Apple asks for iPhone prototype back, Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit - Page 9

It's weird having Apple play the victim role.

Now how am I going to get my 3 million page views and appearance on NPR?

Steal the other shoe - simple.

in the army we used to call these people barrack's lawyers "i heard...". preach on

While perhaps not coming out and saying it directly, there are a large number who have pretty much implied as much.

Why? Is there some immutable law of the universe that prevents them from being a victim?

What's weird is seeing people who are normally pretty thoughtful and logical be so irrational in threads like this.

I support Apple! Gizmode, please give iPhone prototypes back to Apple, you two could be partners, not enemies!

Because they usually aren't perceived as such, even when it comes to company's like Psystar stealing their IP, simply because of their size creating a David v/ Golatlith scenerio means there is an "immutable law of the universe that prevents them being a victim?"

1) the prototype was already returned.

2) they are already enemies since gizmodo reported on jobs' bad health.

I don't think that any actionable wrong was committed here, hence, that Apple could ask for any remedy. And where I live, in Quebec, Apple would have to pay back the $5,000 paid by Gizmondo to acquire the iPhone lost by an Apple engineer.

A theft is a criminal offence, but must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. A theft is never presumed. Theft would be stealing the iPhone under the threat of a gun, for instance, or breaking in the appartment or office of the Apple engineer, which didn't take place here. Didn't anyone hear of the legal maxim "Finder's keeper"?

And to assume that Gizmondo broke the law and revealed a trade secret just because Apple didn't want the info about the iPhone to be revealed 6 weeks prior to its commercialization is a bit of a stretch. What strikes me here is the absence of damage, the benigm character of what was published and the co-operation of Gizmondo in returning the lost iPhone.

In part due to the security measures taken by Apple, the wiping out of the phone and the steel casing covering the internal parts of the iPhone, nothing much was revealed by Gizmondo besides the facts that an iPhone prototype was lost by an Apple engineer and that it includes 2 cameras, a flash and a better screen. Was it news to anyone reading rumor-type publications that a new iPhone model was due for next June with possibly a second camera, a flash and a better screen? It certainly was no secret for Apple cell phone competitors.

If I were Gizmondo, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. And congratulations for the articles. Thanks, also, for the free publicity for Apple, timed exactly 6 weeks before the launch of a new model of iPhone. Apple couldn't have done any better if it wanted to ...

I know many of you will go out drinking at bars this weekend. Remember that beer googles affect many things. If you find a phone that you think is the next generation iPhone don't take it home with you or you may wake up with this next to you. Sure, it might be fun to play with that night even though your friends will mock you for it, and it outputs some crazy codecs because it has to to get any action compared to more attractive phones, but we both know that the next day it won't look as good or work as well as you thought it did that night in the bar when you found it.

You have no right to know! This is tantamount to corporate espionage. These are trade secrets for a multi_BILLION dollar franchise and you frk'n think this is something they should get a pat on the back for? For breaking the law?

IF this would have been a Blackbery I'm sure the perpetrator would be skinned and fed to the wolves. Ahy? And no damages? This has the potential to destroy 10's of millions of dollars in sales over the next quarter, and give competitors a heads-up on what they need to do to further steal Apples innovations over the next couple of months. I guess 10's of millions of dollars is chump change in Canada. Ahy?

You might want to cool it with your personal attacks, FreeRange.

I 2nd that.

Theft!

" What he never did, however, was notify anyone who worked at the bar, according to its owner, Volcker Staudt. That would have been the simplest way to get the phone back to the Apple employee who lost it, who "called constantly trying to retrieve it" in the days afterward, recalls Volcker. "The guy was pretty hectic about it." "

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/wh...tory/19447570/

(via Gruber)

OK, first, relax with the ad homs. Not only because they violate the rules, but because you follow it up with a statement that doesn't really reflect well on you. This is not the same as corporate espionage. That would be the case if someone made efforts to acquire the phone from Apple. That was not the case here. They lost it. Get a grip on reality.

More personal attacks. You are on roll.

At worst, Apple can expect that people that might have been in a position to buy a new phone now will be so excited by the leak that they will wait for this summer instead of going out and buying some other phone now.

if all of your posts start with insults, it really says a lot about how much any of what you say is worth.

(And it is spelled 'eh' not 'ahy'...always funny when a person trying to make a joke doesn't even understand the punchline)

BTW, I live and work in Waterloo...we share office space with RIM actually. There have been cases of employees sneaking BB's out of the buildings. They were charged, but treated no differently that any other thief...why would they be?

There are a bunch of odd things about this story which do not add up.

And no - I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy.

Gizmodo had the device in their possession for at least a week before publishing the story.
Unless these guys really are drunk all the time, that seems a very long time to sit on the tech scoop of the decade.

We can presume that Gizmodo were not 100% certain this was a genuine Apple device until they actually cracked it open and saw the components. There were certainly no shortage of experienced pundits who assumed it to be a fake.

