8 ms·
Gizmodo editor Brian Lam's email to Steve Jobs
- fuzzmeister 16y ago"Steve Jobs himself called Gizmodo editorial director Brian Lam to personally request that Gizmodo return the iPhone to Apple" I imagine not going volcanic on that call was the hardest thing Steve Jobs has ever done.
- rbanffy 16y agoI was going to mention when Jobs left Apple to create NeXT but creating the company that now is Apple is more or less going nuclear.
- rbanffy 16y agoI know you may not agree current Apple is NeXT, but: - Apple makes beautiful computers - ... that run a descendant of NeXTSTEP - ... with development tools that are direct descendants of the NeXT tools (down to the use of Objective-C) Apple is a well funded NeXT. Jobs turned the post-Jobs Apple into NeXT 2.0 And that's a high compliment both to him and to Apple. Nobody would like to be 90's Apple.
- josefresco 16y agoYou think "going volcanic" is a un-common occurrence for Jobs? For some reason I would think it happens to him daily, and unfortunately it essentially means Job's is a giant asshole. A very, very, very successful rich and powerful asshole, but an asshole nonetheless. Love the fact that Brian had the stones to not take Steve's call that day.
- infinite8s 16y agoIt's pretty easy to not take a call. I would praise his stones a lot more if he had taken Steve's call.
- martythemaniak 16y ago"Shady email"? How about a post title without the idiotic editorializing?
- ekanes 16y agoShady is right. I'm surprised he had the audacity to write some of this stuff.. "I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me." wait for it... wait for it... Gizmodo: "WE FOUND THE NEXT IPHONE!"
- frossie 16y agoShady is right. In fact one could say it is perilously close to blackmail.
- smallblacksun 16y ago"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer "extortion". The "X" makes it sound cool."
- anigbrowl 16y agoI think he meant: 'it would hurt sales [for Apple] to say this is the next iphone.'
- randall 16y agoYeah, I don't really see this as shady. Disagree with the headline for sure.
- mattlanger 16y agoHow about calling out headline editorializing in a more civil manner?
- anigbrowl 16y agotl;dr from the affidavit: [Suspected CA penal code violations by Chen] 496(a) - Buy or receive stolen property (felony) 499c(b)(3) - Without authority make [photographic copy of] a trade secret (felony) 594(b)(1) Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400 (felony) Gray Powell last saw the phone when he put it in his bag on the floor, which was subsequently knocked over. He left with his uncle at closing time, unaware of his loss. A drunk guy gave the device to Hogan in the belief that it was his. Hogan took it home and realized it was worth money. Next day, he and a roommate found Gray Powell on LinkedIn and Hogan recognized him from the previous evening in the bar. Hogan removed the stickers with serial numbers. Gizmodo, via Chen, paid Hogan $8500 or $7500, including $5000 in cash, and promised a bonus if Apple launched a phone by July and it was the same device. Chen damaged the phone during his teardown, rendering it inoperable. Gizmodo published their story on 4/19. Hogan's roommate called Apple the same day and informed them of Hogan's possession and plans to sell it. Gizmodo editor Brian Lam refused a telephone request from Steve jobs to return the device, demanding a written confirmation from Apple. When police attempted to contact Hogan and his other roommate (not the informant), they tried to destroy evidence by throwing away Hogan's computer and SD cards, all of which were later found, along with the phone stickers. Hogan's roommate was arrested on unrelated outstanding warrants. ... On the facts in the affidavit, it looks bad for Gizmodo/Gawker. Admittedly, I've said that since the outset. Much depends on who authorized payment and how, and what Chen was told by his supervisor(s) about his legal position, if anything. Edit: corrected an inaccuracy about when the roommate called Apple, which I had put in the wrong paragraph.
- maukdaddy 16y agoDo we get an apology from all the Gizmodo apologists who ran around with pitchforks and torches against Apple? edit: To all the people who screamed that Apple was just being an evil corporation when they executed a search warrant: Hogan's roommate cooperated fully with authorities and assisted them when Hogan and an acquaintance removed several pieces of evidence from his apartment. The evidence, which included a desktop computer, USB flash drive and memory card, and stickers from the iPhone prototype, were found in a church, under a bush, and in a gas station parking lot.
