Support NeoGAF

[Jet Grind Radio!]

Holy hell, wow. I haven't been following this thread too much. Just the initial reveal, and then the whole "found in a bar" thing. But, damn. Shit's crazy now.

 

[KHarvey16]

:lol Not that I'm buying this concept, but any "lost revenue" would be made up in eventual 4G iPhone sales.

I hope you're not responsible for money.

 

[scorcho]

You can roll in whomever you want, but the bottom line is that this is a multi-million dollar hit to the industry of lost revenue. Apple and AT&T included.

that's not the bottom line since it'll be virtually impossible to gauge whether this drop is due to deferred purchases considering the likely record sales this device will have.

it's just as easy to argue that device will hit HTC/Palm/RIM/etc. as hard as Apple now, but without the luxury of sales actually being postponed instead of outright lost.

 

[Gary Whitta]

From - EFF Lawyer: Seizure of Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Violates State and Federal Law



So, if I'm reading this right - even if a felony was comitted, (i.e. purchasing a 'stolen' phone), Gizmodo is in the clear since it was done to break the story in the first place. Or at least, the Warrant isn't legal?

I mean, I'm not a big fan of Gizmodo after reading everything here, but it seems like the case might not be so cut and dried as everyone is making it out to be.

But it wasn't receipt of information, it was the purchase of stolen property. Seems like there would be a distinction there.

 

[numble]

From - EFF Lawyer: Seizure of Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Violates State and Federal Law



So, if I'm reading this right - even if a felony was comitted, (i.e. purchasing a 'stolen' phone), Gizmodo is in the clear since it was done to break the story in the first place. Or at least, the Warrant isn't legal?

I mean, I'm not a big fan of Gizmodo after reading everything here, but it seems like the case might not be so cut and dried as everyone is making it out to be.

It all goes down to the legal argument of whether the phone qualifies as "information" or something is. This is why even the EFF parses it by emphasizing the "information" argument.

According to the San Mateo DA, they're investigating that legal claim before delving into the seized materials.

 

[scotcheggz]

It's obviously not just an iPhone because gizmodo paid five grand for it and the reveal of the unit on their website got over two million hits.

It was big news and now that the story of how they got it is becoming more clear, it seems like some laws were broken in obtaining it. It's not rocket science.

I know all of that, but when you step back, look at it honestly, can't you see that this is all just a little bit sad for all parties involved?

Apple going all sci-ops, gizmodo paying 5K, 2 million views... I just feel it is all a bit too much of a lather over something that is essentially just a bit of tech that a lot of people are already familiar with, with a few revisions. On one hand I understand all this jazz, on the other I'm completely at a loss.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Same people arguing at the same other people over the same topic for years. We've picked sides and it's obvious some of you will just argue yours forever no matter how uninformed it is. Especially in this thread. None of us know the law, so let's wait to see what people who know their shit have to say.

 

[Tobor]

that's not the bottom line since it'll be virtually impossible to gauge whether this drop is due to deferred purchases considering the likely record sales this device will have.

it's just as easy to argue that device will hit HTC/Palm/RIM/etc. as hard as Apple now, but without the luxury of sales actually being postponed instead of outright lost.

You're right, that's for the Judge to decide.

EDIT: or what Liu Kang said. :lol

 

[SnakeXs]

I know all of that, but when you step back, look at it honestly, can't you see that this is all just a little bit sad for all parties involved?

Apple going all sci-ops, gizmodo paying 5K, 2 million views... I just feel it is all a bit too much of a lather over something that is essentially just a bit of tech that a lot of people are already familiar with, with a few revisions. On one hand I understand all this jazz, on the other I'm completely at a loss.

One of the largest products of the year, the biggest "leak" in Apple history, and a huge scandal... and it surprises you?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

From - EFF Lawyer: Seizure of Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Violates State and Federal Law



So, if I'm reading this right - even if a felony was comitted, (i.e. purchasing a 'stolen' phone), Gizmodo is in the clear since it was done to break the story in the first place. Or at least, the Warrant isn't legal?

I mean, I'm not a big fan of Gizmodo after reading everything here, but it seems like the case might not be so cut and dried as everyone is making it out to be.

I agree with your analysis.

Apple may drag them through court to make them spend some of the money they earned at Apple's expense on defense...but Giz probably won't get more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[LCfiner]

I know all of that, but when you step back, look at it honestly, can't you see that this is all just a little bit sad for all parties involved?

Apple going all sci-ops, gizmodo paying 5K, 2 million views... I just feel it is all a bit too much of a lather over something that is essentially just a bit of tech that a lot of people are already familiar with, with a few revisions. On one hand I understand all this jazz, on the other I'm completely at a loss.