But once they opened the device they must have immediately known it was...
a) Authentic
b) The rightful property of Apple.

At that point they have to do one of two things.
Either run the story immediately - before Apple descends on you.
Or (informally) contact Apple and say "We have bought a device that appears to be your property. We are not thieves and assume you want it back. PS. We have taken photographs "

As I understand it, Apple can only issue a C&D if an NDA has been broken. So in this case could not do anything to prevent publication.

I wonder if Apple simply asked Gizmodo to sit on the story for a week or so. As a favour?

C.

It is a bizarre story. I don't think their options, if limited to the two you mention, were 'either/or'. It is just as possible they did both, run the story and notify Apple. Actually, running the story would essentially be notifying Apple. The fact that their story includes a message to Apple to simply ask for the phone back seems to imply this is the case.

So why the delay?

C.

I think it boils down to this:

Apple could make a case against Gizmodo, that regardless of what they knew/didn't know, they had some idea that it was legit, and by paying $5000 for it, they proved their intention to secure the device, for the sake of outing it (and thus raking in record advertising revenue).

Reporting Apple rumors is one of the things Gizmodo does. Making money off ad revenue by driving people to their site with sensational headlines, is ALSO something they do.

The buying and exposing of the next gen iPhone is a prime example of both. Intent to profit could EASILY be asserted in this case....

In short, Giz could easily be charged and easily found guilty.

Question is, will Apple bother? Would they forever alienate one of their biggest online advocates?
------------

Personally, I feel that Gizmodo did something very wrong here. They took advantage of an opportunity to make serious money, which they did. They profited greatly off this information and probably still are, every hour that ticks by. They never, ever should have paid for the lost iPhone. If I were on the board of Apple, I would burn Gizmodo to the ground over this. Would that be a PR disaster? No, I don't think so. Rumor sites would run wild, but most people wouldn't even notice.

Gizmodo should have known better, but they didn't care. All they cared about was getting the scoop, and thus, making money.

Most likely to give them time to disassemble, poke around, photograph and reassemble. But that wouldn't explain the entire delay, but would account for a few days.

See when you say, you're not suggesting a "conspiracy", you continue to reinforce the horrible and stereotypical media-use of the word conspiracy. What you defined, is in fact, a conspiracy, on the part of Gizmodo.

What you meant is that you are not suggesting the specific conspiracy "theory" that Apple and Gizmodo worked together on a controlled leak. This is a wild and unrealistic idea, that can also be defined as a "conspiracy".

But for the love of God, use the word correctly, and stop associating it with "crazy ideas."

Not every conspiracy is a crazy idea that never happened. However, television media would have you think otherwise.

The word conspiracy from the latin for "breathing together" clearly seems to upset you.
The mystery is the delay to publish.
My theory is Gawker contacted Apple some time before the leak went public.

Perhaps the delay was caused by Gizmodo getting simply their story straight?

C.

The blatant and everyday misuse/misunderstanding/mis-association of the word conspiracy, by professionals and amateurs alike, bothers the hell out of me. I wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that this intentional misuse often results in hiding the truth from people.

And yes, Gizmodo f'd up here. Big time. I'm done supporting that site.

No, by your own evident admission, the only point it bolsters is the potential for commercial damage done to Apple via the unethical publication of pictures of an alleged prototype that could be one variant amongst many.

My company habitually made and field tested multiple iterations of prototypes before settling on a production model. Members of staff were selected to use prototypes in the field and file reports on performance, functionality, etc. I doubt Apple are any different.

To make your future purchasing decisions on the assumption that one prototype will be feature identical to a released product is both shallow and laughable.

I made no such assumption. Indeed, I have said again and again that I don't believe Apple would release anything as ugly as what was pictured.

But I reiterate that Gizmodo's actions were in the public interest, which was the point. The example used was that the public now has additional information WRT their decisions.

"Feature identical"? I never said that, and you made a baseless assumption about me.

Given that Apple Insider published every revealed aspect of the device, do you feel the same way about AI?

Apple Insider took the story and ran with it. Did they too do something very wrong here?

Did AI take advantage of an opportunity to make serious money? Did AI profit greatly off this information? Did AI know better? Did AI care? Did AI care about anything other than thus making money?

I'm not pushing it, at all. When the photos first surfaced I felt it was a fake of some sort. With the teardown, that became nearly impossible. That's really what I meant...if someone or some corporation could fake to that level, it would be the best fake ever. At this point it's clear there is no dispute...it's real.

The only question is whether or not Apple did this on purpose. I'd say the odds are stacked heavily against it, but it's possible. Their odd response to Gizmodo is what makes me wonder. Apple goes ballistic when someone publishes a photo of an unreleased product. They sue. They threaten. They protect their property aggressively.

But now, a website obtains a legit protoype and tears it down. It's probably the best rumor/scoop in Apple history. Nothing compares to this, not even workerbee. So what does Apple do? They make some phone calls and send a letter asking when they can pick it up. They treated it like a lost wallet, for God's sake. Seriously?!?! Something is not right here.

