Interesting isn't it... look I subscribe to the philosophy "shit happens", but one does wonder just how messed up one has to be to forget an iPhone prototype on a bar stool...
You know if you hang around with an iPhone prototype for at least a year you just wouldn't think of it as of something super important. And when software you write for the thing starts to click you may end up forgetting that you are in a possession of secret prototype.
Apple makes 100s of working prototypes before deciding on the final version. There is no way this is the"final" version. If anything, it was a prototype that was lost.
Nobody left the phone on the bar stool. Nobody found a lost/forgotten phone. This phone was clearly stolen.
If you find something that doesn't belong to you, it is your duty to return it to the rightful owner.
If Gizmodo claims the phone was lost, whoever found and sold it to these idiots, knew who the phone belong to. At least he/she knew who to contact to sell it, therefore he/she has good knowledge of what it is or who it belong to. Therefore it is a crime to sell what does not belong to you, without contacting the rightful owner. If the THIEF can locate Gizmodo, he/she can locate Apple. There is no innocence here. This is a willful and malicious act.
Apple should sue them for at least $100 million, technically shutting them down. I can't believe these idiots are so stupid to do this kind of thing.
So if i simply try to call someone to restore lost property but get no answer that makes an effort? where is an effort in making a call????????
P.S. people start forgetting times when no mobile phones were around...no so long ago...
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number."
You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!
1. The person who found the device is not the owner of the device. He should have handed the device into the bar or to the police. Instead he decided to sell the device, which was not his. This is theft. Selling something that you do not own, knowing it belongs to someone else.
2. Gizmodo knew these facts. So they knew the devices (be it real of fake), did not belong to the person selling it. Therefore they purchased stolen goods. Even if they did not know the fact, they knew that the person selling the device was not the owner of the device.
3. Having purchased the device they then made no attempt to return the device to its owner. Instead they decided to pull it appear to see if it was a real Apple device, when they discovered it was, they should then have contacted Apple, but no they decide to use the stolen device to drive up their site traffic. In the process revealing trade secrets.
Quite a dishonest and unprofessional way to act if you ask me.
Greed seems to have overruled common decency.
The person who found the device should be prosecuted for selling stolen property (after all he did not hand it in to the police).
Gizmodo should also be prosecuted for receiving stolen property and for trade secret issues.
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.
A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.
One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.
A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.
He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.
Gizmodo has and always will be the most unprofessional tech blog around. This isn't the first incident where they've handled stolen goods, just the most high profile. They deserve to get destroyed by Apple.
Then Gizmodo is dirty: Noo, they're paying for stolen goods.
Now Gizmodo is in trouble: Crap, they broke the law and might face some serious trouble.
However, I think the letter from Apple was very carefully written and phrased in a humble way, giving Gizmodo the chance to just do the right thing without any further investigation. The damage is done, nothing to do about it. Maybe in a crude way Apple even liked the timing of this. After all, there was a strange "Where's the new hardware"-void following the introduction of iPhone OS 4.
Does anybody know (in a lawerly way) if this is one of those cases where Apple would have to "press charges" for the case to proceed against Gizmodo? It matters to the theory that it was a planned Apple leak. There is a lot of bluster and both parties get a week or two of massive publicity (in effect sucking the wind out of other players in the arena) and then it can go away when they make nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales
Was the Find My Phone feature simply not working that day? Or the next? In other words Remote Wipe worked, but FMP didn't?
I know, right? And is it my imagination, or has Gizmodo failed to give details on the processor and such? They spilled the beans on external, cosmetic stuff and then showed internals only to show Apple logos... Are they holding back or was all this planned in advance?
Gizmodo has and always will be the most unprofessional tech blog around. This isn't the first incident where they've handled stolen goods, just the most high profile. They deserve to get destroyed by Apple.
But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).
"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"
Good, I'd like to see them locked up. The level of dishonesty and greed involved here is astounding. Think what a great story these jerks could have had post launch ... "How we saved Apple's secret" . Now they are simply crooks.
So go read the WJ if you want to stick to hard facts and don't be sarcastic to posters making valid opinions here, it is a rumor site helloooo.
What and miss people who don't read the source articles or the NYT coverage fall over themselves to take corporate apologism to unheard of heights? Perish the thought!
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number."
You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!
Just as a matter of interest, the proof you are talking about, do you have a link to the source information?
I have re-read the Giz stories and can see that quote, but if you get a 'ticket' surely you would post that as further evidence.
Comments
Looking around Twitter... @graypowell follows @geohot
Interesting isn't it... look I subscribe to the philosophy "shit happens", but one does wonder just how messed up one has to be to forget an iPhone prototype on a bar stool...
You know if you hang around with an iPhone prototype for at least a year you just wouldn't think of it as of something super important. And when software you write for the thing starts to click you may end up forgetting that you are in a possession of secret prototype.
The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.
I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.
So if i simply try to call someone to restore lost property but get no answer that makes an effort? where is an effort in making a call????????
P.S. people start forgetting times when no mobile phones were around...no so long ago...
If you find something that doesn't belong to you, it is your duty to return it to the rightful owner.
