Why Apple NEEDS to CRUSH/TAKE DOWN the IP Bozo Breakers at GAWKER MEDIA - GIZMODO

  • Posted: 22 April 2010 12:33 PM #16

    TanToday - 22 April 2010 01:34 PM
    BillH - 22 April 2010 01:28 PM

    Tan, every point you make is a good one.  I’m in particular agreement with your assessment on the right/wrong way to do business but if it were me I wouldn’t be chasing gizmodo (just another punk) down their particular rat hole.  Gruber et.al. is doing a nice job of brandishing out the issues.  Apples focus is better spent on improving and enhancing their products.  Legal resources are better spent on those that steal and deploy rather than reveal intellectual property.

    You might be overlooking the IMMENSE SUMS that other companies pay out to GENERATE “BUZZ”, if they even can, on a new product launch.

    Apple, gets hundreds of millions of FREE BUZZ just BECAUSE their releases are such highly anticipated and UNKNOWN features with every product.

    In essence, their ADVANCE ADVERTISING IS the FREE BUZZ.

    Now, the only thing that will generate any “pull” on launch date, is speculation over the issue of IF THE SHOWN phone WAS THE 4th generation, and if it was, the HEADLINES will be “BOO, just what we knew about MONTHS AGO…”

    Meaning the NEXT launch, won’t have that skintight drum of giddy anticipation going for it.

    Just compute how much FREE publicity SECRECY generates for AAPL, and contrast that with a full blown, print, TV, and paid promotional campaign that other firms face, that Apple wonderfully manages to NOT PAY FOR, simply BECAUSE they have had a pretty airtight release of IP and DESIGN elements up till this fiasco.

    But the possibility also exists that buyers leaning toward Verizon and Droid will now wait for the phone that is reported to “fix” whatever issues they may have had with the iPhone.  Hard to know one way or the other.

    Signature

    I don’t mind being wrong…,I just hate being wrong so FAST!

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 12:48 PM #17

    If I were a judge I’d call their “didn’t know for sure whose it was until we opened it” defense as outright perjury. Point one: it had Apple’s name and “iPhone” on the back. Duh. What CLONER would be that stupid?  Two: they paid $5000 for the thing.  Ummm, who would pay 5Gs for an item they believe to be a clone or trick?  Ans.  NOONE.  Gixmodo CLEARLY believed they were getting something of value or they would not have paid the cash.  Three: How did they get the employee’s name and info?  That isn’t going to be printed on the interior components, is it?  They got the info by TURNING IT ON, again, CLEARLY giving them info about what it was and who it belonged to.

    Sorry, but the “we didn’t know until we took it apart” is a flat out lie.  They can post it on their web site, but they try using it as a legal defense they should face perjury charges as well as theft.

    Signature

    “Everything in excess!  To really enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.  Moderation is for monks.” -Lazarus Long

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 12:52 PM #18

    It made David Letterman’s top 10 list last night.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 12:53 PM #19

    Of course, I’m a fan boy… but I’ve been waiting to replace my original iPhone 8GB. Specifically, I’ve been waiting for chip and battery upgrades. This “leak” won’t affect my decision one way or another, I’m fairly certain the upgrades will be in this years iPhone. 

    If the lost and found iPhone is legit, I do like the flat back of the unit, makes it easier to use with it lying on a flat surface.

    Signature

    I’ve never owned a windows PC. Never will.

    High tech Meditation Music

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 01:05 PM #20

    Apple should take the high road on this. More precisely the devious road. A lawsuit would simply confirm Gawker/Gizmodo s claim of being bullied by Apple. Apple should PUBLICLY make it clear that they consider the issue closed.

    Behind the scenes they could exert quite a bit of quiet pressure on advertisers to pull out of Gawker sites. Make it clear that whatever event they hold or attend, Gizmodo or other Gawker outlets are not welcome. Issue a company wide notice to employees that anyone having any contact with Gizmodo or any Gawker sites will be subject to immediate summery dismissal for violation of their NDA.

    Freeze them out.

    IMO from a tech-news point of view Apple is the biggest company. Gawker needs them more than Apple and the rest of the industry needs Gawker. It’s even possible that, Dell, MS, HP, etc, understand how how Gizmodo’s behavior hurts all of them. Get them to quietly join the process and if Gawker survives 3-5 years of shunning by the tech industry maybe they’ll learn their lessen.

    Signature

    Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints
    Is No Way To Run An Art Gallery

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 01:22 PM #21

    geoduck, I stand with you on this matter.  Though I am a strong believer in ethics, legal pursuit of this matter will only give life to bad publicity.

    Signature

    The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 01:42 PM #22

    zewazir - 22 April 2010 03:48 PM

    Point one: it had Apple’s name and “iPhone” on the back. Duh. What CLONER would be that stupid?

    You can scratch point one of your list, counsel.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 01:45 PM #23

    Gruber’s article pretty much clinches it for me. Like Geoduck above, I think Apple might want to make it clear they disapprove but otherwise stand aside publicly. Behind the scenes, they might want to remind the district attorney’s office what California business just made $3 Billion in profit last quarter. Whether they do that or even want that or not, the DA will determine whether to bring charges against the seller and Gizmodo. If I was the DA, I would—that kind of corporate b.s. makes the state less attractive to businesses, and a message that the state won’t stand for it might be a good one.

