Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone - Page 7

If only it had belonged to Batman. He would have taken justice into his own hands and made the thief and Gizcrapdo pay for their douchery.

Then maybe you should bLame Apple for being so careless with such a valuable piece of equipment. Everyone is blaming Giz but I do not see many blaming Apple for being so careless.

But this is not the point. Of course Apple is to be blamed for allowing the leak to happen. This is about Giz's complete lack of integrity and possibly criminal act. Just because Apple is responsible, it doesn't excuse or vindicate Gizcrapdo, which has always been and will always be pseudo journalism.

Ummm.... yeah. Ok, look panty-dude. Remember to turn off Entourage when you read hard stuff ok.

This is not gossip or awe-shucks-just-joshin-with-ya-pa down-home good ole fashion funtimes. Comprehend the material I wrote first, then make comments sans your attempts at rationalization via 3rd grader name calling.

How they got it is not as important as what they did with it once they realized for sure, as I stated, that it was Apple confidential material. Revealing unreleased intellectual property is not just fun for all. The point I made was to the fact that they KNEW the phone was "top secret" by law and they continued to reveal the information compromising Apple's property (meaning IP). AFTER the product is released, anyone can rip it apart if that's what they desire. I am aware, now, that you obviously do not work in the product design field developing patented material like I do, since you think it's legit to let anyone have their way with this. And, I am not defending Apple directly, I am discussing and commenting on the way this patented material made its way to publicity through the hands of someone who could/should have complied with state law, hence could have averted all of this trouble, but it was in their interest to benefit from it. That's where they broke the law. And it does compromise Apple's efforts if it gives the competition room to adjust their products in time for the release.

Even if this weren't illegal, it would be immoral, IMHO.

How about them more concise accurate thought out apples?

The section of code quoted in this thread only mentions a reasonable attempt to return the property. Are there more directly applicable sections?

So the question really is, were the finder's multiple phone calls sufficient?

And if so, and mere possession was legal, what crime is it to transfer that property? (honest question) Theft wouldn't seem like the specific crime to discuss at that point.

If reporters had ethics there would be no news. Look at wikileaks. Every document there is stolen, wikileaks knows it, the readers know it and the people who they were stolen from know it yet wikileaks keeps chugging along. There are documents on there that are classified US property yet the US Government has no recourse other than tighten up their ship to ensure more are not lost. This is national security stuff, not some companies prototype phone everyone knows is due out this summer. If Uncle Sam cannot take down wikileaks how does Apple have any chance? Nothing is going to happen to Giz and the few fangirls who will never read their site again are completely over shadowed by the millions of users these stories brought.

I dont remember now but if the phone was remotely wiped when Gizmodo bought it wasnt that a pretty good indication that the phone in question was a real iphone? I mean is this a feature on any knock off you guys ever seen?

I mean how likely is it that some one who uses a cheap knock off fake phone have the need to remote wipe it if they loose it? At least here in sweden the only knock offs i've seen are owned by 12-15 year old kids and they dont remote wipe. but I dont know how it is with fake phones in the US though it might be a completely different market for those phones over there.

Well that was my 2 cents

See you all around and cheers

It's really really simple. You don't take what isn't yours. I learned that in Kindergarden.

We reported his post, and some of his immature comments have been edited

Anyway, great post by you. I think that it is well reasoned and accurate.

I've never heard of Wikileaks, but real journalists are bound by copyright protection laws that they do not trespass. When Denton was asked if a serious publication like the Times would have published the leak, he essentially said yes, but I doubt that even Engadget would have taken the prototype apart and then posted detailed pictures of it.

So much ado...

The phone was returned to the owner so there go all the theft BS allegations.

What, is it ILLEGAL to photograph a found object and write an article about it?! LOL! Of course this is covered by freedom of the press (and speech).

And what's with this gung-ho 'fire the kid' attitude. He lost a prototype. So what. It's not that this is a revolutionary device. If you aren't an iPhone aficionado you probably don't even recognize a difference from the 3G. I'm sure my mom wouldn't notice the "fancy" new aluminum frame.

Oh - it's now got a second camera. BFD. I don't think that anything mind blowing was revealed.

Nicely said.

Perhaps your teacher might have covered the concept of lost and found. Most schools have them.

A lot of commenters have disagreed with you Joe, but I think they're mistaken and you're correct. As a stockholder myself, I also feel like an injured party. I think both the finder and Gizmodo are guilty of criminal acts because one sold property that didn't belong to him, and the other bought it. And of course, no one pays $5K for a normal iPhone; they paid $5K so that they could essentially sell the intellectual property for more than $5K. Apple spent a huge amount of R&D to develop that phone, and Apple had every legal right to present that information to its customers and competitors exactly when and how they saw fit. Gizmodo showed no respect for that right, committed a criminal act to obtain that IP, and then effectively sold that IP for its own profit. I want to see them punished.

Apple's young engineer was careless which most of us are guilty of at times. Gizmodo and the finder were criminal which most of us are not guilty of.

Sure, in the big scheme of things, the amount of harm is negligible. Last quarter's results are orders of magnitude more important than this thievery of IP. But you're still right: Gizmodo flagrantly broke the law in pursuit of its own financial gain and we, the shareholders of Apple are the injured party.

Count me in on your lawsuit.

