It was easy to see which direction the wind was blowing. Ashley Gjvik was even warned. Friends and colleagues from Apple assured Ashley Gjvik that higher-ups were trying to force her out of the job. These allies even came to an agreement about the route that they would follow, which violated her confidentiality agreement and put a proprietary asset at risk.
Advertisement
Apple didn't seem to be concerned about the situation. The company did not attempt to prevent her from accessing sensitive data, despite placing her on leave and telling her to avoid her colleagues. Gjvik stated that I had not lost any of my account access. I had access to the Mac roadmap for the next four years. Access to the source code for future releases was still available. I had access to concept review documents.
Gjvik was wrong. Her friends were right. Gjvik's friends were right on the money. In September, Apple sent an email asking for private discussion about an Intellectual Property matter. Emails between the parties reveal that Gjvik's repeated attempts at granting requests were ignored.
Gjvik made one condition in the midst of all the banter: That the conversation be recorded in writing. Documenting the investigation was prudent considering their relationship and ongoing legal issues. Apple refused to comply with the request as if she had simply said, "No."
Gjvik received a second email, which she read. We will proceed with the information we have since you chose not to take part in the discussion. Gjvik wrote again: I am absolutely willing to participate in the investigation. She reiterated that she wanted all information in writing. She added that she would love to have the chance to resolve any actual problems. Let me know the details so that I can make an honest attempt to resolve them.
Have a tip? Send a tip to dell@gizmodo.com
In the next email, shed was stated to have been fired. Apple stated that shed had been fired for not cooperating with its investigation process. It would take shed nearly a week to hear any more.
G/O Media could receive a $100 commission on Apple AirPods Max dazzling sound and activenoise cancelling, comfort, and integration to Apple devices. Amazon: Buy for $449
Gjvik, who is 35 years old, was made persona non grata by Apple after raising concerns this spring about the vaporous toxins that had contaminated the Sunnyvale soil. A microwave component manufacturer that used to occupy the site in the 1970s let a slurry containing acids, heavy metals and industrial solvents soak into it. Groundwater plumes containing toxic waste once extended more than a mile and covered hundreds of homes as well as schools. Trichloroethylene (also known as TCE) was one of the most dangerous compounds.
Advertisement
TCE was used to relieve pain in the middle of the 20th century by dentists and mothers during childbirth. It is a well-known carcinogen that has been linked to childhood leukemia, low birth weight, and other birth defects.
Gjviks ground, also known internally as Stewart 1, was excavated in mid-1980s. It was backfilled with concrete and gravel, one of many efforts to reduce the contamination. The Environmental Protection Agency declared the measures sufficient in 2014. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the remedies sufficient in 2014. However, air samples from nearby schools and homes revealed that TCE vapors had reached unacceptable levels again a year later.
Advertisement
Gjvik claims that Apple has a history of not properly handling toxic waste in Sunnyvale. She also believes Apple did not perform adequate testing. Gjvik's concerns about the noxious compound grew when she recalls fainting at work for reasons she couldn't explain at the time. Gjvik wanted to know why Apple had not done more to inform employees about the situation, and she asked for a meeting with a safety and health manager. She later shared notes she took during the conversation with the EPA. They stated that Apple had not made any legal requirements.
Gjvik received a letter in her inbox late in the evening of Sept. 15, less than a week after she was fired. It came from OMelveny & Myers LLP, a highly-ranked law firm. Donald Trump was one of its previous clients. The lawyers represented him over the huge scam known as Trump University. The letter was sent on behalf of Apple Inc. Gjvik was then able to learn all details of the intellectual property that had been allegedly leaked.
Advertisement
She was asked to delete certain videos and images that she had posted on social media. This is in violation of a confidentiality agreement that shed signed six years after joining Apple. It did not mention any sensitive documents. In fact, none of the material was relevant to the charges against the company. It instead listed two tweets. Gjvik was photographed by herself on the first tweet.
This second tweet has not received much attention and for good reason. It contained no new information. It was also not particularly newsworthy. If it had been something else, any of the dozens following Gjvik would have noticed. They are always hungry, even for the most trivial Apple rumors.
Advertisement
Tweet no. 1 contains the photo of Gjvik. Glimmer is an Apple app that captures Gjvik's photo. This app is only available to Apple employees. This app captures short videos of users when they pick up their phones. It also tests the company's facial recognition technology. Tweet no. Tweet no. 2. This was just a few email screenshots inviting Gjvik for an in-person study where high-resolution 3D scans of her ears would be taken. Gjvik removed both tweets to protect company email accounts.
Gjvik deleted the tweets, but retained counsel so that Apple could respond. David L. Hecht (one of the nation's most prominent patent litigators) sent a letter to the company on her behalf, dismantling Apples claimed bit by bit. Hecht wrote that while Apple may not be opposed to aggressive litigation positions (and has a history doing so), he reminded her of the ethical duties of an attorney in regards to asserting claims without any basis in fact.
Advertisement
Hecht pointed out, for example, that Gjvik's emails were not classified as confidential or contained any information that could be considered proprietary or secret.
He said that the posted email image only highlighted what was already known to the general public. It's no secret that Apple has been scanning many human ears in order to perfect its AirPods products. Hecht said that the posted image of the email merely noted what was already known to the public. Joswiak explained to Wired in 2020 that he had worked with Stanford to 3D-scan hundreds more ear styles and shapes to create a design that would be universally applicable to all ages.
Advertisement
Hecht stated that the photos Glimmershared by the Verge in August to give a debut account about the apps' existencewere not Apple's property. Apple would not have been able to obtain a copyright if it had tried. He noted that copyrighted works must be the original intellectual conceptions and work of the author under U.S. Law.
Hecht said that you have not claimed that images of Ms. Gjvik in her home taken by the Glimmer App, on Ms. Gjvik's phone, could be considered confidential or proprietary information.
Advertisement
Gjvik described the app as spyware. She said that it was taking photos of me at home, in my bathroom and in bed. It stored the photos and uploaded them to some other place. They didn't tell us.
Apple has not responded to a request for comments.
Gjvik had consented to the installation of the app on her phone. However, she stated that such calls to volunteer are often seen as a loyalty test. Or you might be asked questions such as, Why aren't you doing it to help us? (The Verge reported similar claims one month before Gjvik got fired.
Advertisement
Gjvik stated that she still catches Gobbler trying to access her iCloud even though she is no longer employed by the company. It makes me cringe every time I see it.
Although not mentioned in the letter, the Glimmer App is an example of another copyright case, known as the Monkey selfie. In 2008, a photographer deliberately left his camera on a tripod while traveling through Indonesian forests. This attracted the attention of a crested macaque. The endangered animal had reportedly grabbed the camera and snapped hundreds of photos including selfies. The photos were shared online without permission of the photographers, causing widespread debate among copyright gurus about who owned them. The U.S. The U.S. Copyright Office finally weighed in and confirmed that photos taken by nonhumans in the United States were not subject to copyright.
Advertisement
Hecht said that Apple's claims against Gjvik look pretextual on their faces. Hecht spoke to Gizmodo via phone. He said that they were trying to find a reason for her firing based on what he had seen.
Gjvik was objectively wise in bringing on Hecht. He is one of few lawyers who can actually claim to have beaten the litigious tech giant. His firmHecht Partners, LLP forced Apple to settle a copyright suit against Correllium, a maker of security tools that detect flaws within iPhone software, just months ago. Apple, which had previously failed to acquire the company in question, pulled back days before the trial would have started.
Advertisement
Hecht stated that they were upset that she was whistle-blowing. Hecht compared Apples investigation into Gjvik to a search for an issue that didn't exist. They want to smear her, they say, and find a story that suits their needs, a narrative that she did wrong.
Gjvik filed U.S. National Labor Relations Board charges in August alleging that she was retaliated for prior complaints. Gjvik claims she was also pressured to discuss a case of sexual harassment, after briefly mentioning it during an unrelated meeting. She claimed that the only thing the company did was to identify the accused. Gjvik was also part of a group of women who had spoken publicly about company controversies, including their experiences dealing with sexism.
Advertisement
Erika Angelos Heatingh is representing Gjviks against Apple in the employment contract and wrongful termination cases. She said that Apple is currently being evaluated by her client.
Heath stated in a statement that California law is very protective of employees who complain about workplace issues such as discrimination or health and safety. Although our case is still under investigation, Ms. Gjovik claims that Apple used purported breaches of its intellectual property agreement to retaliate against her as the company was investigating her complaints of harassment and discrimination.
Advertisement
Gjvik, who is currently unemployed, is in her fourth year at Santa Clara University's law school. She has received awards and been published on topics such as privacy and public health. Gjvik is also involved in a law center that assists refugees who are trying to navigate the asylum process. It doesn't matter if her relationship with Apple ends in her favor, but the experience has been eye-opening for her.
To get Apple to change its culture, the first step is for employees to be free to express themselves openly. This is the first step. She said that they need to feel comfortable talking to lawyers and the government.
Advertisement
She added that she would be fired if they didn't.
