Jon Stewart digs on the Apple/Gizmodo ordeal

[*LTD*]

Jon Stewart seems to have goofed here, and there's the problem. There's no way unring this bell. Jon missed about 90% of the story, and according to his views, opening a criminal investigation is not ok if it'd going to cause the plaintiff bad publicity, or if the plaintiff seems "mean."

Jon needs to stick to political commentary, which is usually a lot easier to play with than scenarios that involve finer points of law.

Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.

Moving along, Gawker Media better be ready to defend themselves because shield laws won't help if you've committed a felony in order to do a story. That US$5,000 payment is a major smoking gun if Apple can prove the prototype iPhone was officially stolen, which means Gawker Media paid to buy stolen property, a felony in the state of California.

 

[Boghog]

A FELONYhas been committed. Who cares about the company involved or anything else. We live in a country that has the rule of law, and it allows for someone (or a company) to file a complaint with their local police department

Sorry, mate, but I think you're missing the point.
For a company like Apple losing a prototype and it ending up in the hands of a tech blogger months before its release was probably a big blow. But that damage is now done, nothing more they can do about that. The only thing they get to decide is how to handle the matter now with respect to the felony (probably) committed by the finder and Gizmodo. Are their interests best served by getting the police to bash down this guy's door and confiscate the tools of his trade? Apple is a corporation owned by its shareholders and upheld by passionate customers who buy things at a premium because they feel good about them and the company that makes them. It doesn't get to throw a tantrum. It has an image to consider. What's to be gained by tearing up this blogger? A deterrent for similar cases in the future? Give me a break. The next guy who gets his hands on a prototype will just be a bit more careful not to show his face in the video and claim it was sent to him by an anonymous source. That's all.
So, yes, it was a felony. But it still lacked style and class to go after the felon like that. And style and class is what Apple is all about.

 

[*LTD*]

Sorry, mate, but I think you're missing the point.
For a company like Apple losing a prototype and it ending up in the hands of a tech blogger months before its release was probably a big blow. But that damage is now done, nothing more they can do about that. The only thing they get to decide is how to handle the matter now with respect to the felony (probably) committed by the finder and Gizmodo. Are their interests best served by getting the police to bash down this guy's door and confiscate the tools of his trade? Apple is a corporation owned by its shareholders and upheld by passionate customers who buy things at a premium because they feel good about them and the company that makes them. It doesn't get to throw a tantrum. It has an image to consider. What's to be gained by tearing up this blogger? A deterrent for similar cases in the future? Give me a break. The next guy who gets his hands on a prototype will just be a bit more careful not to show his face in the video and claim it was sent to him by an anonymous source. That's all.
So, yes, it was a felony. But it still lacked style and class to go after the felon like that. And style and class is what Apple is all about.

So The law doesn't really apply when there's public image at stake? LOL

The police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone (buying stolen property).

If that's the "probable cause" the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply.

The police got the warrant by arguing their belief that property at Jason Chen's house met the following criteria :

* It was used as the means of committing a felony
* It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person committed a felony

So now the question is... Was the suspected "felony" the THEFT of the iPhone (in which case police want to find out the identity of the thief)? Or was it BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY (in which case Gawker Media and/or Jason Chen may soon be accused of felonies?)

Public image doesn't play into this. This is a long-term move for Apple in the area of protecting trade secrets, and which will ultimately clarify the laws in this area as they apply to "online journalists." It's not great for PR when a big-nam plaintiff goes after someone, just like it isn't great PR when a large corporation throws an unpaid bill into bill collections and the "victim" happens to be a little old lady. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't run a charity, and a decision no to avail themselves of all available legal remedies could in future cost them billions (the *next* time something like this goes down.) We'd all be singing a different tune if it was a much smaller operation that had their property treated in this manner, with the very survival of their business at stake. But because it's a "big" entity it's suddenly "bullying."

 

[DocNYz]

jon stewart, or should i say Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, is not funny and is an unintelligent, illogical, emotional child. anything funny he says on his show is no doubt written by a team of young writers. he is famous for being a clown.

 

[DocNYz]

Jon Stewart seems to have goofed here, and there's the problem. There's no way unring this bell. Jon missed about 90% of the story, and according to his views, opening a criminal investigation is not ok if it'd going to cause the plaintiff bad publicity, or if the plaintiff seems "mean."

Jon needs to stick to political commentary, which is usually a lot easier to play with than scenarios that involve finer points of law.

Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.

Moving along, Gawker Media better be ready to defend themselves because shield laws won't help if you've committed a felony in order to do a story. That US$5,000 payment is a major smoking gun if Apple can prove the prototype iPhone was officially stolen, which means Gawker Media paid to buy stolen property, a felony in the state of California.

thanks for the information, and i completely agree with your points (because of their obvious validity) and your signature which I am in the process of doing right now.

