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 2

post #41 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

California Penal Code Section 485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

IANAL, but I believe over $400 is a felony and as such this would qualify, same goes with receiving stolen goods.

The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.

I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.
post #42 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

Looking around Twitter... @graypowell follows @geohot

Interesting isn't it... look I subscribe to the philosophy "shit happens", but one does wonder just how messed up one has to be to forget an iPhone prototype on a bar stool...

You know if you hang around with an iPhone prototype for at least a year you just wouldn't think of it as of something super important. And when software you write for the thing starts to click you may end up forgetting that you are in a possession of secret prototype.
MacBook 5,1, MacPro 4,1
Reply
MacBook 5,1, MacPro 4,1
Reply
post #43 of 363
Apple makes 100s of working prototypes before deciding on the final version. There is no way this is the"final" version. If anything, it was a prototype that was lost.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #44 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.

I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.

So if i simply try to call someone to restore lost property but get no answer that makes an effort? where is an effort in making a call????????

P.S. people start forgetting times when no mobile phones were around...no so long ago...
MacBook 5,1, MacPro 4,1
Reply
MacBook 5,1, MacPro 4,1
Reply
post #45 of 363
Nobody left the phone on the bar stool. Nobody found a lost/forgotten phone. This phone was clearly stolen.
If you find something that doesn't belong to you, it is your duty to return it to the rightful owner.

If Gizmodo claims the phone was lost, whoever found and sold it to these idiots, knew who the phone belong to. At least he/she knew who to contact to sell it, therefore he/she has good knowledge of what it is or who it belong to. Therefore it is a crime to sell what does not belong to you, without contacting the rightful owner. If the THIEF can locate Gizmodo, he/she can locate Apple. There is no innocence here. This is a willful and malicious act.

Apple should sue them for at least $100 million, technically shutting them down. I can't believe these idiots are so stupid to do this kind of thing.
post #46 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soskok View Post

So if i simply try to call someone to restore lost property but get no answer that makes an effort? where is an effort in making a call????????

P.S. people start forgetting times when no mobile phones were around...no so long ago...

The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.

"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."

You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!
post #47 of 363
The law is very simple.

1. The person who found the device is not the owner of the device. He should have handed the device into the bar or to the police. Instead he decided to sell the device, which was not his. This is theft. Selling something that you do not own, knowing it belongs to someone else.

2. Gizmodo knew these facts. So they knew the devices (be it real of fake), did not belong to the person selling it. Therefore they purchased stolen goods. Even if they did not know the fact, they knew that the person selling the device was not the owner of the device.

3. Having purchased the device they then made no attempt to return the device to its owner. Instead they decided to pull it appear to see if it was a real Apple device, when they discovered it was, they should then have contacted Apple, but no they decide to use the stolen device to drive up their site traffic. In the process revealing trade secrets.

Quite a dishonest and unprofessional way to act if you ask me.
Greed seems to have overruled common decency.

The person who found the device should be prosecuted for selling stolen property (after all he did not hand it in to the police).

Gizmodo should also be prosecuted for receiving stolen property and for trade secret issues.
post #48 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple View Post

No theft, no lawsuit. No Sword of Democles.

Ah, you must be referring to the law 'finders keepers, losers weepers!'
post #49 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.

One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.

A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.
post #50 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.

A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.

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
post #51 of 363
Gizmodo has and always will be the most unprofessional tech blog around. This isn't the first incident where they've handled stolen goods, just the most high profile. They deserve to get destroyed by Apple.
post #52 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

First Gizmodo is cool: Yeah, the new iPhone.
Then Gizmodo is dirty: Noo, they're paying for stolen goods.
Now Gizmodo is in trouble: Crap, they broke the law and might face some serious trouble.

However, I think the letter from Apple was very carefully written and phrased in a humble way, giving Gizmodo the chance to just do the right thing without any further investigation. The damage is done, nothing to do about it. Maybe in a crude way Apple even liked the timing of this. After all, there was a strange "Where's the new hardware"-void following the introduction of iPhone OS 4.

Does anybody know (in a lawerly way) if this is one of those cases where Apple would have to "press charges" for the case to proceed against Gizmodo? It matters to the theory that it was a planned Apple leak. There is a lot of bluster and both parties get a week or two of massive publicity (in effect sucking the wind out of other players in the arena) and then it can go away when they make nice.
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?

I know, right? And is it my imagination, or has Gizmodo failed to give details on the processor and such? They spilled the beans on external, cosmetic stuff and then showed internals only to show Apple logos... Are they holding back or was all this planned in advance?
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #53 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Gizmodo has and always will be the most unprofessional tech blog around. This isn't the first incident where they've handled stolen goods, just the most high profile. They deserve to get destroyed by Apple.

But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).

"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"
post #54 of 363
Good, I'd like to see them locked up. The level of dishonesty and greed involved here is astounding. Think what a great story these jerks could have had post launch ... "How we saved Apple's secret" . Now they are simply crooks.

Oh! 2000 posts ... the time flew by!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #55 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).

