4 ms·
He did not say, or even imply "not until." He said it doesn't make sense to give Apple the phone until Apple says that it is officially theirs. But, they didn't
by briansmith 16y ago
He did not say, or even imply "not until." He said it doesn't make sense to give Apple the phone until Apple says that it is officially theirs. But, they didn't refuse to return the phone, conditionally or unconditionally.
- nostromo 16y agoIt seems to me (IANAL) that Gizmodo took on a lot of legal liability in that email. They basically admitted they knew: * the property was in their possession inappropriately * it was a trade secret * it would significantly damage Apple by publishing the story It's also clear that the letter is used to substantiate the story for Gawker's benefit, not because there was any doubt about the legitimacy of the phone. What the hell were they thinking putting all of that in writing?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- glhaynes 16y agoEvery time I imagine him talking to his legal counsel, I see Brian Lam and Dr. Gonzo cruising down a desert road in a red 1971 Chevrolet Impala. “No point in mentioning Steve Jobs. Poor bastard will see him soon enough.”
- rbanffy 16y agoI don't believe they had that much fun, but the quality of the legal advice seems comparable.
- patio11 16y agoWhat the hell were they thinking putting all of that in writing? It was clearly not "The e in email stands for Evidence."
- rbanffy 16y agoThey are press (for some values of "press", at least). They should not take item 3 in consideration. Having your secrets leaked is a risk Apple has factored in their processes.
- tptacek 16y ago"I understand the position you're in, BUT". "Something like that [...] WOULD MAKE UP FOR GIVING THE PHONE BACK RIGHT AWAY". "I want to get the phone back to you ASAP [...] BUT". This was not Apple asking Gizmodo for a favor. Gizmodo had a legal obligation to promptly return the phone.