 

[diazj3]

Well done by Jon Stewart... I agree that the iPhone bit lacked research, and I do agree that Gizmodo crossed a line by buying a stolen device. I see Stewart's critique more in the sense of Apple becoming a Big Brother type of company, systematically favoring short term profits over long term customer relations and the high end quality that characterized them, and using its recent somewhat dominant position to push their media tech agenda.

I understand it is a big corporation and thus it behaves like one.... but Apple's loosing a key aspect of what made them successful, and made me loyal to them: the didn't thought of themselves as such and made an effort to keep their soul. Now I wonder what's Apple long term strategy... becoming the next Microsoft? or keep the competitive advantage that made them successful by staying within some limits?

 

[Shorties]

And here I thought Jon was smart and would find out the details of this story before "reporting" it.

Funny segment, disappointed in lack of research.

Which part was wrong? Apple sent people to investigate the finders house, not Gizmodo, (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/ ) And he also mentions that he knows Apple didn't ask the police to go after Chen (But then immediately goes on to say that apple should go after AT&T) I don't think any part of Stewart's commentary was inaccurate, just misleading.

 

[*LTD*]

Well done by Jon Stewart... I agree that the iPhone bit lacked research, and I do agree that Gizmodo crossed a line by buying a stolen device. I see Stewart's critique more in the sense of Apple becoming a Big Brother type of company, systematically favoring short term profits over long term customer relations and the high end quality that characterized them, and using its recent somewhat dominant position to push their media tech agenda.

I understand it is a big corporation and thus it behaves like one.... but Apple's loosing a key aspect of what made them successful, and made me loyal to them: the didn't thought of themselves as such and made an effort to keep their soul. Now I wonder what's Apple long term strategy... becoming the next Microsoft? or keep the competitive advantage that made them successful by staying within some limits?

Apple continues to be Apple. Great products that are more than just "technology." Apple is a lifestyle choice. Apple's products put it a galaxy apart from Microsoft. That's why Stewart couldn't help but be so gushy over them all the same. The iPad and all it brings to the table, for example, shows just how different these two companies are.

This has nothing to do with 1984 or "big brother", etc. Apple *cannot* be the underdog after a certain point of success. You get big enough and popular enough, your "underdog" status is gone. When you're within sights of Exxon Mobil, sitting 3rd largest company in the US, you're as far from "underdog" as a hawk from the moon. Which is not a problem. But Apple still takes the attitude and risk-taking approach of an innovative startup. We tend to attach a bit too much sentimentality to this notion of The Underdog. The talking points that Stewart pulled out have been dismissed long ago by cooler and clearer-thinking heads, but it might be a fresh perspective to the average user. This is where Apple potentially loses unjustly.

"Well done by Jon Stewart" because Jon Stewart succeeded in his purpose: to portray Apple as the bad guy (despite gushing over them), whereas the facts could not as yet bear that out. It's irresponsible, but it's opinion, and opinion is allowed. The problem is that it came out of Jon Stewart's mouth, and a lot of people tend to take him seriously. He's a very effective speaker (insofar as political satire goes.) When someone like that goofs it's really unfortunate for the target.

In any case, Apple is more than capable of taking a ribbing - justified or not, especially one that pays them a backhanded compliment.

 

[Eidorian]

Apple continues to be Apple. Great products that are more than just "technology." Apple is a lifestyle choice. Apple's products put it a galaxy apart from Microsoft. That's why Stewart couldn't help but be so gushy over them all the same. The iPad and all it brings to the table, for example, shows just how different these two companies are.

This has nothing to do with 1984 or "big brother", etc. Apple *cannot* be the underdog after a certain point of success. You get big enough and popular enough, your "underdog" status is gone. When you're within sights of Exxon Mobil, sitting 3rd largest company in the US, you're as far from "underdog" as a hawk from the moon. Which is not a problem. But Apple still takes the attitude and risk-taking approach of an innovative startup. We tend to attach a bit too much sentimentality to this notion of The Underdog. The talking points that Stewart pulled out have been dismissed long ago by cooler and clearer-thinking heads, but it might be a fresh perspective to the average user. This is where Apple potentially loses unjustly.

"Well done by Jon Stewart" because Jon Stewart succeeded in his purpose: to portray Apple as the bad guy (despite gushing over them), whereas the facts could not as yet bear that out. It's irresponsible, but it's opinion, and opinion is allowed. The problem is that it came out of Jon Stewart's mouth, and a lot of people tend to take him seriously. He's a very effective speaker (insofar as political satire goes.) When someone like that goofs it's really unfortunate.

You lost me after the second sentence.

