8 ms·

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade secrets, or hey, ethics -- then they deserve what they get, legally speaking. Anybody who thinks about it for a minute would realize that buying a prototype device that "got found at a bar" ("fell off the back of a truck"), made by a company with notoriously tight seals, and a huge legal team, and then explaining to the world that you bought it off some dude… well, that's gonna have consequences. If bloggers aspire to be journalists, they're going to have to learn to have those second thoughts. And learn that "checkbook journalism" just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods.

tmsh 17y ago
I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets about Apple (the phone being turned off remotely and all)? Maybe, perhaps they're at fault for that. But making fun of a company, satire, should be protected by journalistic rights. Should, for instance, the Daily Show be prosecuted if they go after an interview and someone at the pentagon accidentally reveals classified information? It could be argued that Gizmodo knew the phone had 'fallen off the back of a truck' so to speak -- but their story seemed as much about the falling off of the back of the truck as the item itself. At what point is there some (perhaps small) burden of responsibility on the people who messed up and lost the prototype? It doesn't seem like complete justice that suddenly Apple gets to come down hard with laws that aren't exactly clearly adjudicated yet. I mean if there were precedent -- if it were clearly known that anytime you come across a prototype, you run the risk of being prosecuted for not returning it to the company immediately, then OK, Gizmodo would be at fault. Maybe there is and I just don't know. I get the sense that Apple has decided not to fault Gary Powell because that would be sort of a ridiculous move (see Steve Wozniak's thoughts at gizmodo). But that doesn't necessarily give them the right to take out their frustrations on Gizmodo. An engineer made a mistake. If anything, it's added publicity. Move on.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  They'd probably be mostly OK if they had just shown the exterior of the thing - it (or something very similar) has appeared in photographs on the internet before, I believe. But the teardown showing the internals? That's got to be of significant interest to competing manufacturers.
  - tmsh 17y ago
    I see, good point. Yeah, I didn't see the article where they profiled the phone like it had been released.
- krschultz 17y ago
  I'd be shocked if there was not precedent dealing with exactly this kind of stuff. This is hardly the first time a person in the press has paid for the inside scoop on a trade secret. Ignorance of the case law does not make a person (or corporation) innocent.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  Actually, if somebody interviewed by the Daily Show "accidentally" dropped some classified info for $5k, I'm pretty sure the Daily Show would be held culpable.
Alex3917 17y ago
"And learn that 'checkbook journalism' just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods." Why is this?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' - see reprint at http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-...
  - pyre 17y ago
    I think he was mostly referring to 'Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods' with his question. That escapes the bounds of the current news item and makes a blanket statement about general practices. 'Paying for interviews' is can't easily be grouped in with 'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' without really broadening the net that you're casting.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      True. I was referring to the specific context of pay as an inducement to break confidentiality agreements, as opposed to paying to interview a famous actor or something like People magazine.
nailer 17y ago
> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Arguably they are, under the Uniform trade Secrets Act (which is CA law): "... (b) Misappropriation" means: ... (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: ... (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. In detail - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907
  - nailer 17y ago
    Interesting & upmodded. I didn't know that knowledge acquired by accident was protected from disclosure by those to whom the info has been revealed. Consider me educated.
- angstrom 17y ago
  I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed. This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blowing. And you certainly don't have to steal in order to post an opinion. Suppose I find someone's credit card and I want to laugh at the silliness of the design on the card, do I really need to post pictures of the card along with the 16 digit number, expiration date, and security number before giving it back to them and hiding behind "Freedom of the Press"?
  - nailer 17y ago
    > I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Apparently they did, and were ignored. Nobody has come up with anything that refutes this so far. I look at it as: someone made an innocent mistake losing a phone, someone found a phone and called a company, Apple's bureaucracy fucked up and didn't respond as soon as it should have.
eli 17y ago
I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, do we? If not then how do we protect one without the other?
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  We already protect one and not the other. If the seller had only provided Gizmodo with the information they published (photos, teardowns, etc.) instead of the phone itself, Gizmodo probably wouldn't be in any legal trouble and the seller's identity would likely be protected by the shield laws.
  - habitue 17y ago
    Yeah I think they were pretty dumb to disclose all of the details of the story, they should have just taken it apart, taken their pictures, given it back to the seller and washed their hands of it. Telling everyone how they got it, who it came from, how much they paid etc is only going to get them into trouble. On the other hand, with the police knocking down his door, at least it's totally clear it wasn't a fake
    - toni 17y ago
      Wasn't that the whole point to disclose this story in such an extent? The drama -and clicks- generated by exposing where the phone came from, how they obtained it, how much they paid, the engineer's full name and all other small details were the reason why this story got so much attention. No amount of "leaked pictures by an anonymous source" posts could compete with laying down a perfect controversy as Gizmodo did with this story.
  - kragen 17y ago
    Holy crap, Lazlo Nibble.. Been a long time since knowing you on System Exclusive.
kjhgfghjknbv 17y ago
So what about photos of a new car prototypes? There are a bunch of magazines devoted to those. Or reviews of to-be-released movies? Or photos of celebs in public? Not terribly happy about companies using the Police to break down doors to manage their PR.
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  If Car & Driver bought a Ferrari prototype from someone who clearly wasn't its legal owner, then ran a big front-page teardown story on the car with a snarky sidebar about how stupid it was for Ferrari to "lose" it, do you really think the resulting police raid would just be "Ferrari managing their PR"?
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Car makers disguise their field test prototypes with bras, dazzle paint, fake body panels, etc. http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vauxhall-insignia-camouflage.jpg http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vauxha... ...just like Apple did with the Fake 3G skin.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  reviews to-be-released movies well might you ask. In this case, an unreleased movie made its way through a longer chain of people, eventually ending up on bittorrent...for which the uploader did ~5 months in jail and >1 year of supervised release: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm Not an identical situation, of course...but not so very different either. Apparently the sentence was reasonably light on the basis that there was no profit involved. Adding $ into the equation usually changes things for the worse in a case like this.
- joubert 17y ago
  I don't think a celeb in public would fall within the gambit of trade secret protection, unless you mean the latest lactic surgery technique the celeb sports.

