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.
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.
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.
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).
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....
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!
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'.
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 !.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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....
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!
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'.
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 !.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.