Posts tagged with ‘speculation’

MG Siegler and Kara Swisher: Skirmish!

TechCrunch’s MG Siegler today posted a somewhat boring article regarding the recent Wall Street Journal scoop (speculation?) regarding the release of a Verizon iPhone in early 2011. 

Siegler insinuates that WSJ author Yukari Iwatani Kane was “fed” this story (and several others) by Apple execs. The idea, of course, is that Apple can control the message by handing “scoops” to favored journalists at outlets such as the WSJ:

Now, I of course don’t know for sure that Apple fed WSJ this story — but let’s look at the recent history. In January, as rumors were swirling about the iPad, the WSJ had a story suggesting the tablet computer could run around $1,000. At the time, I pointed out why this reeked of Apple setting expectations low so they could blow them out of the water. A few days later, a former Marketing Manager at Apple backed this up. The result? Steve Jobs on stage announcing the iPad would start at just $499. Boom.

Enter Kara Swisher:

No game. HE. [SIEGLER] MADE. IT. UP. I knew the particulars of several of those stories and it was pure shoe leather reporting by Kane on them and she published them when they were done and not on some fictional schedule to help Apple. 

I know it is super interesting to speculate otherwise, but it’s not the case and to smack around someone who does their job with fiction is the height of hackery.

BTW, I no longer work for the Journal, although we have the same owner (no, we don’t plit secretly together), but it’s simply unfair to a really good reporter.

Interesting.

Before reading Swisher’s comment, I didn’t even really think about Siegler’s claims. Now, though, it’s interesting to me when I consider this back-and-forth alongside the ongoing “turf wars” that are waged between professional bloggers and professional journalists.

It’s not surprising to me that tech bloggers, a group which tends to rely on anonymous sources and TMZ-styled reporting, would insinuate that mainstream journalists only get their stories by being handed privileged information on a silver platter.

The idea seems to be that journalists don’t ever have to do any real work.

Siegler never offers evidence of a cozy relationship between Apple and Kane, and Swisher seems to deny it.

I suspect the truth lay someone in the middle: The Journal likely has access to Apple and ears in the right places because of the way it operates and because of its cachet in the industry, but this is probably rooted in the sort of “shoe leather reporting” that Swisher mentions in her comment. Boring stuff like making calls, asking questions, waiting for responses, etc. You know: Journalism.

It’s really the difference between having respect, and not having it and bloggers are really touchy about the fact that they often don’t have it. Though, they do their best to make believe they don’t want or need it.

Still, none of that is the same thing as sitting around and waiting for Steve Jobs (or someone acting on Jobs’s behalf) to call in with a scoop, and that’s really what Siegler seems to believe is happening. 

Yet, why would Kane continue to report scoops from a source that, according to Siegler, purposefully fed her false information regarding the price of the as-of-then unreleased iPad?

Doesn’t make much sense. In the end, this really starts to feel like the complaints/accusations of someone who is upset that a hard worker has been given opportunities.

Jason Chen Capitulates: No Longer Warrants Search

There are multiple reports that something is (finally) going on with the investigation into the leak/possible theft of the iPhone 4 prototype. A few headlines:

If you’re scratching your head right now, don’t worry, you should be. That’s a lot of variation based on what turns out to be a fairly short and surprisingly straightforward legal document.

The worst of the bunch is Top News, which posts a story that is, from top to bottom, made up:

Authorities in California have agreed to work with Gizmodo and have also dropped charges against the Company, in a case related to a missing prototype of Apple iPhone.

Given that charges haven’t been filed against Gizmodo (or anyone else) dropping charges would be an interesting course of action for the DA. Top News goes on to say:

Gizmodo countered this and stressed that it had paid to receive the handset from an Apple employee.

Various Gizmodo people have said a lot of things, but I’ve never seen this claim made by anyone. I suspect Top News isn’t a real news outlet.

Most of the other headlines are accurate, but focus in on an aspect of “the deal” that doesn’t really tell much of the story. Wired and The San Jose Business Journal in particular seem to insinuate that Gizmodo is basically off the hook, based on having made a deal with the DA. That’s not quite true—yet—but you have to read the actual articles to find that out. The Fast Company headline doesn’t mention that the Judge’s “order” is based on a request by the DA.

The EFF is the EFF. Their headline is pretty much in line with their public stance on this issue from the very first day the search warrant was issued, which is that it shouldn’t have been. They say “controversial” but much of the controversy is based on the EFF’s prior claims relating to Shield Laws. (To be sure, Gizmodo’s in-house counsel and COO sides with the EFF.) Those are matters that would have to have been taken up, if the DA and Chen’s attorney hadn’t reached an agreement. 

The most appropriate headline comes from PCWorld. I remember taking reading comprehension tests in Middle School which involved reading a short story and then picking the short description which best sums up the point of the story.

Every outlet except PCWorld failed that test, in this instance.

The most interesting aspect of this development is not that Chen is getting his stuff back, it’s what he had to agree to in order to get his stuff back.

