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!
"I heard that if an alien from Mars attempts to sell stolen goods, then you have the right to submit for discovery with the nearest legal office on Phobos. S'true I saw it on Star Trek!"
Ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Hey 'doc'... just go away. Go to the 'genius' website and talk to them, leave us morons alone.
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
Yes, I admit California *is* a little out there, but be that as it may...
IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth\
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
sorry for being off topic, I apologize- no your not, but if you take your time... a lot of time its not that bad, and it does have purpose.
I've heard it put another way- treat the 'law' language as a foreign language. Once you learn the meaning of the 'language' it has its purposes. The requirement is for very specific meaning. But that takes 'special' language or at least a lot of words. It is almost an art form to put statues together with little ambiguity.
Its like going from Basic to assembly. There is more precision in the instructions of assembly (which law demands... precision that is) but boy it can be alot more learning and coding. sorry for being off topic
Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law. I definitely think this is one area where a large number of people think what is "right" is actually against the law...and perhaps this says something about where are values are today.
I for one am starting to believe that the 'slideshow' ended where it did as a 'get out of jail free' card and Apple accepted the terms.
I think that the innards were obviously a prototype or otherwise trimmed to fit a generic prototype case, making it obvious that the device was NOT "the next iPhone", but instead, "just some prototype".
That's my guess.
The phone which was found was WAY too ugly to be released by Apple.
This all sounds like something an irresponsible person would say.
Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.
Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.
Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.
Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.
Sure, I make plenty of mistakes. My most recent mistake was thinking you'd get the humor in my post.
According to this lawyer, Apple could run into problems arguing that the iphone was a trade secret when you've got drunk engineers running around town with it and leaving it on stools. Of course, maybe that brings up the question of whether the guy was authorized to take it out in public, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. This seems like it could get messy.
Take a closer look at the quotation mark placement:
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law.
I wasn't saying that specific statement was made (although see previous posts and the term "finders keepers" was actually used here).
My comment was more of an observation how many people here and elsewhere think that what is "right" is something that goes entirely against California Civil Code section 2080 and California penal code sections 485 and 496.
I wasn't very clear, but it seems like a lot of people don't get just how wrong "finders keepers" actually is both morally and legally.
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
SO WHAT?!?!! If the CA law says you need obtain some degree of proof before handing over the device then YOU OBTAIN some degree of PROOF. Going in front of a legal authority with little more than 'well I knew it was theirs' would not be valid in the eyes of the law.
There is nothing wrong with a lots of CYA in this world.
Apple must sue. NOW! for at least 1 BILLION dollars. Gawker should be put out of business. Their editors should be blacklisted. (As a side note: Gawker Media had fleshbot.com up for years without a disclaimer flash page. This allows persons to view hard core porn without a warning - thus proving that they are an establishment without moral fortitude.)
1. Gawker Media knew once it opened the phone, tested it, photographed it and documented it that they had proprietary trade secrets and materials - (UI, design, choice of chips, layout etc.). They chose, against their better judgement to publish the material for their own profit.
In this day and age anyone with access in China can easily make a knockoff. I believe that their are factories in China right now using Gawkers story to make cases, and knockoffs on the basis of the story alone. These knockoff artisans do not consider the whole product or put the millions of dollars in time, and expertise to create what would constitute an iphone - they simply create an imitation to make a profit.
The net effect of this leak is tremendous. Apple has lost a tremendous amount of money with this leak. Google right now has probably assembled a NEXUS team to create a prototype NEXUS 2 phone with a September launch date.
I am prepared to sell my 3GS iphone TODAY in anticipation of the 4G one. I am ready to re-up my contract with ATT. I am going to wait for the second version of the iPad - simply because the iphone's elements (front facing camera etc. should be on the next ipad. I am going to buy Apple stock. - Lots of it. NOW! I want to develop iPhone ChatRoulette as the next disrupter iphone application (as well as a slew of apps that can use a front facing iPhone camera).
