JOBS: Gizmodo tried to extort Apple.

[8CoreWhore]

At D8, in Jobs' comments about Gizmodo and the stolen iPhone, Jobs states Gizmodo tried to extort Apple. I don't recall hearing that before. I guess it pertains to Gizmodo making the return of the iPhone conditional. For instance - it's been speculated that Gizmodo wanted a letter from Apple asking for the iPhone back, not for legal reasons, but so they can publish it and make their scoop more valuable. Profiting from their actions is a key ingredient in the case against them. Extortion is a far worse crime than merely buying stolen property... we're talking jail time for a first offender.

"....'you shouldn't go after a journalist cause they bought stolen property - and they tried to extort you...'..."

Jobs is no dummy... he is claiming here that a journalist (Gizmodo) tried to extort Apple, he believes it and is pursuing it.

http://video.allthingsd.com/

 

[swinneyn]

GIZMODO tried to extort apple, not engadget as your title says.

The evidence is here: http://www.businessinsider.com/henr...iphone-story-if-apple-hadnt-spurned-it-2010-5

 

[ChazUK]

GIZMODO tried to extort apple, not engadget as your title says.

This.

Change your title!

 

[tuna]

Even for Gizmodo, its bs. Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. Yeah, Steve Jobs doesn't like some punk blogger anally reaming him, but we live in a better world because we have laws that protect journalists and make it harder for private entities, including Apple, to keep significant information secret.

 

[rkswat]

Even for Gizmodo, its bs. Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. Yeah, Steve Jobs doesn't like some punk blogger anally reaming him, but we live in a better world because we have laws that protect journalists and make it harder for private entities, including Apple, to keep significant information secret.

+1
We need to take up a collection to buy stevie a big box of tissue for all those crocodile tears.

 

[swinneyn]

+1
We need to take up a collection to buy stevie a big box of tissue for all those crocodile tears.

I think this reeks extortion.

 

[northernbaldy]

Even for Gizmodo, its bs. Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. Yeah, Steve Jobs doesn't like some punk blogger anally reaming him, but we live in a better world because we have laws that protect journalists and make it harder for private entities, including Apple, to keep significant information secret.

what utter crap! this isn't some government cover up or a human rights violation
its product design
its intellectual property

if they paid money to get this stolen prototype, then they deserve to be ****ed in the arse!
look, already the chinese are copying it!

 

[8CoreWhore]

Even for Gizmodo, its bs. Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. Yeah, Steve Jobs doesn't like some punk blogger anally reaming him, but we live in a better world because we have laws that protect journalists and make it harder for private entities, including Apple, to keep significant information secret.

You're a genius... . Can a Velo News journalist steal a prototype bike and get away with it - because he wanted to write about it?? (just an example... Velo news NEVER did that!)

AND the investigation is NOT up to Apple - it's up to the DA's office.

I think this reeks extortion.

Is that TRUE?? Holy smokes if it is....

what utter crap! this isn't some government cover up or a human rights violation
its product design
its intellectual property

if they paid money to get this stolen prototype, then they deserve to be ****ed in the arse!
look, already the chinese are copying it!

Exactly. And BTW, why doesn't the Chinese Gov stop the copies?? And why has EVERY U.S. president failed at this?? Just rhetorical, not changing the topic.

 

[tuna]

what utter crap! this isn't some government cover up or a human rights violation
its product design
its intellectual property

if they paid money to get this stolen prototype, then they deserve to be ****ed in the arse!
look, already the chinese are copying it!

First of all its besides the point since thats not the law. A journalist obtaining relevant information is protected, and Gizmodo is going to get away without penalty.

But as to your specific argument, I guess its a question of where you balance the rights of consumers versus businesses. If everyone who leaked corporate information went to jail then I guess businesses would have more protection over their designs and would be able to keep their decisions secret longer, but consumers would suffer from decrease in information that allows them to make better informed decisions.

The implications are more far reaching than some of you are probably thinking about. For example, Wall street analysts use leaked information from manufacturing companies to help write the reports that are used to value companies and project profits. Without any leaks, public information would be very poor and the only people who could properly value these companies would be insiders (who would subsequently be in a much better position to exploit their asymmetrical information advantage at the expense of regular investors).

