Goodbye Gizmodo and yeah that was really wrong for revealing trade secrets, which could lose Apple billions in revenue.
In the end, it probably helped Apple. Tonned of free press again and people that had contracts coming up and liked what they saw might now wait for the new model instead of another brand.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
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.
You are wrong about pretty much everything here, but I'll pick apart the last part cause it's just so easy ...
There are two obvious criminal charges here, theft, and receiving of stolen goods. The person who "found" the phone became a thief the minute they sold it to Gizmodo. That much is as plain as day. Gizmodo (presumably Jason Chen or Brian Lam), were in receipt of stolen goods the moment they bought it and the law doesn't care whether they "knew" it was stolen or not. They might even be considered to have aided and abetted the theft by purchasing the device instead of telling the person they should give it back.
Brian Lam, by his own words ... "This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple's perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it?on record. " seems to have committed extortion based on the mistaken assumption that the party that lost such a thing "has three weeks to claim it." If Apple didn't claim the phone "on the record," he wouldn't give it to them. He doesn't have that right, therefore it's extortion (blackmail).
California law certainly states that if you find such a thing you are required to give it back to the owner in a "reasonable" amount of time. The "weeks" Gizmodo said they had it or knew of it, doesn't qualify. If they knew about it for such a period and were at the same time (also by their own admission), negotiating to buy it, they are certainly guilty. The law also says that you *have* to return it the moment you know who the real owner is, which they clearly knew long before they gave it back.
It's just a matter of whether it's a slap on the wrist or a jail term.
No, it is extortion if they demanded compensation. Asking for formal notification that it belongs to Apple is not extortion.
This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
Only a complete moron who already has an iPhone.
Also developers have access to iPhone OS 4.0. Since it was encased to look like a normal iPhone 3GS/3G, it could have very well been a developer phone.
Quote:
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.
When he got home it was likely after business hours. If he realized it was a prototype iPhone then, he could have waited until business hours then attempted to contact Apple. Which, according to the article, he did.
He describes looking at the owner's facebook page and waiting around for the guy to come back. So actually, he did do something about it. Maybe he didn't return it to the bartender because he didn't trust the guy. I don't know about you, but to me everything that's been turned into lost and found finds its way into an employee's pocket at the end of the day. I've never been able to recover something from lost and found and I lose alot of shit.
The letter isn't fake. Gizmodo requested a formal letter be written by Apple to ask for the iPhone back for legal purposes. Jason Chen (Gizmodo) was just interviewed on MSNBC and he stated Gizmodo has it has given the iPhone back.
On another note, I'm cancelling all sites on my RSS feed who posted the engineer's name and helped to possibly ruin his career. I'm glad that AI took the classy route.
Dead to me:
1. Gizmodo
2. 9to5 Mac
3. Cult of Mac
4. Mac Rumors
He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
Yup. If I have a top secret product with me, the last place I'd go to would be the bar to get drunk. Either this guy is so stupid, or the device is not so secretive.
He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.
Assume his name wasn't published. Apple fires him. The public is none the wiser.
Does anyone doubt that Apple wouldn't have found out who lost their prototype if Gizmodo hadn't published his name?
And if the info is already out there, via Gizmodo, is there any more harm that can be done by other blogs publishing his name as well?
Also, if the person was sincere, why did the person end up selling the item to Gizmodo?
And, if Gizmodo is sincere, understood that it is the real thing, why did it go ahead and publish information about a proprietary product?
The best that could be said of Gizmodo here is that they have no moral compass.
CGC
Where is the evidence for any of this, one way or the other?
If the person was 'sincere' and made reasonable attempts to contact Apple, then why not sell it to Giz? That is a questionable action, but questionable doesn't mean illegal.
Giz is all about tech and tech rumours and leaks (Sort or like AI is all about Apple and Apple rumours and leaks). Don't expect a blog or internet site to be your moral compass. That isn't their job.
