or Connect
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 8

post #281 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Under the law, failure to turn lost goods over to the authorities is considered stealing. Selling said goods is yet another step above & beyond.

So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found? You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.

The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.

PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #282 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Under the law, failure to turn lost goods over to the authorities is considered stealing. Selling said goods is yet another step above & beyond.

No, it is not. Certain conditions have to be met. He finds it, he has responsibilities, yes, but failing to turn it over to the authorities does not make it theft automatically. He is expected to try and contact the owner and/or turn it over to the police.

Simply calling it theft doesn't make it theft. Call it rape if you want, but that doesn't make it rape. Since he did contact Apple, that part is covered. He probably isn't allowed to sell it, and should have turned it into the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Under your logic if you left your credit card at a bar & someone took it & sold it for $5,000 you'd be perfectly ok with that? To many people in this world don't use the brain God gave them.

If he called first asking to return it and you ignored him...

"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 #283 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found? You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.

The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.

PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.

That may have been my shoe (always leaving shoes behind on my jogs). Damn you for not calling me. It is outright theft!

"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 #284 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

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'.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #285 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

That may have been my shoe (always leaving shoes behind on my jogs). Damn you for not calling me. It is outright theft!

Could you post a photo of it? I've got a hundred dollar bill waiting for you if it's legit!

(oooo top secret tear-down of Nike exclusive here I come!)

Assuming of course you called Nike and they declined your attempts to return. Let's stay ethical about this.
post #286 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Could you post a photo of it? I've got a hundred dollar bill waiting for you if it's legit!

(oooo top secret tear-down of Nike exclusive here I come!)

Assuming of course you called Nike and they declined your attempts to return. Let's stay ethical about this.

Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.

"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 #287 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.

The problem is that Gizmodo knowingly paid for something that was considered stolen. It doesn't matter what Gizmodo intended to do with the property. As I mentioned before there is precedence for people being found guilty when they claimed they intended to turn in the purchase merchandise for a reward.

It also doesn't matter if it was legit or not. If I find something and sell it to you, and tell you that it's something I just found...boom, you're guilty of receiving stolen goods. It doesn't matter if the property was legit. It could have been an empty plastic case.

"I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it."

Yes. Gizmodo blew it here. They could have just photographed it. They could have covered the finding of the phone as a story, photographed it and even paid the finder for the story. However, the claim is that they paid the guy for the phone. Also, they took the phone apart. Playing with the phone is against the law and covered by the clause: "who appropriates such property to his own use". In other words, covering it as a story is not illegal. Taking photos and posting it, is not illegal, and could be considered as part of efforts to return. Paying for the phone, playing with it, and taking it apart is where they crossed the line.

There are also issues I haven't addressed in terms of trade secrets (the original point of the article).
post #288 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So anything found should be brought to the police station like a giant lost & found?

One of 4 acceptable courses of actions:
1) Yes, take it to the police station. They do this.
2) Turn it into the management of establishment.
3) Leave it where it is.
4) Determine who it belongs to and return it. If unable to do either, do one of the above.

What you should absolutely *not* do:
1) Sell it
2) Buy it
3) Use it, play with it, damage it, etc...
4) Do anything that prevents its return to the owner

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're making a lot of assumptions that this known, not just speculated, to be a prototype iPhone from Apple, that was the sole property of Apple, not the person who lost it and not very click clone from China or elsewhere. From my standpoint, up until Apple requesting the phone did I think it could be concluded that this was an G4 iPhone. From Giz's PoV, not until they opened it up and saw Apple-branded CPU (assuming since they didn't show or describe them) would they have known without a reasonable doubt this was a G4 iPhone.

Ok, let's go with the thought that it's not from Apple and its a fake that was found. The finder still broke the law by selling it and Gizmodo broke the law by buying it as they claimed. As a fake, the trade secret issues don't apply, but selling and receiving stolen goods still apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The idea that someone would find a phone at a bar and think "I should drive to the police station to turn this in" or that "I have found the next generation iPhone and not some slick looking clone, despite it looking nothing like any of Apple's previous iPhone designs" is absurd.

No, the idea is that you do one of the 4 things listed above. It doesn't matter if it's the iPhone 4, iPhone 5, or a case filled with rocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: I was jogging yesterday and found a Nike shoe on the side of the road. Perhaps it was secret yet to be released model of shoe that someone has lost. I suppose I should have taken that to the police station as that is the ethical thing to do.

Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.
post #289 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense View Post

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

Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf

"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.

They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.
post #290 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.