 

[azsprty]

Read it wrongm thought it was referring to engadget

 

[gnasher729]

Even for Gizmodo, its bs. Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. Yeah, Steve Jobs doesn't like some punk blogger anally reaming him, but we live in a better world because we have laws that protect journalists and make it harder for private entities, including Apple, to keep significant information secret.

Journalists have no protection for receiving stolen goods, divulging trade secrets, and extortion. For good reasons as well. And nobody, not a journalist, nobody, can get away with stealing trade secrets.

First of all its besides the point since thats not the law. A journalist obtaining relevant information is protected, and Gizmodo is going to get away without penalty.

A journalist is protected if they refuse to uncover their source. That's it. They are not covered if they receive stolen goods. They are especially not covered if they receive stolen goods in order to illegally divulge trade secrets.

But as to your specific argument, I guess its a question of where you balance the rights of consumers versus businesses. If everyone who leaked corporate information went to jail then I guess businesses would have more protection over their designs and would be able to keep their decisions secret longer, but consumers would suffer from decrease in information that allows them to make better informed decisions.

Oh well. I guess they didn't mean it when they put all these trade secret laws into effect. Look, you're entitled to your opinion, but the law disagrees very, very strongly with you.

The implications are more far reaching than some of you are probably thinking about. For example, Wall street analysts use leaked information from manufacturing companies to help write the reports that are used to value companies and project profits. Without any leaks, public information would be very poor and the only people who could properly value these companies would be insiders (who would subsequently be in a much better position to exploit their asymmetrical information advantage at the expense of regular investors).

Insiders go to jail if they get caught trading on insider information. And insiders also go to jail if they leak trade secrets to wall street and get caught.

 

[maflynn]

How can gizmodo asking for written proof that the phone was apple's is extortion. Its not like they wanted an inside track to some products, or cash or even an interview with steve. Giz only asked for written proof which of course was going to be used to promote their own agenda.

Yeah, the gigantic apple logo kind of proves it's an apple product but Jobs is reaching on his defense of reacting so harshly (calling the police after the phone was recovered).

 

[tuna]

Journalists have no protection for receiving stolen goods, divulging trade secrets, and extortion. For good reasons as well. And nobody, not a journalist, nobody, can get away with stealing trade secrets.



A journalist is protected if they refuse to uncover their source. That's it. They are not covered if they receive stolen goods. They are especially not covered if they receive stolen goods in order to illegally divulge trade secrets.



Oh well. I guess they didn't mean it when they put all these trade secret laws into effect. Look, you're entitled to your opinion, but the law disagrees very, very strongly with you.



Insiders go to jail if they get caught trading on insider information. And insiders also go to jail if they leak trade secrets to wall street and get caught.

I think you're making these "facts" up.

Trade secrets are only protected by NDAs. You aren't coerced to keep something secret that you never agreed to keep secret. Case in point: reverse engineering is completely legal.

Secondly, any sort of trading by insiders is a conflict of interest nightmare. The best way for shareholders to protect themselves is by having good information.

 

[Padraig]

What's the situation with WWDC and the media/bloggers. Do they have to be invited to the Keynote, or can they just buy tickets to gain entry? I'm curious as to the possibility of Gizmodo either being barred or uninvited.

 

[alphaod]

Anyone can buy tickets to WWDC.

However since WWDC is officially run by Apple, they can deny anyone access and refund their money. So in this case, Gizmodo can be banned from Apple events such as WWDC.

Of course we call know Gizmodo (at least one of their staff) has already been banned from CES.

 

[northernbaldy]

But as to your specific argument, I guess its a question of where you balance the rights of consumers versus businesses. If everyone who leaked corporate information went to jail then I guess businesses would have more protection over their designs and would be able to keep their decisions secret longer, but consumers would suffer from decrease in information that allows them to make better informed decisions.

Consumers would suffer? You need to explain that because I don't agree at all
How would product information released by unofficial sources make any difference to consumer choice?
Wait until the product is released, read reviews, play with the demo models, then make your choice

 

[djransom]

Anyone can buy tickets to WWDC.

However since WWDC is officially run by Apple, they can deny anyone access and refund their money. So in this case, Gizmodo can be banned from Apple events such as WWDC.