tmsh 17y ago

I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets about Apple (the phone being turned off remotely and all)? Maybe, perhaps they're at fault for that. But making fun of a company, satire, should be protected by journalistic rights. Should, for instance, the Daily Show be prosecuted if they go after an interview and someone at the pentagon accidentally reveals classified information? It could be argued that Gizmodo knew the phone had 'fallen off the back of a truck' so to speak -- but their story seemed as much about the falling off of the back of the truck as the item itself. At what point is there some (perhaps small) burden of responsibility on the people who messed up and lost the prototype? It doesn't seem like complete justice that suddenly Apple gets to come down hard with laws that aren't exactly clearly adjudicated yet. I mean if there were precedent -- if it were clearly known that anytime you come across a prototype, you run the risk of being prosecuted for not returning it to the company immediately, then OK, Gizmodo would be at fault. Maybe there is and I just don't know. I get the sense that Apple has decided not to fault Gary Powell because that would be sort of a ridiculous move (see Steve Wozniak's thoughts at gizmodo). But that doesn't necessarily give them the right to take out their frustrations on Gizmodo. An engineer made a mistake. If anything, it's added publicity. Move on.

anigbrowl 17y ago
They'd probably be mostly OK if they had just shown the exterior of the thing - it (or something very similar) has appeared in photographs on the internet before, I believe. But the teardown showing the internals? That's got to be of significant interest to competing manufacturers.
- tmsh 17y ago
  I see, good point. Yeah, I didn't see the article where they profiled the phone like it had been released.
krschultz 17y ago
I'd be shocked if there was not precedent dealing with exactly this kind of stuff. This is hardly the first time a person in the press has paid for the inside scoop on a trade secret. Ignorance of the case law does not make a person (or corporation) innocent.
ahoyhere 17y ago
Actually, if somebody interviewed by the Daily Show "accidentally" dropped some classified info for $5k, I'm pretty sure the Daily Show would be held culpable.

