AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple asks for iPhone prototype back, Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple asks for iPhone prototype back, Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit - Page 6

post #201 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

They didn't try very hard. It was in the wild for 4 weeks. This alleged spot was less than 30 minutes from Cupertino. Drive up with the phone in a seal envelope, hand it to the guard and drive off. Or walk it into the nearest Apple store. Done.

You think hourly wage security guards and retail employees are trustworthy enough to hand over a prototype next generation phone? Really?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #202 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post


And I think some of these 4g rumors are well-crafted plants from Apple itself. People are going to buy the new iPhone regardless, it just makes people talk about it more, maybe adding some last minute feedback to Cupertino.

The iPhone platform is falling further and further behind WRT capabilities vs. Android. Apple has a LOT to worry about. Check this out:


Ford Opens Up Sync Developer Network for Android and BlackBerry

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/04/20...lackberry.html


The iPhone 4.0 has no "wow". It isn't even able to catch up. Apple had to do something to keep the attention away from the new Android stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Oh and one last detail. Valleywag, that site that was almost sued just for making the cash offer, is owned by the same people as Gizmodo. So they definitely know how wrong it was that they didn't just mail it back to Apple, take it to the closest Apple store etc. Without ripping it open, making the videos or even saying on their site that they had seen it. Or telling the guy to take it to the nearest store if not campus itself. He was only 30 minutes away in traffic after all

Just because Apple threatened to sue doesn't mean it's wrong. I can threaten to sue you for saying my name. Doesn't meant that you now know that it's wrong.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #204 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, if the person that found the phone called Apple to try to find out where to return it, received a call ticket for his inquiry and never heard back, it sounds like he make a reasonable attempt. Going public with it was probably the best way to get someone from Apple to call him back.

Where's the evidence for this?

Also, if the person was sincere, why did the person end up selling the item to Gizmodo?

And, if Gizmodo is sincere, understood that it is the real thing, why did it go ahead and publish information about a proprietary product?

The best that could be said of Gizmodo here is that they have no moral compass.


CGC
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:53am
I hope that Gizmodo dissects, photographs till their hearts content and then puts the pieces in an envelope and drops it in a mailbox.
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:54am
lol @ the typography and apple logo critique ... It might have been sent from the "uncool" department at apple or some left overs form years ago .. :-p nonetheless ... your comment was hilarious

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post

10 year old 'Grape' purple iMac G3 style logo and Garamond type on the letterhead? In 2010? Really?
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:56am
I love how in this post, AI states that the prototype was lost and found.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._engineer.html

Then, they turn around and insinuate that the iPhone was stolen. Slanted much?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #208 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

From the Giz story, the person realized it was not a production unit and so called Apple directly and informed of this fact. Maybe he though Apple would pay him a reward.

Why did he contact Giz? Maybe he felt that with their contacts in the tech industry, they would be better able to get resolution through Apple...

And get a reported $5000.00 from Giz?

Anyhow the whole story seems a little fishy to me, for example, while I have no personal knowledge what Apple's letterhead looks like, the logo used on the letter looks nothing like the current logo used on Apple's website or current products. Seems to me that they would have newer letterhead using the current logo.
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:59am
They are the TMZ of gadgets.
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 363
4/20/10 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.

magic ticket number = logged phone call = proof

Geez are you drunk too?


Not drunk and not stupid.

the bar was 30 minutes from both Cupertino and at least one Apple store. And yet this noble finder didn't drive to either and just hand it over.

He made a lame attempt, allegedly (where's the ticket number, who exactly did he talk to) and then sold it.

Not to mention that he didn't simply hand it over the bartender etc

if anything he saw that he could have a free iphone. He admits that he tried to plug it into itunes after it was wiped. so he was meaning to keep it. It was only when his itunes wasn't able to restore it because he needed updated software that he figured out what he might have and then,again instead of taking to Apple directly, he sold it to Gizmodo who were up front about being willing to pay for information.
Reply
Reply
post #211 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Not drunk and not stupid.

the bar was 30 minutes from both Cupertino and at least one Apple store. And yet this noble finder didn't drive to either and just hand it over.

