6 ms·

I think as Gruber pointed out previously the material point here is a criminal action may have been committed rather than just a breach of a civil contract. Le

by sh1mmer 16y ago

I think as Gruber pointed out previously the material point here is a criminal action may have been committed rather than just a breach of a civil contract. Leaking information about product launches is one thing stolen goods is another. If Gizmodo's actions are ok, does it open the door for protection of the press when an employee of a company decides to sell them stolen materials?

100k 16y ago
Malone makes a good point though: do you think Apple would sue the San Jose Mercury News (or ABC, or Time, or...)? They are suing Gawker because Gawker is weak, and the rest of the media won't defend a blogger.
- jbrennan 16y ago
  Apple would probably not sure Time or ABC or any big-time news agency. But I'm guessing this is more because a big-time agency has the sense/legal advising to not buy stolen goods.
- ajg1977 16y ago
  As of the time of writing, Apple aren't suing anyone. The only current legal activity is that of a criminal investigation into the circumstances that led to the iPhone being in Gizmodo's position. Like Gruber and the above poster, I just don't buy the "left on a barstool" piece of this. A seasoned Apple engineer, in his late 20's, trusted to carry one of a handful of iPhone prototypes, somehow manages to leave it at a bar? If he'd been younger that could be put down to the foolishness of youth, but since he's not then he would have to be an idiot to do this. And Apple don't hire idiots.
  - Osmose 16y ago
    One does not have to be an idiot to be forgetful, or perhaps tipsy.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I like how you imply that someone being in their late 20's would not do something that could be attributed to the foolishness of youth! Late 20's -- yeah that's practically the age of respected senior statesmen, the jaded world-weary traveller, the wise old man down the -- oh wait, wrong end of the spectrum. :) This is not a criticism on your post, just a humorous point about the subjective perception of age and maturity. I'm in my late 30's and definitely look back at my 20's as the decade where I was (a) an adult, technically, but also (b) still engaging in a lot of the foolishness of youth. I'm sure others would feel the same. One's 20's is that decade where you are an adult and yet still in many ways still like a teenager. Especially for folks that don't start having kids yet. On a separate point, I think the fact that he was entrusted with a super secret prototype AND then chose to bring it with him to a bar where alcohol drinking would be going on and lots of people in close proximity to his body, some strangers/non-coworkers, and possibly darkly lit, and so on, says there was some poor judgement going on by him. It may or may not have been a theft, but he is at least partly to blame because he could have taken different actions that would have prevented it from happening. On your point about Apple not hiring idiots: I bet even if Apple hires folks who are smart about engineering they are going to pick some who make poor choices when alcohol is involved. Logic goes out the window after a few shots of vodka and a glance from a pretty woman across the room. :)
  - dagw 16y ago
    Late 20's is not old by any definition, and certainly doesn't make you "seasoned". And even if it was, age in no way makes you immune from being foolish, whether drunk or sober. Also being incredibly smart and brilliant in general doesn't preclude you from occasionally being an idiot.
- joubert 16y ago
  I doubt that abc, time, or san jose mercury news would knowingly buy stolen goods.
Judson 16y ago
I'm so tired of hearing "Gruber" in a context that comes closer and closer to meaning "the one and only way of looking at the law". Yea, I enjoy his blogging, but his bias is surely towards whatever Steve Jobs whispers in his ear. The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around. I'm no lawyer, but lets be honest, if this isn't innocent intent (a legal defense against Receiving Stolen Property: http://www.shouselaw.com/stolen-property.html http://www.shouselaw.com/stolen-property.html) I don't know what is. Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the phone back!
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ugh 16y ago
  “The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around.” Really? You might believe that but calling it a “fact” seems a bit too much to me.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the phone back! The guy who lost the phone called the bar several times to find out if anybode gave the phone back. If the guy who took the phone had done that he should—gave the device to bartender, the Apple would have the phone back easeily. Of course, there would be no story for Gizmodo in that case.
  - ewjordan 16y ago
    From the link Judson posted (not the text of a law, but some sort of legal advice link): You can't be convicted of a California Penal Code 496 charge if you intended to return the property to its owner or the police when you bought or received the stolen property.14 However, this defense will not apply if you decided to return the property after you illegally received it. Similarly, it will not apply if you originally had the intent to return the property, but later decided to keep it instead. If this is accurate, then I'd suspect they're fine, at least in regards to the receiving stolen property thing - they bought the stolen property with the intent to give it back to its owner, and did so in a reasonable time frame (whether or not they could have gotten it back earlier, they did get it to Apple within a couple days, which in most situations would be considered very reasonable). They almost certainly decided before buying it to give it back to Apple. Whether or not they could be in trouble for trade secret violations or anything else like that, I have no idea.
heresy 16y ago
While paying a source for information is ethically questionable and on the level of the tabloids, I think it's fairly clear from the article they posted later that Gizmodo's intent was getting a scoop. On the flip side of what you're suggesting, does Apple having the cops in their pocket like this open the door to other companies getting police to arrest journalists for outing "trade secrets"? Gruber always finds an angle to defend whatever Apple does, regardless of morality.
- gjm11 16y ago
  Except, y'know, when he doesn't. For instance, he's been pretty critical of a lot of Apple's rejections from the App Store. Example: http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords "Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one." Now, perhaps this is in fact the only sort of Apple action that Gruber is ever critical of. My hazy memory says otherwise, for what it's worth.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    The follow up basically has Gruber accepting Apple's stance. He's critical to a point, but he works hard to make Apple seem like the good guy. Your quote, if anything, demonstrates that the guy doesn't really offer anything compelling. "Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one." Really John? With Apple's history, you're surprised? Since we are talking about dictionaries, let me introduce you to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gullible http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gullible
    - gjm11 16y ago
      Er, no. The followup (you mean http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store, right?) has Gruber saying that he still thinks it's wrong to put a 17+ rating on a dictionary for having Naughty Words in it, and that he doesn't think the person who rejected the Ninjawords dictionary acted (1) wisely or (2) consistently with Apple's policy as described to him by Phil Schiller. (He did say that Apple weren't as wrong as he'd thought they were, because he'd thought they insisted that the Ninjawords dictionary be both (1) censored and (2) marked 17+, whereas supposedly that turned out not to have happened.) Anyway, I'm not sure what your point about the followup really is. Gruber said something very uncomplimentary about Apple's handling of App Store applications in this particular case (most outrageous yet, hard to do worse) and in general (clear implication of lots of earlier strikingly outrageous rejections). Therefore, he is not uniformly uncritical of Apple. -- Unless you're suggesting that he said that with the intention of issuing a retraction to make Apple look even better, and that his later comment wasn't (as he claimed) precipitated by getting an email from Phil Schiller responding to what he'd said? Don't get me wrong: it's clear that John Gruber is on the whole very, very enthusiastic about Apple and their products. I would not look to him for unbiased commentary on anything Apple-related. But that is not at all the same thing as being prepared to defend anything "regardless of morality", which is the accusation heresy made above and which still seems to me quite un-called-for.