- fleitz 16y agoWow. What a seriously damaging email. Has this guy not heard of lunch?
- potatolicious 16y agoThis is Gizmodo we're talking about - the depth of their talents include things like griefing a conference by walking around with universal remotes turning people's presentation screens off, and inserting puns into technology news. Extortion and coercion are clearly not their strength, though they seemed to think it was :)
- pwhelan 16y agoI can't wait for them to do a story on Blackwater/Xe.
- CamperBob 16y agoI'd rather have Blackwater pissed at me than Jobs. I can deal with being gunned down in an alley by mercenaries, but the idea of landing on Jobs's personal shit list is just plain scary. There's a great line in The Usual Suspects: "How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?" Lam must have thought that was a rhetorical question when he wrote that email. I'm sure he thinks different now.
- infinite8s 16y agoYeah, because being gunned down in an alleyway is much better than being indicted on counts of grand larceny and trade secret appropriation. Geez, have some perspective!!
- anigbrowl 16y agoIt does seem as if they relied on their wide readership as insurance against legal trouble, to the point of making multiple public postings undermining their own (legal) position. I wonder whether the investigation continues, or whether Apple have requested the DA's office not to file charges and the DA has agreed. As prosecutors objected to the unsealing of the warrant, I guess the former.
- jbrennan 16y agoIt certainly sounds shady to me. What I can't believe is Apple would even bend to Gizmodo by sending them the publishable letter. It surprises me because I can't imagine Gizmodo having any right to withhold the phone from its rightful owner (Apple). Like "Oh we have your missing property, and we'd love to give it back, but you have to do something for us first". I don't know the legal system, but that just can't be right.
- tptacek 16y agoAt a certain point they probably have to do whatever they can to mitigate damages. Because they expect this stuff to get reviewed carefully in civil court.
- mirkules 16y agoTo give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe Gizmodo was asking for proof that it was actually Apple's phone before they give it back. It would have (almost) been ok to state "give me proof." Instead, he rambled on about profits, and how this might hurt Apple, etc, which is pretty damning evidence IMHO - IANAL though.
- MWinther 16y agoThat's quite some benefit you've got there. The letter doesn't seem to be more proof than Steve calling and asking for his stuff back whilst gritting his teeth. It could be fake Steve calling, but having it sent to Apple, c/o Steve Jobs, 1 Infinite Loop should put it in the owner's hands.
- jbrennan 16y agoAh, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.
- mirkules 16y agoIf I find a cell phone, I'm not going to give it away to the first person who comes forward about the "lost phone ad". I'm going to ask the person 20 questions to make sure it's really their phone (what color, brand, etc). If you look at this "at just the right light" you could almost see it... until the editor went on about profits, etc. It's an apple-branded phone ffs. The Gawker editor clearly dug a hole for himself with that email, and Jobs was right to send in the dogs (as much as I hate to admit it)
- ashishbharthi 16y agoI can't believe he just wrote that to Steve Jobs. No wonder Apple reacted the way they did. Gizmodo/Gawker is in big trouble.
- frou_dh 16y agoI like to imagine a clenched fist and an utterance of 'crush them like insects' coming soon after in the story.
- abstractbill 16y agoYes, the phrase "Right now, we have nothing to lose." in particular stood out to me from the email - I think the author was being insufficiently imaginative.
- raganwald 16y agoI have to thank you, "insufficiently imaginative" is one of the phrases I am going to remember for a very long time.
- BRadmin 16y agoI quite like "sufficiently unimaginative" as well.
- js2 16y agoI like “failure of imagination” myself: The phrase failure of imagination has been used to describe the cause of the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. The term was attributed to astronaut Frank Borman, speaking at the Apollo 1 investigation hearings (dramatized in the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon in 1998.) — wikipedia
- FluidDjango 16y agoAnd how could any serious business person not want to CYA enough to be in touch with his own lawyer before trying to pull this publicity stunt?
- maukdaddy 16y agoWhat dumbass thinks email is off the record?! Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
- mikeryan 16y ago"off the record" has a fairly specific meaning(s) in journalism, none of which mean "never to be seen or read by anyone"
- Elepsis 16y agoWhen you exchange mail with journalists (yeah, yeah, have the argument about whether Gizmodo staff are journalists elsewhere) it's fairly common for them to clarify when they will not plan to directly quote a reply you send to them in a story.
