Support NeoGAF

[LCfiner]

Pretty sure it was a joke man. Calm down, no need to go on a crusade. :lol

I’m not going on a crusade, dude.

I’m just commenting on a bullshit quote - like everyone else on Gaf does for every bullshit quote made by every PR person or public executive from every company.

Why would gizmodo, a blog, be protected under laws for journalists?

They're not journalists.

I think the case can be made that they are journalists. of course, it doesn’t matter since the shield law would only protect the person who gave them information but not gizmodo editors if they committed a crime themselves.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

I’m not going on a crusade, dude.

I’m just commenting on a bullshit quote - like everyone else on Gaf does for every bullshit quote made by every PR person or public executive from every company.

I think he was just applying the quote to Google. Are you saying he's wrong for saying he'd be happy to see it happen? You know him better than he does?

 

[numble]

I think he was just applying the quote to Google. Are you saying he's wrong for saying he'd be happy to see it happen? You know him better than he does?

As much as you know Steve Jobs.

 

[LCfiner]

I think he was just applying the quote to Google. Are you saying he's wrong for saying he'd be happy to see it happen? You know him better than he does?

You know what, maybe Google would be thrilled if their new OS and their new phone and their new ad service and all the things that help them make money and stay ahead of their competition were leaked out early before they were ready to show.

And maybe they’d be really happy that this theoretically leaked information would give a leg up to MS, Apple, Yahoo, RIM and any other company working in fields of advertising, mobile devices and search.

But I find that hard to believe. call me cynical but I think his comment was completely disingenuous.

But, y’know, it’s an easy angle for Google to take. they’ll always have the benefit of openness compared to Apple. They’re running with it.

 

[Burai]

Someone should copy Google's source repository to a USB hard drive and leave it in a bar in Redmond or Sunnyvale and then we'll see just how much they love being open.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

As much as you know Steve Jobs.

As Liu Kang Baking a Pie will attest, I know Jobs like the back of my hand.

You know what, maybe Google would be thrilled if their new OS and their new phone and their new ad service and all the things that help them make money and stay ahead of their competition were leaked out early before they were ready to show.

And maybe they’d be really happy that this theoretically leaked information would give a leg up to MS, Apple, Yahoo, RIM and any other company working in fields of advertising, mobile devices and search.

But I find that hard to believe. call me cynical but I think his comment was completely disingenuous.

But, y’know, it’s an easy angle for Google to take. they’ll always have the benefit of openness compared to Apple. They’re running with it.

It's not like Apple couldn't fix that.

Remember when BGR got their hands on their own Motorola Droid prototype? I don't remember anyone getting into any trouble for that. Then again BGR weren't idiots about the situation...

Someone should copy Google's source repository to a USB hard drive and leave it in a bar in Redmond or Sunnyvale and then we'll see just how much they love being open.

Software and hardware are two different things. Giz never even saw anything about the new iPhone OS software, and even if they did Apple revealed OS 4 months ago.

 

[RyanDG]

I think the case can be made that they are journalists. of course, it doesn’t matter since the shield law would only protect the person who gave them information but not gizmodo editors if they committed a crime themselves.

But here's the thing - the shield law doesn't even technically protect the person who gave them the iPhone. All the shield laws do is prevent Gizmodo (or Chen in this matter) from being held in contempt for refusing to disclose the information. The shield laws prevent the state from issueing warrants for the purpose of determining who provided that information, however it will not protect the person if that information is released.



I really think that bloggers are going to have to wait a while for a true test of shield laws... This one really isn't it.

 

[LCfiner]

Remember when BGR got their hands on their own Motorola Droid prototype? I don't remember anyone getting into any trouble for that. Then again BGR weren't idiots about the situation...

Did BGR buy stolen property? no? then that’s why they didn’t get in trouble for it.

Did Engadget get in trouble for posting pics of this iPhone two days before Gizmodo posted the videos and teardown pics? nope.

the case here with Gizmodo is really unchartered territory. they didn’t pay for info. they didn’t hear info from a source breaking NDA. they bought stolen property. hence, madness, chaos, dogs and cats living together, etc…


edit: @RyanDG.