If they were at a Bar, we can probably safely assume that the Apple store was closed. And if we take the story at its face, the finder didn't discover that it was a prototype iPhone until well after he got home from the bar. There's no reason to turn a normal 3g/3gs iPhone in to the Apple store or Apple Corporate Headquarters.

Quote:
He made a lame attempt, allegedly (where's the ticket number, who exactly did he talk to) and then sold it.

If you are insinuating that he's lying about calling Apple, then we can't really argue there since neither of us have enough information. Is the ticket number relevant to a news story? No. Is it relevant to a law suit? Yes.

Quote:
Not to mention that he didn't simply hand it over the bartender etc

He waited around at the bar to come back. He knew what the guy looked like so he would have known who to return it to. That makes it more likely that he would have been able to return it to the guy than the bartender.

Quote:
if anything he saw that he could have a free iphone. He admits that he tried to plug it into itunes after it was wiped. so he was meaning to keep it. It was only when his itunes wasn't able to restore it because he needed updated software that he figured out what he might have and then,again instead of taking to Apple directly, he sold it to Gizmodo who were up front about being willing to pay for information.

Plugging it into iTunes was also the next logical step to figuring out who the real owner was. It doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to keep it.

According to the facts cited in the article, the "finder" attempted to contact Apple and go higher up in the phone chain to find someone to return the phone to. It was only after the phone got into Gizmodo's hands and the article was published, that the right person, the General Counsel, made the appropriate demand in the form of a written letter.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #212 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales View Post

Was the Find My Phone feature simply not working that day? Or the next? In other words Remote Wipe worked, but FMP didn't?

you are right - however once remote swipe is performed then find my phone won't work

they should know that though (unless employee panicked)?
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Did they do something illegal? I don't know.

But Apple's competitors (such as Google) now have advance knowledge of what the next iPhone will be, possibly several months ahead of time. This could give them direction in their own designs.

Certainly the person who found the phone at the german pub should have handed it to the bartender, not walked off with it.

Didn't PCs at one point came out looking exactly like macs, copying their design?
I do not believe apple can be hurt by this. Sure they can copy ideas designs etc. but at
the end, it is NOT an Apple product.
Reply
Reply
post #214 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by poally dog View Post

you are right - however once remote swipe is performed then find my phone won't work

they should know that though (unless employee panicked)?

By the time Gray found out his phone was gone, the "finder" was probably already home with it. They can't really send a commando team into some dude's house... It was probably more important to wipe the data and the OS.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #215 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:14am
IF someone is interested in doing some real investigative journalism contact the Bar it is claimed the iPhone was lost. Find out if anyone inquired if a missing iPhone was found, find out if the guy who found the iPhone left his name and number with the Bar so the owner could contact him. Check if the guy who found the phone contacted the Bar in the following days to find out if the owner came looking for the phone. He could have simply dropped by a police station and turned it in there.

I am sure most reputable establishments have a lost and found and deal with this sort of situation regularly.

Apple has how many employees? Is it reasonable to expect that calling the phone numbers he'd have access to would actually get him into contact with someone able to handle the situation? If he believed it belonged to Apple and not the individual he could have mailed it to Apple in a padded envelope and let them deal with it. If he believed it belonged to the individual and not Apple well calling the company that has thousands of employees is not likely to work. Leaving it at the Bar would have been more likely to get the phone back into the hands of the guy. The first thing people do who lose something is retrace their steps and the guy who lost it would be checking with the bar and by taking out of the bar he was in fact decreasing the likelihood the owner would get his phone back.
Reply
Reply
post #216 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgav View Post

Apple has how many employees? Is it reasonable to expect that calling the phone numbers he'd have access to would actually get him into contact with someone able to handle the situation? If he believed it belong to Apple and not the individual he could have mailed it to Apple in a padded envelope and let them deal with it. If he believed it belonged to the individual and not Apple well calling the company that has thousands of employees is not likely to work. Leaving it at the Bar would have been more likely to get the phone back into the hands of the guy.

