Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Consumers To Apple: Fuck You

1679111229

Posts

  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Just because you have the freedom to say whatever doesn't mean you're automatically immune to any consequences as a result of it. Yelling fire in a theater and such.

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't think anyone is under the impression that it's legal to purchase stolen property ever. I'm just not convinced why I should care. I can easily excuse the purchase of this stolen-ish iPhone given that the motivation was clearly to learn about the device and then spread the knowledge. I think this is an entirely different situation, ethically speaking, from purchasing a stolen iPhone for personal use, and I'm not overly concerned with the fact that it's identical legally speaking.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.

    deadonthestreet on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.

    I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.

    Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.

    You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.

    Yes, and somehow, I don't see trade secrets being one of them.

    Ok, like I said, I'm not an expert in trade secret laws, but they all pretty much prohibit the disclosure of trade secrets.

    You're saying the first amendment trumps and that trade secret laws are therefore unconstitutional.

    I haven't heard of any cases that support your view. The fact that we still have trade secret laws also seems to contradict your opinion.

    oldsak on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    If Gizmodo knew the prototype was a trade secret and its disclosure was a mistake, then Apple could have a trade secret claim against them.

    I'm not well versed in CA's trade secret law though, so I've no idea what the standard for "knew" or "mistake" are.

    Actually, it doesn't matter what the CA trade secret law is, as it's trumped by, you guessed it, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States Of America.

    You know that freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment is not absolute right? There are exceptions to it.

    What exception to it was this journalist in breach of?

    Flip that around. Which part of the 1st amendment allows him to purchase stolen property?

    Again, there's a difference between charging someone with purchasing stolen property (which they could have nailed him on, if REACT hadn't screwed the pooch on that charge) and a journalist disclosing trade secrets which are news (which he has a First Amendment right to do.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.

    Oh, I know it exists. The argument was about whether or not it should exist. I was saying that it should as such protections are necessary.
    But yeah, I'm not gonna be shedding too many tears for Apple because it's not like somebody broke in and stole it. It was left in a bar.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    Ok, like I said, I'm not an expert in trade secret laws, but they all pretty much prohibit the disclosure of trade secrets.

    You're saying the first amendment trumps and that trade secret laws are therefore unconstitutional.

    I haven't heard of any cases that support your view. The fact that we still have trade secret laws also seems to contradict your opinion.

    All laws must operate within the shadow of the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. If a law comes into conflict with the Constitution, it must necessarily give way. And trade secret laws exist to handle all sorts of misdeeds with them, such as an employee selling them to a competitor for material gain. It's just that you can't use them to go after a journalist reporting on them.

    And one of the biggest that enforced that yes, trade secret laws must give way to freedom of the press was one dealing with everyone's favorite fruit-based electronics company - Apple v. Does.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    What if someone found military secrets and decided to report on them to the whole internet before handing documents back to the government?

    You really think that would go unpunished? And that the documents would just get taken back without any further investigation?

    No?

    Then I don't see why corporate secrets should be treated any differently.

    You...you've never read a history textbook covering the 20th century, have you?

    The New York Times won that case a LONG time ago...

    You...you can't provide a link?

    You're honestly telling me that during no part of your schooling, you never learned about the fucking Pentagon Papers?

    ...you should ask for a refund on your property taxes, as they were obviously misspent.

    Can't say that I have.


    Maybe I did though, but maybe I just didn't give a shit.

    I didn't go to school to become a fucking lawyer.

    Regardless, it doesn't excuse you from not providing a simple link.

    Well, I think we've highlighted the paucity of your education at this point. The fact that you didn't know about one of the most important Supreme Court rulings is pretty telling.

    But, if you insist, here's the Wikipedia page on it.


    Yes, because I did not know a random supreme court ruling that has no effect on my day to day life I am a terrible citizen with a shitty education, going nowhere.

    gearn on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid and Senj I'm mostly trying to stop yo guys from making really bad analogies here. I don't know if there's a separate exception that allows reporters to acquire goods like the iphone in question here (there should be), but your analogies are really overbroad and inapplicable to the case here.

    Whether or not you think there should be a method is immaterial.

    The method they used here is a felony.

    Quid on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.



    While you do have to actually try to keep a trade secret a secret to get protection, many states (CA included) also protect secrets that are disclosed by mistake. Like I said, there are certain conditions, and I'm not familiar enough with CA TS law to know if those apply to this situation.

    oldsak on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Yes, because I did not know a random supreme court ruling that has no effect on my day to day life I am a terrible citizen with a shitty education, going nowhere.

    The fact that you think that of the Supreme Court ruling that protected the right of the press to report on government misdeeds says more about you than I could ever.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.



    While you do have to actually try to keep a trade secret a secret to get protection, many states (CA included) also protect secrets that are disclosed by mistake. Like I said, there are certain conditions, and I'm not familiar enough with CA TS law to know if those apply to this situation.

    I know I'll probably get flakk for using Wikipedia but according to it CA (along with most other states) adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and this is the Misappropriation section:
    Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:

    * improperly; or
    * under an obligation not to disclose or use it; or
    * from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or
    * by accident or mistake (for example, through a misdirected email or facsimile transmission), if before using or disclosing the trade secret the person acquiring it learns that it is a trade secret. This is one of the reasons that many firms and individuals who deal regularly with trade secret information routinely include a notice in their emails and fax cover sheets advising of the confidential nature of the contents.

    I bolded the parts that I think are damning towards Gizmodo

    The other important part is this

    "The UTSA imposes civil rather than criminal liability for misappropriation of trade secrets..."

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.



    While you do have to actually try to keep a trade secret a secret to get protection, many states (CA included) also protect secrets that are disclosed by mistake. Like I said, there are certain conditions, and I'm not familiar enough with CA TS law to know if those apply to this situation.

    I know I'll probably get flakk for using Wikipedia but according to it CA (along with most other states) adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and this is the Misappropriation section:
    Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:

    * improperly; or
    * under an obligation not to disclose or use it; or
    * from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or
    * by accident or mistake (for example, through a misdirected email or facsimile transmission), if before using or disclosing the trade secret the person acquiring it learns that it is a trade secret. This is one of the reasons that many firms and individuals who deal regularly with trade secret information routinely include a notice in their emails and fax cover sheets advising of the confidential nature of the contents.

    I bolded the parts that I think are damning towards Gizmondo

    The other important part is this

    "The UTSA imposes civil rather than criminal liability for misappropriation of trade secrets..."

    And again, Gawker's lawyers ask for a summary dismissal on Constitutional grounds. Oh, and if they're feeling vindictive, they ask for an anti-SLAPP countersuit against Apple on top of that.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.



    While you do have to actually try to keep a trade secret a secret to get protection, many states (CA included) also protect secrets that are disclosed by mistake. Like I said, there are certain conditions, and I'm not familiar enough with CA TS law to know if those apply to this situation.

    I know I'll probably get flakk for using Wikipedia but according to it CA (along with most other states) adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and this is the Misappropriation section:
    Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:

    * improperly; or
    * under an obligation not to disclose or use it; or
    * from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or
    * by accident or mistake (for example, through a misdirected email or facsimile transmission), if before using or disclosing the trade secret the person acquiring it learns that it is a trade secret. This is one of the reasons that many firms and individuals who deal regularly with trade secret information routinely include a notice in their emails and fax cover sheets advising of the confidential nature of the contents.

    I bolded the parts that I think are damning towards Gizmodo

    The other important part is this

    "The UTSA imposes civil rather than criminal liability for misappropriation of trade secrets..."

    Looking over your bolded parts, it would beg the question, was there anything on the device itself stating that it was a trade secret?

    It seems like a silly question, but when you are pressing the wording of the laws, these details are important

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Just because you have the freedom to say whatever doesn't mean you're automatically immune to any consequences as a result of it. Yelling fire in a theater and such.

    your statement is incorrect. you DON'T have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater

    Evander on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I'm really failing to see the problem with buying stolen goods, reporting that you have them, but then returning them to their rightful owners.

    For this to hold water someone really would have to somehow put Gizmodo in breach of trade secrets, and it does seem like that would be difficult if you consider them a news outlet.

    electricitylikesme on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I'm really failing to see the problem with buying stolen goods, reporting that you have them, but then returning them to their rightful owners.

    For this to hold water someone really would have to somehow put Gizmodo in breach of trade secrets, and it does seem like that would be difficult if you consider them a news outlet.

    Well one, you're encouraging people to steal things.

    Two, they absolutely destroyed the phone that wasn't theirs.

    Quid on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And one of the biggest that enforced that yes, trade secret laws must give way to freedom of the press was one dealing with everyone's favorite fruit-based electronics company - Apple v. Does.

    Not really too familiar with this case, but it doesn't seem to be on all fours with this case.

    Apple wasn't suing the journalists in that case, it subpoenaed them to get their sources who were the actual defendants in the case. The holding seems to be limited to "A company can't subpoena a journalist to find his source when it hasn't done its own due diligence to find them."

    While the case demonstrates that trade secret does not trump freedom of the press in every case, it does not mean that freedom of the press always trumps trade secret.

    oldsak on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    You know I'm really failing to see the problem with buying stolen goods, reporting that you have them, but then returning them to their rightful owners.

    For this to hold water someone really would have to somehow put Gizmodo in breach of trade secrets, and it does seem like that would be difficult if you consider them a news outlet.

    Well one, you're encouraging people to steal things.

    Two, they absolutely destroyed the phone that wasn't theirs.

    destruction of property is a separate crime

    Evander on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This is tangential, but:

    Let's say I bought stolen prototype technology from someone and I turned around and immediately returned it to the creator of that technology. I didn't do anything with it; I didn't even turn it on. All I did was pay for it, receive it, and then give it back to the rightful owner.

    Technically, buying the stolen property would be illegal in this case. Would I be "wrong" or "bad" though?

    Another question:

    What if Apple themselves bought the stolen technology back from the dude. Of course, that would be stupid I think. I don't think a company would do that unless they were trying to keep something really hush, hush. But let's say that happened. I mean let's say Gizmodo was offering $5,000 for it but to make sure Gizmodo didn't get it, they offered the guy $10,000 just to get it back in their hands instead of tipping the police off which would have taken time. Would Apple have been engaging in illegal activity in that hypothetical situation? Even though it's their own device, wouldn't they be purchasing stolen goods?

    I know these seem silly, but people here seem to be writing Gizmodo off entirely because they engaged in purchasing stolen goods.

    I don't see much different between my first example (buying stolen goods for the sole purpose of returning it to the rightful owner) and what actually happened (buying stolen goods, then giving a thorough report on the specifications of those goods, and then returning it to the rightful owner).

    I do think Gizmodo was a little shady here, but if the primary argument is that buying the stolen goods is what is illegal but reporting on the innards of the device is constitutionally protected, I'm just curious what the reaction is if the situation did not actually include the report. I have a suspicion that people are letting the fact that Gizmodo published their report color their judgment of the situation regardless of their acknowledgment that he had a First Amendment right to do so. If so, I would think your reaction to either scenario should be the same.

    Drez on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    And one of the biggest that enforced that yes, trade secret laws must give way to freedom of the press was one dealing with everyone's favorite fruit-based electronics company - Apple v. Does.

    Not really too familiar with this case, but it doesn't seem to be on all fours with this case.

    Apple wasn't suing the journalists in that case, it subpoenaed them to get their sources who were the actual defendants in the case. The holding seems to be limited to "A company can't subpoena a journalist to find his source when it hasn't done its own due diligence to find them."

    While the case demonstrates that trade secret does not trump freedom of the press in every case, it does not mean that freedom of the press always trumps trade secret.

    When the military got smacked down by the Supreme Court when they tried to claim that freedom of the press did not extend to disclosure of classified military documents...I don't think you're going to be able to argue that disclosure of trade secrets to inform the public is unprotected speech.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You know I'm really failing to see the problem with buying stolen goods, reporting that you have them, but then returning them to their rightful owners.