 

[Boghog]

So The law doesn't really apply when there's public image at stake? LOL

The law doesn't enter into this. Well, it does now, because Apple filed their complaint. But please understand this: I'm not disputing that acquiring the phone was probably a felony and Apple is within their rights to ask the police to investigate. But having a right to do something does not mean that it is always the best strategy to execute that right. It may be more intelligent in the long run to restrain yourself. Why? You said it yourself:

But because it's a "big" entity it's suddenly "bullying."

People are generally disposed to take the side of the underdog - in this case an underdog who managed to slip one through Apple's net of secrecy, which is seen by many as ludicrously excessive. (I know, it has its purpose in throwing copycats back a couple of weeks - but public perception is what counts here.)
Whether it's fair or not, a big powerful company harassing a small likable scoundrel of a blogger (even though it may be perfectly legal here) is perceived as "bullying". And being seen as a bully is bad for business.
As for the deterrent effect in comparable future situations: There is none. Chen obviously never expected any of this backlash because he could have covered his ass so easily - mainly by not buying the phone but the story (which may actually still be a viable defense) thus avoiding the felony and just reporting on the fact that the phone was "lost and then found by an undisclosed source - here are some pictures - some people speculate that it actually is a real iPhone prototype but we were unable to verify that. The honest finder handed it in to the police. Oh look, the person claiming it is in fact an Apple employee. How intriguing."

 

[AlphaBob]

The problem is that it came out of Jon Stewart's mouth, and a lot of people tend to take him seriously. He's a very effective speaker (insofar as political satire goes.)

Actually, the REAL problem is that people take Jon Stewart seriously in the first place. He is an entertainer, not a source of news. Sadly he has somehow morphed, along with BIll Maher, into some sort of demi-god-reporter the likes of which haven't been seen since Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News.

 

[flat five]

Jon Stewart seems to have goofed here, and there's the problem. There's no way unring this bell. Jon missed about 90% of the story, and according to his views, opening a criminal investigation is ....

i don't think jon was trying to 'report' the story.. i mean, come on -- he speculates a guy named Nerdlington J. Techsupport was using the prototype to pick up women in a bar..

the iphone situation was used as a lead-in to what he really wanted to get off his chest which begins around 5 minutes in at the camera3 part..

arguing about the legality & stewart's nonfacts etc of the iphone case doesn't make any sense (well, not in this thread at least)..

 

[quagmire]

Which part was wrong? Apple sent people to investigate the finders house, not Gizmodo, (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/dude-apple/ ) And he also mentions that he knows Apple didn't ask the police to go after Chen (But then immediately goes on to say that apple should go after AT&T) I don't think any part of Stewart's commentary was inaccurate, just misleading.

The part where he omitted the iPhone was stolen property as to why the cops seized the computers and the fact calling Apple's tech support( which he just stated as Apple denied the prototype) as a proper way of action to return the device. From watching The Daily Show a lot, Jon while a comedian does tend to do some research on what he talks about. This one lacked a lot of the details surrounding the story. Even though he is a comedic reporter who does comedy bits of the latest news story and the media, he always seemed informed on the subject. It looks like he sacrificed the facts for comedy this time around.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The part where he omitted the iPhone was stolen property as to why the cops seized the computers and the fact calling Apple's tech support( which he just stated as Apple denied the prototype) as a proper way of action to return the device. From watching The Daily Show a lot, Jon while a comedian does tend to do some research on what he talks about. This one lacked a lot of the details surrounding the story. Even though he is a comedic reporter who does comedy bits of the latest news story and the media, he always seemed informed on the subject. It looks like he sacrificed the facts for comedy this time around.

Well, since it hasn't been proven that it was stolen yet, it would be false to call it stolen property.

Additionally, Grokster can only be punished for purchasing stolen goods if they pay OVER $5000. They paid $5000, so they are in the clear (if I read the state law correctly).

 

[Cheffy Dave]

http://tv.gawker.com/5526868/jon-stewart-slams-apple-over-its-handling-of-gizmodo-case

I think it's brilliant. I am off Apple in a big way at the moment.

I'm sad, we will miss you so

 

[diazj3]

Apple is a lifestyle choice.

Come on, really? wow... you certainly hold these gadgets in high esteem

cheers!

 

[quagmire]

Well, since it hasn't been proven that it was stolen yet, it would be false to call it stolen property.

Additionally, Grokster can only be punished for purchasing stolen goods if they pay OVER $5000. They paid $5000, so they are in the clear (if I read the state law correctly).

Ok, allude to the fact it could be stolen property. But, certainly don't leave that very important factor into this situation out.