If I were Steve Jobs, my first decision would be to call a press conference/product reveal next Tuesday and have a low key introduction of the iPhone 4 (based solely on the leak) with availability pushed back to July. This would calm the market, continue the high coming off of the record earning and prevent the corporate espionage that will inevitably occur - by simply making public what every manufacturer will now be seeking to copy. My second decision would be to accelerate all related patent applications. My third decision would be to use the cash horde that I have at Apple to purchase all available Flash memory and related components to starve my competitors from gaining the components needed for a knockoff. My forth decision would be to assemble a top flight legal team in Taiwan and China and pre-empitively sue all electronics manufacturers to prevent knockoff production. This leak should have an adverse effect on the stock price, however stock price fluctuations should be mitigated by the LUST and demand generated from this leak.
Lastly, the engineer who lost the phone and his boss should be terminated or, reassigned and Apple must change its policy for in the field testing of its devices - IMMEDIATELY.
At the end of the day its just a phone, but we are still in a technological war and this product represents paid mindshare of the best engineers in the world. Gawker media's prostitution of Apple's upcoming iPhone, severly dilutes this mindshare and definitely shows the best and worst aspects of America's corporate morals.
According to this lawyer, Apple could run into problems arguing that the iphone was a trade secret when you've got drunk engineers running around town with it and leaving it on stools. Of course, maybe that brings up the question of whether the guy was authorized to take it out in public, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. This seems like it could get messy.
I don't get this argument. I've seen it elsewhere. I can understand an attractive nuisance argument (for other cases), but in this case it's a bit like saying, "You forgot to lock the door to your house, and so a person came in and stole things. Then afterward, said thief sold the items to somebody else who knew they were stolen. Sorry, but you were drunk and forgot to lock the door to your house." That doesn't seem right to me.
I could also understand if they were claiming the prototype wasn't a secret because Apple had let enough leaks get out about it that lots of people knew about it. However this was the only leak about it and it came about solely because it was stolen and Gizmodo knowingly purchased the stolen good. I would also argue that if it was not a secret Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 for it, nor would there have been any reason to post it (over and over and over again) on their website.
Again IANAL, I'm just trying to make sense of this.
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
I'd guess a lawyer would argue (and I bet a judge would agree) that the guys at gizmodo would have no reasonable expectation to think a fancy letter from boeyc15 declaring the found property to be his was legitimate. They had quite a few reasons to think it was Apples
property. Indeed their website confirms this. Now, did they know it was apples? Eventually. At first I'm sure they were skeptical, they had to think " no way, we didn't just get handed the golden ticket". And they even document their growing suspicions. I think the law requires them to make an effort to return it to the rightful owner. They suspect it is apples apple says you got my stuff, give it ( or a fancy letter, either one). Again a letter from some dude, fancy letterhead or not, shouldn't change who they have come to reasonably expect the rightful owner to be. Ie: "Holy cow this couldn't be apples super secret new phone could it. Well, maybe. Let's unscrew it and see if it looks like a cheap knockoff from china on the inside. Double holy cow, I think this is theirs." Those events plus apple representitives saying it's theirs would be seen as reasonably deciding it belongs to apple. But it would take apple to confirm it. Even if doing so blows their secrecy, making them claim it is not extortion in itself as some have claimed. Losing it, from what I've read apple has to take some responsibility here, I believe will nullify their expectation to secrecy. They shouldn't have left it at the bar. Now paying 5k for it and profiting off having it on their website might likely be found illegal, eventually. Until then there would be a constant reminder in the media of apple finally screwing up their long running reputation for secrecy.
That letter from apple to gizmodo is likely the last official word from apple we'll hear. Maybe a nodding reference and a wink at the unvieling, maybe.
Comments
Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.
We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.
This all sounds like something an irresponsible person would say.
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!
"I heard that if an alien from Mars attempts to sell stolen goods, then you have the right to submit for discovery with the nearest legal office on Phobos. S'true I saw it on Star Trek!"
Ffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Hey 'doc'... just go away. Go to the 'genius' website and talk to them, leave us morons alone.
Just heard from a friend of a friend who works at Apple. The phone has been returned.
Now that's some real Apple inside info.
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
Yes, I admit California *is* a little out there, but be that as it may...
IANAL, but I have studied this stuff...for what it's worth
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
sorry for being off topic, I apologize- no your not, but if you take your time... a lot of time its not that bad, and it does have purpose.
