3 ms·

It 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

It 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 ago
At 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 ago
To 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  Ah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.
  - mirkules 16y ago
    If 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)
- smallblacksun 16y ago
  They needed proof that an unreleased Apple device belonged to Apple? Who else could it possibly have belonged to?

tptacek 16y ago

At 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 ago

To 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 ago
That'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 ago
Ah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.
- mirkules 16y ago
  If 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)
smallblacksun 16y ago
They needed proof that an unreleased Apple device belonged to Apple? Who else could it possibly have belonged to?