or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone - Page 3

post #81 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

They dismantled the phone! They had a duty of care.

They didn't know the owner. The code says they should hand it in to the police. Simple.

Still no crime!

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #82 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

So in your scenario, once they took it apart and and confirmed that it was indeed Apple's property. They then paid the guy and published the information on their website. That means they knowingly PAID for STOLEN property (it wasn't theirs, and they are buying it from someone who doesn't own it), and then PROFITED from the wrongly appropriated information. And this doesn't seem at all illegal? You really think a jury would give an automatic pass to that kind of behavior?

It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.

They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #83 of 267
If my phone is taken or "found" by someone, and then I call my phone and no one answers, that person has no intention of returning the item. Period.
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.
post #84 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.

In other word, 'when certain conditions are met.
Civil code !=criminal code.

"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 #85 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But, would you think it was reasonable for some random, drunk bar patron to recognize the OS as an advanced version? I am surprised he even recognized it wasn't the current version. And he didn't know it was owned by an Apple employee until he turned it on and checked facebook. I can't recall the exact timeline, but I thought that was after he got home.

I don't think any ruse was required. People that work with technology forget that normal people don't think along the same lines. they don't think 'prototype' or 'advanced OS'. If I saw a new Honda drive by that I hadn't seen, I wouldn't think prototype. I would think, 'hey, a new Honda'. I see RIM folk walking around every day with their BBs. I saw one with a touch screen model a couple years ago at Tim's before the Storm was released. I knew it was the storm (probably) because I had read about it on tech sites. I pointed it out to my wife and said "hey the new touch screen BB". She replied "what makes you say that? It looks like your iPhone." She is no idiot, but she doesn't work with technology much.

So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?

Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?
post #86 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intense View Post

I feel sad for that apple engineer ... humans do forget ...

Taking a super top secret development device with you to go drinking shows a likely lack of judgement. Even if a person doesn't tend to get drunk, there's no point in risking even a 0.01% chance of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by appleqc View Post

What a piece of crap. What do you have on the backside? "iPhone". Maybe, it's a Microsoft prototype? We are not stupid Denton.

As others have stated, possible fakes too, working fakes can be bought.
post #87 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Still no crime!

Vandalism of private property ... really? :-O
post #88 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredbuck1 View Post

Your right of course, drunk people are careless, but my question is, who was buying the free drinks?

I'm also on the same trail. I could use a few drinks right now! You know, coming to think of it I have a iPhone in my pocket...

By the way - Gizmode stated they outsmarted Apple somewhere. Well, they will not get another chance. And the more we here the less smart Gizmodo seems. Panic maybe fits better as description.
post #89 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

This seems clear to me :-

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. § 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. § 2080.3.

It appear the 'finder' did not follow the laws of which you speak.

I said he may not have met all of the conditions. he met some.
And agin, for those posting civil statutes:
Civil law != Criminal law.

"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 #90 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by latafairam View Post

If my phone is taken or "found" by someone, and then I call my phone and no one answers, that person has no intention of returning the item. Period.
I have lost a phone before, and so has my wife. We both called our phones to see if they would answer, but they didn't. As a matter of fact, in her case, there were international calls made immediately after she lost it. Luckily AT&T credited my account.

YOUR phone may have been stolen. This phone was not. The phone was bricked. The finder called Apple to get in touch with someone who knew what it was. Apple call center dismissed him as a hoax.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #91 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Vandalism of private property ... really? :-O

Vandalism implies permanent damages. AFAIK, there was no permanent damage.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #92 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckdutter View Post

It's obvious it was stolen (not handed to the guy by a drunk), that there was no real effort to return it (they had the guys name and facebook information...what more do you need?), and that Gizmodo knew what they were probably getting for 5 grand.

It is funny to me that many people seem to have taken Gizmodo and the person who profited from the stolen prototype at their word (I'm sure the phone was handed to him by a drunk...). As if someone who stole it would say "yeah I saw it sitting there and I swiped it and got the hell out of Dodge."

I feel bad for the engineer, I think releasing his name and everything publicly was a little low...and by a little low I mean a lot low...but still, that's kind of what you get when you bring the phone out drinking with you.


+1 Exactly.
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 #93 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

They dismantled the phone! They had a duty of care.

They didn't know the owner. The code says they should hand it in to the police. Simple.

The duty of care is why they were unwilling to disassemble it to the point of damaging it.

