Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What are the chances that Apple gave the iPhone 4 to Gizmodo?

FunkyJunk said:
That's simply not true. Even if it was lost in a bar, Gizmodo knew what it was and outed it for the whole world to see - for profit. The law uses the word "misappropriation," not "theft." Misuse of the item qualifies under that description.

From dictionary.com:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, I'm not a lawyer. But I think Apple would loose any ammo they had the moment the phone was returned. Especially since Gizmodo is a news outlet and not a competing business.

Gizmodo has been down this path, I'm sure they've run this all by their lawyers.

But even if you could convince me Apple did a controlled leak, no way you could convince me that Apple would make a controlled leak to Gizmodo.
 
G4R2 said:
When Pepsi was confronted with a similar situation when Coca Cola employees attempted to sell them Cokes secret formula Pepsi did the right thing. They turned them in.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. Pepsi is not a news outlet. All those espionage quotes everyone is throwing around were not meant to be used in this context. Unless the information was somehow false and intended to harm Apple. But that's not espionage either.
 
Geckotek said:
Perhaps, I'm not a lawyer. But I think Apple would loose any ammo they had the moment the phone was returned.

Gizmodo has been down this path, I'm sure they've run this all by their lawyers.

But even if you could convince me Apple did a controlled leak, no way you could convince me that Apple would make a controlled leak to Gizmodo.
Click to expand...

Okay, but something is still missing. As you say, if Apple intentionally leaked it, why would they give it to Gizmodo? If they intentionally leaked it, why, when they've never been known to do that sort of thing? Wouldn't it be better to have another hyped-up keynote? If Apple didn't intentionally leak it, why are the photos still up? Why did Giz run the story knowing the liability they're be under?

Either we just don't understand Apple's reasoning in leaking it and doing so the way they did, or we don't understand something to do with the legalities involved. Or a third option - Giz outed it without properly thinking through the ramifications. It doesn't make complete sense from any perspective.
 
Geckotek said:
Not the same thing. Pepsi is not a news outlet. All those espionage quotes everyone is throwing around were not meant to be used in this context. Unless the information was somehow false and intended to harm Apple.
Click to expand...


The same ethical and legal standards apply to both Pepsi and Gizmodo.

Gizmodo knows that the device they have isn't theirs. Instead of returning it to the proper owner, who they happen to know they dismantled it. And they did it for profit.

Really, this isn't a difficult concept. I enjoy Gizmodo but in this case, at the very best, they showed no class. And more likely, they may have committed a crime.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
 
FunkyJunk said:
Okay, but something is still missing. As you say, if Apple intentionally leaked it, why would they give it to Gizmodo? If they intentionally leaked it, why, when they've never been known to do that sort of thing? Wouldn't it be better to have another hyped-up keynote? If Apple didn't intentionally leak it, why are the photos still up? Why did Giz run the story knowing the liability they're be under?

Either we just don't understand Apple's reasoning in leaking it and doing so the way they did, or we don't understand something to do with the legalities involved. Or a third option - Giz outed it without properly thinking through the ramifications. It doesn't make complete sense from any perspective.
Click to expand...

I think it's B. I think that some of us do understand the legalities involved (me :p). You guys are completely dismissing the freedom our press has in the good ol' US of A. If an Apple employee truly did loose it and Gizmodo came across it fairly, they are perfectly within their rights to post photos without any legal liability. This is not considered corporate espionage. It is covered under freedom of the press. Gizmodo is a press outlet, not a competing business and the source was not an Apple employee under an NDA.

They are not, however, within their rights to keep it if Apple demands it back. (Finders-Keepers isn't exactly law ;))
 
G4R2 said:
The same ethical and legal standards apply to both Pepsi and Gizmodo.

Gizmodo knows that the device they have isn't theirs. Instead of returning it to the proper owner, who they happen to know they dismantled it. And they did it for profit.

Really, this isn't a difficult concept. I enjoy Gizmodo but in this case, at the very best, they showed no class. And more likely, they may have committed a crime.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Click to expand...

Ethics...maybe, that's your opinion. Others would argue that the "people have the right to know." Legal...no. Completely differing laws apply in the two situations.
 
Geckotek said:
I think it's B. I think that some of us do understand the legalities involved (me :p). You guys are completely dismissing the freedom our press has in the good ol' US of A. If an Apple employee truly did loose it and Gizmodo came across it fairly, they are perfectly within their rights to post photos without any legal liability. This is not considered corporate espionage. It is covered under freedom of the press. Gizmodo is a press outlet, not a competing business and the source was not an Apple employee under an NDA.

They are not, however, within their rights to keep it if Apple demands it back. (Finders-Keepers isn't exactly law ;))
Click to expand...

Based on the reading of the law I've done today, I don't think you're correct. But I do think it will be interesting to see what comes of this whole thing.
 
FunkyJunk said:
Based on the reading of the law I've done today, I don't think you're correct. But I do think it will be interesting to see what comes of this whole thing.
Click to expand...