If Gizmodo claims the phone was lost, whoever found and sold it to these idiots, knew who the phone belong to. At least he/she knew who to contact to sell it, therefore he/she has good knowledge of what it is or who it belong to. Therefore it is a crime to sell what does not belong to you, without contacting the rightful owner. If the THIEF can locate Gizmodo, he/she can locate Apple. There is no innocence here. This is a willful and malicious act.
Apple should sue them for at least $100 million, technically shutting them down. I can't believe these idiots are so stupid to do this kind of thing.
So if i simply try to call someone to restore lost property but get no answer that makes an effort? where is an effort in making a call????????
P.S. people start forgetting times when no mobile phones were around...no so long ago...
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number."
You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!
1. The person who found the device is not the owner of the device. He should have handed the device into the bar or to the police. Instead he decided to sell the device, which was not his. This is theft. Selling something that you do not own, knowing it belongs to someone else.
2. Gizmodo knew these facts. So they knew the devices (be it real of fake), did not belong to the person selling it. Therefore they purchased stolen goods. Even if they did not know the fact, they knew that the person selling the device was not the owner of the device.
3. Having purchased the device they then made no attempt to return the device to its owner. Instead they decided to pull it appear to see if it was a real Apple device, when they discovered it was, they should then have contacted Apple, but no they decide to use the stolen device to drive up their site traffic. In the process revealing trade secrets.
Quite a dishonest and unprofessional way to act if you ask me.
Greed seems to have overruled common decency.
The person who found the device should be prosecuted for selling stolen property (after all he did not hand it in to the police).
Gizmodo should also be prosecuted for receiving stolen property and for trade secret issues.
No theft, no lawsuit. No Sword of Democles.
Ah, you must be referring to the law 'finders keepers, losers weepers!'
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.
A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.
One call does not count as making effort to return the device.
For all you know they could have hung up the call before the person had chance to answer!
If they had proof of a number of calls, plus a police incident number showing they had reported the find to the police . Perhaps even a call to Apple as this person clearly knew what he was dealing with here, else why sell to Gizmodo for £5k. How long did he try before he sold the device.
A court would want more 'effort' than one failed phone call.
He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.
magic ticket number = logged phone call = proof
First Gizmodo is cool: Yeah, the new iPhone.
Then Gizmodo is dirty: Noo, they're paying for stolen goods.
Now Gizmodo is in trouble: Crap, they broke the law and might face some serious trouble.
However, I think the letter from Apple was very carefully written and phrased in a humble way, giving Gizmodo the chance to just do the right thing without any further investigation. The damage is done, nothing to do about it. Maybe in a crude way Apple even liked the timing of this. After all, there was a strange "Where's the new hardware"-void following the introduction of iPhone OS 4.
Does anybody know (in a lawerly way) if this is one of those cases where Apple would have to "press charges" for the case to proceed against Gizmodo? It matters to the theory that it was a planned Apple leak. There is a lot of bluster and both parties get a week or two of massive publicity (in effect sucking the wind out of other players in the arena) and then it can go away when they make nice.
Was the Find My Phone feature simply not working that day? Or the next? In other words Remote Wipe worked, but FMP didn't?
I know, right? And is it my imagination, or has Gizmodo failed to give details on the processor and such? They spilled the beans on external, cosmetic stuff and then showed internals only to show Apple logos... Are they holding back or was all this planned in advance?
Gizmodo has and always will be the most unprofessional tech blog around. This isn't the first incident where they've handled stolen goods, just the most high profile. They deserve to get destroyed by Apple.
But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).
"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"
Oh! 2000 posts ... the time flew by!
But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).
"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"
So go read the WJ if you want to stick to hard facts and don't be sarcastic to posters making valid opinions here, it is a rumor site helloooo.
But " Gizmodo could face UTSA lawsuit" is pro- news? Spider monkeys "could" fly out of their asses but speculation isn't news (newsflash).
"Stop the presses! Apple might turn into a planet killing robot! They won't but what if they could? Well that's news by gum!"
Chill out, dude!
Do you even get the concept of the comments section of a rumor site?
So go read the WJ if you want to stick to hard facts and don't be sarcastic to posters making valid opinions here, it is a rumor site helloooo.
What and miss people who don't read the source articles or the NYT coverage fall over themselves to take corporate apologism to unheard of heights? Perish the thought!
Here's the NYT article btw :
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/te...ref=technology
Chill out, dude!
Do you even get the concept of the comments section of a rumor site?
The quotable was their headline link - for supposition link-bait pretending to be an article. You may have missed that.
They were wrong and they know they were wrong.
Bad judgement call. They might have scored their way to previews of future products like Mossberg, Inatko et al but they chose to be douche bags
The law is very simple.
And here I thought people needed lawyers for practicing law!
Well now we know - it's very simple. Thank you for setting us straight. hey everyone, you can represent yourself in court now! It's so simple!
The call was logged and provided a number indicating that he attempted to make contact. It's called proof - something the person who lost it should have double checked on the bottle while getting shit-faced.
"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number."
You're right damn him for not even trying more than 299 times! Kill him with fire!
Just as a matter of interest, the proof you are talking about, do you have a link to the source information?
I have re-read the Giz stories and can see that quote, but if you get a 'ticket' surely you would post that as further evidence.