Oh, I agree completely.

the shield law would only work if gizmodo didn’t buy the phone and only had information from a tipster about some product. of course, in that case there likely would not have been a warrant issued in the first place.

 

[Brera]

Apple's competitors have gained nothing from this. Let's face it, iPhone 4g is not cutting edge no one expected it to be. All the features revealed are available elsewhere and have been for years.

At worst a few more people will hold off buying a 3gs but you would be a fool to get a 3gs right now even without the leak as it's pretty obvious iPhone 4g will be out in the summer. Don't have to be a tech geek to know that!

 

[Zombie James]

Someone should copy Google's source repository to a USB hard drive and leave it in a bar in Redmond or Sunnyvale and then we'll see just how much they love being open.

You do know open source projects are licensed (most of the time), right? Chromium, for example, is licensed under the BSD License. So if Microsoft did find this source code at a bar (they could just as easily download it... right now) they'd be free to use it within the terms of the license, which is actually very, very liberal.

 

[Keylime]

Apple's competitors have gained nothing from this. Let's face it, iPhone 4g is not cutting edge no one expected it to be. All the features revealed are available elsewhere and have been for years.

I don't recall which phones have video conferencing with front facing cameras. This certainly isn't a feature of any mainstream phone I'm aware of.

 

[RyanDG]

Then again BGR weren't idiots about the situation...

This is the crux of the problem that Gizmodo is in right now. Their snarky comments are all public record. Their arguments are pretty much out there in the open. And furthermore, since they are the ones who put the monetary value on the phone - it is their doing that actually makes this a felony case as opposed to a potential misdemeanor. Gizmodo's statement - 'We didn't know it was stolen' is really a poor defense. They knew the phone did not belong to the person they purchased it from, yet they purchased the device anyway. At that point, the appropriation is a crime and Gizmodo has thrown it all out there for everyone to see. Claim ignorance after the fact (even if you give the item back) does not change crime.




In all honesty, if Gizmodo really would've kept things under wraps and set up just the basic facts of the case, I highly doubt they would be in the position that they are in now. It's their flouting of the situation that has opened up the possibility of criminal action, because without the flouting (and open acknowledgement of purchasing a device from a seller who had no business selling it) there would not be enough record out their for any sort of warrants to be issued due to shield law protections.

IE, if Gizmodo would've posted the images, posted the dissection, and left everything else alone, they would have been protected under the shield law as the details of the sale, theft of the device, and shady circumstances would not be present to give law enforcement officials enough evidence to believe Gizmodo may have violated a law in the procurement of the iphone or that Gizmodo even still had the iphone in their position.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Burai]

Software and hardware are two different things.

In what respect when the secrecy of one, the other or both are paramount to the competitive advantages a business holds?

Software is Google's bread and butter. Of course they don't care about hardware leaks - the hardware acts as nothing more than a gateway to their services (aka, the money).

Leak Google's software and they'd get just as pissy as Apple have about their phone.

 

[mightynine]

You do know open source projects are licensed (most of the time), right? Chromium, for example, is licensed under the BSD License. So if Microsoft did find this source code at a bar (they could just as easily download it... right now) they'd be free to use it within the terms of the license, which is actually very, very liberal.

So that's why Google put every step of the development process of the Nexus One online before unveiling it, right?

EDIT: I just don't understand this sense of entitlement some people have concerning Apple. You want to run the place differently, find a way to become CEO. Until then, they don't have to change a damned thing.

 

[Burai]

You do know open source projects are licensed (most of the time), right? Chromium, for example, is licensed under the BSD License. So if Microsoft did find this source code at a bar (they could just as easily download it... right now) they'd be free to use it within the terms of the license, which is actually very, very liberal.

Few (if any) of the services that make Google money are open source.

 

[numble]

IMHO, a big hint that they are considering charging Gizmodo/Chen is that they have not (apparently) gone after Engadget, who also communicated with the seller and had photos of the device given to them. AND if they tried to go after Engadget, the shielddefense would probably be very strong.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Did BGR buy stolen property? no? then that’s why they didn’t get in trouble for it.

Well they never said where they got it from, hence the "not idiots" part. :lol

In what respect when the secrecy of one, the other or both are paramount to the competitive advantages a business holds?