I'll definately be watching closely. Hope I'm right. :p

FunkyJunk said:
The people absolutely do NOT have the right to know a company's commercial secrets.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I thought that way! I was just throwing that out there to get a response. Worked! hehe
 
Sorry for the third post in a row, but here's the exact wording from the Industrial Espionage Act of 2006:
(bolding is mine)

``1832. Criminal activities affecting proprietary economic information

``(a) Any person, with intent to, or reason to believe that it
will, injure any owner of proprietary economic information having a
value of not less than $100,000 and with intent to convert it to his or
her own use or benefit or the use or benefit of another, who
knowingly--
``(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes,
carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception
obtains such information;
``(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches,
draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys,
photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails,
communicates, or conveys such information;
``(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing
the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or
converted without authorization;
``(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs
(1) through (3);
``(5) wrongfully solicits another to commit any offense
described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or
``(6) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any
offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or
more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined up to $250,000,
or twice the value of the proprietary economic information, whichever
is greater, or imprisoned not more that 10 years, or both.
``(b) Any corporation that commits any offense described in
paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) shall be fined up to
$10,000,000, or twice the economic value of the proprietary economic
information, whichever is greater.
``(c) This section does not prohibit the reporting of any suspected
criminal activity or regulatory violation to any appropriate agency or
instrumentality of the United States, or a political subdivision of a
State, or to Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Geckotek said:
Ethics...maybe, that's your opinion. Others would argue that the "people have the right to know." Legal...no. Completely differing laws apply in the two situations.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion.

The law does not exempt any news outlet from the commission of a crime.

There is freedom of the press, but not absolute freedom, and certainly not to steal, vandalize, and release trade secrets. Gizmodo arguably has knowledge or belief that the guy who "found" the phone was not it's owner.

But regardless of the law, Gizmodo should have conducted itself under ethical journalistic standards. That's not to say it should not have reported the phone. But rather than spending the week analyzing it, dismantling it, and bragging about it they should have returned it.
 
Geckotek said:
Everyone seems to forget that Apple would have to prove theft here.

If the device was truly lost in a bar (even if it was swiped w/o the user realizing), Apple would not have a case. Simple enough.
Click to expand...

There is a property law distinction between mislaid and lost property which is complicated by other factors related to technology. There are facts here that could make it theft, under common law, even if Apple left it at a bar.
 
Geckotek said:
Ethics...maybe, that's your opinion. Others would argue that the "people have the right to know." Legal...no. Completely differing laws apply in the two situations.
Click to expand...

You do not know the law so please quit repeating trite phrases like "freedom of the press." This is a complicated issue that relies on a variety of facts that we currently do not have; summary: the law is not as clear cut as you believe.
 
G4R2 said:
That's your opinion.

The law does not exempt any news outlet from the commission of a crime.

There is freedom of the press, but not absolute freedom, and certainly not to steal, vandalize, and release trade secrets. Gizmodo arguably has knowledge or belief that the guy who "found" the phone was not it's owner.

But regardless of the law, Gizmodo should have conducted itself under ethical journalistic standards. That's not to say it should not have reported the phone. But rather than spending the week analyzing it, dismantling it, and bragging about it they should have returned it.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the reason they didn't release internals was for exactly this reason. From what I've seen no real secrets have been revealed that we didn't already know from the release of the 4.0 OS.

Personally, I think they did handle it ethically. It is ethical for a news outlet to report on something such as this that is considered news. It would only be unethical if they had made some sort of promise to not do so. Perhaps they held on to the device a bit longer than some would considere appropriate, but since they are not under NDA, if find nothing unethical about their reporting all they could about the device.

You guys have a funny idea of what a news outlet is supposed and not supposed to do.
 
Geckotek said:
One could argue that the reason they didn't release internals was for exactly this reason. From what I've seen no real secrets have been revealed that we didn't already know from the release of the 4.0 OS.

Personally, I think they did handle it ethically. It is ethical for a news outlet to report on something such as this that is considered news. It would only be unethical if they had made some sort of promise to not do so. Perhaps they held on to the device a bit longer than some would considere appropriate, but since they are not under NDA, if find nothing unethical about their reporting all they could about the device.

You guys have a funny idea of what a news outlet is supposed and not supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Journalistic ethics do not permit checkbook journalism. Gizmodo lowered itself to the standards of People Magazine or the National Inquirer.

See: http://www.cjr.org/essay/checkbook_journalism_revisited.php
 
Geckotek said:
You guys have a funny idea of what a news outlet is supposed and not supposed to do.
Click to expand...

I can only reply to that by observing that you have a bizarre understanding of both the American legal system and simple ethics.
 
Ibjr said:
You do not know the law so please quit repeating trite phrases like "freedom of the press." This is a complicated issue that relies on a variety of facts that we currently do not have; summary: the law is not as clear cut as you believe.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I don't know the entire law, but I do have an understanding of certain aspects of it and I am perfectly in my rights to state my opinion. So please referain from trying to shut me up.

I agree it is a complicated issue and we do not hold all the facts. I admit that I could be 100% wrong. But, I reserve the right to state my opinion based on the understanding I do have. If you don't like it....I don't care.

