Firstly, how many people lose their iPhone's, iPod,s etc.?
Does a person who has found such a lost item ever call the manufacturer who made the product?
If the finder did call Apple did he make clear that the iPhone he had in his possession was not a production unit. i.e., it had none of the features of the iPhone's retailed version?
What prompted the finder to contact Gizmodo rather than hand it straight in to the police?
If Gizmodo believed this to be genuine prototype, then why did they not tell the finder or return the item to Apple themselves, or report the matter to the police? Gizmodo cannot plead ignorance as they would have known it was clearly not a retail item.
The finder may not have known how to contact higher officials at Apple, but Gizmodo certainly would.
From the Giz story, the person realized it was not a production unit and so called Apple directly and informed of this fact. Maybe he though Apple would pay him a reward.
Why did he contact Giz? Maybe he felt that with their contacts in the tech industry, they would be better able to get resolution through Apple.
When Giz had it, as is obvious, they could not confirm it was an Apple owned device. They could assume it was, but as has been stated, thousands of people on the internet thought it was a fake (and therefore not Apple's property). Once Giz opened it up and confirmed to their satisfaction that it was an Apple device, who is to say they didn't contact Apple and published their findings at the same time? Hell, their story itself should have been enough to inform Apple. In some jurisdictions, on finding lost property, my understanding is that you can publish a note in a newspaper or other publication with the details and that is considered notification.
One thing though. Why didn't he leave the phone at the bar for someone to reclaim? Did Apple engineer even attempt to reclaim it?
Maybe he was drunk? That is what he should have done, but is that a legal requirement? I remember when I worked at a department store in highschool, we had a lost and found at the receptionists desks. The girls that worked the desk at night used to go through the box and just take what they liked. Giving it to a employee at the bar might absolve him, but it wouldn't necessarily be the wise move, in terms of getting it back to Apple.
I'm not sure about the law in California, but where I am you don't have to break down a door and knock someone over the head to steal something. Picking up something and keeping it, when you know it is not yours, is enough. Selling it, or buying it, just adds to the charges. Again, I'm no legal expert, but I have been involved in a case like this when someone "found" something of mine and sold it to a pawn shop. The law was clear, turn it in to the police or back to the rightful owner immediately, or its stolen.
I wish Gizmodo luck on this one, should Apple decide to go after them. Taking the thing apart and posting pics probably was not the smartest move on their part. It'll be interesting to see where other companies line up on this one - if anyone else says anything publicly or if they just sit on the sidelines. No doubt there are some companies that would like an example to be made.
And I doubt Apple will get much backlash. There will be some rants no doubt, but they'll mostly be confined to boards like this and fringe publications. I doubt CNN or Fox News would take Apple to task for this, so few people will ever hear about it.
Did the person that found your stuff call you and did you ignore them before he sold it?
yea...this is on the shoulders of the guy who "found" it more than Giz for revealing it. now Giz could find itself in a civil suit since they knew what it was and this guy was in no way affiliated with Apple. it seems Apple simply wants it back and they are embarrassed that an idiot lost it in a bar.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
Maybe he was drunk? That is what he should have done, but is that a legal requirement? I remember when I worked at a department store in highschool, we had a lost and found at the receptionists desks. The girls that worked the desk at night used to go through the box and just take what they liked. Giving it to a employee at the bar might absolve him, but it wouldn't necessarily be the wise move, in terms of getting it back to Apple.
Every time I lost something at some place I got it back by going to that place so I think it's the best move. His motive is suspicious. Also I'd like to know does he work at the bar, and that poor Apple engineer even tried to go back to reclaim it the next day?
This does not seem to be taking Apple to task. I didn't say that the story wouldn't make the news, just that the major news sites would likely not blast Apple for going after these guys.
4. Is it possible that the device was "left" there on purpose by someone who knew a Japanese reporter would be on hand?
5. Is it possible that the person who left it was not an engineer, but someone who the engineer knew who was paid by the japanese reporter to "borrow without asking" for say $3,000?
Every time I lost something at some place I got it back by going to that place so I think it's the best move. His motive is suspicious. Also I'd like to know does he work at the bar, and that poor Apple engineer even tried to go back to reclaim it the next day?
You are lucky. I have lost stuff and returned to where I left it and have never had any luck in retrieving the items. Either the items were turned in and the walked or were never turned in and the person never made an attempt to find me, the owner.
Did the person that found your stuff call you and did you ignore them before he sold it?
They said they did, actually. Among other excuses. However, it made no difference, I didn't say that they could keep it, so they were guilty.
What is a reasonable attempt? Unless the finder is specifically told that it was now theirs, my suspicion is that the law will come down on the side of the owner. At least I hope it will, otherwise anyone who wants to steal anything can give me or you or whoever owns the item a phone call, claim no answer or some other such nonsense, and be off. Hey, phone records will show that they tried, right?
Enough letters for Apple's legal council are out there, it would not be hard to find them. I suspect a phone call to the right place would be acted on quickly. Or maybe not, and Apple will soon be looking for new council. Or, maybe the conspiracy is right, and Apple planned this all along..... We'll soon see. Maybe.