Here is the question though. Did they buy it and then break it down? Or, did they break it down, and THEN buy it. I am betting they met with the guy that had it and he let them take a peak inside. Once they saw all the Apple Branding on the internal components they handed over the money. That is why I think they should be in trouble. They knew it was Apples phone and still handed over the cash. Maybe I am giving Gizmodo to much credit, but would you part with 5K on the chance that it was a real Apple product?
post #291 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

Do you live in California? If so, (if caught) you would risk prosecution if you didn't do one of the 4 things mentioned above. I'm guessing you did #3, leave it where it was. It wouldn't matter if the shoe was a Nike, belonged to Nike, was a fake, or belonged to anyone other than yourself.

Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.

1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?

2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'

3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.

Quote:
"Really Your Honor, I placed my snickers wrapper on the park bench and left the bench for a few minutes AT THE MOST and BANG some lunatic with a biodegradable trash confinement system on his/her back absconds with my wrapper... I shouted 'HEY I WAS GONNA LICK THE CHOCOLATE THAT WAS STILL STUCK TO THE WRAPPER!!! Come back you THIEF!!!' but they didn't even turn around! Needless to say, I was inconsolable over my tragic loss and require ongoing counseling to hopefully make myself whole one day, however the doctors won't make any guarantees if or when that day might someday come.

Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #292 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

No theft, no lawsuit. No Sword of Democles.

Wrong. It became theft right after the person who found it didn't return it to the rightful owner or turn it over to the police. Just because you find something, ownership does not transfer.

Let's simplify - if you find a bicycle at a park and start riding it around and the police stop you, how well do you think your logic will hold? "Finders-keepers" isn't sound moral theory, let alone sound legal theory! Now how about if you sell it? And for the person buying it's called Receipt of Stolen Property. Not knowing it was stolen isn't a defense. And it's going to be pretty hard for Gizmodo to claim they didn't know what it was - otherwise why would you pay five times the retail value for the most expensive smartphone? There isn't even a thousand dollar iPhone. They clearly knew what they were doing, and by taking it apart instead of returning it or turning over to the police just compounds their actions. If they don't understand the simplicity and real danger of that letter than they really are stupid or are getting really bad legal advice. Make no mistake, this is a criminal matter. That letter is an opportunity for them to limit future damage. There may also be civil implications, but the criminal ones are decidedly non-trivial. That letter was short and to the point because that's all it had to be.

Their hosed, and they should be hosed. They were unethical and they broke the law. The trade secret statutes in CA are just icing on the cake.

What's really troubling to me are the ignorant comments in these stories that are suggesting they did nothing wrong!

Either way this should be fun to watch over the next several months. Perhaps those defending them will even learn a valuable object lesson.
post #293 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

Oh, COME ON for the love of God --

If YOU (any one of you) found a next-gen Apple prototype sitting on a bar. And no one... no one... no one... came back for it, you would do WHAT, exactly? Keep it? Certainly. Show it off? Probably. Make some money giving the scoop to Gizmodo/AI? Not out of the question.

Way to demonize.

The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.


I have been thinking about that very thing. Would I have returned it or sold it off to a tech blog? I can honestly say I would have returned it directly to Apple. I then would have asked if they would give me a free Phone this year and every year for the next 10 and pay for my crappy AT&T service.
post #294 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

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'd agree if they didn't post any images, but they did post images. The images were high quality, showing multiple angles with little redundancy. The fact of the matter is that they did choose what images to include because they had the device in hand. They could have posted an infinite amount of images, at some point they had to decide which images would be most beneficial to the reader and stop there. The *could* have had other reasons for not showing other images but the fact remains that they had to make a conscious decision to stop somewhere, so the fact that they could have shown more images isn't proof in itself of anything at all.

Quote:
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.

You're free to think that way. I just don't think there is reason to.

Quote:
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.

That is normal.

Quote:
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?

Has a leak of this magnitude ever happened to Apple before? There are no past examples to compare it to. You can't shut this story down with a simple cease and desist letter, you would only verify its authenticity.

Quote:
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'.