Of course we call know Gizmodo (at least one of their staff) has already been banned from CES.

I figured they would be banned from the event given the circumstances.

 

[tuna]

Consumers would suffer? You need to explain that because I don't agree at all
How would product information released by unofficial sources make any difference to consumer choice?
Wait until the product is released, read reviews, play with the demo models, then make your choice

We're on Macrumors, right!?

A lot of time we have advance information that we know is true. For example, wall street analysts are reporting that they have learned from Pegatron that they are building a CDMA iPhone for Apple. Thats pretty reliable. So if you are a consumer with a Verizon subscription, you know that you can wait a year and you'll be able to get one without switching. If you had known about Intel Macs you could avoid buying a G5, etc.

 

[ct2k7]

We're on Macrumors, right!?

A lot of time we have advance information that we know is true. For example, wall street analysts are reporting that they have learned from Pegatron that they are building a CDMA iPhone for Apple. Thats pretty reliable.

First of all, Chen is a blogger, not a journalist, there are very fine guidelines, the DA is inspecting this as well as the investigation.

A lot of the time, we also get false information. You cannot confirm that there will be a CDMA iPhone available. Apple could still cancel this, and not let it out. Until he announces it, and RELEASES it, it doesn't exist as far as we're concerned. (Verizon iPhone)

 

[tuna]

First of all, Chen is a blogger, not a journalist, there are very fine guidelines, the DA is inspecting this as well as the investigation.

A lot of the time, we also get false information. You cannot confirm that there will be a CDMA iPhone available. Apple could still cancel this, and not let it out. Until he announces it, and RELEASES it, it doesn't exist as far as we're concerned. (Verizon iPhone)

If thats how you personally want to operate then thats your prerogative, but Wall Street is expecting a Verizon iPhone and they have hundreds of millions / billions riding on it... so I'm inclined to go with them. Obviously it might not be 100%, but the odds are good enough.

 

[Geckotek]

First of all, Chen is a blogger, not a journalist, there are very fine guidelines, the DA is inspecting this as well as the investigation.

Actually, there are not very fine guidelines. That's why the whole situation is under debate. The courts will be making a decision.

In my book, bloggers are journalists.

And agreed about the not confirming. But I would think if it didn't exist, he would say so. It's to his benefit to get the Verizon holdouts to switch if a Verizon iPhone is never coming.

 

[ct2k7]

Actually, there are not very fine guidelines. That's why the whole situation is under debate. The courts will be making a decision.

In my book, bloggers are journalists.

Does a journalist write for a blog?

One of the distinguishing points, is professionalism, I think.

 

[Geckotek]

Does a journalist write for a blog?

One of the distinguishing points, is professionalism, I think.

Does it matter where they write? The fact is that journalism is changing. As technology and society progress, we will have to consider these things. Just like the advent of radio.


"A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues."

 

[Ars Diaboli]

can't knowingly buy stolen property

Gizmodo knew or has reasonable suspicion that the iphone was stolen. Law states that if you have suspicion, you are just as guilty. If you are in a back alley, and some dude comes up to you to sell you some gold chains, the first thing you think is that this stuff might be hot. Doesn't matter then, because you have lost the presumption of innocence until you, the buyer or potential buyer, verifies that the item is not hot.

Gizmodo is in trouble because they knew or had reasonable suspicion to believe that the iphone was stolen. First thing they said to Apple was, 'Uh, we didn't know it was stolen'. They knew the law and are trying to skate around the rim.

Whether they do or not will depend on how the judicial system works. IMO, Gizmodo is going to lose a few G's!

This does not even get into the issue of suspected stolen items and then publishing trade secrets. But I'm sure that Steve will wade into it!

 

[ct2k7]

Does it matter where they write? The fact is that journalism is changing. As technology and society progress, we will have to consider these things. Just like the advent of radio.


"A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues."

not trying to revive an old thing, however, I use the OED/Cambridge as an authoritative source.

Journalist:
a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news or features to be broadcast on radio,television or newspaper.

Blogger:
a person who writes for a blog

Gizmodo parent company, declares Gizmodo a blog. Anyway, back on topic...