Calling won't work but mailing a padded envelope addressed to the company mailroom will?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #217 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

If they were at a Bar, we can probably safely assume that the Apple store was closed. And if we take the story at its face, the finder didn't discover that it was a prototype iPhone until well after he got home from the bar. ...

This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

... Plugging it into iTunes was also the next logical step to figuring out who the real owner was. It doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to keep it.

When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.
Reply
Reply
post #218 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncertain View Post

I don't follow Gizmodo much, but reading all these posts, I am wondering why all the hating on them? I thought they just write articles about tech news. What's all the vitriol about?
Just wondered.

They have offended Apple so they are now the antichrist.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #219 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

If they were at a Bar, we can probably safely assume that the Apple store was closed. And if we take the story at its face, the finder didn't discover that it was a prototype iPhone until well after he got home from the bar. There's no reason to turn a normal 3g/3gs iPhone in to the Apple store or Apple Corporate Headquarters.

but once he knew, he didn't.

Quote:
If you are insinuating that he's lying about calling Apple,

At the very least we can't say that he made it perfectly clear what phone he had.

And given that he didn't take it in, he's lying about 'trying really hard to return it'

Quote:

He waited around at the bar to come back. He knew what the guy looked like so he would have known who to return it to. That makes it more likely that he would have been able to return it to the guy than the bartender.

all well and good. but when the guy didn't return, an honest person would have given it to the bartender. Not taken it home.

Quote:
Plugging it into iTunes was also the next logical step to figuring out who the real owner was.

No it isn't. itunes won't tell you squat about how owns it. particularly after it was wiped.

Quote:
It doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to keep it.

no but taking it home does. You don't take home something you mean to return to the rightful person when logic is that the owner will retrace his steps once he realizes it's missing and go back to the bar.
Reply
Reply
post #220 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:17am
I hope this goes to trial and Gizmodo is bankrupted. It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #221 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

And get a reported $5000.00 from Giz?

Anyhow the whole story seems a little fishy to me, for example, while I have no personal knowledge what Apple's letterhead looks like, the logo used on the letter looks nothing like the current logo used on Apple's website or current products. Seems to me that they would have newer letterhead using the current logo.

Actually that is the current logo. It can be in any colour and still be the logo although it's most often used in white. The old logo is the rainbow one.
Reply
Reply
post #222 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Goodbye Gizmodo and yeah that was really wrong for revealing trade secrets, which could lose Apple billions in revenue.

In the end, it probably helped Apple. Tonned of free press again and people that had contracts coming up and liked what they saw might now wait for the new model instead of another brand.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #223 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by uvablue View Post

Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.

I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.

As for this whole theft argument, forget it. It would be near impossible to prove that Gizmodo had "intent" to steal or purchase stolen property. Also, no DA would pursue such a weak and minor case.

Wow, common sense. Imagine that.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #224 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You are wrong about pretty much everything here, but I'll pick apart the last part cause it's just so easy ...

There are two obvious criminal charges here, theft, and receiving of stolen goods. The person who "found" the phone became a thief the minute they sold it to Gizmodo. That much is as plain as day. Gizmodo (presumably Jason Chen or Brian Lam), were in receipt of stolen goods the moment they bought it and the law doesn't care whether they "knew" it was stolen or not. They might even be considered to have aided and abetted the theft by purchasing the device instead of telling the person they should give it back.

Brian Lam, by his own words ... "This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple's perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim iton record. " seems to have committed extortion based on the mistaken assumption that the party that lost such a thing "has three weeks to claim it." If Apple didn't claim the phone "on the record," he wouldn't give it to them. He doesn't have that right, therefore it's extortion (blackmail).

California law certainly states that if you find such a thing you are required to give it back to the owner in a "reasonable" amount of time. The "weeks" Gizmodo said they had it or knew of it, doesn't qualify. If they knew about it for such a period and were at the same time (also by their own admission), negotiating to buy it, they are certainly guilty. The law also says that you *have* to return it the moment you know who the real owner is, which they clearly knew long before they gave it back.

It's just a matter of whether it's a slap on the wrist or a jail term.

No, it is extortion if they demanded compensation. Asking for formal notification that it belongs to Apple is not extortion.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #225 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.

