I guess I'm just a cynic but my take away from this was "regular users of Facebook get so good at ignoring ads that you can literally put pictures of their own children in an ad and they'll still take forever to notice"

tl;dr from the affidavit:

  [Suspected CA penal code violations by Chen]
  496(a) - Buy or receive stolen property (felony)
  499c(b)(3) - Without authority make [photographic copy of] a trade secret (felony)
  594(b)(1) Maliciously damages property of another valued over $400 (felony)

Gray Powell last saw the phone when he put it in his bag on the floor, which was subsequently knocked over. He left with his uncle at closing time, unaware of his loss. A drunk guy gave the device to Hogan in the belief that it was his. Hogan took it home and realized it was worth money. Next day, he and a roommate found Gray Powell on LinkedIn and Hogan recognized him from the previous evening in the bar. Hogan removed the stickers with serial numbers.

Gizmodo, via Chen, paid Hogan $8500 or $7500, including $5000 in cash, and promised a bonus if Apple launched a phone by July and it was the same device. Chen damaged the phone during his teardown, rendering it inoperable. Gizmodo published their story on 4/19. Hogan's roommate called Apple the same day and informed them of Hogan's possession and plans to sell it. Gizmodo editor Brian Lam refused a telephone request from Steve jobs to return the device, demanding a written confirmation from Apple.

When police attempted to contact Hogan and his other roommate (not the informant), they tried to destroy evidence by throwing away Hogan's computer and SD cards, all of which were later found, along with the phone stickers. Hogan's roommate was arrested on unrelated outstanding warrants.

...

On the facts in the affidavit, it looks bad for Gizmodo/Gawker. Admittedly, I've said that since the outset. Much depends on who authorized payment and how, and what Chen was told by his supervisor(s) about his legal position, if anything.

Edit: corrected an inaccuracy about when the roommate called Apple, which I had put in the wrong paragraph.

That's actually a good question. There are several answers. One is that being a founder is not merely a matter of competence. It's also financially risky, and very stressful. So someone who was just as competent as the founders but wanted less risk or stress might prefer to be an early employee.

You can titrate the amount of startupness you get in your job by the size of the company you join. If you're the first person hired by a startup with one or two founders, you'll probably be a de facto cofounder. Whereas if you get hired by a startup with 30 people you'll have a lot less risk and stress, but it will probably still be more interesting than going to work for a big company.

Another reason is that luck (usually in the form of timing) is a big component of startup outcomes, so in some cases it can be a better bet, measured both financially and by how much effect you can have on the world, to join a startup that is obviously taking off than to start your own. All the first several hundred employees at Google, to take an extreme example, probably made more money and had more effect on the world than they would have on average by starting their own companies.

Plus you need more than ability to start a startup. You also need an idea and probably a cofounder. Joining an existing startup can be the easiest way to get both.

Two things stand out to me from today's details.

First, upon being contacted by Steve Jobs directly to recover the stolen prototype, Gizmodo's answer wasn't "yes", but instead "not until...". However bad you think that is by itself, amplify it by the fact that of 28 sentences in Brian Lam's mail to Steve Jobs, no fewer then 17 of them directly reference the business benefits to Gawker Media of unlawfully retaining the phone, and at least 3 of them make direct reference to the possible harm to Apple that could occur should the details of the phone be disclosed.

Second, Apple legal, presumably as an affiant during the process of securing these warrants, stated directly that it's measuring damages in terms of how much the disclosure hurts the current sales pipeline of iPhone 3GS devices. I hadn't considered that, but it makes perfect sense, and it's a pretty scary thought. A very tiny percentage of current iPhone sales can safely be presumed to completely swamp all of Gawker's top-line revenue.

Also "news" to me, but less important, because Brian Hogan is clearly a douchebag who is going to lose more from this event than he could possibly ever have sold the phone for:

Hogan knew who the rightful owner of the phone was before he talked to Gizmodo. There's no pretense here of helping to effect the return of the phone. He straight-up stole it.

Yes, the phrase "Right now, we have nothing to lose." in particular stood out to me from the email - I think the author was being insufficiently imaginative.

I don't like this Patrick, sorry. No "congrats" and "pat on the back" here.

You know, I do get a personal call from my dentist, carpet cleaner, and my kids' doctor before an appointment. I call my customers before meeting with them too.

But what a waste of time for all of us right? Why not send out this automated voice mail message instead:

"Don't be late! I don't have time to call you, but you better have time to meet and PAY me."

Nice.

I think you'll be able to sell it, but it seems like a DIS-service to me.

Also, NOTHING pisses my wife off more than a voice mail from an automated system.

Just yesterday she got one from a local service we donate clothes to (pretty sure it was them again), and she let out a throaty roar in the kitchen because she hates them so much, she wants a different service now.

Google, don't lose heart. It's not you. It's just that people in US don't know that they can buy phones in open market without signing away a chunk of income to cell companies every month.

There are bigger, more mature markets elsewhere. Go after them. You might even get more people to use your services (maps, etc.) on a mobile than they would on a PC.

Also, $350-$400 (may be even $500 for topend) is a sweet spot for smart phones in India. And people do buy these phones in open market without a contract.

All the best. Go forth and prosper.

/an iPhone and Droid owner.

This comment will sound a little confrontational, but here it goes.

Why would anyone competent enough to work at one of these companies choose that path instead of being a founder?