    Signature

    Dean Lewis
    http://www.offbalance.com
    "Now that you’re dead, your usefulness to me
    has ended! But I’ll keep your shoes. BWAHAHAHA"
    —The Lightning Bug, J-Men Forever (1978)

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 01:46 PM #24

    Some people here need to take a serious chill pill.

    Yes, both the guy who ?found? and sold the phone, and the people who bought it, acted despicably. It would be just as despicable if this were a prototype Zune, Kindle, Flip or whatever else the kids are buying nowadays. It would just as unfair to the poor engineer who made a legitimate mistake, and who hopefully will not have to pay for it with his job. He/she, not Apple, is the one deserving of sympathy.

    But the idea that Apple is materially harmed by this is laughable. Anyone clued in enough to know about this leak knows that Apple is going to refresh the iPhone soon anyway. At worst, any ?lost? sales are more like deferred sales ? Apple wouldn?t get their money for another couple of months. But they?d get it. (Assuming, again, that this leak would have any effect at all on buying behavior, which Apple would have to prove to win a lawsuit, and which would be very difficult to do.)

    And the other point ? $500 million lost because people have more time to copy the iPhone?s industrial design? Are you kidding me? What?s to copy? As Farhad Manjoo noted, there?s only so much you can do with a hand-sized, touch-screen device:

    The irony of the iPhone is that by making a device that’s essentially just a screen, Apple has leveled the design playing field. The iPhone’s most dominant design feature, its screen, can be replicated by every one of its rivals.

    Compare the iPhone to Google’s Nexus One or the Motorola Droid. Sure, they’re not identical, and you probably like one of the three phones more than you like the others. But it’s hard to say that any of these phones stands out as being any more awesome-looking than the others.

    Any copying done by Apple?s competitors would likely be of the phone?s software ? the software that Apple showed off to the entire world weeks ago, and which Gizmodo couldn?t even access.

    Apple could try to sue Gizmodo for punitive rather than monetary damages ? they certainly can make the case that the company was knowingly trafficking in stolen property ? but I?m not sure how far they would get with it. Maybe they can try to collect all the ad revenue Gizmodo took in from the article. That would be fitting, but I wouldn?t bet on them even being able to do that ? and it probably wouldn?t stop the site from doing the same thing the next time the opportunity presented itself.

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 02:44 PM #25

    willrob - 21 April 2010 11:13 PM

    Giz has posted their thinking on why Apple couldn’t track the phone down. Apparently a software glitch in the OS4 betas doesn’t allow Mobile Me to Find My Phone.

    Ah, I was wondering about find my phone this whole time.

    Gruber and Ihnatko had a great podcast conversation with Dan Benjamin.  It appears the finder of the phone and his friends were real low lifes, who tried to sell the phone to engadget AFTER they had sold and GIVEN the phone to Gizmodo.  Petty thieves.  I wouldn’t want to be them right now.

    Dan Benjamin’s The conversation with Gruber and Ihnatko.

    Signature

    Off again, on again…

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 03:01 PM #26

    Nonsuch - 22 April 2010 04:46 PM

    But the idea that Apple is materially harmed by this is laughable.

    Sorry, but I disagree. The harm may not be easily quantifiable.To say it’s laughable is to also say that Apple has merely slipped quietly into the cellphone market without affecting other handset makers, and that Apple’s rigorous secrecy before product launches has no material benefit to the company.

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 03:19 PM #27

    Apple will not take any legal action in this matter. Period.

    Also, I don’t see Apple firing the employee. 

    Apple has nothing to gain by either action, and a lot of press that does them no good at all. They are smarter than that.

    As for Gizmodo, Apple will cease invitations to them to any events.

    What Gizmodo did, far and above everything, was simply immoral.

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 03:30 PM #28

    Mike in Helsinki - 22 April 2010 06:19 PM

    Apple will not take any legal action in this matter. Period.

    Also, I don’t see Apple firing the employee. 

    Apple has nothing to gain by either action, and a lot of press that does them no good at all. They are smarter than that.

    As for Gizmodo, Apple will cease invitations to them to any events.

    What Gizmodo did, far and above everything, was simply immoral.


    Mike, it is good to hear from you.  And I concur with what you write.

    Apple was damaged, but seeking legal redress would be inefficient at best and could possibly exacerbate the harm.

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 04:15 PM #29

    I’d like to point out a slightly different take on this issue. I’m not defending Gizmodo at all (I think any outfit with the word ‘Giz’ in their name is questionable anyway!). But, I work in an office that is staffed with total gadget geeks, all of us with iPhones. The pictures and descriptions have started a feeding frenzy here, with people making plans to stand in line the first day this thing goes on sale. AND ITS STILL TWO MONTHS OFF FOR CRIPES SAKE!  I’m not saying Apple wasn’t harmed by this, but I think they are also reaping quite a bit of free publicity, and if anything it is getting people REALLY psyched for the new phone. grin

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 04:48 PM #30

    The Apple engineer needs to file suit immediately and ask for punitive damages.  Gawker/Gizmodo has defamed him with malicious intent.  In the course of doing so they knowingly committed illegal acts, making themselves liable for punitive damages. 

    Defamation would allow recovery of the value of his reputation, which they have ruined (Plaintiff’s exhibit #1:  The Letterman video.)

    Punitive damages are set at whatever the court believes it will take to ensure that the defendant never contemplates a similar act again, and to make an example of the defendant to others.  Such damages are NOT covered by any liability insurance policy.

    If I were Apple I’d put the best legal team I could find at this young man’s disposal for as long as it takes to put Gawker/Gizmodo out of business.