Nick Denton in 2009: Journalism Not Gawker's 'Institutional Intention'

• very similar case involving Apple. Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge. A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2005/tc2005037_7877_tc024.htm

• dunno: "�The blogger was actually more effective at being a proper bailiff than the person who volunteered to be the bailiff in the first place. The phone was promptly returned.�" So, if you have a bit too much to drink one night and forget where you parked your Buick and I come along and see it the next morning, it will be okay if I just call General Motors the next day and ask if anyone has lost a Buick, then sell it to someone else for $xxxxx; then disassemble it, put it back together and then call you to pick it up? And pat themselves on the back saying it was "promptly returned!" Are you serious?

• Sorry "dunno" but you don't know what you're talking about. The term is "bailee" not "bailiff" and the duty of a finder of lost property is to make all reasonable efforts to identify the rightful owner and to return it to that owner. The identity of the Apple employee who lost the phone was displayed right on the face of the phone. Both the original finder and Gizmodo ignored that until the original finder had sold it for $5000 and Gizmodo had purchased stolen property. It was "stolen" because California law and the law of most other states deems it stolen when the finder fails to do what the law says a finder has to do. Do you really want these "investigative" websites to start breeding a haven where there is profit in stealing industry prototypes before they are released? Do you think any electronics company wants that? Do you think it will be good for the industry, the consumer or the economy? This is not "wacky" California law - it has been the law for over 40 years in most states.

• Would you pay $5000 for the opportunity to be Steve Jobs' private chauffeur? The deal, as far as I understand it, is that the proper "bailiff" for the device would have been the owner of the bar -- the owner of the private property where the object was misplaced. That's the proper bailiff, and that bailiff's job would have been to be in charge of holding that phone until such time as it could be returned to its rightful owner. It would not have been inappropriate for the person who inserted themselves as a bailiff to hand the phone over to the blogger, as the blogger did actually succeed in returning the phone to its rightful owner. The blogger was actually more effective at being a proper bailiff than the person who volunteered to be the bailiff in the first place. The phone was promptly returned. The blogger was willing to pay $5000 to have the opportunity to be the bailiff for Apple's new device. While not the "proper" bailiff, the proper bailiff would have been the owner of the bar, at no time did anyone act in any other capacity than a bailiff. The phone was promptly returned. The rest probably falls under reverse engineering or something. I think there comes a point where you can say "I can win this case anyway, I can win any case, go for it, make my day", but that's much less interesting, boring and unfair. It's probably not a bad idea to do that if you're the one being unfairly targeted (e.g. patent trolls), although it's easier to pay them off, but anyway -- there are times when the "make my day" is helpful, useful and appropriate and one can be thankful that they have the power to do that -- in this case, I would suggest that that's not the case.

• Well written. Well researched. Especially on Iphonegates' shadyness.

TotalComments: 5