The code says to hand it over to the police if they cannot contact and return it to the owner. They have done so.

"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 #94 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

It might seem wrong but it breaks no law. The jury won't get a chance because a judge will grant Gawker summary judgment motion to dismiss.

They took the phone apart to confirm that it did in fact belong to Apple. At that point they had every intention to return the phone to Apple (doing so extra-confirms its ownership).

Wrong.

The first thing they should have done BEFORE taking apart and potentially damaging the equipment was contact Apple to see if it was theirs or not. That would have been the right thing to do. No point wasting time opening devices trying to see if it belonged to Apple or not, just ask them.

But of course that would not have given them a story or the ability to profit from it.

Instead the are trying to use a feeble argument that "We had to open it to see who it belonged to".
That was not the easiest way to find out at all, it was the most profitable.
post #95 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

You think they paid before they confirmed that it was real?

Obviously not. They knew what they were paying for, and that is what makes Gizmodo's behavior a criminal one.
post #96 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeru View Post

Obviously not. They knew what they were paying for, and that is what makes Gizmodo's behavior a criminal one.

You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone?

No and No.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #97 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The duty of care is why they were unwilling to disassemble it to the point of damaging it.

The code says to hand it over to the police if they cannot contact and return it to the owner. They have done so.

Why not just call Apple before pulling it apart, that would have been easier and more honest, but not profitable.
post #98 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Vandalism implies permanent damages. AFAIK, there was no permanent damage.

If they didn't know the rightful owner, they should have handed it to the police. Instead they took it apart. The device is not meant to be taken apart as part of its day to day use. It might be rebuildable, but that's not the point. Anyway, all it does is identify the manufacturer, not the owner - so in this case they knew that it was a prototype, and then the trade secret law kicks in.

By the way, the reality that Apple will just let it lie and just not invite Gizmodo or sister companies from ever attending an Apple event again as punishment is not the point.
post #99 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

So when exactly did this 'normal' unknowledgeable person suddenly realise it was a prototype?
What triggered the person to think, I can make money from this?
What led them to Giz and to ask for £5k?

From the story, he realized it when he sobered up and woke up. After his attempts to call Apple failed, he sought money. They likely was not kosher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

Also if I see you drop your iPhone on the street and watch you walk away from it.
Then go pick it up, is that theft or lost / found?
If i shout to you (quietly), so that you can't here me, is that a reasonable attempt at trying to return the device to you. Does the iPhone now belong to me?

What a bad analogy. If you found it, waited for me and I did not return and then called me, told me the story and I ignored you, well that is closer. I guess you could have come to my home and handed it to me. That would be reasonable.

"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 #100 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

Why not just call Apple before pulling it apart, that would have been easier and more honest, but not profitable.

If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #101 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

Wrong.

The first thing they should have done BEFORE taking apart and potentially damaging the equipment was contact Apple to see if it was theirs or not. That would have been the right thing to do. No point wasting time opening devices trying to see if it belonged to Apple or not, just ask them.

But of course that would not have given them a story or the ability to profit from it.

Instead the are trying to use a feeble argument that "We had to open it to see who it belonged to".
That was not the easiest way to find out at all, it was the most profitable.

I have an iPhone. They should have called me too.

They claim they needed to confirm it was likely Apple's property. Calls from the finder to Apple to confirm this had been ignored. Next step, confirm likely ownership themselves. Which they then did.

"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 #102 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Using a credit card that is not yours is fraud itself. Completely different analogy. Show me a law where it is illegal to run a news piece about lost property.

So did they buy it to "take custody of lost goods" or "run a news piece about lost property"? There is a big difference. Make up your mind.
post #103 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

Why not just call Apple before pulling it apart, that would have been easier and more honest, but not profitable.

Calls were made. Calls were ignored.

"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 #104 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

Using a credit card that is not yours is fraud itself. Completely different analogy. Show me a law where it is illegal to run a news piece about lost property.

Hmm. Try the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

After dismantling it, Gizmodo now knew that it was indeed an Apple prototype iPhone. They had possession of Apple's trade secrets and chose to publish them for their own profit. There was no "public's right to know". There wasn't any reason for any reader to get this information beyond mere curiosity. And Apple's competitors all benefited.

Also, if you found a doctor's patient list and decided to run a news piece that published the full list of names, you would be breaking the law. And crying that the doctor shouldn't have lost it, doesn't change the fact that you published private information. You would be culpable.