However, you do seem to have a stronger understanding of the law....well...based on the one sentence in your previous post. So, please enlighten us. I am definately open to hearing from someone that has more knowledge of the law. But don't be rude.
 
Geckotek said:
Perhaps I don't know the entire law, but I do have an understanding of certain aspects of it and I am perfectly in my rights to state my opinion. So please referain from trying to shut me up.

I agree it is a complicated issue and we do not hold all the facts. I admit that I could be 100% wrong. But, I reserve the right to state my opinion based on the understanding I do have. If you don't like it....I don't care.

However, you do seem to have a stronger understanding of the law....well...based on the one sentence in your previous post. So, please enlighten us. I am definately open to hearing from someone that has more knowledge of the law. But don't be rude.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between opinion and knowledge.
 
G4R2 said:
There's a difference between opinion and knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yup...and I have a lot of one and some of the other when it comes to this subject. I'm guessing you're in the same boat. Or are you a lawyer/judge/etc and I just didn't notice?
 
Geckotek said:
One could argue that the reason they didn't release internals was for exactly this reason. From what I've seen no real secrets have been revealed that we didn't already know from the release of the 4.0 OS.
Click to expand...

You don’t consider a complete prototype with what appears to be a final design, significant? I’m sure Apple considers their product designs as much of a trade secret as their software.

Geckotek said:
Personally, I think they did handle it ethically. It is ethical for a news outlet to report on something such as this that is considered news. It would only be unethical if they had made some sort of promise to not do so. Perhaps they held on to the device a bit longer than some would considere appropriate, but since they are not under NDA, if find nothing unethical about their reporting all they could about the device.

You guys have a funny idea of what a news outlet is supposed and not supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Well, the ethics and legality of this are going to be debated for weeks, months and possibly years. Gawker’s Media Chief has confirmed (proudly) on Twitter that Gizmodo paid for the prototype.

"Does Gizmodo pay for exclusives? Too right! For background on web checkbook journalism, here's All Things D: http://www.bit.ly/cNdOaG "

"@kensweet Yes, we're proud practitioners of checkbook journalism. Anything for the story!”

"A few clueless geeks believe "real journalists" wait for Steve Jobs or his publicists to make an announcement. Screw that."

http://twitter.com/nicknotned

So, there’s no getting around the fact that Gizmodo paid for and is in possession of stolen property.

This has just begun and should get interesting real fast. What will Apple do?

Here’s an article by the WSJ on Gawker’s Media Chief and “Checkbook Journalism.”

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/200...ays-gawker-medias-nick-denton/?mod=ATD_iphone
 
BTW FunkyJunk...good post with the bolding. I still think we see similar types of leaks all the time without any following litigation. Why? Because I think there are circumstances that preclude this from being considered espionage. Such as the fact that this Gizmodo is considered a news agency. But that of course is my educated guess.

If I'm wrong? The photos and articles will soon be gone. And I'll come back and dance in a TuTu for you all. :eek:
 
jaw04005 said:
You don’t consider a complete prototype with what appears to be a final design, significant? I’m sure Apple considers their product designs as much of a trade secret as their software.



Well, the ethics and legality of this is going to be debated for weeks, months and possibly years. Gawker’s Media Chief has confirmed (proudly) on Twitter that Gizmodo paid for the prototype.

"Does Gizmodo pay for exclusives? Too right! For background on web checkbook journalism, here's All Things D: http://www.bit.ly/cNdOaG "

"@kensweet Yes, we're proud practitioners of checkbook journalism. Anything for the story!”

"A few clueless geeks believe "real journalists" wait for Steve Jobs or his publicists to make an announcement. Screw that."

http://twitter.com/nicknotned

So, there’s no getting around the fact that Gizmodo paid for and is in possession of stolen property.

This has just begun and should get interesting real fast. What will Apple do?

Here’s an article by the WSJ on Gawker’s Media Chief and “Checkbook Journalism.”

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/200...ays-gawker-medias-nick-denton/?mod=ATD_iphone
Click to expand...

I assumed all along that they paid for it.

To say they paid for stolen property is a big assumption. If Apple proves it to be stolen, then this will all blow up. We'll see soon enough....but I don't think Apple can prove it was anything more than lost in a bar.

Perhaps there are laws covering that as someone mentioned before...so I guess Apple will persue Gizmodo legally for this?

Again, no way Gizmodo posted this story without running it by their lawyers. Gizmodo has a history with this kind of stuff.
 
I seriously doubt that they gave it to them, but it's just such a crazy story i wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
 
Geckotek said:
Yup...and I have a lot of one and some of the other when it comes to this subject. I'm guessing you're in the same boat. Or are you a lawyer/judge/etc and I just didn't notice?
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that you have a lot of opinion. But as has been observed by others if not myself you have absolutely no supporting facts. Maybe this speaks to the law you're experienced in. I'm thinking Judge Judy?

You have failed to notice a lot of things, mostly the legal concepts that have riddled many of the above posts correcting your misconceptions.

I wouldn't deny anyone their opinion, particularly on an internet forum, but opinion isn't a rebuttal to a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back