3 ms·

Denton insists returning it to Apple was the plan all along if the phone turned out to be authentic. But Wallin doesn't believe that argument would be of much u

Denton insists returning it to Apple was the plan all along if the phone turned out to be authentic. But Wallin doesn't believe that argument would be of much use in court. "How many times do people say after they're caught that their intention was to return something?" he says. "Can someone raise that defense? Of course. That doesn't mean it's going to be believed." I'm not getting it. Gawker did return the phone when Apple notified them that it was theirs, didn't they? The fact that Apple had requested the phone back is what solidified the fact that it was indeed a genuine Apple prototype.

anigbrowl 17y ago
They did...but in between they posted a ton of information about Apple's device, which they were not entitled to do, with the specific end of making a profit. this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed to damage that someone else's interests. Besides benefiting Apple's competitors, there are already news stories saying things like 'don't buy an iPhone until June' and so forth.
- statictype 17y ago
  this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed to damage that someone else's interests. Illegal or unethical? As a thought experiment: Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a top-of-the-line model in a few months? Isn't it in Gizmodo's best interest (as a journalistic establishment that serves the best interests of the people - again, just a thought experiment) to let people know about this? How is it different from DaringFireball talking about an Apple tablet device based on inside information that he received?
  - IdeaHamster 17y ago
    Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a top-of-the-line model in a few months? W...T...F?!? Please, please explain this logic to me. Honestly, I don't understand how some people think like this! What would you have Apple do? Stop selling the previous model as soon as they have the first prototypes of the next one? Pre-announce the next generation of phone at the launch of each new generation? Are you familiar with the Osborne effect? Is it really so bad that Apple has managed to, more or less, completely eliminate the Osborne effect through their over-the-top secrecy? Why should you be entitled to know what some other company's plans are?
    - statictype 17y ago
      Honestly, I don't understand how some people think like this! I agree(it was just a thought experiment - I don't actually hold that view).No, I don't expect Apple to stop selling the previous model and I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with a tech magazine/blog breaking news about a new version of a device that could, as a side effect, damper sales of the existing device. We are not entitled to know everything Apple does and neither is Apple entitled to expect journalists to help them maintain their secrecy.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    My (amateur) understanding is that it is illegal. You raise reasonable points about the ethical question of informing the buying public about available products, but I think that legitimate journalistic purpose has limits. Exposing the internals, to the point of revealing construction and identifiable components, goes beyond that limit, as does holding the device hostage to confirmation. And I share the view of many other HN readers in feeling it was unecessary to make a public spectacle of the engineer who misplaced the device. There are definite prohibitions on exploiting such information for commercial gain, even the indirect gain of internet traffic. Consider the benefit to manufacturers of knockoffs from such a detailed teardown - that undermines Apple's future sales and imposes an extra burden on US customs officials charged with enforcing prohibitions on fake devices entering the domestic market.
noilly 17y ago
thought: if apple files a lawsuit, does it mean this was not a plant?

anigbrowl 17y ago

They did...but in between they posted a ton of information about Apple's device, which they were not entitled to do, with the specific end of making a profit. this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed to damage that someone else's interests. Besides benefiting Apple's competitors, there are already news stories saying things like 'don't buy an iPhone until June' and so forth.

statictype 17y ago
this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed to damage that someone else's interests. Illegal or unethical? As a thought experiment: Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a top-of-the-line model in a few months? Isn't it in Gizmodo's best interest (as a journalistic establishment that serves the best interests of the people - again, just a thought experiment) to let people know about this? How is it different from DaringFireball talking about an Apple tablet device based on inside information that he received?
- IdeaHamster 17y ago
  Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a top-of-the-line model in a few months? W...T...F?!? Please, please explain this logic to me. Honestly, I don't understand how some people think like this! What would you have Apple do? Stop selling the previous model as soon as they have the first prototypes of the next one? Pre-announce the next generation of phone at the launch of each new generation? Are you familiar with the Osborne effect? Is it really so bad that Apple has managed to, more or less, completely eliminate the Osborne effect through their over-the-top secrecy? Why should you be entitled to know what some other company's plans are?
  - statictype 17y ago
    Honestly, I don't understand how some people think like this! I agree(it was just a thought experiment - I don't actually hold that view).No, I don't expect Apple to stop selling the previous model and I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't see anything wrong with a tech magazine/blog breaking news about a new version of a device that could, as a side effect, damper sales of the existing device. We are not entitled to know everything Apple does and neither is Apple entitled to expect journalists to help them maintain their secrecy.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  My (amateur) understanding is that it is illegal. You raise reasonable points about the ethical question of informing the buying public about available products, but I think that legitimate journalistic purpose has limits. Exposing the internals, to the point of revealing construction and identifiable components, goes beyond that limit, as does holding the device hostage to confirmation. And I share the view of many other HN readers in feeling it was unecessary to make a public spectacle of the engineer who misplaced the device. There are definite prohibitions on exploiting such information for commercial gain, even the indirect gain of internet traffic. Consider the benefit to manufacturers of knockoffs from such a detailed teardown - that undermines Apple's future sales and imposes an extra burden on US customs officials charged with enforcing prohibitions on fake devices entering the domestic market.

noilly 17y ago

thought: if apple files a lawsuit, does it mean this was not a plant?