You forget step 1a...he called Apple to inform them and find out tho whom he could return it. If the rightful owner denies ownership or refuses to let him know where to send it, he has made his reasonable attempt to return it.
Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.
It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.
People keep asserting this as though simply repeating ad nauseam will make it true.
Why would this be damaging to Apple's business? I might argue that it is actually a plus for Apple's business, given the incredible free publicity and market reaction to the design.
Anyhow the whole story seems a little fishy to me, for example, while I have no personal knowledge what Apple's letterhead looks like, the logo used on the letter looks nothing like the current logo used on Apple's website or current products. Seems to me that they would have newer letterhead using the current logo.
At some point found property can be transferred, after a period of time and effort to return the property. Did that time elapse? Did he try hard enough to return it? Questionable. I have no idea. But the selling of it, if he felt he had done enough, isn't in and of itself illegal. certainly the lawyers at Gizmodo felt it wasn't. Do we know better than lawyers?
I hope this goes to trial and Gizmodo is bankrupted. It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.
I don't know. On one hand, they paid for a device that they knew they shouldn't have. They knew they would be disclosing secret information. That all looks bad. But on the other hand, I find Apple's response odd. They issued a simple e-mail and politely asked for the unit back. Pretty un-Apple like, hmm? I wonder if they've just decided it's not worth the publicity to go after Gizmodo hard.
As for their business, I disagree. Reaction to the product has been overwhelmingly positive. That alone will generate sales once released. If the info released helps a firm copy the device, Apple will sue them just as they normally would in such a case.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.
I assume AI pays its sources of leaks and info. Does that fall under "bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy" . How is that different from what Gizmodo did? Maybe Kasper should be sent to jail then, or at least shut down the site.
You sure are easy to convince. Do you let just any stranger walk up to you on the street and tell you that they "found" a device and you'll believe them? Or, maybe it's true because it was published on the internet?
I'll wager that at this point in time NOBODY knows the whole story of how the phone was acquired, except the person who acquired it. It's not known by Apple, not by Gizmodo, not by Apple Insider, not by me, and probably not by YOU.
This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.
if I gave you an phone and you didn't have a technical background, you couldn't expect to know it was a prototype. At best you would know it wasn't exactly the same as the other iPhones you had played with. he didn't take the case off until the next day (I think) so physically it was a 3GS with a tweaked UI. It could just as easily been a JB iPhone than a prototype at that point. Much more likely that an iPhone you find is jailbroken than a prototype.
You think hourly wage security guards and retail employees are trustworthy enough to hand over a prototype next generation phone? Really?
Folks that work for Apple are the biggest KoolAid drinkers out there. And the Palo Alto store is totally in love with Steve Jobs. He gives them everything, features them in every video, goes there personally all the time to shop. You better believe if some guy walked in with an envelope and handed it to a manager, they would call Jobs Batline right away, probably in front of the guy, demanding that he get something as a reward for being so honest. Free ipad or something. And then Jobs would probably send pizzas or something to the store staff cause he loves them so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx
It seems to me that it would be hard to show that it was indeed a theft. While some might say it would have been better to hand it into the bar, that does not necessarily assure that it will be returned. Especially since one report claims the fellow who found it tried to return it to Apple.
He left with a device he knew was not his. He allegedly had the name of the owner via the facebook account which was logged in and he could have posted something to clue the owner in that he dropped his phone and where it was left for him to pick up.
Also when he knew that it wasn't a normal phone he didn't take it directly to Apple in some way shape or form. He could have Fed Ex'd it to them and they probably would have sent him back money for the delivery fee and something as a reward. Instead he sold it to a company that has been very public that they will pay good money for Apple info.
So no the guy isn't in the clear. Possession is 9/10ths the law is bogus
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddych
I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.
the phone was lost 4 weeks ago. If the guy was going to be fired, it already happened. So the public outcry would be pointless.
Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.