 

[wonderspark]

Well, I was all about building PCs and Windows-based software for years... and was always curious about the "other side" for a long time. I had Creative mp3 players that worked perfectly fine, but decided to give the iPod Photo (the first one with a nifty color screen) a try because it held 60 gigs, which was about half my music collection at the time. (The Zen only held 20 gigs.) It worked almost flawlessly (and is still my main portable player!) despite my loathe of iTunes and the way it screws with my organization.

July of last year, I got an iPhone 3GS, and then in December, I got a new Mac Pro. They also work better than I expected. AT&T works great in Denver, and it's rare for a program to crash on my Mac. At least I don't have to reboot, even though I do shut down nightly.

All this dark and shifty action on Apple's part, however, has convinced me that when the current equipment needs replacing, I'll most certainly look long and hard at the Android market, along with Windows 7 (or 8, whatever they have next.)

As some have said, I agree that the consumer drives the market and the products. An iPad is a useless toy in my eyes. I would rather read a paper book for reading, and use a real laptop for mobile computing. In the phone market, it HAS to work flawlessly as a phone, and it's nice to be able to launch my planes in Airline Manager during a break at work, along with reading the forums. I'd prefer the mobile phone could play all media, including flash, so Apple drives me to look elsewhere for my replacements, at the moment.

 

[wonderspark]

http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/U...es/Mobile-Phones/ci.Motorola_DEVOUR_US-EN.alt

^^^ This thing looks sexy. I wonder what will be available by the time my iPhone dies!

 

[ValSalva]

jon stewart, or should i say Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, is not funny and is an unintelligent, illogical, emotional child. anything funny he says on his show is no doubt written by a team of young writers. he is famous for being a clown.

What's your point here? Why state his whole name? Is it to emphasize that he's Jewish? Why do that? I notice you have a pseudonym and not your real name here. What's your agenda?

 

[windroll]

That was extremely funny segment. Part of the time while watching, I'd be going "not true, but haha funny", or "that view is warped, but haha still makes me laugh". Probably because I see The Daily Show as a comedy show, just like David Letterman and Jay Leno's talk shows.

On the matter of the gizmodo/lost iphone story, I don't think Apple did anything wrong. Bashing in the guy's door is a little over kill, but even Jon Stewart doubt Apple ordered the police to do that (at around 7 minutes into the segment). In a year, this will all be forgotten.

Bust Door app, hehe, that's just funny.

 

[mscabot]

Sorry, mate, but I think you're missing the point.
For a company like Apple losing a prototype and it ending up in the hands of a tech blogger months before its release was probably a big blow. But that damage is now done, nothing more they can do about that. The only thing they get to decide is how to handle the matter now with respect to the felony (probably) committed by the finder and Gizmodo. Are their interests best served by getting the police to bash down this guy's door and confiscate the tools of his trade? Apple is a corporation owned by its shareholders and upheld by passionate customers who buy things at a premium because they feel good about them and the company that makes them. It doesn't get to throw a tantrum. It has an image to consider. What's to be gained by tearing up this blogger? A deterrent for similar cases in the future? Give me a break. The next guy who gets his hands on a prototype will just be a bit more careful not to show his face in the video and claim it was sent to him by an anonymous source. That's all.
So, yes, it was a felony. But it still lacked style and class to go after the felon like that. And style and class is what Apple is all about.

Apples hand was forced once the device was sold to Gizmodo. I don't think I missed the point at all. If you don't address the selling of a prototype device that your company has spent millions of dollars developing, then that would be irresponsible to your share holders. The method to go after someone who has stolen, or paid for stolen property is to contact the police. I as a share holder of Apples would expect nothing less then them using law enforcement to go after these criminals.

 

[kiljoy616]

oh yes

haha, that was great, could not stop laughing and going after AT&T was perfect, forget driving call drops, how about walk call drops.

And the Drama continues. Now we just need jobs talking about the issue, and we have a full blow move made for tv.

 

[Bocaj]

John Stewart drives me crazy most of the time with his rantings and extreme bias, but this time...

AWESOME!!! He is so right! This was very well done... Hopefully, the MacRumors post yesterday is true, and the new 4G comes out soon after the WDC!

I will have to post this on my blog.

EXTREME bias?
Glenn Beck has extreme bias.
Stewart attacks both sides fairly equally, it's just that those on the fringe right give him more material to work with.

 

[Bocaj]

jon stewart, or should i say Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, is not funny and is an unintelligent, illogical, emotional child. anything funny he says on his show is no doubt written by a team of young writers. he is famous for being a clown.

Unintelligent? lol
Have you seen him pick people apart with questions or when he's doing commentary?
As for emotional, you may want to check out the nutbars on Faux News with their crazy antics (Glenn Beck) and constant lies. Let's also not forget the Tea Bagging people, they're a weeee bit emotional as well.