They haven't relinquished any rights, they have 3 years as discussed in this article. The you approved this action because you didn't immediately object to it argument doesn't really work. What you've told me is that if the RIAA wrote to me saying we don't approve of you hosting such and such a song, but didn't ask me to remove it, I'd be free to continue hosting it. For that matter, I'd be free to continue hosting the song the moment the RIAA discovered I was hosting it and didn't act on it immediately. Gizmodo knowingly released information that Apple intended to keep secret, Apples actions (whatever they may be) can't change that.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #295 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post

Really? An international technology company that puts so much effort into its own image as Apple would have paper stock lying around that was years old? Here's a link for Apple's corporate identity. They would take it very seriously, here's a link to a PDF of their guidelines to Apple Resellers from November 2009, its very precise about what you can and can't do with an Apple logo, but here's a line from it - http://images.apple.com/legal/certif...guidelines.pdf

"Outdated artwork
Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics. Use only the current artwork for your Apple channel signature."
There's a diagram next to it with a few logos, one of them has Garamond text, a big red line through it, and a bit of text that says "Obsolete signature". Thats for a website footer graphic.

They have enough control over sellers to say "Do not display out-of-date Apple graphics", they are going to have at least as much control over their own materials. So using a letterhead with the old coloured logo and really old font is going to be a big no no. Being uncool has got nothing to do with it, its the Apple brand identity.

....are the only one's who are crying "Fake!". Sad really.
post #296 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by uvablue View Post

Well, good to know I'm wrong about "just about everything." I'll be sure to pass that along to my law firm and clients...

Anyway, criminal law is admittedly not my thing, but I can tell you that your little quote there is not extortion. And, even if it was, there's no way any sane company or DA would make such an arugment in a court of law.

As for the theft and receiving stolen goods, I'll just let you run yourself around in legal circles on that one. I don't know enough about the factual background to refute what your saying, but I was simply saying that no one is going to pursue such a small and difficult to prove claim. It just doesn't happen in the real world.

I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.

Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"

Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.
post #297 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgskydive View Post

I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.

Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"

Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.

Right. Apple specifically asked for it's "iphone looking property" back and was actually referring to their corporate mascot "Squirty" the wonder squid - it's so obvious.
post #298 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Going by your claims and I'm not doubting they are anything but the truth, how do these rules relate to those annoying Goody Two-Shoe nature freaks that want to constantly clean up the town or neighborhood.

1 - Do they simply make them UNABLE to 'clean up the neighborhood' for fear of prosecution?

2 - Do they have to file for a special exemption and wait weeks, months, years, for a 'free pass'

3 - Do they just say screw it and clean up the town blissfully ignorant of the MASSIVE number of legal transgressions they are committing with each item taken from the road, sidewalk, park bench and places into their environmentally friendly garbage containment systems. I was gonna simply say 'garbage bags' but then I knew that would be a lie.

Would I actually have a case?!?! Could I demand a court trial and have those green-freaks locked up?!!? Now, If you said yes... it certainly wouldn't surprise me... CA has ALWAYS lived up to my expectations.

Yes, I admit California *is* a little out there, but be that as it may...

I think you (and others) are confusing mens rea with actus reus. Taking something that doesn't belong to you would be the actus reus which isn't illegal in of itself. Mens rea is the intent. If someone had found the iPhone 4 prototype and thought it was a cheap knockoff that didn't work anymore so they threw it in a garbage bin, there would be actus reus in the taking, but no mens rea since there was no intent in depriving someone of something that had any value. However, they'd have a hard time proving no mens rea if they then kept the phone or worse, in this case, sold the phone for $5,000.

Also to note, that while you may not face criminal charges for only the actus reus, you may face civil liabilities for that part.

So yes, walk around picking up and disposing trash all day. As long as it can't be shown that you didn't believe it was worthless trash, you're ok criminally. However, if it can be shown that it had value to the owner, and that a reasonable person would believe it would have value to the owner, and that it could be returned to the owner, then you could face civil liability.

IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth\
post #299 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgskydive View Post

I am not going to try to argue with a lawyer. I will say IMHO that I think they only wanted Apple to formally request the device, so that they (Gizmodo) could get more proof that it was actually from Apple. Hence making Apple admit it is there device and more then likely the next generation iPhone.

Doesn't that seem like extortion? "Sure we will give it back as long as you admit what it is"

Apple played it smart and asked for "the device" not the phone.

Setting aside the possible violation of 'trade-secrets laws' and the 'buying stolen property' charges, which are much bigger and less than crystal clear.. On the point of Gizmodo getting the property back into the hands of the legal owner Gizmodo seems to have followed the CA law to a tee.

1. Attempted to track down real owner
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
3. Released item to the owner

On that part of the story it seems Giz followed the law... the rest of the story has plenty left to argue about.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #300 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If it's a fake, it's the best fake ever. EVER.

I believe the correct spelling is "evarrrrr"!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #301 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by uvablue View Post

Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.

(snipped trade secret stuff which I can't speak to)

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.

Could you clarify this?

