Gizmodo E-mail to Jobs: 'We Have Nothing to Lose'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This whole "lost iPhone" story is dragging on but I know you guys like behind the scenes / dirty laundry stuff so I am posting this story about the e-mail Gizmodo sent to Steve Jobs.

Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production--that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise, it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Click to expand...
 
Oh good lord, it just gets worse.

I understand Lam's point of view - there are so many fake iPhone/Apple products out there that he DOES have a legitimate point when he states he desired to have an official word from Apple saying "Hey man, we lost this phone, it's ours, seriously, can we have it back" and provide some info if necessary to properly identify the phone.

Hell, since this all happened, there's been what, 4 or 5 "iPhone 4G" fakes that have appeared on the Shenzen black market (or however you spell that name) over in China and I doubt if anyone outside Apple could really tell the difference.

He has a legitimate point, or did since that email is quite old now, but... things don't bode well for Gizmodo or Gawker at this point.

With all the worrying Lam apparently did about the company hurting or Gizmodo dying, it's ironic that this situation could spell the death knell for Gizmodo and cripple the company too.

I think everyone is going way too far with this, honestly, but shit happens.
 
I'm no apple fan boi, But man that sure makes him sound like he was trying to extort apple for an exclusive story. And making that statement at the end would piss me off, much less an ego-maniac like Jobbs. I can hear him now "NOTHING TO LOOSE!!!!!??? I'LL SHOW YOU!!!!"
 
What this email shows is the collusion that has been going on between Apple and Gizmodo. Gizmodo essentially admitted to it when they said that since Apple has been cold to them via the iPad launch, they've had to find other more aggressive ways to get stories. The implication is clear. Gizmodo's credibility here is now suspect, if not in question. Apple's motives are now also suspect and now in question considering the information pipeline of PR has been going to Gizmodo. Who else have they been working with and how much are they getting paid to spread PR as a function of objective reporting? This whole thing smells.
 
I wish this story would stop being reported on. Why is everyone always in a frenzy over an iphone release when it's exactly like the previous models with a slight modification. I don't see what all the fuss is about, please stop posting these stories.
 
That email doesn't make any sense to me. They want an official letter to prove it wasn't a 'intended leak' and to be able to show where the phone went - or so they claim in the email. Wouldn't sending it back and simply saying Steve Jobs personally called and asked for it achieve the same goal? Steve Jobs wouldn't call over a fake phone, and showing a letter form Apple legal does absolutely nothing more to disprove the crazy intended leak conspiracy theory.
 
Ruh-roh....Giz is in trouble! That email does indeed have a foul stench on it. They should have taken a more "lets protect ourselves" approach such as "We can't give you this thing until you confirm that it is yours or we might be giving away some else's property. We don't want that."

But no, they took the "Scratch out backs and we'll give it back!" approach.

Stupid stupid stupid.

elektronisch said:
I wish this story would stop being reported on. Why is everyone always in a frenzy over an iphone release when it's exactly like the previous models with a slight modification. I don't see what all the fuss is about, please stop posting these stories.
Click to expand...

At this point it has nothing to do with the iPhone itself and everything to do with the actions of a few individuals involved. That is what makes it interesting.

Keep the stories coming. Those that don't want to read them can click past.
 
Ualdayan said:
That email doesn't make any sense to me. They want an official letter to prove it wasn't a 'intended leak' and to be able to show where the phone went - or so they claim in the email. Wouldn't sending it back and simply saying Steve Jobs personally called and asked for it achieve the same goal? Steve Jobs wouldn't call over a fake phone, and showing a letter form Apple legal does absolutely nothing more to disprove the crazy intended leak conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
I think Lam realized he was in serious legal trouble but tried to spin it as looking-for-a-good-story-for-this-small-company-that-is-oh-so-much-like-Apple-used-to-be-don't-you-think? to get some sympathy from Jobs.

What he failed to realize is that Jobs is about to Ascend and has little time for the posturing of mere mortals.
 
I dunno. I mean, wouldn't you want confirmation it was really that other's property, before you gave something to them? It did come off badly because he sounded like he wanted confirmation for the story.

He should have just said "If I am to return this device to you I need official acknowledgment that it is your property". Instead he started sounding a bit extortionist.
 
If you're going to write an email to the CEO of a fortune 100 corp at least turn on spell checking and bother to capitalize proper nouns.