Could be a crime. I don't think anyone could prove theft or receiving stolen goods. Found is not stolen. It becomes 'stolen' with certain conditions. Were those conditions met? Maybe, maybe not. He made some attempt to contact Apple. We can all think of other ways, better ways, that he could have contacted Apple to return the phone. Many better ways. But, that doesn't mean his attempts weren't 'reasonable'.
Let's say he did all we can think of and was still ignored and was still rebuffed. Let's imagine he couriered it to Apple and it was returned to sender. At what point, given reasonable efforts, would it be legal to sell it? I don't know. What constitutes reasonable efforts, legally? I don't know. Were his attempts enough to meet a legal definition, and not our personal definitions, of reasonable efforts? I don't know.
But, because I don't know, I am not willing to accuse anyone of a crime. If it was illegal, then charge him. If Giz was was in the wrong charge them too. But I haven't seen anything from anyone that would clarify that any of the parties committed an actual crime.
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!
As a photo retoucher who's seen 20 billion threads of geniuses playing Photoshop Expert, I only have this to say: "Been there."
It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!
It is astonishing that Gizmodo would pay $5000 for a device and NOT know or realize it came to their attention from anything other than nefarious means. Even if they didn't know it was stolen, it's still tabloid blogging as far as I'm concerned.
Comments
Goodbye Gizmodo and yeah that was really wrong for revealing trade secrets, which could lose Apple billions in revenue.
In the end, it probably helped Apple. Tonned of free press again and people that had contracts coming up and liked what they saw might now wait for the new model instead of another brand.
Lawyer here. In fact, IP lawyer.
I know everyone is enjoying batting around the idea of some sort of "UTSA lawsuit" (FYI - I've never heard it called a "UTSA suit"...it's a simple "trade secrets suit"). However, any suit for trade secret violations would likely fail for the simple fact that Apple would have a tough time proving the iPhone prototype was a "trade secret." Why isn't it a trade secret? Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
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.
Wow, common sense. Imagine that.
You are wrong about pretty much everything here, but I'll pick apart the last part cause it's just so easy ...
There are two obvious criminal charges here, theft, and receiving of stolen goods. The person who "found" the phone became a thief the minute they sold it to Gizmodo. That much is as plain as day. Gizmodo (presumably Jason Chen or Brian Lam), were in receipt of stolen goods the moment they bought it and the law doesn't care whether they "knew" it was stolen or not. They might even be considered to have aided and abetted the theft by purchasing the device instead of telling the person they should give it back.
Brian Lam, by his own words ... "This phone was lost, and then found. But from Apple's perspective, it could have been considered stolen. I told them, all they have to do to get it back is to claim it?on record. " seems to have committed extortion based on the mistaken assumption that the party that lost such a thing "has three weeks to claim it." If Apple didn't claim the phone "on the record," he wouldn't give it to them. He doesn't have that right, therefore it's extortion (blackmail).
California law certainly states that if you find such a thing you are required to give it back to the owner in a "reasonable" amount of time. The "weeks" Gizmodo said they had it or knew of it, doesn't qualify. If they knew about it for such a period and were at the same time (also by their own admission), negotiating to buy it, they are certainly guilty. The law also says that you *have* to return it the moment you know who the real owner is, which they clearly knew long before they gave it back.
It's just a matter of whether it's a slap on the wrist or a jail term.
No, it is extortion if they demanded compensation. Asking for formal notification that it belongs to Apple is not extortion.
This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
Only a complete moron who already has an iPhone.
Also developers have access to iPhone OS 4.0. Since it was encased to look like a normal iPhone 3GS/3G, it could have very well been a developer phone.
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.
When he got home it was likely after business hours. If he realized it was a prototype iPhone then, he could have waited until business hours then attempted to contact Apple. Which, according to the article, he did.
He describes looking at the owner's facebook page and waiting around for the guy to come back. So actually, he did do something about it. Maybe he didn't return it to the bartender because he didn't trust the guy. I don't know about you, but to me everything that's been turned into lost and found finds its way into an employee's pocket at the end of the day. I've never been able to recover something from lost and found and I lose alot of shit.