Only a complete moron who already has an iPhone.

Also developers have access to iPhone OS 4.0. Since it was encased to look like a normal iPhone 3GS/3G, it could have very well been a developer phone.

Quote:
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.

When he got home it was likely after business hours. If he realized it was a prototype iPhone then, he could have waited until business hours then attempted to contact Apple. Which, according to the article, he did.

He describes looking at the owner's facebook page and waiting around for the guy to come back. So actually, he did do something about it. Maybe he didn't return it to the bartender because he didn't trust the guy. I don't know about you, but to me everything that's been turned into lost and found finds its way into an employee's pocket at the end of the day. I've never been able to recover something from lost and found and I lose alot of shit.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #226 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

The letter isn't fake. Gizmodo requested a formal letter be written by Apple to ask for the iPhone back for legal purposes. Jason Chen (Gizmodo) was just interviewed on MSNBC and he stated Gizmodo has it has given the iPhone back.

On another note, I'm cancelling all sites on my RSS feed who posted the engineer's name and helped to possibly ruin his career. I'm glad that AI took the classy route.

Dead to me:
1. Gizmodo
2. 9to5 Mac
3. Cult of Mac
4. Mac Rumors

He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #227 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by uvablue View Post

Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.

Yup. If I have a top secret product with me, the last place I'd go to would be the bar to get drunk. Either this guy is so stupid, or the device is not so secretive.

The Android way: Our problems become your problems.

Reply

The Android way: Our problems become your problems.

Reply
post #228 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.

Assume his name wasn't published. Apple fires him. The public is none the wiser.

Does anyone doubt that Apple wouldn't have found out who lost their prototype if Gizmodo hadn't published his name?

And if the info is already out there, via Gizmodo, is there any more harm that can be done by other blogs publishing his name as well?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #229 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Where's the evidence for this?

Also, if the person was sincere, why did the person end up selling the item to Gizmodo?

And, if Gizmodo is sincere, understood that it is the real thing, why did it go ahead and publish information about a proprietary product?

The best that could be said of Gizmodo here is that they have no moral compass.


CGC

Where is the evidence for any of this, one way or the other?

If the person was 'sincere' and made reasonable attempts to contact Apple, then why not sell it to Giz? That is a questionable action, but questionable doesn't mean illegal.

Giz is all about tech and tech rumours and leaks (Sort or like AI is all about Apple and Apple rumours and leaks). Don't expect a blog or internet site to be your moral compass. That isn't their job.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #230 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

You forget step 1a...he called Apple to inform them and find out tho whom he could return it. If the rightful owner denies ownership or refuses to let him know where to send it, he has made his reasonable attempt to return it.

Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.
Reply
Reply
post #231 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.

People keep asserting this as though simply repeating ad nauseam will make it true.

Why would this be damaging to Apple's business? I might argue that it is actually a plus for Apple's business, given the incredible free publicity and market reaction to the design.
Reply
Reply
post #232 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

And get a reported $5000.00 from Giz?

Anyhow the whole story seems a little fishy to me, for example, while I have no personal knowledge what Apple's letterhead looks like, the logo used on the letter looks nothing like the current logo used on Apple's website or current products. Seems to me that they would have newer letterhead using the current logo.

At some point found property can be transferred, after a period of time and effort to return the property. Did that time elapse? Did he try hard enough to return it? Questionable. I have no idea. But the selling of it, if he felt he had done enough, isn't in and of itself illegal. certainly the lawyers at Gizmodo felt it wasn't. Do we know better than lawyers?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #233 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Calling won't work but mailing a padded envelope addressed to the company mailroom will?

Address it to Steve Jobs and after it is X-Rayed and checked yeah it probably would work, if you believe the item to be property of Apple Corp.
Reply
Reply
post #234 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I hope this goes to trial and Gizmodo is bankrupted. It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.

I don't know. On one hand, they paid for a device that they knew they shouldn't have. They knew they would be disclosing secret information. That all looks bad. But on the other hand, I find Apple's response odd. They issued a simple e-mail and politely asked for the unit back. Pretty un-Apple like, hmm? I wonder if they've just decided it's not worth the publicity to go after Gizmodo hard.

