JOBS: Gizmodo tried to extort Apple.

[Geckotek]

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...

Yes, but at one point radio was not included in that list as it did not exist. Similar to blogging.

It's time to edit that entry in the OED/Cambridge.

A blog is a new form of journalism.

As I said before, the courts will decide. It may take years, but we'll see blogs added to that list.

 

[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. 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.

This isn't very promising isn't it, he's not going to say anyway.
http://9to5mac.com/node/17465

Maybe Sprint?

 

[Geckotek]

This isn't very promising isn't it, he's not going to say anyway.
http://9to5mac.com/node/17465

Maybe Sprint?

Ouch...true..not promising.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Trade secrets have nothing to do with NDAs. A trade secret is anything that a company keeps secret in order not to lose an advantage to their competitors, and trade secrets are protected by law.

NDAs only enter into the game when information needs to be given to an outside company. At some point Apple has to tell someone what the next iPhone looks like (so that Foxconn can build them, for example). The NDA is a contract that Foxconn would sign so they are not allowed to pass the information on; this makes sure that the information is still secret even though someone outside Apple knows it.

No NDA -> no secret -> anyone can publish the information.
NDA -> stays secret -> anyone under NDA cannot publish the information because of NDA, anyone not under NDA cannot publish the information because it is a trade secret.

Again: If Apple gives details of the iPhone to Foxconn and forgets to make them sign an NDA, then these details are not secret anymore, and Foxconn can legally publish the information, and so can you and I. But if Foxconn signs an NDA, then these details remain a trade secret, and Foxconn cannot legally publish them, and nor can you or I, even though we didn't sign any NDA.

Google for "trade secrets act".

 

[kenypowa]

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.

You can't reason with some Apple fanboys here. Asking for a letter of ownership = extortion in their eyes.

 

[Geckotek]

You can't reason with some Apple fanboys here. Asking for a letter of ownership = extortion in their eyes.

Actually, you know I leaned on the side of this blowing over and Gizmodo did what any journalism agency would do (maybe a bit to the extreme) but after reading Brian Lam's e-mail to Steve Jobs, I gotta agree on this one. If he were smart he would have said it was a legal requirment his lawyers asked for, but he was way to obvious. It was extortion by definition.

 

[skwoytek]

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.

Yes, reverse engineering is legal. Many other forms of obtaining and divulging trade secrets are federal offenses.

A great write-up on Economic Espionage and Trade Secrets from the Department of Justice.


From the article:

A trade secret can be the product of years of research and development and possibly hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in production costs. A substantial portion of the United States economy continues to be based on innovation and the development of new technologies and knowledge-based ideas.

...

The misappropriation of trade secrets can impose severe economic and other harm not only to the owner of the trade secret but on many others. The adverse consequences may affect company employees whose livelihood is based on the continued success of the company, a community dependent on the company contributions to the local economy, or even the health of a particular industry or the national economy.

...

This article provides an overview of some of the common issues and challenges in prosecuting trade secret and economic espionage cases. The article reviews the primary objectives of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996; the distinctions between the two offenses under the statute, including economic espionage under § 1831 and trade secret theft under § 1832; the three components of a trade secret; two common investigative scenarios for trade secret and economic espionage; the importance of protective orders during each phase of the prosecution; and some best practices to consider in charging and proving a trade secret case.

 

[skwoytek]

In fact, it would be unprofessional and irresponsible for Gizmodo to return it to apple without said confirmation.

I think unprofessional and irresponsible cover Gizmodo pretty well either way, in this situation at least. They probably could have got some decent treatment from Apple had they acted in Apple's best interest - before deciding to release the photos.

 

[Deadman64]

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.

Put simply, they are. There are just so many knock off factories in china it's hard to stop them all.

Source: I watched a video in a political science course this past semester lol.

 

[thelatinist]

Actually, you know I leaned on the side of this blowing over and Gizmodo did what any journalism agency would do (maybe a bit to the extreme) but after reading Brian Lam's e-mail to Steve Jobs, I gotta agree on this one. If he were smart he would have said it was a legal requirment his lawyers asked for, but he was way to obvious. It was extortion by definition.

I first read this email in the search warrant affidavit, and it completely changed my mind about Gizmodo's position in this whole ordeal. They really lost any claim to be acting altruistically with this blatant attempt to leverage their possession of stolen property into a business advantage. Bringing up possible damage to Apple sales smacks disturbingly of the local heavy trying to extort protection money: "Those are nice iPhone sales you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to them..."

 

[Small White Car]

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.

Ha! They've had the same amount of "proof" since 2007.

So that's 3 years of you being "inclined to go with them" and being wrong. Maybe you'll get it right this year. That'll be a 25% success ratio.

Real great insider informtion you've got there.

Anyone who bases their investing on this kind of "proof" would do better by just flipping a coin. And you think that sort of thing is critical to the business world?

If you had known about Intel Macs you could avoid buying a G5, etc.

And there's another great plan since Apple was working on an Intel version of OS X since 2001 but the first Intel Mac came out in 2006. So had you known about it then that would have been 5 years of not buying a computer. Another brilliant plan. However do consumers make good decisions without this kind of information??

 

[Small White Car]

[2] Furthermore, there was no theft involved what so ever. A dumb apple employee LEFT IT IN A BOOTH AT A BAR.

Then explain why the finder's roommate turned him in because his actions led the roommate to feel that the roommate would get in trouble for theft just by virtue of being in the same room with the guy.

The roommate sure as hell thought there was theft going on. Frankly, I'd say the roommate knows a lot more about the situation than you do since they were actually there.

If you're right and there was nothing wrong with what he was doing then what would cause that roommate to be so afraid?

 

[tuna]

Ha! They've had the same amount of "proof" since 2007.

So that's 3 years of you being "inclined to go with them" and being wrong. Maybe you'll get it right this year. That'll be a 25% success ratio.

Real great insider informtion you've got there.

You're using a logical fallacy. I have no idea what rumors other people believed, but I never believed in a CDMA iPhone until this specific news about Pegatron coming from multiple analysts at major banks.

And yes, the analyst reports are extremely influential. You have no idea what you're talking about. Everyone in finance is reading analyst reports.

 

[sniffies]

Steve Jobs, stop freaking worrying about some freaking gizmodo!!! Look what ATT is doing to your iPhone and iPad customers!!! Do something about it!!!!!! Get off your arses!!!!!

Geez

 

[Black Macbook]

Journalists are given special protections for very good reasons. .

Journalists aren't immune from prosecution if they commit crimes. Journalists are no more special than anybody else. I believe in equality, not special protection for devious individuals.

The definition of "journalist" has also become very vague, since technically anybody can set up their own blog in 2 minutes and become a "journalist".

 

[Dammit Cubs]

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. Big boy toys mean big boy laws mean big boy consequences.

Let's be big boys Now. Chicks dig it

 

[wjlafrance]

Steve Jobs, stop freaking worrying about some freaking gizmodo!!! Look what ATT is doing to your iPhone and iPad customers!!! Do something about it!!!!!! Get off your arses!!!!!

Geez

1. Steve has better things to do than read this forum.

2. Steve has advisers who know how many punctuation marks go at the end of a sentence.

3. Steve only has one arse.

4. Go away.

 

[Sun Baked]

Idiot said way too much.

Easy and expected to ask for a written request that includes a claim that the property belongs to you.

Anything else is just you braiding rope for the hangman.

 

[Shivetya]

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.

Gizmodo and Journalist do not belong in the same sentence. More like punks with a web page.