"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"

So go read the WJ if you want to stick to hard facts and don't be sarcastic to posters making valid opinions here, it is a rumor site helloooo.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #56 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).

"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"

Chill out, dude!

Do you even get the concept of the comments section of a rumor site?
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #57 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

So go read the WJ if you want to stick to hard facts and don't be sarcastic to posters making valid opinions here, it is a rumor site helloooo.

What and miss people who don't read the source articles or the NYT coverage fall over themselves to take corporate apologism to unheard of heights? Perish the thought!

Here's the NYT article btw :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/te...ref=technology
post #58 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Chill out, dude!

Do you even get the concept of the comments section of a rumor site?

The quotable was their headline link - for supposition link-bait pretending to be an article. You may have missed that.
post #59 of 363
I dislike giz, so I will shed no tears when Apple sue their a$$es off

They were wrong and they know they were wrong.

Bad judgement call. They might have scored their way to previews of future products like Mossberg, Inatko et al but they chose to be douche bags
post #60 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

The law is very simple.

And here I thought people needed lawyers for practicing law!

Well now we know - it's very simple. Thank you for setting us straight. hey everyone, you can represent yourself in court now! It's so simple!
post #61 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.

"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."

You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!

Just as a matter of interest, the proof you are talking about, do you have a link to the source information?

I have re-read the Giz stories and can see that quote, but if you get a 'ticket' surely you would post that as further evidence.
post #62 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael View Post

Just as a matter of interest, the proof you are talking about, do you have a link to the source information?

I have re-read the Giz stories and can see that quote, but if you get a 'ticket' surely you would post that as further evidence.

Not sure I would if I was Gizmodo - playing all cards might be better held in case they were needed later. Ooooo but here's the NYT and it's got all kinds of goodies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/te...ref=technology

Bunch of hacks those NYT writers. They'll believe everything I guess.
post #63 of 363
I hope they get sued so hard they go bankrupt. That'll teach them and others not to do this again in the future. It really takes away from the Apple experience i'm sure we all love when they release new products. I personally prefer tiny clues as to what might or might not be included into future devices, not this, I find this one of the most selfish acts ever, indeed trying to make a name for themselves. They have no respect for a companies way of doing things, in this case Apple's secrecy. I'm very glad to hear Apple will not let this happen just like that. I really hope they will be hard on Gizmodo. I mean look what they've done! WTF striking with the honor?
post #64 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Not sure I would if I was Gizmodo - playing all cards might be better held in case they were needed later. Ooooo but here's the NYT and it's got all kinds of goodies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/te...ref=technology

Bunch of hacks those NYT writers. They'll believe everything I guess.

So your answer would be no then?

Just seems odd, with all of their taunting language, that they would not 'spike the ball' as it were.

Also the NYT article doesn't seem to have any goodies? Is there another perhaps?

I'm starting to wonder if you really are indeed a Doctor.
post #65 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by maaubel View Post

I hope they get sued so hard they go bankrupt. That'll teach them and others not to do this again in the future. It really takes away from the Apple experience i'm sure we all love when they release new products. I personally prefer tiny clues as to what might or might not be included into future devices, not this, I find this one of the most selfish acts ever, indeed trying to make a name for themselves. They have no respect for a companies way of doing things, in this case Apple's secrecy. I'm very glad to hear Apple will not let this happen just like that. I really hope they will be hard on Gizmodo. I mean look what they've done! WTF striking with the honor? Scumbags...pathetic idiots there, know your limits...geez

Yes it is a bit like seeing your Christmas presents before they are wrapped and put under the tree.

But you know, you can simply not read those articles.
post #66 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael View Post

So your answer would be no then?

Just seems odd, with all of their taunting language, that they would not 'spike the ball' as it were.

Also the NYT article doesn't seem to have any goodies? Is there another perhaps?

I'm starting to wonder if you really are indeed a Doctor.

Steve Jobs calling isn't a goodie? On what planet?

And read some book by William S Burroughs. Life is too short not to.
post #67 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

And here I thought people needed lawyers for practicing law!

Well now we know - it's very simple. Thank you for setting us straight. hey everyone, you can represent yourself in court now! It's so simple!

In this case it is that simple.
Both the finder and gizmo knew what they had.
Apple's address is public knowledge.
Go to post office, place in a box, attach note and send requesting a return receipt
Yes, you are correct- simple, moral, ethical and legal.
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 #68 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by maaubel View Post

I hope they get sued so hard they go bankrupt. That'll teach them and others not to do this again in the future. It really takes away from the Apple experience i'm sure we all love when they release new products. I personally prefer tiny clues as to what might or might not be included into future devices, not this, I find this one of the most selfish acts ever, indeed trying to make a name for themselves. They have no respect for a companies way of doing things, in this case Apple's secrecy. I'm very glad to hear Apple will not let this happen just like that. I really hope they will be hard on Gizmodo. I mean look what they've done! WTF striking with the honor? Scumbags...pathetic idiots there, know your limits...geez

Nothing opens a big can of worms like a frivolous lawsuit! As George Bush (certainly a wise man - har har) said, "bring it on"!

