4 ms·

Maybe so. But that doesn't answer the question as to why this stolen phone -- apart from the millions of other items stolen in California and reported to the po

Maybe so. But that doesn't answer the question as to why this stolen phone -- apart from the millions of other items stolen in California and reported to the police -- deserved special treatment by law enforcement, and warranted the use of unusual and aggressive measures to obtain information about it. It's still just a single phone, a phone that's been returned to its owner. Maybe Apple was damaged by the loss in a way the law recognizes. If so, then they can file a civil lawsuit just like everyone else with a grievance against someone else. The part that's troubling here is how, if anyone else reading this post reported to the police that an employee had lost a ready-for-market prototype and that a blog had published pictures of it and then returned it, the police would politely file the report at the bottom of the pile and then get back to pursuing real crimes. Apple, however, gets an unannounced seizure of a journalist's home and work computers. Such preferential treatment demands an explanation.

app 16y ago
Because stealing someone's iPhone off a restaurant table isn't a felony, it's petty theft. You're trivializing what the new iPhone is. It represented millions of dollars of R&D and contained proprietary information so is therefor potentially protected under trade secret laws. There's no functional difference between publicizing the physical phone or it's blueprints: you're competition knows what you're up to (and can't sell yet) and your customers are going to forgo buying your current product.
- MaxwellKennerly 16y ago
  As I put in the post, "A trade-secret claim based on readily observable material is a bust." IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp., 285 F. 3d 581, 584 (7th Cir. 2002). The most Gawker revealed was (1) features readily observable on the outside and (2) information printed on the components when the device was opened. Obviously, none that would be considered a "trade secret" once the iPhone was up for sale on the market. Can a feature list be considered a trade secretly few months before the items released? That's a tough one, particularly because Apple itself released this iPhone into the wild, where it was found by a third party. It's not like Gawker snuck into Apple's campus and found some research for products contemplated way in the future, product so far off that Apple had not yet filed a patent on the technology. (By way of background, the whole purpose of trade secret law is to protect things that a person doesn't want to disclose publicly by patenting. Almost by definition, a trade secret has to be something that was patentable, and so far nothing on the prototype iPhone looks like it was patentable.) All of which brings us back to the central point: it's debatable if Apple even suffered a legally-cognizable injury by virtue of someone bringing publicity to a device Apple, through its employee, left out in the wild. In light of that, and in light of the serious concerns about journalistic shield, REACT should have shown caution. Instead, they took the most aggressive approach they could have.
  - tienshiao 16y ago
    I agree that injury may not be big with consumers, but I can imagine scenarios where the leak is damaging with business partners/suppliers/vendors. For example, if Apple is negotiating pricing for current models and other party was willing to pay more pre-leak because the did not think the next gen would be as large of an upgrade.
Terretta 16y ago
> unannounced seizure of a journalist's home and work computers So, buying stolen merchandise or trafficking in trade secrets is fine as long as you write a story about it? -- http://twitter.com/TheMacalope/status/12917912411 http://twitter.com/TheMacalope/status/12917912411 Quoting Gruber: Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.” http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-warrant-ambiguous-police-may-allege-that-gizcommitted-felony-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-... Btw, quoting Gawker: "We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

app 16y ago

Because stealing someone's iPhone off a restaurant table isn't a felony, it's petty theft. You're trivializing what the new iPhone is. It represented millions of dollars of R&D and contained proprietary information so is therefor potentially protected under trade secret laws. There's no functional difference between publicizing the physical phone or it's blueprints: you're competition knows what you're up to (and can't sell yet) and your customers are going to forgo buying your current product.

MaxwellKennerly 16y ago
As I put in the post, "A trade-secret claim based on readily observable material is a bust." IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp., 285 F. 3d 581, 584 (7th Cir. 2002). The most Gawker revealed was (1) features readily observable on the outside and (2) information printed on the components when the device was opened. Obviously, none that would be considered a "trade secret" once the iPhone was up for sale on the market. Can a feature list be considered a trade secretly few months before the items released? That's a tough one, particularly because Apple itself released this iPhone into the wild, where it was found by a third party. It's not like Gawker snuck into Apple's campus and found some research for products contemplated way in the future, product so far off that Apple had not yet filed a patent on the technology. (By way of background, the whole purpose of trade secret law is to protect things that a person doesn't want to disclose publicly by patenting. Almost by definition, a trade secret has to be something that was patentable, and so far nothing on the prototype iPhone looks like it was patentable.) All of which brings us back to the central point: it's debatable if Apple even suffered a legally-cognizable injury by virtue of someone bringing publicity to a device Apple, through its employee, left out in the wild. In light of that, and in light of the serious concerns about journalistic shield, REACT should have shown caution. Instead, they took the most aggressive approach they could have.
- tienshiao 16y ago
  I agree that injury may not be big with consumers, but I can imagine scenarios where the leak is damaging with business partners/suppliers/vendors. For example, if Apple is negotiating pricing for current models and other party was willing to pay more pre-leak because the did not think the next gen would be as large of an upgrade.

Terretta 16y ago

> unannounced seizure of a journalist's home and work computers So, buying stolen merchandise or trafficking in trade secrets is fine as long as you write a story about it? -- http://twitter.com/TheMacalope/status/12917912411 http://twitter.com/TheMacalope/status/12917912411 Quoting Gruber: Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They’re not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They’re arguing, “Hey, bloggers are journalists.” The state of California is arguing “Hey, you committed a felony.” http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-warrant-ambiguous-police-may-allege-that-gizcommitted-felony-2010-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-... Btw, quoting Gawker: "We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]