
Why Apple Could Sue Gawker Over 'Lost' iPhone Story - icey
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/why-apple-could-sue-gawker-over-lost-iphone-story/19447570/
======
kevinh
Asking around at the bar and calling Apple isn't a reasonable and just attempt
to return the property to its owner? Let's not forget that the guy who found
the iPhone was in a bar, and, most likely, had impaired though processes. I'm
pretty sure most people would agree he went above and beyond the call of duty
attempting to return the product to its owner.

~~~
ja2ke
Selling it to Gawker for $5,000 is the opposite of returning it to its owner.
There's no way around this really.

~~~
statictype
Yes, but thats on the guy who sold it. Is Gawker responsible for this? If
anything, they could argue that Apple owes them $5000 for getting back their
device :)

------
jrockway
Misappropriation of trade secrets? It's not a trade secret when it's in a bar.
To be a trade secret, it has to be secret.

~~~
hga
Bingo. To maintain a trade secret you have to take effective steps to keep it
secret. If you fail without external action (e.g. inducement to spill the
secret, theft, etc.), e.g. by losing something in a public place, you lose
your ability to pursue anything on trade secret grounds since _you_ exposed
the secret to the world.

------
statictype
_Denton insists returning it to Apple was the plan all along if the phone
turned out to be authentic. But Wallin doesn't believe that argument would be
of much use in court. "How many times do people say after they're caught that
their intention was to return something?" he says. "Can someone raise that
defense? Of course. That doesn't mean it's going to be believed."_

I'm not getting it. Gawker _did_ return the phone when Apple notified them
that it was theirs, didn't they?

The fact that Apple had requested the phone back is what solidified the fact
that it was indeed a genuine Apple prototype.

~~~
anigbrowl
They did...but in between they posted a ton of information about Apple's
device, which they were not entitled to do, with the specific end of making a
profit.

this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit
someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed
to damage that someone else's interests.

Besides benefiting Apple's competitors, there are already news stories saying
things like 'don't buy an iPhone until June' and so forth.

~~~
statictype
_this is illegal for two reasons: one is that you're not supposed to exploit
someone else's ill fortune in this manner, and two is that you're not supposed
to damage that someone else's interests._

Illegal or unethical?

As a thought experiment:

Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow
customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a
top-of-the-line model in a few months?

Isn't it in Gizmodo's best interest (as a journalistic establishment that
serves the best interests of the people - again, just a thought experiment) to
let people know about this?

How is it different from DaringFireball talking about an Apple tablet device
based on inside information that he received?

~~~
IdeaHamster
_Couldn't you turn it around and say it's unethical for Apple to allow
customers to buy phones knowing full-well that they are going to introduce a
top-of-the-line model in a few months?_

W...T...F?!? Please, please explain this logic to me. Honestly, I don't
understand how some people think like this! What would you have Apple do? Stop
selling the previous model as soon as they have the first prototypes of the
next one? Pre-announce the next generation of phone at the launch of each new
generation?

Are you familiar with the Osborne effect? Is it really so bad that Apple has
managed to, more or less, completely eliminate the Osborne effect through
their over-the-top secrecy? Why should you be entitled to know what some other
company's plans are?

~~~
statictype
_Honestly, I don't understand how some people think like this!_

I agree(it was just a thought experiment - I don't actually hold that
view).No, I don't expect Apple to stop selling the previous model and I don't
see anything wrong with that.

I also don't see anything wrong with a tech magazine/blog breaking news about
a new version of a device that could, as a side effect, damper sales of the
existing device.

We are not entitled to know everything Apple does and neither is Apple
entitled to expect journalists to help them maintain their secrecy.

------
iuguy
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain the author of this article is not a
lawyer either. My experiences with litigation thus far are that you can sue
anyone for anything. It's whether or not you get judgement in your favour and
any money out of it that counts.

------
hristov
I have to generally agree with the overall gist of this (not legal advice!).
Interestingly I noticed gawker ran a very fawning article about Steve Jobs
today, so they are obviously scared and trying to backpedal and suck up to
Jobs.

~~~
anigbrowl
John Gruber spotted this one already....

Gaby Darbyshire is the Chief Operating Officer of Gawker Media, overseeing
Finance, Legal, Operations and Business Development. Gawker Media is the
publisher of nine online blog titles, including the award-winning and
acclaimed Gawker and Gizmodo.

She holds a MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University and a law degree
from City University, and is a member of the Bar of England and Wales.

<http://gabydarby.blogspot.com/>

 _Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in
buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief
operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied
that Gizmodo was in the clear._

[http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/how-checkbook-
journalism-g...](http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/how-checkbook-journalism-
gave-gizmodo-its-iphone-scoop/19445990/)

Wonder if she looked at United States v. Mikahel Chang and Daniel Park,
CR-00-20203 (N.D. California 2000)? Buying something that you know to be
improperly obtained is itself criminal. Not sure what precedents, if any,
exist for splashing the innards of the prototype all over the internet.