I've heard it put another way- treat the 'law' language as a foreign language. Once you learn the meaning of the 'language' it has its purposes. The requirement is for very specific meaning. But that takes 'special' language or at least a lot of words. It is almost an art form to put statues together with little ambiguity.
Its like going from Basic to assembly. There is more precision in the instructions of assembly (which law demands... precision that is) but boy it can be alot more learning and coding. sorry for being off topic
Too late. solipsism sold it to Shoemodo for $200. Won't they be for a surprise when they find out it isn't a Nike prototype but my 10 year old Nike Airs.
I could have had 3 million page views!
Thanks for the insightful all be it somewhat confusing reply...
/bow
it's quite frightening when one (and when I say 'one' I mean ME) comes to the realization of how little they know or would ever hope to know about the legal system we as citizens of this country are expected to abide by.
Also it give me cause to really question the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" given how todays 'law' is written. Maybe I'm wrong but in the 'simpler times' laws were much easier to digest... Today they seem to be purposefully written to confuse and confound and all but entrap unsuspecting citizens.
Am I wrong on this?
(..and I'm speaking about laws in general not just the stuff we are currently talking about...)
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law. I definitely think this is one area where a large number of people think what is "right" is actually against the law...and perhaps this says something about where are values are today.
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law.
Hold up, no one here made any such statement.
I for one am starting to believe that the 'slideshow' ended where it did as a 'get out of jail free' card and Apple accepted the terms.
I think that the innards were obviously a prototype or otherwise trimmed to fit a generic prototype case, making it obvious that the device was NOT "the next iPhone", but instead, "just some prototype".
That's my guess.
The phone which was found was WAY too ugly to be released by Apple.
This all sounds like something an irresponsible person would say.
Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.
Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.
Really? Because all I'm hearing from you is what a child would say. I'm an arrogant person because I back up what I say and it takes a wise person to know that people are fallible and are capable of foolishness from time to time.
Somehow I think you're the guy that likes to dump on everyone else but always makes the most mistakes.
Sure, I make plenty of mistakes. My most recent mistake was thinking you'd get the humor in my post.
Hold up, no one here made any such statement.
Take a closer look at the quotation mark placement:
It's been interesting to read here and elsewhere that so many people believe "finders keepers" is the law.
I wasn't saying that specific statement was made (although see previous posts and the term "finders keepers" was actually used here).
My comment was more of an observation how many people here and elsewhere think that what is "right" is something that goes entirely against California Civil Code section 2080 and California penal code sections 485 and 496.
I wasn't very clear, but it seems like a lot of people don't get just how wrong "finders keepers" actually is both morally and legally.
re DaveGee
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
SO WHAT?!?!! If the CA law says you need obtain some degree of proof before handing over the device then YOU OBTAIN some degree of PROOF. Going in front of a legal authority with little more than 'well I knew it was theirs' would not be valid in the eyes of the law.
There is nothing wrong with a lots of CYA in this world.
1. Gawker Media knew once it opened the phone, tested it, photographed it and documented it that they had proprietary trade secrets and materials - (UI, design, choice of chips, layout etc.). They chose, against their better judgement to publish the material for their own profit.
In this day and age anyone with access in China can easily make a knockoff. I believe that their are factories in China right now using Gawkers story to make cases, and knockoffs on the basis of the story alone. These knockoff artisans do not consider the whole product or put the millions of dollars in time, and expertise to create what would constitute an iphone - they simply create an imitation to make a profit.
The net effect of this leak is tremendous. Apple has lost a tremendous amount of money with this leak. Google right now has probably assembled a NEXUS team to create a prototype NEXUS 2 phone with a September launch date.
I am prepared to sell my 3GS iphone TODAY in anticipation of the 4G one. I am ready to re-up my contract with ATT. I am going to wait for the second version of the iPad - simply because the iphone's elements (front facing camera etc. should be on the next ipad. I am going to buy Apple stock. - Lots of it. NOW! I want to develop iPhone ChatRoulette as the next disrupter iphone application (as well as a slew of apps that can use a front facing iPhone camera).