Gizmodo is one of those sites I try to avoid solely due to their unprofessional and snooty conduct. Ever since that stunt they pulled at CES a few years back they've been in my bad column, this whole iPhone spiel just moves them up the list.

If you want to be treated like professional journalists then act like one. Seriously.
 
So lets say you go to a fish fry, get drunk out of your gourd.
some dbag from apple comes in, you don't know it, tons of dbags in a group.

so after your dinner you notice a phone on the grown, you have no clue whom its for.
holly crap cool phone!

NOBODY RETURNED MY IPOD TOUCH TO ME WHEN IT WAS "LOST".
 
I'm going to ask if they could replace it, since they seem to have this policy for other people. their store "support" is down
also grown not ground lol
 
jroe52 said:
So lets say you go to a fish fry, get drunk out of your gourd.
some dbag from apple comes in, you don't know it, tons of dbags in a group.

so after your dinner you notice a phone on the grown, you have no clue whom its for.
holly crap cool phone!

NOBODY RETURNED MY IPOD TOUCH TO ME WHEN IT WAS "LOST".
Click to expand...

The person who found the phone did see the owner's facebook page. The finder had the owner's name and never tried very hard to find the owner.
Did your ipod have your name in it somewhere? didn't think so
and you got that backward...you probably meant ground not grown
 
they could easily help report stolen merchandise... WHEN PEOPLE USE ITUNES or visit their store. they don't care, they are hoping i'll buy a crappy ipod product agian.

i wont, not because of this, but because 3 other apple product's i've had in 5 years damage under normal use. hard drive, battery and other failures.
 
Ya know I hate Apple as much as the next guy. But man I got that scene from Robocop in my head. Their in the bathroom and Dick Jones (Steve Jobs) grabs Bob Morton's (Brian Lam) hair and says " You just f__ked with the wrong guy buddy boy.' Ya I know it's a stretch.
 
I had no love for Apple at all on this story and I still don't but Gizmodo's email is pretty weak and desperate.
 
evileye said:
If you're going to write an email to the CEO of a fortune 100 corp at least turn on spell checking and bother to capitalize proper nouns.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was really hoping when I clicked that article I was going to see an email that was trying to legitimately resolve the situation.

I don't know much about the bloggers of Gizmodo, but when I was reading that all I could picture was a whiny teenager.
 
Apple had a lapse in internal controls and wants Gizmodo to... fix that for them? Awful.

They might as well just pump out more of these prototypes to all the media and learn from this way of marketing, see if it works.

Apple needs to recognize that they can (further) become a villain, like BP, or hit dire straits. Ten years ago there was no iPod and they think they're bulletproof.
 
singe_101 said:
Apple had a lapse in internal controls and wants Gizmodo to... fix that for them? Awful.

They might as well just pump out more of these prototypes to all the media and learn from this way of marketing, see if it works.

Apple needs to recognize that they can (further) become a villain, like BP, or hit dire straits. Ten years ago there was no iPod and they think they're bulletproof.
Click to expand...
Lapse in internal controls? Read the document that was unsealed: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf

Gray said the phone was in a bag. He didn't leave it anywhere. People have joked that he must have been sloppy drunk, but he was only there 2 hours so I don't buy that. He was there with an uncle. I don't know abut you guys, but I wouldn't get drunk with an uncle.
It maybe fell out of the bag or was stolen. That's an accident or it was stolen.
 
pgaster said:
Lapse in internal controls? Read the document that was unsealed: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf

Gray said the phone was in a bag. He didn't leave it anywhere. People have joked that he must have been sloppy drunk, but he was only there 2 hours so I don't buy that. He was there with an uncle. I don't know abut you guys, but I wouldn't get drunk with an uncle.
It maybe fell out of the bag or was stolen. That's an accident or it was stolen.
Click to expand...

Wow, that cop was on a binge with the seizing. He asks the guy to call his friend to ask for the return of a usb thumb drive and computer, he then seizes the guy's phone because now it's evidence. Then the friend eventually comes in, and takes them to the computer where the cop then seizes the friend's cell phone too after having gotten the thumb drive back.

