DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 You aren't really going to get a fight with me as I mostly agree. Just saying that their legal/marketing department may see it as a fight they will lose, but need to fight for future issues. The key issue of course, what is a journalist? i dont know that things would be any different if this guy worked for wired magazine, or even the LA Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 i dont know that things would be any different if this guy worked for wired magazine, or even the LA Times. Now on that we disagree, I would hope that the police would not barge into an acknowledged reporter's house and confiscate stuff without a ton of wrongdoing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Google vs Apple: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/g...ything-android/ At the end of the hourlong chat, I joked with Mr. Rubin that his press relations colleague, who was in the room, wanted to confess that he had left a prototype Android phone at a local bar. “I’d be happy if that happened and someone wrote about it,” Mr. Rubin said. “With openness comes less secrets.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 You aren't really going to get a fight with me as I mostly agree. Just saying that their legal/marketing department may see it as a fight they will lose, but need to fight for future issues. The key issue of course, what is a journalist? They've gotten a ton of free publicity out of this one. I wonder if this move might hurt them now. As far as the journalist thing goes, how much freedom comes along with that label anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 A scandal is a bit different than someone's property. I'm not sure I agree. If a scandal results from a memo or journal that was found in a public place, how is it different from a story about a new gadget that was found in a public place? If Apple didn't want any pictures of the new iPhone to get out; then they shouldn't have allowed any to leave their offices. It's really that simple. As Fezmid said, the thing wasn't stolen; it was found. They should be thankful that it was returned at all. If anything, Apple needs to be looking at their employee for possibly breaking confidentiality clauses (assuming he's signed something to that effect). Their employee screwed up. The Gizmo guy was just doing his job and getting a huge scoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Prosecutors defend the search Is it possible that Apple feels that their guy actually sold the prototype to Gizmodo? Do we know that it was 'left in a bar'? Investigators with the San Mateo County Sheriff's office searched the Fremont, Calif., home of Jason Chen last Friday evening. CNET was the first to report, a few hours earlier, that Apple had contacted police and a criminal investigation was under way. What information could Appple have given police that would have led to a search warrant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Is it possible that Apple feels that their guy actually sold the prototype to Gizmodo? If that were the case, they'd go after their own guy, not the journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 If that were the case, they'd go after their own guy, not the journalist. both actually (and they aren't doing the going after since this is a criminal matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 both actually (and they aren't doing the going after since this is a criminal matter) Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean it's not the corporation pulling the strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean it's not the corporation pulling the strings. what you are suggesting is shocking, shocking I say! Now give this time to percolate and hold your conspiracy theories until the proper time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I pulled this link out of what Beerball linked. Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I pulled this link out of what Beerball linked. Oh !@#$! Guess I have to send the acid back to The Chef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I pulled this link out of what Beerball linked. Yeah, but according to all accounts (even before the seizures) is that the original person contacted Apple about it, and they blew him off saying it wasn't there's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 Yeah, but according to all accounts (even before the seizures) is that the original person contacted Apple about it, and they blew him off saying it wasn't there's. this will all be very interesting, espcially considering this: Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Yeah, but according to all accounts (even before the seizures) is that the original person contacted Apple about it, and they blew him off saying it wasn't there's. I just wonder if his message to them was something along the lines of "I have your phone, how about you give me a couple thousand dollars for it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Google vs Apple:http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/g...ything-android/ I also asked him about the Apple chief executive Steve Jobs’s recent comment that “folks who want porn can buy an Android phone.” Thought this was a interesting quote. Sounds like someones worried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Thought this was a interesting quote. Sounds like someones worried? Sounds like someone's arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Sounds like someone's arrogant. Sounds like Android's new ad campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Thought this was a interesting quote. Sounds like someones worried? Which company does he work for again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 10 juicy details from the iPhone affidavit Jobs made phone call seeking return of lost iPhone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts