∞ Should Apple sue Gizmodo over iPhone 4G?

Written by

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen so many people speak out over an issue, but Gizmodo seems to have split the Internet on whether or not it should have posted its story on the iPhone 4G. Some people have said they will boycott the site, while others were glad to have the information. For some long time journalists, the choice is clear.

Gizmodo was wrong to acquire a lost iPhone prototype — quite likely a nearly finished version 4 design — let alone pay to obtain it. Perhaps this marks the distinction between bloggers and journalists. I would have contacted Apple about returning a device so obviously stolen. There is grave difference between obtaining secret information for the public good and what Gizmodo did: Obtain property containing trade secrets belonging to a public company. Gizmodo has violated the public trust and broken the law. Free speech isn’t a right to pay freely for something clearly stolen.

Apple should sue Gizmodo over stolen iPhone prototype [Betanews]


  • http://www.facebook.com/jterhorst Jason Terhorst

    Heck, yes. I hope they do. That rag needs to be wiped off the web.

  • Eric

    JIm,

    Was that quote from Andy Ihnatko? I agree with the sentiment completely (as long-time journalist myself).

    But it turns out it's not probably going to end in a lawsuit or prosecution. According to California law, the obligation to return the phone only happens when they know it's stolen. They in fact did contact Apple and have agreed to return it. So they are following the law. That doesn't absolve them from the checkbook journalism they practice, which is an unacceptable way to work in the news business. And if they don't undersatnd that, it's simply more evidence they don't belong in the profession.

    • Lucas

      the guy that sold it to them knew that it was not his own phone. that it was 'misplaced'. and he really didn't make a good effort to return it since he could have popped down the road to Cupertino or sent it Fed Ex etc.

      in fact, just the detail that he didn't leave the phone at the bar is suspect. It reeks of him seeing a free iphone and deciding to keep it for himself when the owner didn't come right back.

      so with all that, it could still be trouble for Gizmodo (the fact that they had publicly announced they would pay for info about the iphone just as their parent company did with the ipad is not a point that helps them in the least)

  • http://www.iphonehelp-mike.com/blog/ MikeElement

    Its free advertisement/hype people will be just as excited when it comes out. Just because Steve Jobs won't be holding the first one people see doesn't mean anything. People made some money off Apple. I think Apple can handle it, they will be fine.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/deltatee deltatee

    There is absolutely no reason for Apple to sue–what could be gained by it?

    • lucas

      there are several laws that give Apple plenty of reason. IF this story is true. there are so many holes and interesting timings that I doubt it is legit. Starting with a Feb released set of photos identical to this current release from a source in China. Then the whole, it was lost 4 weeks ago but just now got revealed.
      plus the nonsense of the guy supposedly trying to return it but he was a short drive from headquarters and a major Apple store and never thought to just take it to either place.

      personally I doubt that Apple will sue but I hope that the moral and ethical issues get out there for everyone to see (remember Gizmodo and Valleywag are basically the same site so this is the second time they have tried this stunt on Apple) and advertisers drop off because they don’t want to be associated with that type of trash journalism. that loss could kill Gawker media more than a lawsuit

  • Andrea

    Indeed, the ways Apple is gonna repay Gizmodo will be way more subtle than a lawsuit, and absolutely more effective.

  • Joe

    i was disappointed that they paid to get it, but in reading their account of how it was obtained it seems legit enough and while paying for is a bit National Enquirer-esque i dont see why people hate Giz for getting the scoop on this one. that is what these tech sites live for.
    I agree with Andrea's comments, but that is also a choice that they have made and will have to live with the consequences.

  • http://www.theuniversalsteve.com SSteve

    I don't know if Apple should sue them, but the poor Apple employee they called out should definitely do so.

    • Lucas

      indeed. what was the point of saying a name other than to try to legitimize their tale with the name of a real Apple engineering employee. It seems like it wasn't hard to find the guy cause apparently he wasn't hiding where he worked. he talked about it on his twitter and his facebook (both of which are now gone or protected).

      I wouldn't be shocked if Gizmodo was trolling around for a name they could use and hit him and the poor guy had nothing to do with nothing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/deanlewis Dean Lewis

    Pointed to on another site, and here is the link:
    http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html

    "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."

    The original person who sold the phone to Gizmodo is guilty of theft. If that person did try to contact the owner — and there is a report the person contacted Apple support — it will likely be shown they didn't go far enough especially given the evidence of selling the phone for profit.

    Also see:

    Receiving Stolen Property — California Penal Code 496 PC http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/496.html

    "(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
    be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year."

    Gizmodo could be in some serious trouble. Who goes to jail when a corporate entity is found guilty, anyway?

  • http://www.crossculturalhealth.org jonathan

    That wasn't virtuous Gizmodo… I would have considered the impact on the young programmer who lost the phone.

    What is apple going to gain with a lawsuit? Punish the petty?! Meh….

    I think Karma will have a role here. Didn't Gizmodo's server crash?

    Cheers

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tunegardener tunegardener

    I'd like to see Gizmodo go down for this.

  • unethical gizmodo

    In effect they stole and published trade secrets. They need to be shut down. What they did was highly unethical. Very wrong headed and I do not see it as something to just shine on and drop. It's not a matter that Apple did not get to announce or show first, they gave competitive advantage to other companies. The flip of this is that had this been true industrial espionage, no one would know that that had occurred it would be secreted and buried in the competitors labs. They had no right to dissect the device. And they did not do what was the right thing in returning stolen property. It could have been given to the police. No excuse bad journalism. Sick of these people paying rewards or fees for other to steal or divulge. IF it is a matter of whistle blowing or public safety, breaking of law, etc maybe. Good grief wait till the product is available before taking things apart!

  • Rogene Paganelli

    Gizmodo should pay attention to the laws of the universe!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://ipadwatcher.com Mauricio Longo

    I hope the DA brings criminal charges against them, as for all that is been clipped and pasted of California law here in the comments and in a couple of other sites, it seems that they were clearly acting illegally.

    For my part, I will do my bit for their karma. I will not visit or link to that site again. If I am taken there by a link, I will make it a point to see what ads are on the site and make sure that I don't do business with the advertisers that support that site.

    This is not for Apple, of course. It is for the poor fellow they singled out and exposed to the whole world.

  • Taz

    But didn’t they try to return or atleast the ppl that found it and apple wouldn’t believe them

  • http://viettelonline.com/ LienDTK

    Well, interesting post, thanks!