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.
In this case, they dismantled the phone and immediately determined the owner.
"We'll do anything for a story," he wrote. "Our only obligation is to our readers." -Wow. Talk about integrity. I sure hope the courts feel that their only obligation is to their readers, not the law or any ethical standards. What an a-hole. Could they not have returned this to Apple, and published the story of how they retrieved the iPhone for Apple and then just alluded to what they had seen while showing that they have some sort of integrity.
I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.
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?
So you know it's a prototype ... and thus the owner, and you decide to take photos and publish them for profit.
It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Gizmodo just took a gamble - that it wouldn't be worth Apple actually taking action against them for what they did.
Quote:
And according to the story, you can't call the owner back because the phone was bricked.
The owner phoned the bar, and would have left an alternative number for the bar to phone back on. That's why I wrote that contacting the bar is what should be done. Simple English.
...and one more thing. The phone was in a case with that actually didn't look any different from the existing iPhones, I mean, at least from as far as you can't recognize the front camera.
So, in a black plastic cover, taking it to public place, there was hardly anything of the secrecy visible. Because the OS that can be different from your iPhone also exists in beta outside.
In this new phone, what was secret:
- the design that was covered
- the new parts inside, that wasn't recognizable
- the already known but not even ready OS4
that's why they could walk out with it from the Apple ranch, only restricting not to give it to unauthorized hands.
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).
Handing the phone to the police would have stopped this from happening and potentially could have returned the item to the owner. There is nothing stopping it from being reported now. The finder was not to know it had not been reported to the police, hindsight is a wonder thing!
It would have been easier for Giz just to call Apple, simple.
Even if they needed to pull it apart to find the owner - WHY PUBLISH THE PHOTOS?
They should have quietly retuned the photo to Apple - the decent and honest thing to do.
Instead they chose to profit from it. That is the issue we all have with this story.
Sure intend to return to the own, sure pull it apart to find who it belongs to, I will let you have all those points. But to them publish the photos and tell the whole story contradicts their so called 'honest' intentions.
No, because calls had already been made. And the had every reason to believe it was a fake, as many, many people did. Even a fake would have been a good story for them.
They wanted a story. If money was their only interest, they would stop pissing off Apple to get their lucrative ad revenue back. Which they lost by doing a story on Jobs health. Ads are how they make money. Pissing off a huge customer doesn't seem like a great way to get their business.
Thousands of people must be stupid, because even after Giz released the first set of pics there were a lot of people that did not believe it was a real Apple device. Did you consider it could have been a chinese knockoff? There are a few of those around. If you look on this thing we like to call the 'internet' you might even be able to see some examples for yourself. there was no way to know it was an Apple device until it was opened. In fact with all the fakes out there, which is more likely, you find a phone and think "this MUST be a top secret Apple prototype!" or "This looks like a knock off..even the UI is different"?
use some common sense.
So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.
Of course people who see pictures on the internet are going to question it - ever hear of Photoshop?
"We'll do anything for a story," he wrote. "Our only obligation is to our readers." -Wow. Talk about integrity. I sure hope the courts feel that their only obligation is to their readers, not the law or any ethical standards. What an a-hole. Could they not have returned this to Apple, and published the story of how they retrieved the iPhone for Apple and then just alluded to what they had seen while showing that they have some sort of integrity.
That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).
Quote:
I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.
Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.
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.
No, but the same conditions to the trade secret laws apply. By removing it from the Apple facilities, the are no longer taking necessary steps top protect it.
But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?
Alot of missing details.
But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.
So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.
Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?
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?
So did they make any attempt to verify the fact, perhaps contact Apple themselves?
You excuses for Giz in this are getting very thin.
If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).
Yeah. I hear emailing Steve Jobs works a lot better these days than calling Apple's call center. I'm sure that Gizmodo has a lot more contacts to try than to rely on the finder's "attempt' to contact Apple.
Gizmodo could have also just sent over the pictures to Apple's leadership (you know, the ones that would actually KNOW what the new iphone might look like) and asked if this was indeed an Apple prototype. Anyone who wasn't directly involved with the new iPhone would have as much knowledge as any of Gizmodo's readers.