- maukdaddy 16y agoIf you want something off the record with journalists you CALL THEM. E-mail is never, EVER, off the record.
- rbanffy 16y agoMy phone can record every conversation that goes through it. I suspect any modern phone can do that.
- qq66 16y agoBut recordings of those calls are not always legal, and when they are legal to create, they are not always legal to use in court. There are much stricter laws around phone recordings than emails (because laws take half a century to change, and email's only been in wide use for 25)
- tokenadult 16y agoMy state follows the federal rule that EITHER party to a telephone conversation may record the entire conversation. What is admissible in court as evidence may not be as broad (in a particular case) as what evidence can be gathered by either party, but as I just mentioned in a comment I posted elsewhere in this thread, a conversation like that between Lam and Jobs can blow up in Lam's face even if the only evidence offered is courtroom testimony by Jobs regarding what Lam spoke, from Jobs's recollection of the conversation.
- luckyland 16y agoBrian Lam: worst poker face in the history of tech 'journalism'?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jkincaid 16y agoCheck out the story, starting on page 16 of the embedded Scribd doc in this article, of the police making contact with the guys who found the phone. They allegedly tried to hide evidence in a church and a bush.
- timcederman 16y agoThis bit made me do a double-take: While in the residence, I observed Hogan utilize a black LG cellular telephone (bearing SN 911 KPFX363699) to make and receive telephone calls. Based upon my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email, and/or text message. I also know that the continued use of the phone would likely overwrite and destroy evidence that currently exists on the phone. Based upon the above facts and the fact that the cellular device was in plain view, I seized the phone as evidence and to prevent any further destruction of the digital evidence. But then Warner seems pretty sketchy: A records check through County Communications revealed two (2) outstanding misdemeanor warrants for Suspect Warner. Warner was subsequently arrested and handcuffed by Deputy Jim Goulart of the Sheriff's Office for the outstanding warrants only. While seated in the back of a patrol car, Warner made a spontaneous statement to Det. Josh McFall that he knew where the missing flash drive was located. Det. McFall read a Miranda Advisement to Warner and Warner waived his rights. Warner subsequently directed us to a bush located on the north side of Harding Ave at the intersection of Lancaster Way, Redwood City. In the bush, I located a 512 MB Memorex thumb drive and a 1GB Lexar Media compact flash card. The Lexar 1GB flash card appeared to be of the same type that would be utilized by the previously mentioned and seized Canon SLR camera. At approximately 0230 hours, I went to the Chevron Gas Station located at 585 Whipple Avenue in Redwood City. I conducted a search of the premises and located the missing Apple prototype sticker in the parking lot near the entrance And this line was another odd one. I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued.
- bbatsell 16y ago"Pray" is a legal term. See definition (b) here: http://www.lawyers.com/glossary/pray.html http://www.lawyers.com/glossary/pray.html
- gruseom 16y agoAs in the phrase "pray tell". I had no idea the archaic meaning survives in legalese. I wonder what other pieces of Middle English are floating in there.
- indi3fan 16y agoNot to mitigate Brian Lam's douchiness. But while Apple's implicit filter on the media via "access journalism" might not be quite as blatant, it is far more evil.
- raganwald 16y agoLet me see if I have this straight. It's alleged that Mr. Hogan was handed the phone in the bar by somebody else who thought it belonged to Mr. Hogan. Mr. Hogan then removed the phone, which didn't belong to him, from the bar, premises which didn't belong to him, without informing employees of the establishment where the phone was found and handed to him. In what sense did Mr. Hogan "find" the phone? I have previously suggested that removing a chattel that doesn't belong to you from property that doesn't belong to you is theft. Hearing these allegations doesn't change my view in any way. In the hypothetical case that someone hands you something that doesn't belong to you or to them, the correct thing to do on the spot is to refuse. Accepting something that doesn't belong to you is already wrong. The simplest and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "Not mine, but thanks."
- catch23 16y agoI think everyone assumed he "found" the phone... until now. Previously we didn't have the whole story, so we just gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt.
