[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I was just stating that the damage done was not just a stolen prototype, or a phone or the dollar value of the trade. The damage could be a heck of a lot more from lost revenue and the 3 month headup the competition now has to design something similar. If the victim is Apple, the damage is considerably more than just a lost piece of hardware, and i think any average schmuck, such as the guy who found it, or the blogger who bought it, or the site that authorized the purchase, would know that.

Why, exactly, are Gizmodo (or the guy who "found" the phone in the first place) supposed to protect Apple's trade secrets for them? If Apple did not have any agreement with the parties barring them from disclosure, they are under no obligation to do so.

However, if they obtained this information unlawfully, then I believe they are liable for the damages due to revealing Apple's trade secrets, even though there is no agreeement between the parties. (This is what keeps Pepsi from raiding Coke's offices looking for their secret formula.)

This is why the disposition of the phone is so important. At what point did the phone cease to be found property, and become stolen? Did either the "finder" or Gizmodo ever represent the phone to anyone as anything other than Apple's property, and does that matter?

My money is on Gizmodo, simply because they have much more to lose than Apple in this, and probably would not have gone forward with it if they thought it would make them part of a crime. It would open Gawker Media up to liability, and if the liability is large enough it may even force the whole operation to shut down. (Which wouldn't be the end of the world, since Deadspin has gone downhill ever since Leitch left...) I am assuming their lawyers are not idiots (a big assumption, I know), and would not bet the company on a losing proposition.

[Spheric Harlot]

I think it's pretty clear that their "legal counsel", such as it were, is fairly well versed in UK law, but not Californian lost property laws, and that they're all ****ing idiots anyway.

Everybody else who DID hav proper legal counsel stayed the hell away from that prototype. (I also assume there must have been others than just giz, engadget, and wired.)

[Dork.]

The other media outlets didn't stay away because of legal ramifications. They stayed away because they don't want to piss off Steve, and still want access to Apple people now and then. Even if Gizmodo wins, I doubt they'll be welcome at Apple events as long as Steve is in charge.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The other media outlets didn't stay away because of legal ramifications. They stayed away because they don't want to piss off Steve, and still want access to Apple people now and then. Even if Gizmodo wins, I doubt they'll be welcome at Apple events as long as Steve is in charge.

Didn't Engadget specifically say they stayed away due to advice from their attorney?

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes, I seem to remember too that they did. I can't find the article ATM, though.

[Dork.]

I stand corrected, then.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Didn't Engadget specifically say they stayed away due to advice from their attorney?

In the podcast they said that they were interested, but didn't want to drop any money. Perhaps due to what you describe.

[Hawkeye_a]

I think the article was on Wired/Engadget. And there was an explicit mention of a subtle request for $$$ from the person in possession of the prototype.

I think the person(s) who "found" the phone, who "sold" the phone, who "purchased" the phone...all knew full well that the item was not legally their possession to trade.

Personally, when i find something, i take it to the front desk of the establishment and leave it there. If i find a phone in a club made by Nokia, i don't call Nokia to 'return' it. that's just absurd. IMHO.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Whether Chen is or isn't a journalist isn't really the question here.

And that's what I've been saying all along here.

My main point is that if the shield laws in any way protect journalists from prosecution here, they should protect Chen too. If they don't protect journalists, then they should not protect Chen either. Heh. Originally I wrote "prosection" instead of "prosecution".

IOW, I think the arguments in this thread saying that they shouldn't protect Chen basically because they think he's a bad and juvenile writer are totally ridiculous.

I don't know what publication he was working for, but it seems a bit odd to me that they wouldn't have a bit of training for a new hire coming in from a different field on professional standards.

You have too much faith in hiring practices. To be quite honest, the last thing I care about when hiring someone is wasting a few hours of their time in a busy schedule making them take some touchy feely pseudo-course, which most of the time is totally off-topic anyway. It's pretty hard to teach common sense, for every little possibility, esp. in an hour or two.

That said, I suspect Giz's experience will show up in new-hire workshops now.

Gizmodo also made no good faith effort to return the property that they bought, knowing full well the possessor had no legal right to sell it, and then sought to profit from that purchase. That's both illegal and unethical.

Does it really matter if it's truly "ethical" or not in this context, from the legal perspective? If something is unethical (by your standards) but legal, should he be prosecuted? (I'm not saying Chen's action are illegal or legal here. What I am saying is ethics per se shouldn't be the determining factor.)

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Personally, when i find something, i take it to the front desk of the establishment and leave it there. If i find a phone in a club made by Nokia, i don't call Nokia to 'return' it. that's just absurd. IMHO.