If I were Steve Jobs, my first decision would be to call a press conference/product reveal next Tuesday and have a low key introduction of the iPhone 4 (based solely on the leak) with availability pushed back to July. This would calm the market, continue the high coming off of the record earning and prevent the corporate espionage that will inevitably occur - by simply making public what every manufacturer will now be seeking to copy. My second decision would be to accelerate all related patent applications. My third decision would be to use the cash horde that I have at Apple to purchase all available Flash memory and related components to starve my competitors from gaining the components needed for a knockoff. My forth decision would be to assemble a top flight legal team in Taiwan and China and pre-empitively sue all electronics manufacturers to prevent knockoff production. This leak should have an adverse effect on the stock price, however stock price fluctuations should be mitigated by the LUST and demand generated from this leak.
Lastly, the engineer who lost the phone and his boss should be terminated or, reassigned and Apple must change its policy for in the field testing of its devices - IMMEDIATELY.
At the end of the day its just a phone, but we are still in a technological war and this product represents paid mindshare of the best engineers in the world. Gawker media's prostitution of Apple's upcoming iPhone, severly dilutes this mindshare and definitely shows the best and worst aspects of America's corporate morals.
According to this lawyer, Apple could run into problems arguing that the iphone was a trade secret when you've got drunk engineers running around town with it and leaving it on stools. Of course, maybe that brings up the question of whether the guy was authorized to take it out in public, but I'm not sure it makes a difference. This seems like it could get messy.
I don't get this argument. I've seen it elsewhere. I can understand an attractive nuisance argument (for other cases), but in this case it's a bit like saying, "You forgot to lock the door to your house, and so a person came in and stole things. Then afterward, said thief sold the items to somebody else who knew they were stolen. Sorry, but you were drunk and forgot to lock the door to your house." That doesn't seem right to me.
I could also understand if they were claiming the prototype wasn't a secret because Apple had let enough leaks get out about it that lots of people knew about it. However this was the only leak about it and it came about solely because it was stolen and Gizmodo knowingly purchased the stolen good. I would also argue that if it was not a secret Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 for it, nor would there have been any reason to post it (over and over and over again) on their website.
Again IANAL, I'm just trying to make sense of this.
re DaveGee
2. Obtained proof of ownership (legal letter would be the best 'proof' you could expect to get)
So... if I sent a fancy letter saying it was my iphone prototype they would have given it to me?
Its like saying... hey whats that F-22 fighter doing over there, wonder who that belongs too? Hmmm I going to take it home until the rightful owner claims it. Give me a break. They knew exactly who own it.
I'd guess a lawyer would argue (and I bet a judge would agree) that the guys at gizmodo would have no reasonable expectation to think a fancy letter from boeyc15 declaring the found property to be his was legitimate. They had quite a few reasons to think it was Apples
property. Indeed their website confirms this. Now, did they know it was apples? Eventually. At first I'm sure they were skeptical, they had to think " no way, we didn't just get handed the golden ticket". And they even document their growing suspicions. I think the law requires them to make an effort to return it to the rightful owner. They suspect it is apples apple says you got my stuff, give it ( or a fancy letter, either one). Again a letter from some dude, fancy letterhead or not, shouldn't change who they have come to reasonably expect the rightful owner to be. Ie: "Holy cow this couldn't be apples super secret new phone could it. Well, maybe. Let's unscrew it and see if it looks like a cheap knockoff from china on the inside. Double holy cow, I think this is theirs." Those events plus apple representitives saying it's theirs would be seen as reasonably deciding it belongs to apple. But it would take apple to confirm it. Even if doing so blows their secrecy, making them claim it is not extortion in itself as some have claimed. Losing it, from what I've read apple has to take some responsibility here, I believe will nullify their expectation to secrecy. They shouldn't have left it at the bar. Now paying 5k for it and profiting off having it on their website might likely be found illegal, eventually. Until then there would be a constant reminder in the media of apple finally screwing up their long running reputation for secrecy.
That letter from apple to gizmodo is likely the last official word from apple we'll hear. Maybe a nodding reference and a wink at the unvieling, maybe.