The letter isn't fake. Gizmodo requested a formal letter be written by Apple to ask for the iPhone back for legal purposes. Jason Chen (Gizmodo) was just interviewed on MSNBC and he stated Gizmodo has it has given the iPhone back.
On another note, I'm cancelling all sites on my RSS feed who posted the engineer's name and helped to possibly ruin his career. I'm glad that AI took the classy route.
Dead to me:
1. Gizmodo
2. 9to5 Mac
3. Cult of Mac
4. Mac Rumors
He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Because Apple failed to take adequate efforts to preserve it's secrecy. Sure, Apple could argue it took efforts to preserve secrecy, but I'm pretty sure that Gizmodo or anyone else would have a fairly strong argument that taking a prototype to a bar (and possibly leaving it in the bar) was not adequate efforts to preserve secrecy. No trade secret, no lawsuit.
Yup. If I have a top secret product with me, the last place I'd go to would be the bar to get drunk. Either this guy is so stupid, or the device is not so secretive.
He has some responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.
Assume his name wasn't published. Apple fires him. The public is none the wiser.
Does anyone doubt that Apple wouldn't have found out who lost their prototype if Gizmodo hadn't published his name?
And if the info is already out there, via Gizmodo, is there any more harm that can be done by other blogs publishing his name as well?
Where's the evidence for this?
Also, if the person was sincere, why did the person end up selling the item to Gizmodo?
And, if Gizmodo is sincere, understood that it is the real thing, why did it go ahead and publish information about a proprietary product?
The best that could be said of Gizmodo here is that they have no moral compass.
CGC
Where is the evidence for any of this, one way or the other?
If the person was 'sincere' and made reasonable attempts to contact Apple, then why not sell it to Giz? That is a questionable action, but questionable doesn't mean illegal.
Giz is all about tech and tech rumours and leaks (Sort or like AI is all about Apple and Apple rumours and leaks). Don't expect a blog or internet site to be your moral compass. That isn't their job.
You forget step 1a...he called Apple to inform them and find out tho whom he could return it. If the rightful owner denies ownership or refuses to let him know where to send it, he has made his reasonable attempt to return it.
Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.
It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.
People keep asserting this as though simply repeating ad nauseam will make it true.
Why would this be damaging to Apple's business? I might argue that it is actually a plus for Apple's business, given the incredible free publicity and market reaction to the design.
And get a reported $5000.00 from Giz?
Anyhow the whole story seems a little fishy to me, for example, while I have no personal knowledge what Apple's letterhead looks like, the logo used on the letter looks nothing like the current logo used on Apple's website or current products. Seems to me that they would have newer letterhead using the current logo.
At some point found property can be transferred, after a period of time and effort to return the property. Did that time elapse? Did he try hard enough to return it? Questionable. I have no idea. But the selling of it, if he felt he had done enough, isn't in and of itself illegal. certainly the lawyers at Gizmodo felt it wasn't. Do we know better than lawyers?
Calling won't work but mailing a padded envelope addressed to the company mailroom will?
Address it to Steve Jobs and after it is X-Rayed and checked yeah it probably would work, if you believe the item to be property of Apple Corp.
I hope this goes to trial and Gizmodo is bankrupted. It's theft and the early release of this info is incredibly damaging to Apple's business.
I don't know. On one hand, they paid for a device that they knew they shouldn't have. They knew they would be disclosing secret information. That all looks bad. But on the other hand, I find Apple's response odd. They issued a simple e-mail and politely asked for the unit back. Pretty un-Apple like, hmm? I wonder if they've just decided it's not worth the publicity to go after Gizmodo hard.
As for their business, I disagree. Reaction to the product has been overwhelmingly positive. That alone will generate sales once released. If the info released helps a firm copy the device, Apple will sue them just as they normally would in such a case.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.
I assume AI pays its sources of leaks and info. Does that fall under "bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy" . How is that different from what Gizmodo did? Maybe Kasper should be sent to jail then, or at least shut down the site.
