Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gizmodo Not Welcome at 2010 WWDC

Posted by timothy on from the not-until-you-apologize-mister dept.

recoiledsnake writes "Gizmodo is reporting that Apple has refused to answer its request to attend the company's big Worldwide Developers Conference keynote this Monday. Apple's move to ban Gizmodo seems a direct repercussion of Apple's prototype leak by Gizmodo and subsequent actions of Apple to get the prototype back. Meanwhile, Gizmodo said that it would resort to a live blog to cover the event in case of the ban. This comes a few days after San Mateo County authorities announced that a 'special master' had been appointed to assist in the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's belongings: goods seized as part of a police investigation into the disappearance (and Gizmodo acquisition) of one of Apple's prototype iPhones. It's the very device that's rumored to be announced at the Monday keynote."

1 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I do not have a problem with this ... by Humus+B.+Chittenbee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    First of all - from Oregon statutes [which I know are NOT applicable here, but provide a reference point]:

    " 164.045 Theft in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of theft in the second degree if:
    (a) By means other than extortion, the person commits theft as defined in ORS 164.015; and
    (b) The total value of the property in a single or aggregate transaction is $100 or more and less than $1,000.
    (2) Theft in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor."

    and Theft by Extortion is defined as:

    "164.075 Theft by extortion. (1) A person commits theft by extortion when the person compels or induces another to deliver property to the person or to a third person by instilling in the other a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or a third person will in the future: ...." and then provides 9 subsets - none of which apply to this case.

    The thrust of my point here is that you appear to have hyperbolized the situation [as do many others], especially when one considers there is certainly an argument as to whether this is a theft at all [legally depending on intent.] As to the Gizmodo activities being unsavory? I would be hard pressed to disagree. In the end, this is Apple's dance and they can ask [or not] whomever they wish.