    For this to hold water someone really would have to somehow put Gizmodo in breach of trade secrets, and it does seem like that would be difficult if you consider them a news outlet.

    The purchaser who knowingly buys stolen goods is helping create a market for stolen goods. It's a policy move aimed at preventing thieves from profiting.

    oldsak on
  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Vesty wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »

    Fair enough. I definitely agree that the current time span and power level of copyright law is bullshit. However, I still think that inventors must be allowed protections for information on the products they're developing, because complete freedom of information would allow a competing company to swoop in and steal their good ideas.

    There is patent law and trade secret law to protect them.

    The problem with trade secret law is that in order for it to work you have to actually keep it a secret and there is a pretty good argument that leaving it in a bar means you didn't keep it a secret and it is fair game.



    While you do have to actually try to keep a trade secret a secret to get protection, many states (CA included) also protect secrets that are disclosed by mistake. Like I said, there are certain conditions, and I'm not familiar enough with CA TS law to know if those apply to this situation.

    I know I'll probably get flakk for using Wikipedia but according to it CA (along with most other states) adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and this is the Misappropriation section:
    Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:

    * improperly; or
    * under an obligation not to disclose or use it; or
    * from someone else who had an obligation not to disclose it; or
    * by accident or mistake (for example, through a misdirected email or facsimile transmission), if before using or disclosing the trade secret the person acquiring it learns that it is a trade secret. This is one of the reasons that many firms and individuals who deal regularly with trade secret information routinely include a notice in their emails and fax cover sheets advising of the confidential nature of the contents.

    I bolded the parts that I think are damning towards Gizmodo

    The other important part is this

    "The UTSA imposes civil rather than criminal liability for misappropriation of trade secrets..."

    Looking over your bolded parts, it would beg the question, was there anything on the device itself stating that it was a trade secret?

    It seems like a silly question, but when you are pressing the wording of the laws, these details are important

    They acquired it through improper means, buying a stolen device. And they were in a situation where they could not disclose the information but chose to anyways.

    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was. You don't pay some guy $5k for nothing, let alone they run their mouths off about knowing what it is. From my understanding of the law there doesn't need to be red tape all over it saying SECRET DO NOT LOOK. A trade secret is defined as "...a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. "

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The meat of the analysis is all about the physical dimensions, feel, and aesthetic qualities of the product, with a bit of speculation about the move from an aluminum body and the world-shattering revelation that the battery holds an extra .74WHr. I'm not sure where the big secrets are there. In fact, at least as much time was devoted to why Gizmodo thought this was probably a real iPhone as to what, exactly, is in it. Nothing there is at all damaging to Apple's competitiveness. They aren't reporting on the technical innovations or even the technical specifications of the thing to any significant degree; it's a speculative piece primarily concerned with what this (likely) prototype indicates about the forthcoming finished version. Apple should have no difficulty at all showing that Gizmodo obtained the device illegally, but it's going to be kind of a trick to show how they were materially damaged when the "lost in a bar" story has been excellent for Apple; it reinforces the mystique and eliteness of their product and it has gotten people talking about the next version.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    This is tangential, but:

    Let's say I bought stolen prototype technology from someone and I turned around and immediately returned it to the creator of that technology. I didn't do anything with it; I didn't even turn it on. All I did was pay for it, receive it, and then give it back to the rightful owner.

    Technically, buying the stolen property would be illegal in this case. Would I be "wrong" or "bad" though?

    Another question:

    What if Apple themselves bought the stolen technology back from the dude. Of course, that would be stupid I think. I don't think a company would do that unless they were trying to keep something really hush, hush. But let's say that happened. I mean let's say Gizmodo was offering $5,000 for it but to make sure Gizmodo didn't get it, they offered the guy $10,000 just to get it back in their hands instead of tipping the police off which would have taken time. Would Apple have been engaging in illegal activity in that hypothetical situation? Even though it's their own device, wouldn't they be purchasing stolen goods?

    I know these seem silly, but people here seem to be writing Gizmodo off entirely because they engaged in purchasing stolen goods.

    I don't see much different between my first example (buying stolen goods for the sole purpose of returning it to the rightful owner) and what actually happened (buying stolen goods, then giving a thorough report on the specifications of those goods, and then returning it to the rightful owner).