That Gizmodo email though really does put them in a bad light. When Steve Jobs personally calls you, give the phone back. There is no need for written confirmation, it does nothing extra for you. We all know they didn't think 'Steve Jobs might be lying and trying to get us to give him a phone he has no claim to.' Saying 'Steve Jobs personally asked for its return' is actually MORE of a confirmation of it being the real phone than some random lawyer letter - at least from Gizmodo reader's perspective.
 
WTF,
From http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf
Search Warrant Inventory, one box of business cards for suspect chen (pg. 3 PDF)
I wasn't aware of business cards having the capacity to hold digital content! :D

I am surprised that a legal document has statements like this:
"I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued so the items set forth in Appendix B can be recoverd" (PDF pg.19).

Ha Ha Ha,
Search Warrant Invalid, "NIGHT SEARCH APPROVED YES ( ) NO (X)" (PDF pg.6)

This fiasco is full of peckerhead behavior from all involved!
 
Whatever the details of the chain of custody of said iPhone, that is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of anyone doing.

I mean, he basically dared one of the richest and most powerful men in the world to come after him then he provided a laudry list of demands!! Is it really "off record on my side" if you let Cnet print the personal email? By the way, this is just a (supposed) letter, there's no actual email confirmation or anything. I could write my (supposed) letter to Jobs too.

If the guy wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, he should at least use proper grammar. Any journalist should be aware of how stupid it is to leave a paper trail of communication. That is, if you don't actually want it to be found. Otherwise, contacting a lawyer to be a mediator would be the proper thing to do.

This story still smells to me. Everything doesn't quite add up...
 
/soapbox mode on

Whatever the gentleman who "found" the Iphone prototype may have done, no matter how poor the grammar, stupid the email, or suspicious the intentions of Gizmado, two, or three wrongs do not make right what Apple and the Anti-Christ like Jobs have done in response.

I worked retail for years. It was and is SOP to ask individuals claiming lost and found property to prove it belongs to them. You want your credit card back, I need to see ID. You want your purse back, Please tell me whats in it. Etc.

While it is defiantly likely an Iphone looking thing came from Apple just because Jobs was asking for it did not prove it was in fact property of Apple computer.

Let me check the facts, Gizmodo *DID* give the phone back, right? To give proper thanks for returning the prototype phone Apple went "Big Brother" all over the place.

After the way this event has gone down should I find an Iphone or other I-device anywhere I would have to seriously consider just dropping it in the trash somewhere and making sure my fingerprints aren't on it. It is abundantly clear just giving it back isn't by far enough to satisfy the Jobs.

On a side note, I have ready many news items, here on [H] and other places how having lost your ipod/phone and calling apple to help you find out who may have tried to activate or use that serial number is futile. Apple will not help anyone recover their stolen phone. Apple will not provide information to police calling to investigate either.

I have seen many posts, mostly elsewhere, about how Gizmado should have just trusted Holy Apple and Saintly Steve as being truthful and legitimate and the phone should have been returned immediate. I really wonder if the authors of said posts live in the same world I do? The world in economic chaos and collapse due to corporate greed and amoral CEO's.

/Off
 
I heard that Chen asked Steve Jobs for a letter verifying that the iphone prototype was indeed owned by apple, and Jobs agreed to send one. If true, why do I have the feeling that it was so the blogger could then say to the world "there, I was right." Isn't it a little late to pull off a journalistic triumph in this situation?
 
Another thread full of haters who obviously don't own any tech stocks.

Enjoy that Social Security retirement eating cat food.

And for those concerned about the porr wittle guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo,

The roommate, Katherine Martinson, said Hogan reached out to several publications and websites “in an attempt to start bidding for the iPhone prototype,” according to Broad. “Martinson said Hogan understood that he possessed a valuable piece of technology and that people would be interested in buying it.”

Martinson said she and other friends tried to talk Hogan out of selling the prototype, arguing it would ruin the career of the Apple engineer who lost it, Broad said in the affidavit. “Hogan’s response to her was that it ‘Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.’”​

Yeah, so enjoy jail, dickhead, sucks for you.
 
What wrong is that exactly, using the legal process under California's trade secrets law? There are laws in this country.

Does anyone here actually own stock in a US company or know anything about law or business?

Elf_Boy said:
Whatever the gentleman who "found" the Iphone prototype may have done, no matter how poor the grammar, stupid the email, or suspicious the intentions of Gizmado, two, or three wrongs do not make right what Apple and the Anti-Christ like Jobs have done in response.
Click to expand...
 
