, or in my case I was trying to ask 'charlituna' regarding his post.
But did you read my post right when you quoted it? Did you fully understand what I was trying to ask/say, especially about Gizmodo changed its statement from "buying the phone" into "buying the story".
Honestly, I can't relate what you were saying (when you started quoting my posts). Like that last post of yours that I quoted above, what is "paying for a story isn't uncommon" got to do with "send an underling or intern to snap some pics"?? Or are you just trying to say something about the subject, but unfortunately you quoted my posts instead of the ones you actually trying to answer to?
Again, enlighten me if you can please.
It is an insult if you're using it in an acerbic-toned sentence like you did in that previous post..
I don't understand why you don't understand this; you asked me by referring me as a genius and then you answered the question yourself, it's obvious you're trying to make me look like a fool instead of a 'genius'.
So are you talking to me, or not? Because you said that you should have added more quotes other than mine, but whenever I try to read your posts when you were starting to quote me, I really don't understand where was the connection.
I take it whenever someone quotes somebody's post, it means he/she is trying to answer the quoted post, or in my case I was trying to ask 'charlituna' regarding his post.
But did you read my post right when you quoted it? Did you fully understand what I was trying to ask/say, especially about Gizmodo changed its statement from "buying the phone" into "buying the story".
Honestly, I can't relate what you were saying (when you started quoting my posts). Like that last post of yours that I quoted above, what is "paying for a story isn't uncommon" got to do with "send an underling or intern to snap some pics"?? Or are you just trying to say something about the subject, but unfortunately you quoted my posts instead of the ones you actually trying to answer to?
Again, enlighten me if you can please.
Well I was posting from my phone so multi quoting was difficult. I was being sarcastic when I wrote genius did not mean it to be insulting. You're one of the few posters that I agree with (most times). I was actually replying to you and a few other replies to my previous posts. Of course Giz's lawyers are gonna spin the story to however makes it seem less criminal, thats their job. They're gonna say Chen paid for "access to the phone" or "for the story" and in reality its not wrong because the phone as a "phone" was utterly useless. Does that clear things up?
Can we parse this out any more absurdly?
It's really quite simple:
1. A phone with an Apple logo
2. It's one never before seen
Therefore it's a Apple prototype. Therefore it's Apple's phone and not some random end user/consumer.
That's why the Apple logo is significant! Not some obtuse argument about ownership of the phone.
Obviously the "finder" of the phone agrees with my analysis - he sold it to a gadget blog instead of returning it to Apple. And if the "finder" of the phone was operating under your absurd assumption why did they bother to call Applecare to establish ownership?
See that could be the case but with so many Apple knockoffs with an Apple logo it could be very easy to dismiss a obviously different device from being genuinely an Apple product. If you remember that day the first reports were that Giz had the new iPhone and then a hour or two later the reports were that it was a fake and a few hours after that confirmed that it was indeed the new yet to be released iPhone that Giz had obtained, once that happened the story spread like wildfire throughout the world.
Well I was posting from my phone so multi quoting was difficult. I was being sarcastic when I wrote genius did not mean it to be insulting. You're one of the few posters that I agree with (most times). I was actually replying to you and a few other replies to my previous posts. Of course Giz's lawyers are gonna spin the story to however makes it seem less criminal, thats their job. They're gonna say Chen paid for "access to the phone" or "for the story" and in reality its not wrong because the phone as a "phone" was utterly useless. Does that clear things up?
Yeah, that clear things up..
We're good, and thanks for the small compliment there.