    I do think Gizmodo was a little shady here, but if the primary argument is that buying the stolen goods is what is illegal but reporting on the innards of the device is constitutionally protected, I'm just curious what the reaction is if the situation did not actually include the report. I have a suspicion that people are letting the fact that Gizmodo published their report color their judgment of the situation regardless of their acknowledgment that he had a First Amendment right to do so. If so, I would think your reaction to either scenario should be the same.

    I am agreeing with you, Drez.

    But let's go forward and toss in the destruction of property idea as well (and I still haven't seen anything on whether or not they caused any damage to the thing. If it had exposed screws and all they did was unscrew it that is much different from taking a saw to it.)

    If destruction of property is the REAL issue here, then why isn't that what he is being investigated for?

    Evander on
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    When the military got smacked down by the Supreme Court when they tried to claim that freedom of the press did not extend to disclosure of classified military documents...I don't think you're going to be able to argue that disclosure of trade secrets to inform the public is unprotected speech.

    Maybe, but (1) there's probably a greater legitimate public interest in classified military documents than the details of a private company's unreleased technology, and (2) historically the role of press has been regarded as the watchdog of the government which in turn have led courts to be more deferential to the press when they report on government than when they report on private entities.

    oldsak on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    They acquired it through improper means, buying a stolen device. And they were in a situation where they could not disclose the information but chose to anyways.

    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was. You don't pay some guy $5k for nothing, let alone they run their mouths off about knowing what it is. From my understanding of the law there doesn't need to be red tape all over it saying SECRET DO NOT LOOK. A trade secret is defined as "...a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. "

    Too bad Apple's business practices make information on new products salient news, then.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was.

    Did you read their initial reports? There was PLENTY of skepticism as to what it was.

    Evander on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    When the military got smacked down by the Supreme Court when they tried to claim that freedom of the press did not extend to disclosure of classified military documents...I don't think you're going to be able to argue that disclosure of trade secrets to inform the public is unprotected speech.

    Maybe, but (1) there's probably a greater legitimate public interest in classified military documents than the details of a private company's unreleased technology, and (2) historically the role of press has been regarded as the watchdog of the government which in turn have led courts to be more deferential to the press when they report on government than when they report on private entities.

    There's still a public interest in Apple's upcoming product line, for a number of reasons. And if you've been watching the news lately, we need journalistic watchdogs over private entities just as much as the government.

    I'm not saying that Apple can try to make the argument that reporting on their trade secrets is unprotected speech. I'm saying that I would bet that it's very unlikely they would succeed in such an argument.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Vesty wrote: »
    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was.

    Did you read their initial reports? There was PLENTY of skepticism as to what it was.

    http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

    that doesn't seem very skeptical and is the earliest article I've found about this

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Vesty wrote: »
    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was.

    Did you read their initial reports? There was PLENTY of skepticism as to what it was.

    http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

    that doesn't seem very skeptical and is the earliest article I've found about this

    http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone
    The Aftermath

    Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen. Once we saw it inside and out, however, there was no doubt about it. It was the real thing, so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner. Later, we learnt about this story, but we didn't know for sure it was Powell's phone until today, when we contacted him via his phone.

    Gray Powell: Hello?

    John Herrman: Is this Gray?

    G: Yeah.

    J: Hi, this is John Herrman from Gizmodo.com.

    G: Hey!

    J: You work at Apple, right?

    G: Um, I mean I can't really talk too much right now.

    J: I understand. We have a device, and we think that maybe you misplaced it at a bar, and we would like to give it back.

    G: Yeah, I forwarded your email [asking him if it was his iPhone], someone should be contacting you.

    J: OK.

    G: Can I send this phone number along?

    J: [Contact information]

    Drez on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Vesty wrote: »
    There is no way they could plead ignorance to not knowing it was.