by sh1mmer 16y ago

100k 16y ago

Malone makes a good point though: do you think Apple would sue the San Jose Mercury News (or ABC, or Time, or...)? They are suing Gawker because Gawker is weak, and the rest of the media won't defend a blogger.

jbrennan 16y ago
Apple would probably not sure Time or ABC or any big-time news agency. But I'm guessing this is more because a big-time agency has the sense/legal advising to not buy stolen goods.
ajg1977 16y ago
As of the time of writing, Apple aren't suing anyone. The only current legal activity is that of a criminal investigation into the circumstances that led to the iPhone being in Gizmodo's position. Like Gruber and the above poster, I just don't buy the "left on a barstool" piece of this. A seasoned Apple engineer, in his late 20's, trusted to carry one of a handful of iPhone prototypes, somehow manages to leave it at a bar? If he'd been younger that could be put down to the foolishness of youth, but since he's not then he would have to be an idiot to do this. And Apple don't hire idiots.
- Osmose 16y ago
  One does not have to be an idiot to be forgetful, or perhaps tipsy.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I like how you imply that someone being in their late 20's would not do something that could be attributed to the foolishness of youth! Late 20's -- yeah that's practically the age of respected senior statesmen, the jaded world-weary traveller, the wise old man down the -- oh wait, wrong end of the spectrum. :) This is not a criticism on your post, just a humorous point about the subjective perception of age and maturity. I'm in my late 30's and definitely look back at my 20's as the decade where I was (a) an adult, technically, but also (b) still engaging in a lot of the foolishness of youth. I'm sure others would feel the same. One's 20's is that decade where you are an adult and yet still in many ways still like a teenager. Especially for folks that don't start having kids yet. On a separate point, I think the fact that he was entrusted with a super secret prototype AND then chose to bring it with him to a bar where alcohol drinking would be going on and lots of people in close proximity to his body, some strangers/non-coworkers, and possibly darkly lit, and so on, says there was some poor judgement going on by him. It may or may not have been a theft, but he is at least partly to blame because he could have taken different actions that would have prevented it from happening. On your point about Apple not hiring idiots: I bet even if Apple hires folks who are smart about engineering they are going to pick some who make poor choices when alcohol is involved. Logic goes out the window after a few shots of vodka and a glance from a pretty woman across the room. :)
- dagw 16y ago
  Late 20's is not old by any definition, and certainly doesn't make you "seasoned". And even if it was, age in no way makes you immune from being foolish, whether drunk or sober. Also being incredibly smart and brilliant in general doesn't preclude you from occasionally being an idiot.
joubert 16y ago
I doubt that abc, time, or san jose mercury news would knowingly buy stolen goods.