Beyond the headlines, all of the articles (excluding the Top News article) seem to make the same basic point:

Prosecutors reached an agreement with Thomas Nolan, the attorney representing Gizmodo and reporter Jason Chen, to return a computer and other seized items in exchange for “all of the materials in the computer sought by our investigators,” San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen Wagstaff told Wired.com Friday.

Gizmodo’s Jesus Diaz hails the development on Twitter:

jesusdiaz Great news http://eff.org/r.5nw Gizmodo warrantwithdrawn (thanks @RajivVArma [direct link]

But, why? Here’s the text of the order:

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THERFORE: upon application of Chris Feasel, Deputy District Attorney for the County of San Mateo, and with the consent of Thomas J. Nolan of Nolan, Armstrong and Barton, LLP, counsel for Jason Chen and Gizmodo.com, it is hereby ordered that the search warrant issued by this Court on April 23, 2010, authorizing the search of 40726 Greystone Terrace, Fremont, be withdrawn.

All items seized shall be returned forthwith to Gizmodo.com and Jason Chen through their counsel, Thomas J. Nolan of Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, after inspection of the documents provided by Mr. Chen, by and through counsel, Thomas J. Nolan, and upon the satisfaction of the investigating agency that the documents are true, correct, and complete copies of the materials as authorized in the warrant and subsequent proceedings. Further, the parties involved shall waive all authenticity and foundational objection in any future proceedings regarding any documents found or discovered between the parties. [eff.org]

All emphasis mine. Before getting into that, though, I want to make sure to highlight something that the EFF mentions in their analysis of this development:

As we pointed out, the police could (for example) attempt to subpoena the same material without running afoul of section 1524(g) and still proceed with their case.

I’m not a lawyer. I do work very closely with lawyers though. More importantly, the order (quoted above) isn’t difficult to understand. It seems clear, once you’ve read through the articles I’ve linked, that it’s still possible that charges will be filed against both the “finder” of the iPhone prototype as well as Gizmodo/Jason Chen. That won’t happen until the evidence is evaluated. The EFF blurb seems to ignore the aspect of the order which indicates that the DA is going to get everything he needs to make that determination, because Chen’s Lawyer has agreed to hand it over.

More importantly, they’ve agreed to waive their rights to all authenticity and foundational objection in any future proceedings. This basically means that no one will contest that the emails were written/received by Chen and, presumably, because it’s being handed over voluntarily, the Shield Law issues are now completely moot. (That’s not to say that there won’t be arguments surrounding the meaning or the merit of the documents, but that would happen during a trial, if charges are filed.)

Furthermore, it seems as though Chen won’t be getting his equipment back until the DA is satisfied that he’s got everything he needs. Great, uh, news?

Which brings me back to the point: Why does Jesus Diaz hail this as great news? What aspect of this “deal” benefits Gizmodo or Jason Chen? The DA still gets everything he wants and most (if not all) of the legal hurdles regarding the seizure of equipment and the warrant are now cleared up. I can only think of a couple things:

  1. Chen gets his stuff back without a protracted legal fight. More importantly, at least to Chen, is that he only has to provide information relevant to the case. This is good for Chen, of course, but it doesn’t seem that good, given that he’s still surrendering the same evidence that the DA was seeking. Maybe protecting his information is more important than I can understand or maybe he’s got some embarrassing nude photos. I simply don’t know.
  2. Could there be more to the deal than has been revealed by the DA or Nolan? At this point, it seems awfully one-sided—favoring the DA—but I wonder if there’s some sort of “we’ll provide what you need if you focus on Brian Hogan, rather than Chen” agreement in place? In that case, this information could be used as evidence against Brian Hogan.
  3. Could this be the beginning of a plea bargain? 

With only the press reports and the order to rely on, I don’t see any way of arguing (without conjecture) that this is a net positive for Gizmodo, at least when it comes to their role in the investigation or the possibility of criminal charges being filed.

If, however, there is a broader deal in place, it’s certainly possible that they’ll worm their way out of any culpability.

Even knowing what we know now, it’s seems clear that they’ve thrown Brian Hogan (their source) under the bus by agreeing to surrender all of Chen’s communications to the DA.

Ouch.

Update

More of an aside, really. The impetus for the investigation has been, in part, based on Apple’s claims that such a pre-release leak could affect future sales of the iPhone 4.

The iPhone 4 (antenna issues notwithstanding) went on to shatter the first weekend sales of every other iPhone debut. Damages may be harder to argue, with that in mind.

Of course, there’s still the issue that the prototype was physically damaged by Gizmodo, as part of their tear-down analysis.

Furthermore, could Gizmodo use the antenna-gate brouhaha as evidence that such leaks are vital to consumers or at least in the public interest? That may be difficult to argue given that the prototype wasn’t taken with (or due to) knowledge of the antenna issue, in an effort to expose a product flaw. I doubt you can argue that you stole something because you were hoping to find something wrong with it, so that you could warn consumers. But, again, I’m not a lawyer.

EDIT:

Headline changed, after reading this article.