On Monday it was a big tech story. That's it. It would have died out by now if no other details had come out.

But with all this gossip about stolen property and legal action, the story has legs now and it's about something entirely different than it was last week.

Also, compared to Lindsey Lohan news that gets more attention on a daily basis than this, this shit is way more interesting to me. It's not hard to see why this would get people talking.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Why are you arguing with me? I never said it would affect Apple and AT&T exclusively; it will affect the whole industry and I already said as much. As tobor pointed out, all it takes is 2000 iPhone holdouts to cost over $1m

The value of this phone to the industry is in the millions of dollars.

 

[boredJonathan]

But it wasn't receipt of information, it was the purchase of stolen property. Seems like there would be a distinction there.

Agreed - it seems like the original idea of having bought 'access' to the device would have been better legal ground to stand on than having outright bought the device. Although, I do see the grey area here that Gizmodo will likely try to work. It's not much wiggle room though.

It all goes down to the legal argument of whether the phone qualifies as "information" or something is. This is why even the EFF parses it by emphasizing the "information" argument.

According to the San Mateo DA, they're investigating that legal claim before delving into the seized materials.

But then this - why issue the warrant before the legal claim is decided? It seems like, if buying the device/"information" fall under that protection than won't San Mateo/Apple have egg on its face for fucking up the whole thing? I'm not educated in these matters, obviously, but I think it would look fairly bad for Apple/San Mateo if the warrant was ruled illegal and they had to return everything. It would seem to put the whole idea of litigation into doubt.

And then you've got the idea this case is becoming the test bed for bloggers as journalists. Again, I've no love for Gizmodo - but I'd rather they win out in this case to protect future, more legitimate reporting at different sites.

 

[numble]

TechCrunch with the story of the DA evaluating the legal claim:

I just spoke to Stephen Wagstaffe, Chief Deputy at San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office, who told me that nobody has yet been charged in the case, and at this point it is “just an investigation”. He says the investigation is “looking at any hand that touched or had something to do with this phone” but that the investigation is not currently targeting either Gawker or the person who originally found the phone — rather, police are collecting every fact they can to present to the DA, who will then make a decision.

With respect to the removal of Chen’s property, Wagstaffe says that the prosecutor on the case felt that the shield protection laws did not apply, so the raid was executed. However, after Gizmodo’s attorneys suggested some reasons why they believe Chen should be protected, the investigation has come to a bit of a pause. The DA will now reevaluate whether those shield laws do apply, and will not begin going through Chen’s possessions until they’ve reached a decision in the next few days (he says they’re in no hurry).

When I asked if it was typical for the DA to evaluate the relevance of these shield laws after removing evidence, Wagstaffe did concede that it was unusual. Which makes the situation extremely odd— it should have been readily apparent that Gawker would defend its actions using this shield law defense, why put the brakes on after the fact?

California’s shield laws protect journalists from having to turn over their sources and unpublished information they’ve collected as part of their reporting. However, Gizmodo could be found to have committed a crime when they paid the phone’s finder for the device.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/ip...ers-gizmodo-shield-law-defense/#ixzz0mGJJycgI

 

[KHarvey16]

The abuse of these important protections is the threat I'm worried about. If it's used in this way that opens it up to be argued against and changed.

 

[scorcho]

because even focusing on a macro, industry-wide level sales lost now will be made up the next quarter. it's self-contained. it doesn't follow that someone not buying a 3Gs because of the looming v4 iPhone will buy a Pony instead, and forget about buying a smartphone because of the sunk cost in maintaining said Pony.

tobor: how so? at this point the case seems hinged more on stolen property and trade secrets than lost revenue.

 

[scotcheggz]

One of the largest products of the year, the biggest "leak" in Apple history, and a huge scandal... and it surprises you?

It doesn't surprise me at all. You said it yourself though, it's a product. It might be a big one, but it's just a product. It is essentially unimportant.

Oh who the fuck am i kidding.

 

[Pterion]

It doesn't surprise me at all. You said it yourself though, it's a product. It might be a big one, but it's just a product. It is essentially unimportant.

Oh who the fuck am i kidding.

Apple, serious business.

 

[KHarvey16]

It doesn't surprise me at all. You said it yourself though, it's a product. It might be a big one, but it's just a product. It is essentially unimportant.

Oh who the fuck am i kidding.

You didn't happen to realize you were on the internet, posting on a forum of thousands of members dedicated to VIDEO GAMES, did you?

 

[Tobor]

because even focusing on a macro, industry-wide level sales lost now will be made up the next quarter. it's self-contained. it doesn't follow that someone not buying a 3Gs because of the looming v4 iPhone will buy a Pony instead, and forget about buying a smartphone because of the sunk cost in maintaining said Pony.

tobor: how so? at this point the case seems hinged more on stolen property and trade secrets than lost revenue.

