Originally Posted by cmf2
It's more logical that they didn't completely disassemble the device out of fears that they couldn't get it back together (they were planning on returning it) and that they couldn't identify all of the parts they could see and felt there was no point in posting the images. They did state that there were many unlabeled parts. I guess your backroom deal theory is more exciting though.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a court case after the iPhone is launched. Doing so before would be a public confirmation of the very trade secrets they want to protect.
Perhaps but 'no point in posting the images'... Rumor sites post the most random and often clearly hoaxed images all the time. Not posting even a single image that shows the real internals (even if most of the chips were unlabeled) of a device that they are now all but convinced is an Apple prototype?!?! Yea sure, 'why bother to post it...'
The photos 'must have' been taken I mean they went that far to not look under the shielding and snap a few shots? Sorry but I'm never gonna buy it....
I still contend they didn't post the more sensitive stuff for 'other motives' we're not being made privy to... Again, that's just one persons theory
. So don't take it as gospel, cause it isn't.
Oh and as for a court case... maybe... if one does show up I'm going to predict the settlement will be concluded behind closed doors.
Also, Lets think about _this_ for a moment... What does Apple do whenever
a leaked 'internal photo' or 'prerelease software screen shot' is put up on a rumors site.
1. Apple Legal __ IMMEDIATELY __ issues a C&D letter to the site threatening legal action and demanding the offending photos/documents be removed immediately!
2. Web site compiles and _usually_ thats the end of it. Sometimes things aren't so simple and lawyers get involved for prolonged periods...
Now let me ask you this...
Why are those images STILL being shown on Gizmodo?
Anyone else but me find this more than a little out of character for Apple?
Finally, with Apple NOT issuing a C&D the SECOND the images were made public aren't THEY also responsible for any 'monetary damage' the photos might be causing? If you get caught making a song MP3 downloadable via a web site, the RIAA lawyers demand the swift removal of the song and then will proceed with actions against the criminal. If the RIAA didn't tell the person to remove the file with a legal notice then the RIAA can't very well ask for damages on all the subsequent downloads that happened after the person was caught.
Lots of things seem 'odd' in this 'story'.