HalifaxPete said:
WTF,
From http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/05/iphone_affidavit.pdf
Search Warrant Inventory, one box of business cards for suspect chen (pg. 3 PDF)
I wasn't aware of business cards having the capacity to hold digital content! :D

I am surprised that a legal document has statements like this:
"I therefore pray that a search warrant be issued so the items set forth in Appendix B can be recoverd" (PDF pg.19).

Ha Ha Ha,
Search Warrant Invalid, "NIGHT SEARCH APPROVED YES ( ) NO (X)" (PDF pg.6)

This fiasco is full of peckerhead behavior from all involved!
Click to expand...


Business cards can be embedded with magnetic stripes easily. Ever get a parking stub from a machine for a parking garage? Same thing. It IS highly possible, not necessarily probable though.
 
uclajd said:
Another thread full of haters who obviously don't own any tech stocks.

Enjoy that Social Security retirement eating cat food.

And for those concerned about the porr wittle guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo,

The roommate, Katherine Martinson, said Hogan reached out to several publications and websites “in an attempt to start bidding for the iPhone prototype,” according to Broad. “Martinson said Hogan understood that he possessed a valuable piece of technology and that people would be interested in buying it.”

Martinson said she and other friends tried to talk Hogan out of selling the prototype, arguing it would ruin the career of the Apple engineer who lost it, Broad said in the affidavit. “Hogan’s response to her was that it ‘Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.’”​

Yeah, so enjoy jail, dickhead, sucks for you.
Click to expand...

Whenever a Apple topic is made you can expect uclajd to soil his diaper.
 
uclajd said:
Another thread full of haters who obviously don't own any tech stocks.

Enjoy that Social Security retirement eating cat food.

And for those concerned about the porr wittle guy who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo,


Yeah, so enjoy jail, dickhead, sucks for you.
Click to expand...

The Above sounds more like hate speech then any other prose in this thread.

Further you ask:

uclajd said:
What wrong is that exactly, using the legal process under California's trade secrets law? There are laws in this country.

Does anyone here actually own stock in a US company or know anything about law or business?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do own stock in many companies both domestic and national. Further I also have a strong laymen's understanding of law, business law, and constitutional law. I seriously doubt I am alone of posters on this thread, much less active users of the great [H] in this regard. I also fully expect among the many voices expressing their thoughts and wisdom on this subject you nor I are even close to being the most knowledgeable or best invested.

For laws to be just, ethical, and constitutional they must be fairly and equally enforced.

At the time Mr Chen's door was broken down, to be repaired and replaced at taxpayer expense. His property seized, ( and not yet returned) His life disrupted and turned into a living circus, the phone *had* already been returned to Apple computer. The identity of the person who "lost" the phone publicly revealed, the person who "found" the phone named in the media, the $5k cash incentive to turn the phone over to gizmodo was even common knowledge by then.

Uclajd, you disagree with what I and others have said and what we believe. Fine. I respect your legal privilege to respond with your thoughts and opinions. In looking closely at the two posts partially quoted above I came to the following conclusions.

1) you disagree

2) Rather then refute statements or provide new information, new arguments, eg rhetoric to support your assumed counter position you instead make attacks on character "Another thread full of haters," Wish those who disagree with you ill will "Enjoy that Social Security retirement eating cat food," and imply everyone else is ignorant unlike you "Does anyone here actually own stock in a US company or know anything about law or business"

3) Your one attempt at argumentation is specious. "What wrong is that exactly, using the legal process under California's trade secrets law? There are laws in this country."

No one has stated or claimed there are no laws in the US or California. No one has stated that use of law to protect trade secrets in wrong or unethical. What people are saying and doing is questioning the ethics and propriety of how Apple computer and its CEO Steve Jobs are using the economic and political clout under its control to seeming over enforce the law. Possibly breaking two or more important shield laws. Laws that protect journalists (such as when [H] took on infinium labs). This questionable legal action does not come without cost. The payroll for the detectives and offices involved in the search, any over time, the cost of storing seized equipment, the cost of defending against any lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of this process will all be paid by local taxes. IMO there are better things for our police officers to do then investigate an alleged crime in which the supposed perpetrator and all other parties have already been clearly identified and in some cases have made public announcement though the media as to what they did and how and why they did it.


Does apple have the right to be protected by the law against theft and espionage? Sure.

If Apple is going to take its super secret next generation toys into public its going to have to accept that things sometimes become lost or stolen. The finders do have an obligation to return the item, however privacy law is very clear, once you take something into a public location, where there is "no expectation of privacy" rights to privacy are given up.

I believe Jobs has become far to comfortable wielding his internal Apple Gestapo and in a knee-jerk reaction has broken away part of his public facade by using the local police to step over and exceed both what is right, ethical and legal.

I welcome anyone who differs in opinion to please respond. Though rhetoric and debate the subject can truly be explored and reasoned out.
 
I personally think that denying Apple it's property, even after the CEO calls you personally, is flat out disrespect for the owners of said property and the laws that govern this sort of thing. No matter how evil Apple is or whatever Apple Gestapo claims may lie around, property is property, and it's pretty clear that this device is property of Apple.

I hope Gizmodo burns for this, maybe learn a lesson or two in the process.
 
Elf_Boy said:
The Above sounds more like hate speech then any other prose in this thread.

Further you ask:



Yes, I do own stock in many companies both domestic and national. Further I also have a strong laymen's understanding of law, business law, and constitutional law. I seriously doubt I am alone of posters on this thread, much less active users of the great [H] in this regard. I also fully expect among the many voices expressing their thoughts and wisdom on this subject you nor I are even close to being the most knowledgeable or best invested.

For laws to be just, ethical, and constitutional they must be fairly and equally enforced.

At the time Mr Chen's door was broken down, to be repaired and replaced at taxpayer expense. His property seized, ( and not yet returned) His life disrupted and turned into a living circus, the phone *had* already been returned to Apple computer. The identity of the person who "lost" the phone publicly revealed, the person who "found" the phone named in the media, the $5k cash incentive to turn the phone over to gizmodo was even common knowledge by then.

Uclajd, you disagree with what I and others have said and what we believe. Fine. I respect your legal privilege to respond with your thoughts and opinions. In looking closely at the two posts partially quoted above I came to the following conclusions.

1) you disagree

2) Rather then refute statements or provide new information, new arguments, eg rhetoric to support your assumed counter position you instead make attacks on character "Another thread full of haters," Wish those who disagree with you ill will "Enjoy that Social Security retirement eating cat food," and imply everyone else is ignorant unlike you "Does anyone here actually own stock in a US company or know anything about law or business"

3) Your one attempt at argumentation is specious. "What wrong is that exactly, using the legal process under California's trade secrets law? There are laws in this country."

No one has stated or claimed there are no laws in the US or California. No one has stated that use of law to protect trade secrets in wrong or unethical. What people are saying and doing is questioning the ethics and propriety of how Apple computer and its CEO Steve Jobs are using the economic and political clout under its control to seeming over enforce the law. Possibly breaking two or more important shield laws. Laws that protect journalists (such as when [H] took on infinium labs). This questionable legal action does not come without cost. The payroll for the detectives and offices involved in the search, any over time, the cost of storing seized equipment, the cost of defending against any lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of this process will all be paid by local taxes. IMO there are better things for our police officers to do then investigate an alleged crime in which the supposed perpetrator and all other parties have already been clearly identified and in some cases have made public announcement though the media as to what they did and how and why they did it.


Does apple have the right to be protected by the law against theft and espionage? Sure.

If Apple is going to take its super secret next generation toys into public its going to have to accept that things sometimes become lost or stolen. The finders do have an obligation to return the item, however privacy law is very clear, once you take something into a public location, where there is "no expectation of privacy" rights to privacy are given up.

I believe Jobs has become far to comfortable wielding his internal Apple Gestapo and in a knee-jerk reaction has broken away part of his public facade by using the local police to step over and exceed both what is right, ethical and legal.

I welcome anyone who differs in opinion to please respond. Though rhetoric and debate the subject can truly be explored and reasoned out.
Click to expand...

Look thru uclajd's posting history. All the damn troll has done lately is post once or twice in an apple topic and then never visit it again.
 
Zellio2010 said:
Look thru uclajd's posting history. All the damn troll has done lately is post once or twice in an apple topic and then never visit it again.
Click to expand...

Interesting information,

Thank you,

Perhaps it is difficult to get wi-fi under bridges?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top