Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbrennan | Hacker News Reader

It certainly sounds shady to me. What I can't believe is Apple would even bend to Gizmodo by sending them the publishable letter.

It surprises me because I can't imagine Gizmodo having any right to withhold the phone from its rightful owner (Apple). Like "Oh we have your missing property, and we'd love to give it back, but you have to do something for us first". I don't know the legal system, but that just can't be right.

View on HN

To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe Gizmodo was asking for proof that it was actually Apple's phone before they give it back. It would have (almost) been ok to state "give me proof." Instead, he rambled on about profits, and how this might hurt Apple, etc, which is pretty damning evidence IMHO - IANAL though.

That's quite some benefit you've got there. The letter doesn't seem to be more proof than Steve calling and asking for his stuff back whilst gritting his teeth. It could be fake Steve calling, but having it sent to Apple, c/o Steve Jobs, 1 Infinite Loop should put it in the owner's hands.

Ah, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still somewhat ridiculous, and a bit slimy but I suppose rational.

If I find a cell phone, I'm not going to give it away to the first person who comes forward about the "lost phone ad". I'm going to ask the person 20 questions to make sure it's really their phone (what color, brand, etc). If you look at this "at just the right light" you could almost see it... until the editor went on about profits, etc.

It's an apple-branded phone ffs. The Gawker editor clearly dug a hole for himself with that email, and Jobs was right to send in the dogs (as much as I hate to admit it)

They needed proof that an unreleased Apple device belonged to Apple? Who else could it possibly have belonged to?

At a certain point they probably have to do whatever they can to mitigate damages. Because they expect this stuff to get reviewed carefully in civil court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com