There you go.
post #105 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).

Why assume Apple is the owner? They're the manufacturer. It was "lost" in a bar, and the obvious assumption was that the owner would call back.

Correct course of action:

1) Hand in to police.
2) Phone bar, to let them know that a lost phone was handed in to the police.
3) Bar can inform owner when they called in.

Nearly as correct course of action:

1) Hand in to bar.
2) Bar can give to owner when they called in.
post #106 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

If they didn't know the rightful owner, they should have handed it to the police. Instead they took it apart. The device is not meant to be taken apart as part of its day to day use. It might be rebuildable, but that's not the point. Anyway, all it does is identify the manufacturer, not the owner - so in this case they knew that it was a prototype, and then the trade secret law kicks in.

By the way, the reality that Apple will just let it lie and just not invite Gizmodo or sister companies from ever attending an Apple event again as punishment is not the point.

1) The trade secret law doesn't apply to objects that aren't secret. Leaving stuff on a bar stool out in the public will destroy the "secret" nature of the trade secret. Thus, it doesn't apply.

2) Handing the phone over the police would have done nothing since the phone was never reported lost or stolen to the police.

3) Actually the fact that the phone could have been taken apart to determine the origin of the prototype and thus the owner (being the maker) is actually quite determinative. It's the next best option. The CIVIL law states that it should be returned to the police if the owner cannot be determined. Here, it was determined by taking apart the phone. Gizmodo then arranged for the phone to be returned to Apple (which they had every intention of doing as soon as it came into their possession).

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #107 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone?

No and No.

How do you know they intended to return it to its owner when they bought it?
Just because they say so NOW!
If that was what they intended, that implies they know who the owner was, so why not return it instead of pulling it apart.

You whole argument fails because they made no attempt to check with Apple before taking the device apart. If their honest intention was to buy the device to return it to its owner then they should have contacted Apple to see if it was theirs FIRST. They did not do that, instead the pulled it apart. Even then if the only purpose was to find the owner, then they found out it was Apple, so did they contact Apple then to return it? No instead they decide to profit from their honest intentions and publish photos of what they now know to be an Apple prototype device. Still not made any effort to return it though, even though you claim that was their intention all along.

Only after they have profited by their actions do they start to have a dialogue with the owner of the device. Why not do that without publishing the photos or revealing the Apple employee? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MONEY IN THOSE ACTIONS....
post #108 of 267
Gizmodo shouldn't publish pictures of the phone, they misunderstand the freedom of Speech. As many other journalists think anything they got in their hands can be published, personal information, like the name of the engineer. It doesn't matter they were showing "kindness" to give it back to Apple after having published the story.
Whether it was stolen of lost, paid $?000 for it or not, and from who... actually, this could only be context of a story but not the pictures of the phone!
post #109 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

If they didn't know the rightful owner, they should have handed it to the police. Instead they took it apart. The device is not meant to be taken apart as part of its day to day use. It might be rebuildable, but that's not the point. Anyway, all it does is identify the manufacturer, not the owner - so in this case they knew that it was a prototype, and then the trade secret law kicks in.

By the way, the reality that Apple will just let it lie and just not invite Gizmodo or sister companies from ever attending an Apple event again as punishment is not the point.

1) they didn't know it was a prototype until it was opened.
2) trade secret laws do not 'kick in'. Apple removed this protection when the allowed it to be removed from their facilities. Just like Honda taking their car for a test drive on public roads. You take a publish a pic, it is not a trade secret violation. You enter their facilities and take those same pics and publish them, then the trade secret laws will 'kick in'.

"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 #110 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

You're assuming they bought it. But if they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner, is that actually buying it? Are they attempting to gain title to the prototype phone?

No and No.


So, ... they paid for it with the intent to return it to its rightful owner....
but just before doing so, they disassembled the unit in order to make themselves sure who the rightful owner was, and to become such a respectfully citizens and see every property at his legitime owners hands they paid the amount of $5000 !, come on, not one will believe that story !.
post #111 of 267
Two conflicts from phone finder and gizmo - they had the facebook page of apple employee, new it was an apple employee, finder tried calling apple, yet they did not know it was an apple phone?
Give me a break.

If the finder knew it was an apple employee phone (by the act of calling Apple) why couldn't he/she drive to One Infinity Drive walk right up to security and say 'hey is this one of yours?'
Instead he/she went to Gizmo... for cash. At minimum un-ethical, hopefully illegal.