    Did you read their initial reports? There was PLENTY of skepticism as to what it was.

    http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

    that doesn't seem very skeptical and is the earliest article I've found about this
    Why we think it's definitely real
    We're as skeptical—if not more—than all of you. We get false tips all the time. But after playing with it for about a week—the overall quality feels exactly like a finished final Apple phone—and disassembling this unit, there is so much evidence stacked in its favor, that there's very little possibility that it's a fake. In fact, the possibility is almost none. Imagine someone having to use Apple components to design a functioning phone, from scratch, and then disseminating it to people around the world. Pretty much impossible. Here are the reasons, one by one.

    If you go through the list, most of this is tuff that they couldn't know till looking over the device, meaning that if they are as skeptical as they claim to be (and witht he number of rumors they get, I'm sure they are) they wouldn't have known for sure that it was indeed real until after getting their hands on it.

    Evander on
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    The question is, then, can Gizmodo get "active criminal intent" down to "negligence"? Because if the phone was a hoax, it could very well have been made by the person who sold it to them.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • VestyVesty Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Even if they were skeptical when they first got it they still had an idea as to what it was, and even realizing what they had when they did get it still fits into that act I quoted earlier:

    "Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:"

    They still acquired it through improper means (purchasing stolen property), and still chose to disclose / use it without consent when they were in circumstances that created a duty not to.

    Vesty on
    tron_sig_PA.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Even if they were skeptical when they first got it they still had an idea as to what it was, and even realizing what they had when they did get it still fits into that act I quoted earlier:

    "Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:"

    They still acquired it through improper means (purchasing stolen property), and still chose to disclose / use it without consent when they were in circumstances that created a duty not to.

    Okay, so what? It is a civil manner, not a criminal one.

    What information, exactly, is the trade secret, by the way? the fact that the phone has a forward facing camera? the new design?

    What are the actual damages to Apple, out of all of this?

    Evander on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Vesty wrote: »
    Even if they were skeptical when they first got it they still had an idea as to what it was, and even realizing what they had when they did get it still fits into that act I quoted earlier:

    "Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure or use of a trade secret, which is defined as a) acquiring the secret through improper means or from another person knowing that they acquired the secret by improper means or b) disclosing or using the secret without consent when the circumstances create a duty not to disclose or use it. Under the Act these circumstances exist when the trade secret has been acquired:"

    They still acquired it through improper means (purchasing stolen property), and still chose to disclose / use it without consent when they were in circumstances that created a duty not to.

    So, are you going to continue to ignore that pesky "freedom of the press" issue?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Freedom of the press is not unlimited. But it might give Gizmodo more protection than the Average Joe.

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Freedom of the press is not unlimited. But it might give Gizmodo more protection than the Average Joe.

    freedom of the press is unlimited with exceptions

    no one has shown any exception that involves Gizmodo's particular case

    Evander on
  • MegalomaniageekMegalomaniageek Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Aren't the trade secret protection rules an exception?

    Megalomaniageek on
    Shadowhope wrote:
    What's the difference between Mass Effect 3 and the Gospel According to Saint Mark? One has an ending too sacred to be changed, and the other is part of the Bible.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I really strongly disagree with Trade Secret laws, but unless they are enforced as an exception to freedom of the press they don't seem very useful. Perhaps they're really for the employees who would leak rather than for the reporters who distribute the information, but in that case it's quite hilarious since we also have "whistleblower" laws to protect those leaks which are considered significantly in the public interest. So which is it? Do corporations own their information and deserve special governmental protection of their privacy, or are violations of that privacy which serve the public good excusable?

    I think that, clearly, we have to use some amount of common-sense judgment in order to decide that the reporter is innocent while the employee who parleys secrets into a lucrative position with a competitor is a criminal. And yet this sort of judgment call is antithetical to the intended practice of our legal establishment, which is supposed to mostly run through the rote execution of clearly-worded precedent like a Turing machine executing a program. Actually, I suspect that buried somewhere in the legal code (if you can't tell, I'm a programmer not a lawyer) there's an exception which our robe-wearing, gavel-wielding automaton will arrive at in his deliberations. But if there isn't, then it's probably because adherence to the framework of the property metaphor for information kept legislators from creating provisions for cases where the public interest ought to override the content creator's.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
Sign In or Register to comment.