3 ms·

Gizmodo overstepped no bounds. They are allowed free speech and compared to most reporting these days their story was actually accurate. The ONLY person at fau

Gizmodo overstepped no bounds. They are allowed free speech and compared to most reporting these days their story was actually accurate. The ONLY person at fault here is the guy who found the phone and didn't call Apple.

lyudmil 16y ago
I never claimed they broke the law. I claimed they overstepped ethical bounds accepted in professional journalism. Arguments about why they did can be found elsewhere in the thread.
anigbrowl 16y ago
It is (IMO, IANAL) illegal to pay money, record or share details of, or derive commercial gain (via disseminating the story) from something that constitutes a trade secret. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----... I am not convinced a free speech defense obviates this. While people are clearly interested by their report, that's not the same as it being 'in the public interest'. As far as Apple's interest goes, their stock skidded 1% this morning on opening, although it'll probably bounce back up when they release their earnings statement later today.
- tghw 16y ago
  Other companies get products leaked all the time, and no one blinks an eye. I really think Apple will have a tough time calling the verification of existence of an upcoming product "trade secrets".
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001839----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0... [...] (3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret;[...] You could argue over subclause (a) but I think that the concealment inside a existing iPhone case would count. Certainly when Gizmodo obtained it they knew what they were buying.

lyudmil 16y ago

I never claimed they broke the law. I claimed they overstepped ethical bounds accepted in professional journalism. Arguments about why they did can be found elsewhere in the thread.

anigbrowl 16y ago

It is (IMO, IANAL) illegal to pay money, record or share details of, or derive commercial gain (via disseminating the story) from something that constitutes a trade secret. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001832----... I am not convinced a free speech defense obviates this. While people are clearly interested by their report, that's not the same as it being 'in the public interest'. As far as Apple's interest goes, their stock skidded 1% this morning on opening, although it'll probably bounce back up when they release their earnings statement later today.

tghw 16y ago
Other companies get products leaked all the time, and no one blinks an eye. I really think Apple will have a tough time calling the verification of existence of an upcoming product "trade secrets".
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001839----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0... [...] (3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret;[...] You could argue over subclause (a) but I think that the concealment inside a existing iPhone case would count. Certainly when Gizmodo obtained it they knew what they were buying.