- raganwald 16y ago> gave Hogan the benefit of the doubt. I feel for Mr. Hogan and Mr. Lam. Of course, none of these allegations have been proven in court, so I have no idea what they actually did or did not do. But my short time on this ball of rock and water has taught me that when people support you only to discover that you were a blackguard all along, their goodwill becomes countered by an equal and opposite reaction of contempt. The people who shrugged their shoulders initially are probably still shrugging. But I predict that many of those who stood up and defended Mr. Hogan's and Mr. Lam's actions will swing to become their most vocal critics if these allegations are borne out. Nobody wants to feel like their good nature and trust has been abused, even if indirectly.
- guelo 16y agoI hate the general journalism bashing attitude being taken here. What Gizmodo did is unquestionably good for society as a whole, regardless of the legal technicalities. Apple tries to maximize their profits by duping their customers. In the affidavit the Apple lawyer complains to the detective about all the sales they're going to lose when people find out about the new phone and don't buy the old model. But those lost sales are ill-gotten gains. That money comes out of the pockets of ill-informed customers that would not make the purchase if they had all the facts available to them. It is exactly this kind of market manipulation that a free press helps protect us from. When a journalist writes a bad review or tells you that there are better deals elsewhere, he is "hurting overall sales and negatively effecting earnings" of that company, but it is benefiting consumers and society as a whole, and creating better more efficient markets. Legally there might be some dispute, mainly because of the BS "trade secret" laws written by businesses for businesses, but morally I side 100% with Gizmodo's right to uncover and report the truth. On a side note, the idea that cops can go around "seizing" cell phones and cameras without even having warrant is disgusting. And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of".
- krelbel 16y ago"And he doesn't even want the property returned, at the end of the affidavit he invokes some surely insane law to have the property "disposed of"." Wow. Three seconds of research would have told you that this "insane law" does discuss the disposal of Chen's property... back to Chen. He's asking that as a courtesy to Chen, to make sure he gets his stuff back as soon as possible. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=01001-02000&file=1407-1413 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen...
- guelo 16y agoOK, looks like I was wrong about that last line.
- bmalicoat 16y agoBy your logic almost all of any company's revenue is ill-gotten gains. There is almost always an update or refresh to a product line in the pipeline. Consumers could always wait to get something better and cheaper. Apple are not preying on uninformed customers, they are selling a product to a consumer who wants that product as-is, if they didn't want the product they would not buy it.
- zaidf 16y agoGreat example of when you DON'T put shit in writing! Take note, fellas.
- tokenadult 16y agoTake note that if each man had been on the telephone, later recalling what was said, or perhaps taking notes during the conversation, Lam would have been in just as much trouble if all those things were said. The only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence. A finder of fact at trial could still believe Jobs over Lam even if nothing were put in writing.
- zaidf 16y agoThe only difference putting it in writing makes is improving the indisputability of the evidence IMO indisputability is a HUGE deal.
- aresant 16y agoIt's hard for me to believe that Bran Lam would feel invincible enough to write that response to Jobs, who is well known for going ballistic to end all ballistic when he gets wound up, without Denton’s hand directly at his back . . . What's missing is how much of this unfolding debacle (including the letter) was approved directly by Nick Denton?
- jsz0 16y agoIt seems Brian Lam has a little inferiority complex here. He wants to use the tactics of a tabloid and get the respect and access of the WSJ and NYT. The interesting part to me is Jobs said a few months ago he read Gizmodo. That's a pretty big nod of respect and legitimacy yet Brian Lam seems to have wanted even more validation from Apple. It almost sounds like he was trolling for an unreasonable PR gift from Apple or some other grand gesture. It would probably be unreasonable to prod or extort for equal access much less special privileges. Gizmodo just isn't that important compared to the WSJ and NYT. For the record I'm coming from the perspective of not being offended or upset Gizmodo perused this story aggressively. They're a tabloid. That's what they do. If you want real journalism go somewhere else. I'm more offended that they would try to extort Apple in an attempt to get special access. This e-mail reads like someone carefully skirting the line of blackmail. That makes it a much bigger issue than simply trade secrets.
- mambodog 16y agoI know this is O/T, but I'm finding it incredibly aggravating that I have to put my mouse in the border of the page to scroll the article, lest the Scribd Flash box steal my mousewheel movements... I'm guessing this is to do with the OSX Flash plugin's lack of internal mousewheel support.