You sure are easy to convince. Do you let just any stranger walk up to you on the street and tell you that they "found" a device and you'll believe them? Or, maybe it's true because it was published on the internet?
I'll wager that at this point in time NOBODY knows the whole story of how the phone was acquired, except the person who acquired it. It's not known by Apple, not by Gizmodo, not by Apple Insider, not by me, and probably not by YOU.
This isn't accurate. The story is that he played with it for a long time in the bar and that he knew the OS was not the current one. Only a complete moron wouldn't know what it was.
When he got home and plugged it into iTunes it showed itself up as a real iPhone. Again, good luck arguing in court that despite this fact, he still "didn't know" it was a prototype iPhone. He also knew who the owner was when he was in the bar. He is described as looking at the owners Facebook page in the bar, but he doesn't do anything about it.
if I gave you an phone and you didn't have a technical background, you couldn't expect to know it was a prototype. At best you would know it wasn't exactly the same as the other iPhones you had played with. he didn't take the case off until the next day (I think) so physically it was a 3GS with a tweaked UI. It could just as easily been a JB iPhone than a prototype at that point. Much more likely that an iPhone you find is jailbroken than a prototype.
You think hourly wage security guards and retail employees are trustworthy enough to hand over a prototype next generation phone? Really?
Folks that work for Apple are the biggest KoolAid drinkers out there. And the Palo Alto store is totally in love with Steve Jobs. He gives them everything, features them in every video, goes there personally all the time to shop. You better believe if some guy walked in with an envelope and handed it to a manager, they would call Jobs Batline right away, probably in front of the guy, demanding that he get something as a reward for being so honest. Free ipad or something. And then Jobs would probably send pizzas or something to the store staff cause he loves them so.
It seems to me that it would be hard to show that it was indeed a theft. While some might say it would have been better to hand it into the bar, that does not necessarily assure that it will be returned. Especially since one report claims the fellow who found it tried to return it to Apple.
He left with a device he knew was not his. He allegedly had the name of the owner via the facebook account which was logged in and he could have posted something to clue the owner in that he dropped his phone and where it was left for him to pick up.
Also when he knew that it wasn't a normal phone he didn't take it directly to Apple in some way shape or form. He could have Fed Ex'd it to them and they probably would have sent him back money for the delivery fee and something as a reward. Instead he sold it to a company that has been very public that they will pay good money for Apple info.
So no the guy isn't in the clear. Possession is 9/10ths the law is bogus
I also think that publication of his name will help to save his job. Now the public is on notice. If he gets fired, we will all know why he got fired. Public outcry ensues.
the phone was lost 4 weeks ago. If the guy was going to be fired, it already happened. So the public outcry would be pointless.
Even if all that is true, (I don't personally believe most of the story as published), it seems to me that it's still a crime if he then sells it to Gizmodo, and they are still similarly guilty of receiving and possessing stolen goods.
Could be a crime. I don't think anyone could prove theft or receiving stolen goods. Found is not stolen. It becomes 'stolen' with certain conditions. Were those conditions met? Maybe, maybe not. He made some attempt to contact Apple. We can all think of other ways, better ways, that he could have contacted Apple to return the phone. Many better ways. But, that doesn't mean his attempts weren't 'reasonable'.
Let's say he did all we can think of and was still ignored and was still rebuffed. Let's imagine he couriered it to Apple and it was returned to sender. At what point, given reasonable efforts, would it be legal to sell it? I don't know. What constitutes reasonable efforts, legally? I don't know. Were his attempts enough to meet a legal definition, and not our personal definitions, of reasonable efforts? I don't know.
But, because I don't know, I am not willing to accuse anyone of a crime. If it was illegal, then charge him. If Giz was was in the wrong charge them too. But I haven't seen anything from anyone that would clarify that any of the parties committed an actual crime.
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!
As a photo retoucher who's seen 20 billion threads of geniuses playing Photoshop Expert, I only have this to say: "Been there."