P.S. Gizmodo is in some ways like the consumer of child pornography: The creators of the pornography directly exploit the children, but the consumers create the financial incentive for the exploitation. Our bar-fly thief chose not to return-to-the-bar that iPhone that he determined to be extremely valuable, but Gizmodo provided the financial incentive for this thievery.

What's "Top Secret" by law? That Apple is making a new iPhone? We all know that

Find me the law that states than nobody can divulge marginal corporate secrets.

I saw pics of the Nexus One months before it came out and not a whimper was said.

You guys act like national security is at stake.

It's not accurate to call it "top secret" or "marginal corporate secret". These were "trade secrets" that the owner wanted to remain secret. We don't have to call them extra strong or extra weak trade secrets. Just call them what they are: Trade Secrets

Wow, such outright lies being told by those who held onto the new iPhone:


Obviously didn't "try" very hard.

He: "Hey Apple, I found your new secret iPhone prototype. You want it back?"
Apple: "Nah"

As if.


Because the big Apple logo on the back wasn't clear enough.

Nobody here knows or has any evidence as to whether the finder is lying. Portraying a guess as fact does what to make your point?

As for trying "hard", that isn't required by law. The question is whether the alleged phone calls constituted the legally required, "reasonable" effort. Exactly how many phone calls are required? That's the actual question that would be the focus of any potential lawsuit.

And no, just having an apple logo isn't 100% conclusive. Did you not see the non-apple product posted earlier in this thread? It had an apple logo. Also, the phone in my pocket has an apple logo but is not apple's property.

How about the finder, would you be claiming criminal activity if he personally had posted the pictures? I'd say no, people are allowed to post pictures of what they find, trade secret or not.

Provided financial incentive for theft? First the would have to have been "theft". The possible criminal activity here is something other than theft.

As for making an analogy to child porn, that's rather callous to victimized children, quite insulting actually. They didn't have the ability to protect themselves from being a victim. That's what makes it so heinous. Apple did have the ability to protect itself but didn't. I'm no lawyer, but it seems they may have lost any recourse for considering it a trade secret.

What trade secrets were violated? They showed pics of the new iphone and guess what it looks like an iphone. Wow. Better yet it looks like an LG Prada. Did they give the device to HTC, Samsung, Moto, LG, or any other phone maker? No. So no "trade secrets" were found out. The only thing that might happen is that Meizu might make a knock off of it which they would've done anyway.

Photographing an object as found is one thing, and may well have been innocuous on its own. I don't know about disassembling a device they should have known wasn't theirs to disassemble.


So far, I'm in agreement on that point. I'm not convinced that any significant feature secrets were revealed either. Getting a front-facing camera was something that was going happen sooner or later. I felt they were going to get a higher res screen eventually as well, just a matter of when.

*Maybe* there would have been sales that were postponed because of this, but anyone that even half pays attention should have noticed that Apple has released a new model every summer. I recall that Apple simply quit selling the original generation of iPhones a couple months ahead of the 3G release. The product might not be seen as awesome because Steve didn't do the initial introduction, but then, Apple didn't cut Walt Mossberg off for leaking the Intel transition.

Most reasonable people would have filed a police report stating the phone was lost or stolen. However, if this were a set-up, and which could later be proven, they would not involve the police nor make any false report. It's all PR.

If they'll do anything for a story, such as pay $5000 for a phone that obviously didn't belong to the seller (i.e., was stolen property), maybe they ought to be happy to go to jail for bad judgement and overzealous journalism. They knew this was no ordinary phone (see $5000 price tag) and in all probability was Apple's property, since they knew it wasn't the property of the finder and wouldn't be their property if they paid $5000 or $50,000. I see a lot of people using what equates to cheap journalism to excuse their inappropriate behavior and inaction to dutifully notify the police or Apple. I'm sure they knew how to contact either party. I won't cut them slack because I don't think they deserve any. They clearly thought they were above the law and their attitude then and now proves it. Book 'em, Danno. I'll be happy to Fed Ex them a tin cup and some magazines if needed.

On the conspiratorial "Apple did it" note that people love since it lets the mind wander aimlessly, Apple has done more to turn people off to the new iPhone if that was their plan (which I seriously doubt) because those buttons jutting out of the side are fugly. That had better be an experimental prototype they were going to dispose of. But then, maybe it was.

In case you missed it, John Gruber @ Daring Fireball wrote a good article about the legal implications of the events.
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/gi...ototype_iphone

Reasonable? I've literally heard of a couple dozen lost or found phones within my social circle. Never, not even once, has a police report been filed. I've never even heard of anyone who knows someone who witnessed that scenario.

Sure it happens. But you're claiming "most"?

Well, for his troubles, Mr Gray Powell has been offered a complimentary business class flight to Germany by Lufthansa. Ostensibly to continue his consumption of tasteless German Lager and Germanic culture.

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gathered together to greet the storm...
Tomorrow belongs to him...

Shit just got real:


The investigation is to see if there's enough evidence to file criminal charges, so depending on how that goes some people may have a bit more 'splainin to do then just internet bad-boy yuk yuk.

Interesting, that story cites an 1872 law which would make the crime of "theft" the one to be talking about. I stand corrected.

It is hard to believe that a more specific crime hasn't been defined since then. Anyone know of applicable precedences which would dictate if this old law is still prosecuted or if a newer one overshadows it?

Edit: Not saying old laws are bad, just noting that many are still on the books even when newer ones take precedence.