True, I'm just thinking ahead. Lost revenue is how you would seek damages in an eventual trial(if it get's that far). It's the only way to put a number on it.

 

[scotcheggz]

You didn't happen to realize you were on the internet, posting on a forum of thousands of members dedicated to VIDEO GAMES, did you?

:lol

 

[KHarvey16]

They can easily produce the figures for the money they've spent due solely to this incident. It's gonna be a lot of money without ever having to consider revenue.

 

[PSGames]

This is so dumb. None of this would have happened if Apple hadn't lost the damn phone in the first place. Gizmodo is not in any way responsible for any lost sales.

 

[LCfiner]

I agree with scorcho about this case currently being about stolen property and not lost revenue. Maybe apple will go for the lost revenue angle but right now it seems like the authorities are only involved to look into the sale of the phone.

Talking about how much money apple lost is really premature. They may never bother to take that angle in a court case.

 

[wenis]

WHAT IS GOING ON.

I look away for one second, and Apple has the police raid some dude's house, and tubgirl hits Kotaku or something? Can some kind gent summarize this thread?

California is turning into an Apple state. I hear Jobs made a call to the governor and we are getting the state flag changed soon. This is all hush hush, but I have a prototype of the flag saved on my PC...

It's just a prototype so obviously it's going to change at some point.

 

[RyanDG]

From - EFF Lawyer: Seizure of Gizmodo Editor’s Computers Violates State and Federal Law



So, if I'm reading this right - even if a felony was comitted, (i.e. purchasing a 'stolen' phone), Gizmodo is in the clear since it was done to break the story in the first place. Or at least, the Warrant isn't legal?

I mean, I'm not a big fan of Gizmodo after reading everything here, but it seems like the case might not be so cut and dried as everyone is making it out to be.

I'm no legal expert, but I think EFF may be over-reaching here (god bless them for protecting my privacy rights online, but they have a specific objective in this matter).

http://www.rcfp.org/privilege/index.php?op=browse&state=CA

However, there are limits on the protection of California's state shield laws. Because the state laws only prevent a finding of contempt, they provide minimal protection to reporters who are parties to litigation. Moreover, although California's state shield laws are absolute in civil cases where a party seeks information from a non-party reporter, in criminal cases the defendant's right to a fair trial must be balanced against the reporter's rights.

The question here is not one about contempt, but rather a seperate, potentially felony matter. If Gizmodo are the ones being investigated (rather than the original source of the iPhone), it seems pretty clear that the shield laws would not protect this warrant (even going by EFF's several links that they post that all mention protection against contempt).

The shield law is not a blanket law to protect reporters from crimes committed in the process of investigation. At least from my limited, non-expert, pseudo legal-GAF force opinion.

 

[Jet Grind Radio!]

California is turning into an Apple state. I hear Jobs made a call to the governor and we are getting the state flag changed soon. This is all hush hush, but I have a prototype of the flag saved on my PC...

It's just a prototype so obviously it's going to change at some point.

http://i43.tinypic.com/eao64m.jpg[/MG][/QUOTE]
What the hell, man? I left that at the bar, and I was trying to find it.

 

[wenis]

What the hell, man? I left that at the bar, and I was trying to find it.

 

[mattiewheels]

This is so dumb. None of this would have happened if Apple hadn't lost the damn phone in the first place. Gizmodo is not in any way responsible for any lost sales.

True. But the guy who found it could've left it with the bar he was at, or even just kept it for himself. Both those would've been a reasonable end to this. But he sold it for thousands and he and the website crossed a huge line.

 

[AstroLad]

I'm no legal expert, but I think EFF may be over-reaching here (god bless them for protecting my privacy rights online, but they have a specific objective in this matter).

they have a specific objective in every matter

 

[minus_273]

Apple, serious business.

actually, yes.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Apple is, quite literally, a serious business.

 

[Technosteve]

Man apple leaked the phone in a bar to see who would fuck up. It's all a game, the deadly game of you fuck me I fuck you and your family. Old game played since the dawn of internets.

 

[teiresias]

I may find Apple annoying from purely technical perspectives at points, but I find Gizmodo and Denton utterly reprehensible, so I'm all for them being taken down and Gizmodo expunged from the internet. God speed Apple, God speed.

 

[Walshicus]

I may find Apple annoying from purely technical perspectives at points, but I find Gizmodo and Denton utterly reprehensible, so I'm all for them being taken down and Gizmodo expunged from the internet. God speed Apple, God speed.

Why so?

 

[Technosteve]

Why so?

They the ny post of internets.

 

[Anti Green]

The thing is that it's not a box of government documents detailing some secret plot to do something that's against the will of the people that Gizmodo paid to publish. They purchased a stolen device (and how could they not know that it was stolen) and published a story about it. That's got to be violating Apple's right to keep trade secrets.

 

[rex64]

I have a prototype of the flag saved on my PC...[/IMG]

YOU'LL GET RAID!!

 

[gcubed]

the shield laws only allow gawker to not reveal their source who committed a crime to get them information, it doesnt allow them to commit a crime. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Davidion]

This is so dumb. None of this would have happened if Apple hadn't lost the damn phone in the first place. Gizmodo is not in any way responsible for any lost sales.

:lol What?

Go pick up a lost wallet and start flashing the contents and ID of the person who lost it around the internet and make sure everyone knows you have it. See what happens.

 

[Interfectum]

This is so dumb. None of this would have happened if Apple hadn't lost the damn phone in the first place. Gizmodo is not in any way responsible for any lost sales.

:lol wow

 

[LCfiner]

The thing is that it's not a box of government documents detailing some secret plot to do something that's against the will of the people that Gizmodo paid to publish. They purchased a stolen device (and how could they not know that it was stolen) and published a story about it. That's got to be violating Apple's right to keep trade secrets.

I've read that the whole Trade Secrets law requires that the company keep those secrets properly secured. bringing a prototype iphone to a bar, even in camouflage casing, may mean that Apple didn't take those proper steps.

so there may not be any trade secret claims.

there is still the whole stolen property angle, of course.

 

[kennah]

This is so dumb. None of this would have happened if Apple hadn't lost the damn phone in the first place. Gizmodo is not in any way responsible for any lost sales.

Or if the person who found it returned it to Apple.

 

[DrEvil]

I'm calling it now (since this is now an internet soap opera):

Officials will find "questionable" pornographic material on Chen's computers.
But, gizmodo will get their way and have all evidence removed by way of that "journalist" clause.

 

[neojubei]

:lol wow

Did PSgames actually write that? wow.

 

[lunarworks]

I'm calling it now (since this is now an internet soap opera):

Officials will find "questionable" pornographic material on Chen's computers.
But, gizmodo will get their way and have all evidence removed by way of that "journalist" clause.

The thing with the journalist clause it that it's there to protect sources from retribution, not to protect some opportunist guy who found (or possibly lifted) something very valuable in a bar and sold it to a journalist for big bucks.

The guy who found it claims he tried to call Apple technical support. If he knew what he was dealing with, and obviously he did, he could have e-mailed Steve Jobs directly (his e-mail address is publicly known), or brought it to an Apple store. Either of those routes would have had direct results, and probably some token of gratitude. Now he's possibly up shit creek.

Edit: Of course, this would be completely different if he had found a folder, for example, that had information on Apple killing babies for fun and profit. That's a whole different story.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

The thing with the journalist clause it that it's there to protect sources from retribution, not to protect some opportunist guy who found (or possibly lifted) something very valuable in a bar and sold it to a journalist for big bucks.

The guy who found it claims he tried to call Apple technical support. If he knew what he was dealing with, and obviously he did, he could have e-mailed Steve Jobs directly (his e-mail address is publicly known), or brought it to an Apple store. Either of those routes would have had direct results, and probably some token of gratitude. Now he's possibly up shit creek.

Edit: Of course, this would be completely different if he had found a folder, for example, that had information on Apple killing babies for fun and profit. That's a whole different story.

That would have been funny, but it would still leak from them.

 

[SteveMeister]

Wait -- so Gizmodo is a news organization? Its bloggers are reporters? I thought it was just a blog. Does this mean that anyone with a blog is also protected by shield laws? What makes a blogger a journalist, where is that line drawn? When are blogs going to be held to the same journalistic and ethical standards as traditional media?

 

[lunarworks]

That would have been funny, but it would still leak from them.

Ask for the manager, hand it directly to him, and tell him you're e-mailing Steve Jobs to let him know. It's like invoking the name of Sauron. The manager will be scared shitless and will seal it in the nearest safe he can find.

Unless you want it leaked, of course... which is kinda understandable.

 

[AirBrian]

Ask for the manager, hand it directly to him, and tell him you're e-mailing Steve Jobs to let him know. It's like invoking the name of Sauron. The manager will be scared shitless and will seal it in the nearest safe he can find.

Unless you want it leaked, of course... which is kinda understandable.

I wonder if the store manager would've even knew it was real.

Trying to get a hold of Steve Jobs would've been the funniest route. Could you imagine the phone operator after hearing, "Um, yeah, I found the new iPhone and I'd like to talk to Stevey, please."