Alex3917 17y ago

"And learn that 'checkbook journalism' just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods." Why is this?

anigbrowl 17y ago
'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' - see reprint at http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt http://gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-...
- pyre 17y ago
  I think he was mostly referring to 'Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods' with his question. That escapes the bounds of the current news item and makes a blanket statement about general practices. 'Paying for interviews' is can't easily be grouped in with 'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' without really broadening the net that you're casting.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    True. I was referring to the specific context of pay as an inducement to break confidentiality agreements, as opposed to paying to interview a famous actor or something like People magazine.

nailer 17y ago

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

anigbrowl 17y ago
Arguably they are, under the Uniform trade Secrets Act (which is CA law): "... (b) Misappropriation" means: ... (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: ... (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. In detail - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907
- nailer 17y ago
  Interesting & upmodded. I didn't know that knowledge acquired by accident was protected from disclosure by those to whom the info has been revealed. Consider me educated.
angstrom 17y ago
I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed. This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blowing. And you certainly don't have to steal in order to post an opinion. Suppose I find someone's credit card and I want to laugh at the silliness of the design on the card, do I really need to post pictures of the card along with the 16 digit number, expiration date, and security number before giving it back to them and hiding behind "Freedom of the Press"?
- nailer 17y ago
  > I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Apparently they did, and were ignored. Nobody has come up with anything that refutes this so far. I look at it as: someone made an innocent mistake losing a phone, someone found a phone and called a company, Apple's bureaucracy fucked up and didn't respond as soon as it should have.

eli 17y ago

I agree, that Gizmodo acted wrong and should be punished. They bought stolen goods, period. The problem is that them hiding behind a shield law isn't totally nuts. What if someone leaked them something that was actually in the public interest--something important for people to know, but that could still be considered a trade secret. We certainly don't want the courts deciding what's "important" news and what isn't, do we? If not then how do we protect one without the other?

Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
We already protect one and not the other. If the seller had only provided Gizmodo with the information they published (photos, teardowns, etc.) instead of the phone itself, Gizmodo probably wouldn't be in any legal trouble and the seller's identity would likely be protected by the shield laws.
- habitue 17y ago
  Yeah I think they were pretty dumb to disclose all of the details of the story, they should have just taken it apart, taken their pictures, given it back to the seller and washed their hands of it. Telling everyone how they got it, who it came from, how much they paid etc is only going to get them into trouble. On the other hand, with the police knocking down his door, at least it's totally clear it wasn't a fake
  - toni 17y ago
    Wasn't that the whole point to disclose this story in such an extent? The drama -and clicks- generated by exposing where the phone came from, how they obtained it, how much they paid, the engineer's full name and all other small details were the reason why this story got so much attention. No amount of "leaked pictures by an anonymous source" posts could compete with laying down a perfect controversy as Gizmodo did with this story.
- kragen 17y ago
  Holy crap, Lazlo Nibble.. Been a long time since knowing you on System Exclusive.

kjhgfghjknbv 17y ago

So what about photos of a new car prototypes? There are a bunch of magazines devoted to those. Or reviews of to-be-released movies? Or photos of celebs in public? Not terribly happy about companies using the Police to break down doors to manage their PR.

Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
If Car & Driver bought a Ferrari prototype from someone who clearly wasn't its legal owner, then ran a big front-page teardown story on the car with a snarky sidebar about how stupid it was for Ferrari to "lose" it, do you really think the resulting police raid would just be "Ferrari managing their PR"?
joezydeco 17y ago
Car makers disguise their field test prototypes with bras, dazzle paint, fake body panels, etc. http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vauxhall-insignia-camouflage.jpg http://www.carandsuv.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vauxha... ...just like Apple did with the Fake 3G skin.
anigbrowl 17y ago
reviews to-be-released movies well might you ask. In this case, an unreleased movie made its way through a longer chain of people, eventually ending up on bittorrent...for which the uploader did ~5 months in jail and >1 year of supervised release: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/valenteCharge.htm Not an identical situation, of course...but not so very different either. Apparently the sentence was reasonably light on the basis that there was no profit involved. Adding $ into the equation usually changes things for the worse in a case like this.
joubert 17y ago
I don't think a celeb in public would fall within the gambit of trade secret protection, unless you mean the latest lactic surgery technique the celeb sports.