Most likely, the casing is going to change quite a bit when it's released. Or, it's such a colossal screw-up that Apple is just getting it back and deciding to take the good PR and be on their way. They'll sell a zillion of them, so what's the point. PUNT!

And I quote you...


My bold italics.

AI reported on the actions of another publication. They did nothing wrong whatsoever, even if they did profit from it.

By the way, your quotes about buying another brand phone now that you know what Apple will offer pretty much sum up why Apple can claim their business has been damaged.

Nothing here was in the "public interest" either. That's just ridiculous on every level.

Brothers from different Mothers!

Yea that's about what I expect as well... People can give any excuse they like the fact remains that those images are still flying high at Gizmodo, who for the record, I don't care one way or another about.

Apple is like a pack wolf protecting her young when it comes to leaked or otherwise obtained photos being circulated about the net. Even 'plain text' has been ordered removed at the behest of Apple Legal. Gizmodo on the other hand seems exempt from any such orders.

Why?

- Perhaps a legal issue that somehow prevents Apple from legally ordering a site to remove photos that were actually taken by the site itself? I dunno... that could be a reason...

- Perhaps its something else that the conspiracy theorists will still be discussing 10 years from now.

Hey we could be wrong and Apple might come out with guns a blazing on their OWN time table... All but letting Giz squirm in the meantime. Hey, we all know that with Apple, a company who will sue fan sites like they were public enemy #1.... ANYTHING is possible.

Huh?!?!

Are you really saying that the actions of ONE publication would be questionable and/or illegal while at the same time another publication reporting ON the original story, showing all the photos, describing in detail the exact same information would be completely in the clear?

I'll wait for your reply...

I am not an expert on law of any kind. US or British.

But as I understand it, companies have no power to censor the press at all. Thank goodness.

However, if a Chinese factory worker snaps a picture of a prototype, in violation of a valid non-disclosure agreement, I think the company is entitled to ask for those images to be removed from publication.

Whereas if an Apple employee leaves a device in a public place, I am not sure it is entitled to restrict publication in those circumstances. I could be wrong.

But it's fair to say, in these days of Twitter and the Internet, the power of a cease and desist order is valueless as a means of controlling the flow of information - once images are out, they are out.

C.

AppleInsider did not dissect a known Apple prototype product, and post images of it on the Internet. If this had been done by Microsoft we'd be hearing nothing but industrial espionage.

It's not free public info. Its private intellectual property. This was a crime.

Separate from the other crime, of knowingly purchasing the above intellectual property.

I'll say that!

Gizmodo broke the law by receiving stolen goods. They admit they paid $5,000 for the phone that was found. California Penal Code Section 496 prohibits this.

In doing so, there may also be trade secret issues.

Plus they're total jerks for outing the guy who lost the phone. Sure Apple already knew who he was, but now any potential employer in the future with access to Google will see what he did.

AI isn't breaking the law. They didn't break the law. They reported on the story. There's a huge difference, part of which has to do with what is already public info.

Gizmodo didn't have to break the law. They could have reported that this guy found the phone and take pictures of it. Paying for the phone is where they crossed the line. Selling the phone is where the finder crossed the line. Taking it apart was another crossing of the line as was not turning it in to the establishment or police department.

There's nothing they can do in the near future. They only thing they can do is clam up until the next iPhone is updated. If you notice, Apple never ever never talks about a next gen product until the timing is right. They may say or do something after the next iPhone is announced, so it'll be interesting to see what happens afterwards.

This is a colossal mistake of epic proportions. I believe this is the next gen iPhone. The design language and everything about it is beautiful. Others may disagree, but the fit and finish and design is very Apple and very good. This would have been a huge "reveal" for the next iPhone. Instead of Apple announcing it, Gizmodo does. Think about it that for second.

And now, it throws a bunch of things into turmoil. Their channel/sales forecast has to be redone now, because people will wait. Their supplier contracts for the next iPhone may have to be modified. Their marketing has to be redone now, because the new design would have been a huge marketing vector. This is a new iPhone design, something that hasn't changed in 2 years. All of the tent pole hardware features have been revealed: redesign of the iPhone design language (glass/ceramic back, edge-to-edge front glass, etc.), front-facing camera, 2nd microphone, higher resolution screen. Worse, this gives competitors a 2 month lead in countering. It'll be interesting how enthusiastic Apple will be during the announcement.

As a stockholder, I am never ever visiting Gizmodo and any Gawker Media websites again. All bookmarks have been deleted. Gizmodo wasn't the big loss as there are lots of tech blogging sites. io9.com is a big loss as there aren't that many science fiction devoted sites.

Edit: Also I don't understand how people think this couldn't happen or that there is something funny about it. This is how this kind of stuff happens. It always starts because someone in the know makes a really really really stupid decision.

Okay... So what about a site printing the name of a underage girl who was assaulted by her teacher?

Same deal right? Other sites now have the green light to put her name everywhere they like?