Both parties seem to have done the LEAST possible work to give them an excuse to profit from it. Like everyone who adheres to the "letter of the law" while conspicuously walking around the "spirit of the law". And people get upset when they see this behavior, because it invariably points to someone trying to get away with something. "But Mom! That's not what you actually told me not to do!"
Actually, an Apple call centre person has reported that yes he did. The person that answered assumed it was a hoax, gave a call ticket number and hung up.
Just to be clear a person sent an email CLAIMING that they worked at Apple's call center and that the guy next to them took the support call.
They had the guy who lost it's name. If I found someone's Droid phone I wouldn't call Motorola. I'd either leave it at the bar or contact the guy who's Facebook account I had logged onto in the beginning. In my opinion the guy had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to. It's pretty obvious he didn't try very hard to do anything except to try and get the best price for it from a tech blog. Nothing can be done about it now. The thing that actually stinks the most about it for me is it was the Apple guy's birthday. Can you imagine the pit in your stomach realizing you didn't have the device?
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.
No they did what was more profitable to Giz. I assume you are a Gizfanboy?
But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?
Alot of missing details.
But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.
Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.
That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).
Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.
'retreived' ... nice word.
So when 5000 bucks changed hands... their was 'no relationship'.
Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?
Usually, paying someone money for something you KNOW does not belong to them is called buying stolen property. "It just fell off a truck, honest!" Last I checked, that is criminal. Gizmodo also bought it to profit off the information it could publish, not to simply return it to Apple. And what they published were trade secrets. So they are culpable for a lot of things.
Comments
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.
In this case, they dismantled the phone and immediately determined the owner.
I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.
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?
So you know it's a prototype ... and thus the owner, and you decide to take photos and publish them for profit.
It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Gizmodo just took a gamble - that it wouldn't be worth Apple actually taking action against them for what they did.
And according to the story, you can't call the owner back because the phone was bricked.
The owner phoned the bar, and would have left an alternative number for the bar to phone back on. That's why I wrote that contacting the bar is what should be done. Simple English.
So, in a black plastic cover, taking it to public place, there was hardly anything of the secrecy visible. Because the OS that can be different from your iPhone also exists in beta outside.
In this new phone, what was secret:
- the design that was covered
- the new parts inside, that wasn't recognizable
- the already known but not even ready OS4
that's why they could walk out with it from the Apple ranch, only restricting not to give it to unauthorized hands.
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).
Handing the phone to the police would have stopped this from happening and potentially could have returned the item to the owner. There is nothing stopping it from being reported now. The finder was not to know it had not been reported to the police, hindsight is a wonder thing!
It would have been easier for Giz just to call Apple, simple.
Even if they needed to pull it apart to find the owner - WHY PUBLISH THE PHOTOS?
They should have quietly retuned the photo to Apple - the decent and honest thing to do.
Instead they chose to profit from it. That is the issue we all have with this story.
Sure intend to return to the own, sure pull it apart to find who it belongs to, I will let you have all those points. But to them publish the photos and tell the whole story contradicts their so called 'honest' intentions.
did giz call apple? No! They wanted the money!!
No, because calls had already been made. And the had every reason to believe it was a fake, as many, many people did. Even a fake would have been a good story for them.
They wanted a story. If money was their only interest, they would stop pissing off Apple to get their lucrative ad revenue back. Which they lost by doing a story on Jobs health. Ads are how they make money. Pissing off a huge customer doesn't seem like a great way to get their business.
Thousands of people must be stupid, because even after Giz released the first set of pics there were a lot of people that did not believe it was a real Apple device. Did you consider it could have been a chinese knockoff? There are a few of those around. If you look on this thing we like to call the 'internet' you might even be able to see some examples for yourself. there was no way to know it was an Apple device until it was opened. In fact with all the fakes out there, which is more likely, you find a phone and think "this MUST be a top secret Apple prototype!" or "This looks like a knock off..even the UI is different"?
use some common sense.
So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.
Of course people who see pictures on the internet are going to question it - ever hear of Photoshop?
"We'll do anything for a story," he wrote. "Our only obligation is to our readers." -Wow. Talk about integrity. I sure hope the courts feel that their only obligation is to their readers, not the law or any ethical standards. What an a-hole. Could they not have returned this to Apple, and published the story of how they retrieved the iPhone for Apple and then just alluded to what they had seen while showing that they have some sort of integrity.