Judson 16y ago

I'm so tired of hearing "Gruber" in a context that comes closer and closer to meaning "the one and only way of looking at the law". Yea, I enjoy his blogging, but his bias is surely towards whatever Steve Jobs whispers in his ear. The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around. I'm no lawyer, but lets be honest, if this isn't innocent intent (a legal defense against Receiving Stolen Property: http://www.shouselaw.com/stolen-property.html http://www.shouselaw.com/stolen-property.html) I don't know what is. Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the phone back!

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ugh 16y ago
“The fact of the matter is: This wouldn't be a big deal if it was _Nokia's_ 4th gen phone, or a CD of Windows 2012 a Microsoft Employee left laying around.” Really? You might believe that but calling it a “fact” seems a bit too much to me.
rimantas 16y ago
Hell, without Gizmodo, Apple would have never gotten the phone back! The guy who lost the phone called the bar several times to find out if anybode gave the phone back. If the guy who took the phone had done that he should—gave the device to bartender, the Apple would have the phone back easeily. Of course, there would be no story for Gizmodo in that case.
- ewjordan 16y ago
  From the link Judson posted (not the text of a law, but some sort of legal advice link): You can't be convicted of a California Penal Code 496 charge if you intended to return the property to its owner or the police when you bought or received the stolen property.14 However, this defense will not apply if you decided to return the property after you illegally received it. Similarly, it will not apply if you originally had the intent to return the property, but later decided to keep it instead. If this is accurate, then I'd suspect they're fine, at least in regards to the receiving stolen property thing - they bought the stolen property with the intent to give it back to its owner, and did so in a reasonable time frame (whether or not they could have gotten it back earlier, they did get it to Apple within a couple days, which in most situations would be considered very reasonable). They almost certainly decided before buying it to give it back to Apple. Whether or not they could be in trouble for trade secret violations or anything else like that, I have no idea.

heresy 16y ago

While paying a source for information is ethically questionable and on the level of the tabloids, I think it's fairly clear from the article they posted later that Gizmodo's intent was getting a scoop. On the flip side of what you're suggesting, does Apple having the cops in their pocket like this open the door to other companies getting police to arrest journalists for outing "trade secrets"? Gruber always finds an angle to defend whatever Apple does, regardless of morality.

gjm11 16y ago
Except, y'know, when he doesn't. For instance, he's been pretty critical of a lot of Apple's rejections from the App Store. Example: http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/ninjawords "Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one." Now, perhaps this is in fact the only sort of Apple action that Gruber is ever critical of. My hazy memory says otherwise, for what it's worth.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  The follow up basically has Gruber accepting Apple's stance. He's critical to a point, but he works hard to make Apple seem like the good guy. Your quote, if anything, demonstrates that the guy doesn't really offer anything compelling. "Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one." Really John? With Apple's history, you're surprised? Since we are talking about dictionaries, let me introduce you to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gullible http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gullible
  - gjm11 16y ago
    Er, no. The followup (you mean http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/phil_schiller_app_store, right?) has Gruber saying that he still thinks it's wrong to put a 17+ rating on a dictionary for having Naughty Words in it, and that he doesn't think the person who rejected the Ninjawords dictionary acted (1) wisely or (2) consistently with Apple's policy as described to him by Phil Schiller. (He did say that Apple weren't as wrong as he'd thought they were, because he'd thought they insisted that the Ninjawords dictionary be both (1) censored and (2) marked 17+, whereas supposedly that turned out not to have happened.) Anyway, I'm not sure what your point about the followup really is. Gruber said something very uncomplimentary about Apple's handling of App Store applications in this particular case (most outrageous yet, hard to do worse) and in general (clear implication of lots of earlier strikingly outrageous rejections). Therefore, he is not uniformly uncritical of Apple. -- Unless you're suggesting that he said that with the intention of issuing a retraction to make Apple look even better, and that his later comment wasn't (as he claimed) precipitated by getting an email from Phil Schiller responding to what he'd said? Don't get me wrong: it's clear that John Gruber is on the whole very, very enthusiastic about Apple and their products. I would not look to him for unbiased commentary on anything Apple-related. But that is not at all the same thing as being prepared to defend anything "regardless of morality", which is the accusation heresy made above and which still seems to me quite un-called-for.