Do it Apple we want to hear all about it!
post #69 of 363
I don't get it.

You fanatics....This is like breaking into your parents or partners wardrobe to rip the wrapping and peek at a present way before the day.

What do you get out of it? A celebratory day with a present you knew you were going to get.

Pointless.

Gizmodo should be castigated for spoiling a fun day and impropriety.

I feel for the bloke who left it at the bar. He must have been going through hell. If Gizmodo knew they had a prototype did they have no empathy for the poor blighter who was likely to get a roasting for his carelessness.

Journalism is only valid if it acknowledges morality. AppleInsider is just as culpable in this disgraceful behaviour as any other web-site who chose to expose what was obviously a trade secret. This wasn't some Republican politician caught sodomising a minor the day after giving a speech on the importance of family, law and order.

This was someone's property and the original owner should have been contacted or the item handed to the police.

I don't care who the originating company was, it clearly wasn't a commercially available product, didn't threaten local or national security and as such the whole matter should have been handled with respect and integrity.
post #70 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeasar View Post

I, for one, welcomes the death to gizmodo.

I wonder if Gizmodo is still bookmarked on Steve's iPad?...

http://www.9to5mac.com/steve-jobs-ipad-bookmarks-345983

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #71 of 363
I don't know about Cali. , but in Ga. we have a law for Theft of Lost or Mislaid Property 16-8-6. Just because you find something does not mean you can keep it.
post #72 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Steve Jobs calling isn't a goodie? On what planet?

And read some book by William S Burroughs. Life is too short not to.

It's not really a goodie when it's been posted elsewhere. The way you stated 'some goodies in there' I was thinking of some dramatic investigative type information.

Plus I have and am aware of the character, but I am not as enamoured with his works as others would seem to be.
post #73 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

I wonder if Gizmodo is still bookmarked on Steve's iPad?...

http://www.9to5mac.com/steve-jobs-ipad-bookmarks-345983

I bet they are on his 'To Do' List
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #74 of 363
Maybe I'm just a mere simpleton, but I think that you people crying for the death of Gizmodo or any other nonsense need to chill out.

We all love the iPhone, we were all eager to see the next gen iPhone, and you folks GLADLY went to Gizmodo, sucked up all the images/video and became engrossed in all of the regurgitated stories here on AI.

Now all of a sudden, after you've gotten what you want, you want to burn Gizmodo at the stake. Puhlease!!
post #75 of 363
Without getting in to the legalities of what Gizmodo did or didn't do ... they might end up the good guy in this ... By paying $5k for the iPhone and being quite public about having it, they kept it away from the likes of Nokia or HTC who probably would have paid six figures to get their hands on that iPhone months ahead of release !!

Whilst it is a PR disaster for Apples much-vaunted veil of secrecy - it could have been much worse for them ...

Jon (who actually can't wait to buy a 4g having seen it now ;-)
post #76 of 363
I'm sorry, but this all reeks of a PR stunt (with Apple's blessing) to me.

If it weren't, Apple would have nuked the site from orbit yesterday morning. They would have demanded all images be removed and worry about how it got out there second.

How interesting that very positive reviews of the HTC Incredible began coming out yesterday...
post #77 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

They are so blankety blank blank.

Anybody that thinks Apple won't make an example out of them doesn't know Apple. Where's Think Secret? Where's Psystar?

Counterexamples to Think Secret are 9 to 5 Mac, Apple Insider itself, and MacRumors. On the Psystar side you have PearC, Bison Computer, and a handful of mac cloners still lurking about.
post #78 of 363
Gizmodo is one of the worst blogs in technology. An average post of theirs consists of about 50 words, with almost no editorial or serious analysis.

Please sue these guys, Apple. It serves them right for buying a secret prototype so as to generate millions of visitors that they do not even need because their readership is far too high for the low quality of the site.

Engadget is not great either, but at least they have plenty of thorough reviews and AUTHORIZED leaks from manufacturers.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #79 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

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.

This is exactly the problem and one of the main reasons Apple is so vigilant about keeping secrets. This affects what competitors are going to be doing. We just got over hearing earlier this year how every company that was going to come out with a "tablet" computer was waiting until Apple revealed what theirs was going to be like. What if someone revealed what the iPad was like 3 months earlier to give those competitors time to have something ready now???

Its just like a third party accomplice at a high stakes poker game revealing to you what cards the best player at the table holds.
post #80 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jont-uk View Post

By paying $5k for the iPhone and being quite public about having it, they kept it away from the likes of Nokia or HTC who probably would have paid six figures to get their hands on that iPhone months ahead of release !!

That makes a lot of sense. Instead of exposing the prototype to one manufacturer like Nokia, Gizmodo publicized the device to the entire world. How philanthropic of them.

Gizmodo is crap. They would post a picture of crap if it could grab attention away from Engadget and Slashgear.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
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