They (finder and Gizmo) were doing a CYA to the minimal extent possible.
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 #112 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Why assume Apple is the owner? They're the manufacturer. It was "lost" in a bar, and the obvious assumption was that the owner would call back.

Correct course of action:

1) Hand in to police.
2) Phone bar, to let them know that a lost phone was handed in to the police.
3) Bar can inform owner when they called in.

Nearly as correct course of action:

1) Hand in to bar.
2) Bar can give to owner when they called in.

Assume apple is the owner because it is a prototype phone not on the market. Obviously taking apart a normal iPhone 3GS would yield you nothing, but a prototype?

And according to the story, you can't call the owner back because the phone was bricked.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #113 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

Hmm. Try the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

After dismantling it, Gizmodo now knew that it was indeed an Apple prototype iPhone. They had possession of Apple's trade secrets and chose to publish them for their own profit. There was no "public's right to know". There wasn't any reason for any reader to get this information beyond mere curiosity. And Apple's competitors all benefited.

Also, if you found a doctor's patient list and decided to run a news piece that published the full list of names, you would be breaking the law. And crying that the doctor shouldn't have lost it, doesn't change the fact that you published private information. You would be culpable.

There you go.

<sigh>
No trade secret laws protecting this...it was intentionally removed from Apple premises, so trade secret laws do not apply.

"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 #114 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych View Post

If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).

I am talking about Giz NOT the finder of the device.

Giz did NOT try to contact Apple before they pulled the device apart.
I'm sure they could have got someone to listen if they had made some effort, instead they chose not to.
post #115 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

Two conflicts from phone finder and gizmo - they had the facebook page of apple employee, new it was an apple employee, finder tried calling apple, yet they did not know it was an apple phone?
Give me a break.

If the finder knew it was an apple employee phone (by the act of calling Apple) why couldn't he/she drive to One Infinity Drive walk right up to security and say 'hey is this one of yours?'
Instead he/she went to Gizmo... for cash. At minimum un-ethical, hopefully illegal.

They (finder and Gizmo) were doing a CYA to the minimal extent possible.

Gizmodo got all this information third hand from the "finder." When the story first broke out on Engadget, no one believed it. Why should Gizmodo take the "finder" at his word?

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #116 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulkas View Post

i have an iphone. They should have called me too.

They claim they needed to confirm it was likely apple's property. Calls from the finder to apple to confirm this had been ignored. Next step, confirm likely ownership themselves. Which they then did.

did giz call apple? No! They wanted the money!!
post #117 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Why assume Apple is the owner? They're the manufacturer. It was "lost" in a bar, and the obvious assumption was that the owner would call back.

Correct course of action:

1) Hand in to police.
2) Phone bar, to let them know that a lost phone was handed in to the police.
3) Bar can inform owner when they called in.

Would have been the prudent course of action. Hardly Giz's fault the finder did not do this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Nearly as correct course of action:
1) Hand in to bar.

2) bartender takes home new phone.

Not quite as prudent. Drunks usually aren't good decision makers.

"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 #118 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

I am talking about Giz NOT the finder of the device.

Giz did NOT try to contact Apple before they pulled the device apart.
I'm sure they could have got someone to listen if they had made some effort, instead they chose not to.

There are different ways to determine who the owner was. This was one of them. Whichever you thought was nicer to Apple as an applefanboi doesn't matter. Giz did what they needed to do to determine the true owner of the phone and then returned it to them.

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply

iPad2 16 GB
iPhone 5 32 GB

Reply
post #119 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

1) they didn't know it was a prototype until it was opened.
2) trade secret laws do not 'kick in'. Apple removed this protection when the allowed it to be removed from their facilities. Just like Honda taking their car for a test drive on public roads. You take a publish a pic, it is not a trade secret violation. You enter their facilities and take those same pics and publish them, then the trade secret laws will 'kick in'.

Re: 1) In this case they didn't know the owner, and they should have handed it in to the police.

Dismantling and taking detailed pictures of the insides and publishing them is not the same as taking a picture of the outside of a new model car on a road.
post #120 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder View Post

How do you know they intended to return it to its owner when they bought it?
Just because they say so NOW!
If that was what they intended, that implies they know who the owner was, so why not return it instead of pulling it apart.

Ok, that is just bad logic. What it implies is that they intent to determine the owner...not at all that they know who it is.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple engineer frantically searched for lost prototype iPhone