Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. GoNinjaGo's Avatar
    36 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    Isn't it ironic that Giz are the biggest Apple fan b0ys and now the one entity they adore is after them. I seriously would not miss them if they disappeared, though I doubt that will happen. Giz is also the site with the Palm deathwatch... they hate Palm and always put them down whenever possible.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Pulp View Post
    Will be interesting to see if Gizmodo keeps praising Apple after this "incident"...
    If they stopped, what else would they write about?

    Of course they will keep praising Apple. Its about all they do.
    Pilot 1000 -> Pilot 5000 ->Palm Pilot Professional -> HP 620LX -> TRG Pro -> Palm V -> Palm Vx -> Palm M505 -> Palm i705 -> Palm Tungsten|T -> Samsung i500 -> Treo 600->Treo 650 -> Treo 600-> Treo 700p ->Centro ->Treo 800w + Redfly C8n -> Palm Pre -> HP Touchpad
    R.I.P Palm 1996-2011
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    So if someone else stole your property, then can I take it apart and post everything I find on my blog?

    In general, your assessment about whether an action is right or wrong probably shouldn't depend on whether you like Apple or Gizmodo more. The criminal issue isn't the most serious one for Gizmodo. If Apple can demonstrate that Gizmodo caused significant damge to their iPhone business by improperly using a stolen item then they could win some serious damages.

    My guess is that Gizmodo will probably go under because of this. They intentionally did something that caused significant damage to a large company that is not likely to let it go - if only to ensure that people think twice about leaks in the future. The damages are that Apple has a significant sales advantage due to the fact that it takes time to duplicate their designs - as others inevitably will do. Gizmodo's liability insurance probably will not cover any kind of criminal act so they will have to file for bankruptcy just from the legal costs alone.

    If your read the tech blogs, it's not as if the tech journalism community is defending Gizmodo's actions so don't count on support from public opinion.
    That's a big if. Releasing the existence of a future product left in a bar probably increased the hype around it, and falls squarely under the rights of the media.
  4. #24  
    Are you kidding me? I would have called the police too. You don't go out and pay $5000 for an iPhone prototype from some regular joe and not expect there to be legal repercussions.

    It should be common sense, do not buy a piece of hardware that surfaced out of the blue, obviously is a prototype, is presented by a regular joe, his story is he found it, that doesn't matter, and is owned by a large corporation such as Apple.

    You live and learn. Apple is well with in their rights if they are the ones who asked the police to investigate.

    Anyone who thinks Chen is getting F'd in the A really needs to learn some common law, thinking like him will land your *** in hot water.
  5. #25  
    I find it most revealing that engadget was also offered the phone, and after consulting their lawyers passed on it. It wasn't just receiving stolen property it was purchasing stolen property, and depending on how the negotiations actually went it could also be considered enticing.

    They are trying to use journalism shield laws to prevent from being prosecuted, but common application of shield laws in the US are used to shield a source from being revealed, not a journalist from breaking the law. This will get very ugly for Gizmodo, and frankly it should.
  6. #26  
    I think gizmodo and gawker media are not naive by any stretch of the imagination. They probably knew apple could go after them legally and they decided to take a risk. Now they have to pay the price. Even if the phone was really 'found' and not 'stolen' by the guy in the bar, the fact is that he didn't take enough efforts to return it to apple and he didn't take it to the police, that alone turns the phone into a 'stolen item'. The fact that he sold it to gizmodo only makes it worse both for himself and gizmodo because now Chen can be sued for buying a stolen item and since he probably knew or suspected it was from apple and didn't take to the police or returned it to its owner, gizmodo now also takes part in the 'theft' together with the 'guy from the bar'. I've really lost respect for gizmodo with this one.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions