3 ms·

It's very hard to argue anything is "clearly implied," because the reader's bias going into the reading has a big effect on how they interpret what is implied.

It's very hard to argue anything is "clearly implied," because the reader's bias going into the reading has a big effect on how they interpret what is implied. And, he definitely didn't say anything like "do as we say and you can have your property back." He said he wants Apple to make it clear that it is their phone and that it wasn't a marketing stunt.

Pheter 16y ago
I copied that directly from your comment which you have since edited. Why don't you stop being deceptive? Edit: Wow, you just edited that comment too. If you are going to edit your comments so heavily could you please leave what you originally said at the top of the message.
- briansmith 16y ago
  I did edit my comment but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "do as we say" because that is not what I think of the situation. FWIW, it is normal for me to go through a couple drafts of my comments on any topic. If you look at my posts on Reddit you will see they almost all have a "*" that shows they were edited, for the same reason. I don't know why some people are so quick to try to find malicious intent in everything.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    Hacker News tries to set a higher standard of discourse than Reddit. In these sorts of threads, it is polite to readers to post After edit: if a comment is substantially edited. I give examples of this in my threads. The possibility of posts being edited is one reason why I always select-copy-and-paste to quote text from other people's comments here, to avoid introducing misquotations through my own typing mistakes.
tptacek 16y ago
You two are arguing from opposing hyperboles. The mail wasn't prima facie extortion, but neither was it a good-faith offer to return Apple's property.
- briansmith 16y ago
  I agree it wasn't extortion and I agree it wasn't an offer to give Apple the phone either.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You're threading an interesting needle here, between saying they weren't offering to give Apple the phone, while (in earlier comments on this thread) saying they weren't refusing to return the phone. What's the word you would use for their action in response to Apple's request?
    - briansmith 16y ago
      He wasn't offering to return the phone and he wasn't refusing to return the phone. He was trying (successfully) to get Apple to acknowledge that they lost the phone, that they want it back, and that it wasn't a marketing stunt, all in a way that Gizmodo can report. I guess his point at the end was "you thought you could blackball us, but we showed you we don't need your help." Not very classy, IMO, but smugness isn't a crime. I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about the legal ramifications of the case for many reasons. I am trying as best I can to interpret the email literally and objectively, because I think that's the only way that it will be interpreted in court in any future court cases on this matter.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Wait. What? Apple asked for the phone back. If I take your phone away, and you ask for it back, and my response doesn't offer to give the phone back to you, what's the thing I can be doing other than refusing to return the phone?
        briansmith 16y ago
        It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found an iPhone (or bag of cash) on the street and posted a "Found iPhone" (or "Found Bag of Cash") ad on Craigslist. I bet somebody--probably multiple people--would reply that it is theirs pretty quickly. Are you going to ask them to verify in some way that it is theirs? If so, would your request for verification constitute a refusal to return it to the rightful owner? I don't think so. In particular, if you "returned" it to someone who wasn't the rightful owner, the rightful owner could sue you and/or worse, so it's in your best interest to verify that you are returning it to the correct people. I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)

Pheter 16y ago

I copied that directly from your comment which you have since edited. Why don't you stop being deceptive? Edit: Wow, you just edited that comment too. If you are going to edit your comments so heavily could you please leave what you originally said at the top of the message.

briansmith 16y ago
I did edit my comment but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "do as we say" because that is not what I think of the situation. FWIW, it is normal for me to go through a couple drafts of my comments on any topic. If you look at my posts on Reddit you will see they almost all have a "*" that shows they were edited, for the same reason. I don't know why some people are so quick to try to find malicious intent in everything.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Hacker News tries to set a higher standard of discourse than Reddit. In these sorts of threads, it is polite to readers to post After edit: if a comment is substantially edited. I give examples of this in my threads. The possibility of posts being edited is one reason why I always select-copy-and-paste to quote text from other people's comments here, to avoid introducing misquotations through my own typing mistakes.

tptacek 16y ago

You two are arguing from opposing hyperboles. The mail wasn't prima facie extortion, but neither was it a good-faith offer to return Apple's property.

briansmith 16y ago
I agree it wasn't extortion and I agree it wasn't an offer to give Apple the phone either.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You're threading an interesting needle here, between saying they weren't offering to give Apple the phone, while (in earlier comments on this thread) saying they weren't refusing to return the phone. What's the word you would use for their action in response to Apple's request?
  - briansmith 16y ago
    He wasn't offering to return the phone and he wasn't refusing to return the phone. He was trying (successfully) to get Apple to acknowledge that they lost the phone, that they want it back, and that it wasn't a marketing stunt, all in a way that Gizmodo can report. I guess his point at the end was "you thought you could blackball us, but we showed you we don't need your help." Not very classy, IMO, but smugness isn't a crime. I am not a lawyer, but I am curious about the legal ramifications of the case for many reasons. I am trying as best I can to interpret the email literally and objectively, because I think that's the only way that it will be interpreted in court in any future court cases on this matter.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Wait. What? Apple asked for the phone back. If I take your phone away, and you ask for it back, and my response doesn't offer to give the phone back to you, what's the thing I can be doing other than refusing to return the phone?
      - briansmith 16y ago
        It is pretty normal to request verification of ownership from somebody who claims to be the rightful owner of something lost. For example, let's say you found an iPhone (or bag of cash) on the street and posted a "Found iPhone" (or "Found Bag of Cash") ad on Craigslist. I bet somebody--probably multiple people--would reply that it is theirs pretty quickly. Are you going to ask them to verify in some way that it is theirs? If so, would your request for verification constitute a refusal to return it to the rightful owner? I don't think so. In particular, if you "returned" it to someone who wasn't the rightful owner, the rightful owner could sue you and/or worse, so it's in your best interest to verify that you are returning it to the correct people. I think one aspect of this case is particularly interesting: I have the impression that the phone was much more likely to be returned by Gizmodo than by the "finder." And, I think Gizmodo paid for access to the phone, knowing that they would have to return it to Apple if it was Apple's. The thing I'm really curious about is whether the court thinks they really "bought" the phone, or whether they paid for temporary access to the phone and agreed to return it to Apple if it was theirs, or whether there's no difference legally. In other words, it seems likely that Gizmodo's payment for the phone enabled and/or accelerated its return to Apple. (Compare it to the case of the other lost iPhone prototype in Vietnam this week, which Apple will almost definitely never get back.)