Gizmodo has blogged on their site that they paid $5,000 to the person who said they found the phone. How is it not theft of property under California penal code section 485 and receiving stolen goods under California penal code section 496?

As far as pursuing the case...

The retail price of the phone would make it a felony even if the $5,000 wasn't what was used as the basis for the price. Why would a DA not take the case when it's high profile and the defendant in the receiving stolen goods case has blogged about their actions in full detail? If Apple decides not to press charges, that's one thing, but is the DA really in the position to say no to Apple on this?
post #302 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.

We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.

This all sounds like something an irresponsible person would say.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #303 of 363
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!

"I heard that if an alien from Mars attempts to sell stolen goods, then you have the right to submit for discovery with the nearest legal office on Phobos. S'true I saw it on Star Trek!"

Ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Hey 'doc'... just go away. Go to the 'genius' website and talk to them, leave us morons alone.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #304 of 363
Just heard from a friend of a friend who works at Apple. The phone has been returned.
post #305 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus2515 View Post

Just heard from a friend of a friend who works at Apple. The phone has been returned.

Now that's some real Apple inside info.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #306 of 363
re DaveGee
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)

So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #307 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

Yes, I admit California *is* a little out there, but be that as it may...

IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth\

Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...

/bow

it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.

Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.

Am I wrong on this?

(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #308 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...

/bow

it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.

Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.

Am I wrong on this?

(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)

sorry for being off topic, I apologize- no your not, but if you take your time... a lot of time its not that bad, and it does have purpose.
I've heard it put another way- treat the 'law' language as a foreign language. Once you learn the meaning of the 'language' it has its purposes. The requirement is for very specific meaning. But that takes 'special' language or at least a lot of words. It is almost an art form to put statues together with little ambiguity.

Its like going from Basic to assembly. There is more precision in the instructions of assembly (which law demands... precision that is) but boy it can be alot more learning and coding. sorry for being off topic
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #309 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.

I could have had 3 million page views!
post #310 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...

/bow

it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.

Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.

Am I wrong on this?

(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)

It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law. I definitely think this is one area where a large number of people think what is "right" is actually against the law...and perhaps this says something about where are values are today.
post #311 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law.

Hold up, no one here made any such statement.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #312 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


I for one am starting to believe that the 'slideshow' ended where it did as a 'get out of jail free' card and Apple accepted the terms.

I think that the innards were obviously a prototype or otherwise trimmed to fit a generic prototype case, making it obvious that the device was NOT "the next iPhone", but instead, "just some prototype".

That's my guess.

The phone which was found was WAY too ugly to be released by Apple.
post #313 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This all sounds like something an irresponsible person would say.

Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.

Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.
post #314 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.

Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.

Sure, I make plenty of mistakes. My most recent mistake was thinking you'd get the humor in my post.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #315 of 363
According to this lawyer, Apple could run into problems arguing that the iphone was a trade secret when you've got drunk engineers running around town with it and leaving it on stools. Of course, maybe that brings up the question of whether the guy was authorized to take it out in public, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. This seems like it could get messy.
post #316 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Hold up, no one here made any such statement.

Take a closer look at the quotation mark placement:
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law.

I wasn't saying that specific statement was made (although see previous posts and the term "finders keepers" was actually used here).

My comment was more of an observation how many people here and elsewhere think that what is "right" is something that goes entirely against California Civil Code section 2080 and California penal code sections 485 and 496.

I wasn't very clear, but it seems like a lot of people don't get just how wrong "finders keepers" actually is both morally and legally.
post #317 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

re DaveGee
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)

So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.

SO WHAT?!?!! If the CA law says you need obtain some degree of proof before handing over the device then YOU OBTAIN some degree of PROOF. Going in front of a legal authority with little more than 'well I knew it was theirs' would not be valid in the eyes of the law.