As for their business, I disagree. Reaction to the product has been overwhelmingly positive. That alone will generate sales once released. If the info released helps a firm copy the device, Apple will sue them just as they normally would in such a case.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #235 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.

I assume AI pays its sources of leaks and info. Does that fall under "bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy" . How is that different from what Gizmodo did? Maybe Kasper should be sent to jail then, or at least shut down the site.


You sure are easy to convince. Do you let just any stranger walk up to you on the street and tell you that they "found" a device and you'll believe them? Or, maybe it's true because it was published on the internet?

I'll wager that at this point in time NOBODY knows the whole story of how the phone was acquired, except the person who acquired it. It's not known by Apple, not by Gizmodo, not by Apple Insider, not by me, and probably not by YOU.
Reply
Reply
post #236 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.

if I gave you an phone and you didn't have a technical background, you couldn't expect to know it was a prototype. At best you would know it wasn't exactly the same as the other iPhones you had played with. he didn't take the case off until the next day (I think) so physically it was a 3GS with a tweaked UI. It could just as easily been a JB iPhone than a prototype at that point. Much more likely that an iPhone you find is jailbroken than a prototype.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #237 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

You think hourly wage security guards and retail employees are trustworthy enough to hand over a prototype next generation phone? Really?

Folks that work for Apple are the biggest KoolAid drinkers out there. And the Palo Alto store is totally in love with Steve Jobs. He gives them everything, features them in every video, goes there personally all the time to shop. You better believe if some guy walked in with an envelope and handed it to a manager, they would call Jobs Batline right away, probably in front of the guy, demanding that he get something as a reward for being so honest. Free ipad or something. And then Jobs would probably send pizzas or something to the store staff cause he loves them so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

It seems to me that it would be hard to show that it was indeed a theft. While some might say it would have been better to hand it into the bar, that does not necessarily assure that it will be returned. Especially since one report claims the fellow who found it tried to return it to Apple.

He left with a device he knew was not his. He allegedly had the name of the owner via the facebook account which was logged in and he could have posted something to clue the owner in that he dropped his phone and where it was left for him to pick up.

Also when he knew that it wasn't a normal phone he didn't take it directly to Apple in some way shape or form. He could have Fed Ex'd it to them and they probably would have sent him back money for the delivery fee and something as a reward. Instead he sold it to a company that has been very public that they will pay good money for Apple info.

So no the guy isn't in the clear. Possession is 9/10ths the law is bogus

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.

the phone was lost 4 weeks ago. If the guy was going to be fired, it already happened. So the public outcry would be pointless.
Reply
Reply
post #238 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.

Could be a crime. I don't think anyone could prove theft or receiving stolen goods. Found is not stolen. It becomes 'stolen' with certain conditions. Were those conditions met? Maybe, maybe not. He made some attempt to contact Apple. We can all think of other ways, better ways, that he could have contacted Apple to return the phone. Many better ways. But, that doesn't mean his attempts weren't 'reasonable'.

Let's say he did all we can think of and was still ignored and was still rebuffed. Let's imagine he couriered it to Apple and it was returned to sender. At what point, given reasonable efforts, would it be legal to sell it? I don't know. What constitutes reasonable efforts, legally? I don't know. Were his attempts enough to meet a legal definition, and not our personal definitions, of reasonable efforts? I don't know.

But, because I don't know, I am not willing to accuse anyone of a crime. If it was illegal, then charge him. If Giz was was in the wrong charge them too. But I haven't seen anything from anyone that would clarify that any of the parties committed an actual crime.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. Sometimes it's both.

Reply
post #239 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Christ, 20 threads of morons playing lawyer is amusing for a while but then pain sets in. If you're an attorney - speculate your balls off. Otherwise Stfu PLEASE!

As a photo retoucher who's seen 20 billion threads of geniuses playing Photoshop Expert, I only have this to say: "Been there."
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #240 of 363
4/20/10 at 9:57am
It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple asks for iPhone prototype back, Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit