Exactly, so why should publishing future activity of a company be any different?That is so common it doesn't deserve mention.
Exactly, so why should publishing future activity of a company be any different?That is so common it doesn't deserve mention.
I'm sorry, but this man was breaking the law. He deserves to be brought to court, and fined for damages. Gizmodo and Gawker are shady, terrible excuses for "journalism" and this does them right.
Keep in mind, these are the same people banned from CES for using TV-B-Gones. They're little kids with no respect for trade secrets or corporations. I find their actions despicable, and according to California law, illegal.
I for one certainly would.
But if I had ..err.. got drunk and left in on a barstool, I think the moral compass swings a little in the other direction.
Yes?
I am not saying that no crime was committed. Just that in most people's eyes, the culpability in this case is a little different between this incident and an outright robbery.
C.
I'm thinking that the general public always picks the good guy and the bad guy in any story, and that most people will be inclined to make Apple the bad guy this time around. I've looked around the web for reactions to this story, and the only ones who are happy about (and in rare cases even sexually aroused by) the DA going after Jason Chen are a handful of Apple fanboys and lawyer wannabes. The consensus among the general public (=potential Apple customers and existing Apple customers who aren't fans), on the other hand, seems to boil down to "boycott Apple nazis NOW!". The story broke just one day after the other story about an employee being fired for showing Woz an iPad 3G for 2 minutes, which yielded a similar reaction ("boycott Apple!").I personally think Apple looks good trying to protect their future security. I don't know what the heck you are thinking.... Gizmodo should be shut down for this unlawful act.
Exactly, so why should publishing future activity of a company be any different?
Actually, Apple did lose something in all of this. Competitors now know what the next generation iPhone looks like.
They did not return it immediately when Apple requested it. They refused until Apple sent a formal request in writing. That was something they had no legal right to do. Giz stated that as soon as Apple contacted them they were absolutely certain the phone was Apple's. At that point the must return it to them unconditionally.I don't agree, especially given that the item was returned to Apple immediately and without duress upon request.
I'm sorry, but this man was breaking the law. He deserves to be brought to court, and fined for damages. Gizmodo and Gawker are shady, terrible excuses for "journalism" and this does them right.
Keep in mind, these are the same people banned from CES for using TV-B-Gones. They're little kids with no respect for trade secrets or corporations. I find their actions despicable, and according to California law, illegal.
I'm thinking that the general public always picks the good guy and the bad guy in any story, and that most people will be inclined to make Apple the bad guy this time around. I've looked around the web for reactions to this story, and the only ones who are happy about (and in rare cases even sexually aroused by) the DA going after Jason Chen are a handful of Apple fanboys and lawyer wannabes. The consensus among the general public (=potential Apple customers and existing Apple customers who aren't fans), on the other hand, seems to boil down to "boycott Apple nazis NOW!". The story broke just one day after the other story about an employee being fired for showing Woz an iPad 3G for 2 minutes, which yielded a similar reaction ("boycott Apple!").
1.- OK, we know in advance how the new iPhone looks like. Big deal: it's exactly what everybody expected, like the previous one with minor modifications. Nothing to see here for us or the competing brands. Everybody knew this more or less (and specially the guys competing with Apple).
I despise the US legal system. They did a wrongful act, and because they are "journalist" they get off scotch free?!?! Seriously?!?! That is so disgustingly wrong!!!!!!!!
LIke I said, leave it up to the courts.
They did not return it immediately when Apple requested it. They refused until Apple sent a formal request in writing. That was something they had no legal right to do. Giz stated that as soon as Apple contacted them they were absolutely certain the phone was Apple's. At that point the must return it to them unconditionally.
Just curious, I really don't know myself ... is a blogger a 'journalist'?
Gawker chief Nick DentonWe dont seek to do good, We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention.
Actually, it's not really any different from journalists receiving leaked government documents: those documents are the property of the government, but it's accepted in the interests of newsworthiness. Why should Apple be any different?
The most funny part of all is that eveyone wants to know details about the new iPhone when rumors are spreading. Everybody will hunt those rumors so they "finally" know what will come next.
But in the end, everybody is in some way disappointed with the fact that they already know what they're gonna get! It's like Sinterklaas ( the dutch version of Santa Clause ) when you really really wanted to know what kind of gifts you're gonna get when the day is there. But in the end you really don't want to know it before that day comes because the whole surprise and wow-factor is gone.
The exact same happened here I guess. I also wanted to know what the new iPhone is going to look like, because this one will replace my old 2G. But I'm always trying to dodge the newssites when I know their will be a or presentation where products are going to be revealed! So I can watch the keynote for myself.
It's like knowing the score of some important match of baseball of basketball when you really don't want to know but see for yourself.
there is no need for the owner to request his property be returned only Giz's legal responsibility to do so. A responsibility they gained the second they bought the phone. However they made no effort to contact Apple and waited for Apple to contact them. This pretty much wipes away any claim that they bought the phone simply to return it to its owner. The owner they admit they believed to be Apple.But verbal requests aren't worth the paper they're written on.
It is totally different. In the cases where government documents are leaked it is usually leaked with regards to public issues/rights/concerns. For example, a new piece of legislation may disadvantage a particular secton of the community, or there may be cases of wrongdoing to expose (see the MPs expenses scandal in the UK). Sources in such cases have a right to be protected, and the public (usually) have an arguable right to know the facts and to have 'transparency' in terms of how their government operates. It's their government, they have a vested interest in how it is run. It is not, however, in the public interest for information pertaining to Apple's latest product to be released. Satisfaction of the public's craving to 'know' is an undulgence, not a right. This epidose has been damaging to Apple (for all that can be said about all publicity being good publicity). Competitors may now know the form of the next iPhone, and Apple will have to revise its publicity plans accordingly, which costs them money and resources. Why should they take that lying down?
The thing is, everyone doesn't care for the wow factor. Everyone doesn't watch stupid unboxing videos. Everyone doesn't watch keynote speeches. I can care less about the hype, I just want the product. I don't care what an apple product box looks like, because it gets thrown out the next day.
there is no need for the owner to request his property be returned only Giz's legal responsibility to do so. A responsibility they gained the second they bought the phone. However they made no effort to contact Apple and waited for Apple to contact them. This pretty much wipes away any claim that they bought the phone simply to return it to its owner. The owner they admit they believed to be Apple.
The fact that they published it on the web demonstrates that there was no attempt to conceal their possession of the iPhone from Apple.
The thing is, everyone doesn't care for the wow factor. Everyone doesn't watch stupid unboxing videos. Everyone doesn't watch keynote speeches. I can care less about the hype, I just want the product. I don't care what an apple product box looks like, because it gets thrown out the next day.
But if they believed the owner to be apple (how could they not know. seriously, there is something fishy there) and knowing that they still exploited it without Apple's permission....... shouldn't that be wrong still?
For one sec, ditch the whole right and wrong according tot he legal system idea.... what about morals? Gizmodo certainly hasn't gained any brownie points from me for this whole thing. I never watched/paid attention to anythign they had to say. I certainly will never go to them for anything now that they have done this.