There is nothing wrong with a lots of CYA in this world.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #318 of 363
Apple must sue. NOW! for at least 1 BILLION dollars. Gawker should be put out of business. Their editors should be blacklisted. (As a side note: Gawker Media had fleshbot.com up for years without a disclaimer flash page. This allows persons to view hard core porn without a warning - thus proving that they are an establishment without moral fortitude.)
1. Gawker Media knew once it opened the phone, tested it, photographed it and documented it that they had proprietary trade secrets and materials - (UI, design, choice of chips, layout etc.). They chose, against their better judgement to publish the material for their own profit.
In this day and age anyone with access in China can easily make a knockoff. I believe that their are factories in China right now using Gawkers story to make cases, and knockoffs on the basis of the story alone. These knockoff artisans do not consider the whole product or put the millions of dollars in time, and expertise to create what would constitute an iphone - they simply create an imitation to make a profit.
The net effect of this leak is tremendous. Apple has lost a tremendous amount of money with this leak. Google right now has probably assembled a NEXUS team to create a prototype NEXUS 2 phone with a September launch date.
I am prepared to sell my 3GS iphone TODAY in anticipation of the 4G one. I am ready to re-up my contract with ATT. I am going to wait for the second version of the iPad - simply because the iphone's elements (front facing camera etc. should be on the next ipad. I am going to buy Apple stock. - Lots of it. NOW! I want to develop iPhone ChatRoulette as the next disrupter iphone application (as well as a slew of apps that can use a front facing iPhone camera).
If I were Steve Jobs, my first decision would be to call a press conference/product reveal next Tuesday and have a low key introduction of the iPhone 4 (based solely on the leak) with availability pushed back to July. This would calm the market, continue the high coming off of the record earning and prevent the corporate espionage that will inevitably occur - by simply making public what every manufacturer will now be seeking to copy. My second decision would be to accelerate all related patent applications. My third decision would be to use the cash horde that I have at Apple to purchase all available Flash memory and related components to starve my competitors from gaining the components needed for a knockoff. My forth decision would be to assemble a top flight legal team in Taiwan and China and pre-empitively sue all electronics manufacturers to prevent knockoff production. This leak should have an adverse effect on the stock price, however stock price fluctuations should be mitigated by the LUST and demand generated from this leak.
Lastly, the engineer who lost the phone and his boss should be terminated or, reassigned and Apple must change its policy for in the field testing of its devices - IMMEDIATELY.
At the end of the day its just a phone, but we are still in a technological war and this product represents paid mindshare of the best engineers in the world. Gawker media's prostitution of Apple's upcoming iPhone, severly dilutes this mindshare and definitely shows the best and worst aspects of America's corporate morals.
post #319 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick from Avvo View Post

According to this lawyer, Apple could run into problems arguing that the iphone was a trade secret when you've got drunk engineers running around town with it and leaving it on stools. Of course, maybe that brings up the question of whether the guy was authorized to take it out in public, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. This seems like it could get messy.

I don't get this argument. I've seen it elsewhere. I can understand an attractive nuisance argument (for other cases), but in this case it's a bit like saying, "You forgot to lock the door to your house, and so a person came in and stole things. Then afterward, said thief sold the items to somebody else who knew they were stolen. Sorry, but you were drunk and forgot to lock the door to your house." That doesn't seem right to me.

I could also understand if they were claiming the prototype wasn't a secret because Apple had let enough leaks get out about it that lots of people knew about it. However this was the only leak about it and it came about solely because it was stolen and Gizmodo knowingly purchased the stolen good. I would also argue that if it was not a secret Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 for it, nor would there have been any reason to post it (over and over and over again) on their website.

Again IANAL, I'm just trying to make sense of this.
post #320 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

re DaveGee
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)

So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.

I'd guess a lawyer would argue (and I bet a judge would agree) that the guys at gizmodo would have no reasonable expectation to think a fancy letter from boeyc15 declaring the found property to be his was legitimate. They had quite a few reasons to think it was Apples
property. Indeed their website confirms this. Now, did they know it was apples? Eventually. At first I'm sure they were skeptical, they had to think " no way, we didn't just get handed the golden ticket". And they even document their growing suspicions. I think the law requires them to make an effort to return it to the rightful owner. They suspect it is apples apple says you got my stuff, give it ( or a fancy letter, either one). Again a letter from some dude, fancy letterhead or not, shouldn't change who they have come to reasonably expect the rightful owner to be. Ie: "Holy cow this couldn't be apples super secret new phone could it. Well, maybe. Let's unscrew it and see if it looks like a cheap knockoff from china on the inside. Double holy cow, I think this is theirs." Those events plus apple representitives saying it's theirs would be seen as reasonably deciding it belongs to apple. But it would take apple to confirm it. Even if doing so blows their secrecy, making them claim it is not extortion in itself as some have claimed. Losing it, from what I've read apple has to take some responsibility here, I believe will nullify their expectation to secrecy. They shouldn't have left it at the bar. Now paying 5k for it and profiting off having it on their website might likely be found illegal, eventually. Until then there would be a constant reminder in the media of apple finally screwing up their long running reputation for secrecy.
That letter from apple to gizmodo is likely the last official word from apple we'll hear. Maybe a nodding reference and a wink at the unvieling, maybe.
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