Software is Google's bread and butter. Of course they don't care about hardware leaks - the hardware acts as nothing more than a gateway to their services (aka, the money).

Leak Google's software and they'd get just as pissy as Apple have about their phone.

That wasn't what Rubin said though, which means you agree with him that Google doesn't care if a new Android phone was leaked. You can also take that to mean such a phone would include a new version of Android as well and Google wouldn't be mad.

 

[Zombie James]

So that's why Google put every step of the development process of the Nexus One online before unveiling it, right?

The person I was responding to said source code, not hardware.

 

[numble]

You do know open source projects are licensed (most of the time), right? Chromium, for example, is licensed under the BSD License. So if Microsoft did find this source code at a bar (they could just as easily download it... right now) they'd be free to use it within the terms of the license, which is actually very, very liberal.

Where can I download the source for PageRank?

 

[Zombie James]

Where can I download the source for PageRank?

Ask Stanford University? It's their patent.

edit: Just to clarify, I don't think it's legal to open source work licensed from a patent if the issuer doesn't grant the licensee that right.
edit2: I may be really wrong, I don't know.

 

[neojubei]

Police ID person who found iPhone prototype

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003597-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

 

[numble]

Ask Stanford University? It's their patent.

And Google has an exclusive license to use it. I'm sure they wouldn't be hoping that it's better to have things opened up with it.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Police ID person who found iPhone prototype

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003597-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Of course they would ID them. I had a feeling they already knew who the guy was all along.

Thats another way Gizmodo totally fucked their source. THEY DISCLOSED that the guy called Apple Customer service and even got a ticket opened. Of course his identity would be discovered.

 

[maharg]

And Google has an exclusive license to use it. I'm sure they wouldn't be hoping that it's better to have things opened up with it.

If it's patented, it's already public. That's what a patent is.

The value in pagerank is in the modifications, tweaks, and sheer amount of data that's been run through it to date. Never mind the talent base of people who know how to do those things and are among the only people in the world with the experience to do it with any authority.

Not to say Google wouldn't be annoyed if their codebase for it was released, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either, and probably wouldn't result in any realistic loss of revenue for them. If there's any benefit to it being proprietary, it's that it makes people work to game the system.

All really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, anyways.

 

[Gary Whitta]

The fact that the guy who "found" the phone apparently tried to restore it by plugging it into his room-mate's computer probably made it pretty easy for Apple to identify him.

 

[AstroLad]

Why are we using found in scare quotes was it pickpocketed? It basically was right, because trade secrets.

 

[StopMakingSense]

The fact that the guy who "found" the phone apparently tried to restore it by plugging it into his room-mate's computer probably made it pretty easy for Apple to identify him.

Their prototypes also probably send back GPS data, as well.

 

[dojokun]

Where can I download the source for PageRank?

Are consumers being detrimentally affected by PageRank not being open source?

 

[numble]

Are consumers being detrimentally affected by PageRank not being open source?

With openness comes less secrets.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Knock yourselves out.

 

[dojokun]

With openness comes less secrets.

So how would consumers be affected by the openness of PageRank? Also see above post.

 

[numble]

Knock yourselves out.

That doesn't include the enhancements and modifications made by Google, which Google owns all right, title and interest to, per the Stanford-Google license agreement.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

That doesn't include the enhancements and modifications made by Google, which Google owns all right, title and interest to, per the Stanford-Google license agreement.

No, but modifications don't have to be open. See: HTC Sense.

 

[numble]

No, but modifications don't have to be open. See: HTC Sense.

Google's comments are about things not intended to be open being opened up, ala the iPhone fiasco--he would be happy if a similar thing happened with a product that was not intended to be revealed yet. They are not talking about things that are already controlled or semi-open.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Google's comments are about things not intended to be open being opened up, ala the iPhone fiasco--he would be happy if a similar thing happened with a product that was not intended to be revealed yet. They are not talking about things that are already controlled or semi-open.

OK then.

I don't know what we're talking about anymore. :lol

 

[LCfiner]

OK then.

I don't know what we're talking about anymore. :lol

the same shit we always talk about when you enter an Apple thread, Andrex.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

the same shit we always talk about when you enter an Apple thread, Andrex.

And that is?

 

[LCfiner]

And that is?

ok, I’ll bite.


open systems vs. closed systems.

secrecy vs. public disclosure

cakes vs. pies.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

ok, I’ll bite.


open systems vs. closed systems.

secrecy vs. public disclosure

cakes vs. pies.

Cakes rule. But pies are also good...

And I didn't bring up the PageRank junk.

And personally, open vs. closed is always more interesting than arguing over legal semantics, especially their application to "bloggers" like Gizmodo. But that's just me. ^_^

It'd be boring if every Apple thread was the same Apple fans saying the same thing. Why, it'd be just like that 1984 Apple ad in fact!

 

[jax (old)]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-police-actions-questioned-20100428-tr2g.html

just read about the raid on jason chen's house.

wow. I think Apple might have gone too far this time. I mean, the phone has already been returned and this happened?

 

[KHarvey16]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-police-actions-questioned-20100428-tr2g.html

just read about the raid on jason chen's house.

wow. I think Apple might have gone too far this time. I mean, the phone has already been returned and this happened?

Does returning the car get grand theft auto charges dropped?

 

[LCfiner]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-police-actions-questioned-20100428-tr2g.html

just read about the raid on jason chen's house.

wow. I think Apple might have gone too far this time. I mean, the phone has already been returned and this happened?

did you know that the Yahoo reporter who wrote that leading story worked at Gawker up till last month?

funny that.

Anyway, Apple can’t just tell the DA to go arrest someone or issue a warrant, no matter what we may think it fun to believe.

this action was taken by the DA based on potential criminal charges. Apple hasn’t filed suit or done anything except tell the police that their phone was stolen and then sold.

 

[jax (old)]

so why raid jason chens house? I mean he didn't steal the phone. And the house raid, then seizing computers?

This week, the house of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen was raided by police over the matter, with a significant number of items seized including documents, computers, servers, digital cameras, hard drives, mobile phones, laptops and other gadgets.

because all that has got to do with the iphone. sheesh

 

[KHarvey16]

so why raid jason chens house? I mean he didn't steal the phone. And the house raid, then seizing computers?




because all that has got to do with the iphone. sheesh

Why do people come into threads and then post like everyone is crazy without taking the time to understand what's going on?

 

[mattiewheels]

Does returning the car get grand theft auto charges dropped?

It should!!

so why raid jason chens house? I mean he didn't steal the phone. And the house raid, then seizing computers?


because all that has got to do with the iphone. sheesh

I know he didn't think he committed a crime when he and his associates decided to buy the phone, but he did.

 

[jcm]

Does returning the car get grand theft auto charges dropped?

Actually yes. If you return the car you'll probably only be charged with unauthorized use.

 

[KHarvey16]

Actually yes. If you return the car you'll probably only be charged with unauthorized use.

Which is still a crime, correct? The admittedly loose analogy would still hold.

 

[RyanDG]

Actually yes. If you return the car you'll probably only be charged with unauthorized use.

That's not the way the law works. The actual act of taking the car was the theft and you will absolutely still be charged with grand theft auto even if you decide to return it to the owner the next day.

 

[lunarworks]

The guy who sold the phone to Gizmodo, who claims he made a "reasonable" effort to return it, is full of shit for this very reason:

He knew the name of the guy who lost the phone, and he was aware of his Facebook profile. (How else would have Gizmodo publically ridiculed Gray Powell? The phone was wiped well before they bought it.)

A simple Facebook message containing the words "Hey dude, I found your phone" would have had Gray at his doorstep as fast as his car could carry him.

 

[polyh3dron]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...-police-actions-questioned-20100428-tr2g.html

just read about the raid on jason chen's house.

wow. I think Apple might have gone too far this time. I mean, the phone has already been returned and this happened?

Mr. Treehorn Jobs draws a lot of water in this town. You don't draw shit, Lebowski Chen. Now we got a nice, quiet little valley community here, and I aim to keep it nice and quiet. So let me make something plain. I don't like you sucking around, bothering our citizens, Chen. I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off face. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?