That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).
I wonder if Apple can sue them for damages and loss of 3GS sales since no one will buy a 3GS anymore knowing what is coming down the road in a very short time.
Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.
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.
No, but the same conditions to the trade secret laws apply. By removing it from the Apple facilities, the are no longer taking necessary steps top protect it.
Calls were made{to Apple}. Calls were ignored.
But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?
Alot of missing details.
But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.
So Gizmodo paid $5,000 thinking the device wasn't real? The guy who found it contacted Gizmodo (and possibly Engadget also) - he obviously knew it was real, and he knew how to get a payday out of it. The more info that comes out, the more obvious it is that this is a criminal act, by the "finder" and by Gizmodo.
Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?
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?
So did they make any attempt to verify the fact, perhaps contact Apple themselves?
You excuses for Giz in this are getting very thin.
If they called apple (which they did) they would have just been dismissed as a hoax (which happened).
Yeah. I hear emailing Steve Jobs works a lot better these days than calling Apple's call center. I'm sure that Gizmodo has a lot more contacts to try than to rely on the finder's "attempt' to contact Apple.
Gizmodo could have also just sent over the pictures to Apple's leadership (you know, the ones that would actually KNOW what the new iphone might look like) and asked if this was indeed an Apple prototype. Anyone who wasn't directly involved with the new iPhone would have as much knowledge as any of Gizmodo's readers.
Both parties seem to have done the LEAST possible work to give them an excuse to profit from it. Like everyone who adheres to the "letter of the law" while conspicuously walking around the "spirit of the law". And people get upset when they see this behavior, because it invariably points to someone trying to get away with something. "But Mom! That's not what you actually told me not to do!"
Actually, an Apple call centre person has reported that yes he did. The person that answered assumed it was a hoax, gave a call ticket number and hung up.
Just to be clear a person sent an email CLAIMING that they worked at Apple's call center and that the guy next to them took the support call.
They had the guy who lost it's name. If I found someone's Droid phone I wouldn't call Motorola. I'd either leave it at the bar or contact the guy who's Facebook account I had logged onto in the beginning. In my opinion the guy had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to. It's pretty obvious he didn't try very hard to do anything except to try and get the best price for it from a tech blog. Nothing can be done about it now. The thing that actually stinks the most about it for me is it was the Apple guy's birthday. Can you imagine the pit in your stomach realizing you didn't have the device?
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.
No they did what was more profitable to Giz. I assume you are a Gizfanboy?
But who at Apple? If it was to Apple Security Office you have a point. Otherwise.... not so sure
I'm still a bit confused 'ticket number'. Apples customer relations (not customer support) gives a ticket number? And what did they say on the ticket as the issue?
Alot of missing details.
But ultimately, he drove to Gizmo instead of One Infinity Drive. So in the end... FAIL.
Okay, so the finder failed. But Gizmodo in no way failed. They obtained possession, determined the authenticity and ownership by taking it apart, and returned it to its rightful owner.
No they did what was more profitable to Giz. I assume you are a Gizfanboy?
Nope. I'm a fan of being an informed consumer.
That's actually pretty much what happened. They retrieved the phone from the finder, returned it to apple. Posted a story of how it happened (and what happened in between).
Theres no relationship between the parties and no wrongdoing by Gizmodo. Perhaps Apple can go after Gray Powell for the lost profits due to his negligence, but not Gizmodo.
'retreived' ... nice word.
So when 5000 bucks changed hands... their was 'no relationship'.
Do you think that Gizmodo paid the money before they could get their hands on the device and figure out that it was real? How is it in any way a criminal act if Giz intended to return the device to Apple?
Usually, paying someone money for something you KNOW does not belong to them is called buying stolen property. "It just fell off a truck, honest!" Last I checked, that is criminal. Gizmodo also bought it to profit off the information it could publish, not to simply return it to Apple. And what they published were trade secrets. So they are culpable for a lot of things.
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.
The owner was the person in the bar was it not?
Would Giz be able to get the info of the person in the bar from opening the device?
No they would not. So Giz then assumed it was a prototype, they only reason to open it to see if it was really an Apple device.
So why not call Apple first and discount them from being the 'owner'.