What about if it's a phone that looks like it could be made by Nokia, but Nokia to your knowledge such a phone has never ever existed? Maybe it's just me but if I found something like that, there would be no way in hell I'd ever just leave it with the barkeep. Like I said before, I'd take a bazillion pix of it, publish them on the net, and then return it to Nokia. I wouldn't sell it though.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And that's what I've been saying all along here.

My main point is that if the shield laws in any way protect journalists from prosecution here, they should protect Chen too. If they don't protect journalists, then they should not protect Chen either. Heh. Originally I wrote "prosection" instead of "prosecution".

IOW, I think the arguments in this thread saying that they shouldn't protect Chen basically because they think he's a bad and juvenile writer are totally ludicrous.

Definitely agreed.

However, here's the crux:

There is no way this jackass and his corp should be protected by journalists' shield laws.

And if there is any ambiguity here, then it is not the original intent of said shield laws.

If he actually gets off, then you can bet your balls that the laws will be rewritten to prevent it from happening again - which may (and will) mean that somewhere down the line, some journalist DOES go to jail for getting a news story that really, really needed to be told.

In the interest of page hits, these assholes quite possibly ****ed it up for everyone else, and certainly ****ed it up for one Apple engineer.

And while we're already on the subject of ethics:
Nobody needed to know the name of the Apple engineer. There is nothing at all newsworthy about his name, his facebook statuses, and photos of him partying on his birthday. If this weren't America, where privacy counts for shit, he could sue the hell out of Gizmodo for quite considerable damages.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In the interest of page hits, these assholes quite possibly ****ed it up for everyone else, and certainly ****ed it up for one Apple engineer.

Well, I'd say that one Apple engineer ****ed it up for said Apple engineer.

And while we're already on the subject of ethics:
Nobody needed to know the name of the Apple engineer. There is nothing at all newsworthy about his name, his facebook statuses, and photos of him partying on his birthday.

I too think that's inappropriate. But it just makes Giz assholes. I don't know if it's illegal or not.

If this weren't America, where privacy counts for shit, he could sue the hell out of Gizmodo for quite considerable damages.

So, why doesn't that apply to paparazzi photographers? If a paparazzi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity out in a back alley somewhere doing something questionable, that paparazzi photographer doesn't get sued. He gets high-fives from his colleagues, and a big payout from a tabloid magazine.

[Spheric Harlot]

The way it works here is that celebrities are people of public interest, and thus must tolerate a certain level of personal coverage - not everything though, and gossip rags have got badly burned.

There's a "right to your own image" ("Recht am eigenen Bild") here, meaning basically that people can't just go publishing photos of other people for whatever purpose (mostly applies to commercial settings). There's fair use, of course, but this engineer would certainly have had his last named shortened to an initial and his face pixelled out.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, why doesn't that apply to paparazzi photographers? If a paparazzi photographer takes a picture of a celebrity out in a back alley somewhere doing something questionable, that paparazzi photographer doesn't get sued. He gets high-fives from his colleagues, and a big payout from a tabloid magazine.

It does apply to paparazzi photographers.

Caroline-Urteile – Wikipedia
Google Nachricht

[Eug]

Gawker Media seeks legal reversal in Gizmodo search case

Burke says he's been in discussions with the district attorney's office since Saturday and believes that the process to move ahead could be hammered out in the next few days, one where "the search warrant is treated more like a subpoena." He insists that Chen is a journalist, the search was unlawful, and that — from the beginning — investigators should have opted for a subpoena rather than seizing everything. If the district attorney's office were to dig through Chen's computers immediately, rather than strike a compromise, they run the risk of losing any information obtained in the search due to an almost-certain appeal.

In a subpoena situation, Gizmodo may be asked for information from the seized computers that falls within specific parameters. Then, Gizmodo could either turn over that information or object, bringing the debate to court. So whether Gizmodo complies would depend on what's being asked for, and whether that information would reveal confidential information. "It's impossible to assert whether they're going to get anything," Burke said.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[starman]

The fact that they have to insist he's a journalist speaks volumes.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Just shows the general corruption of the government... They'll do anything for a corporation.

You can bet NOBODY'S home would be raided if they "found" my iPhone...or broke in and stole it for that matter.

don't be silly.

All those stories of phones traced via MobileMe involved the police knocking on somebody's door.

The DA isn't sucking anybody's cock; NOT following such a high-profile publicly documented FELONY with an investigation would raise questions about protection a company and certainly constitute career suicide.