When I developed firmware for cell phones (for several years), I regularly used prototypes for testing. Final "plastic" was always quite different from the prototypes and always a tightly guarded secret (because phones are a fashion accessory, too). Chances are that this iPhone is a good predictor how the actual phone will look but that the final product will not look exactly like it.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
it doesn't matter. it was NOT their property to open up. you can't find something on the streets and assume it's yours until the owner asks for it back. and you damn sure can't open it up.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding....
In the first place, this is just Gizmodo's story, it isn't necessarily true. Secondly, the device would be "stolen" the minute the person who found it didn't give it back to Apple when they easily could have, but instead sold it to Brian Lam.
If YOU (any one of you) found a next-gen Apple prototype sitting on a bar. And no one... no one... no one... came back for it, you would do WHAT, exactly? Keep it? Certainly. Show it off? Probably. Make some money giving the scoop to Gizmodo/AI? Not out of the question.
Way to demonize.
The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
I think this is a real stretch.
Judging by the story Gizmodo itself published, the person who found it on the bar stool realised it was an Apple prototype (or should have based on their description of the device), the night it was found. They also knew the name of he person at Apple it belonged to. According to Gizmodo, this was "weeks" before they got it, and according to everyone else, Gizmodo had it for a week before they opened it up. So we are talking a two to three week period where everyone, including the guy who found it, are sure at least amongst themselves, that they have an Apple prototype in hand.
We're not dealing with geniuses here. It's Gizmodo after all.
Giving it to the bartender is a stupid idea. The bartender has no more legal right to the device than the finder.
Gizmodo purchased a weird device that might have been a prototype iPhone or might have been some elaborate fake. How could Gizmodo know that it was "real" (whatever "real" means) without Apple contacting them and confirming it?
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Apple could prove in a court of law that Gizmodo knew it was purchasing a legit Apple prototype, especially knowing that Apple had ignored attempts to return it.
Well, I haven't been to the Gizmodo site to read the full story. I wouldn't want their trash in my cache.
How far is Infinity Loop/Apple campus from this bar? He couldn't pay them a visit and drop it off at the reception?
And if he was too indifferent to take it to Apple he could always have dropped it in at his nearest police station or Apple store.
Stop making up excuses for these people.
No excuses, he made the calls. You might prefer that he make additional or different efforts, but then that is your opinion. I would have preferred that he took a bus to Infinite Loop and tried to get through the security to Steve office directly, but that probably wouldn't happen.
Why should he waste his day heading over there? That's why we have phones. Great form of communication. If he had gone to the campus and the receptionist ignored him, you would still say that was just an excuse.
What you think he should have done, what you want him to done are different things than what he was required to do. Did he do enough to meet those requirements? I don't know. But it isn't making excuses to state that he did make an reasonable effort. You can always find excuses to say it wasn't enough.
Maybe I'm just a mere simpleton, but I think that you people crying for the death of Gizmodo or any other nonsense need to chill out.
We all love the iPhone, we were all eager to see the next gen iPhone, and you folks GLADLY went to Gizmodo, sucked up all the images/video and became engrossed in all of the regurgitated stories here on AI.
Now all of a sudden, after you've gotten what you want, you want to burn Gizmodo at the stake. Puhlease!!
I'm concerned that Gizmodo named the engineer. They already had the phone, confirmed by Apple as real. Why did they feel the need to further ruin this guy's life? It's cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
Comments
Firstly, how many people lose their iPhone's, iPod,s etc.?
Does a person who has found such a lost item ever call the manufacturer who made the product?
If the finder did call Apple did he make clear that the iPhone he had in his possession was not a production unit. i.e., it had none of the features of the iPhone's retailed version?
What prompted the finder to contact Gizmodo rather than hand it straight in to the police?
If Gizmodo believed this to be genuine prototype, then why did they not tell the finder or return the item to Apple themselves, or report the matter to the police? Gizmodo cannot plead ignorance as they would have known it was clearly not a retail item.
The finder may not have known how to contact higher officials at Apple, but Gizmodo certainly would.
From the Giz story, the person realized it was not a production unit and so called Apple directly and informed of this fact. Maybe he though Apple would pay him a reward.
Why did he contact Giz? Maybe he felt that with their contacts in the tech industry, they would be better able to get resolution through Apple.
When Giz had it, as is obvious, they could not confirm it was an Apple owned device. They could assume it was, but as has been stated, thousands of people on the internet thought it was a fake (and therefore not Apple's property). Once Giz opened it up and confirmed to their satisfaction that it was an Apple device, who is to say they didn't contact Apple and published their findings at the same time? Hell, their story itself should have been enough to inform Apple. In some jurisdictions, on finding lost property, my understanding is that you can publish a note in a newspaper or other publication with the details and that is considered notification.
One thing though. Why didn't he leave the phone at the bar for someone to reclaim? Did Apple engineer even attempt to reclaim it?
Maybe he was drunk? That is what he should have done, but is that a legal requirement? I remember when I worked at a department store in highschool, we had a lost and found at the receptionists desks. The girls that worked the desk at night used to go through the box and just take what they liked. Giving it to a employee at the bar might absolve him, but it wouldn't necessarily be the wise move, in terms of getting it back to Apple.
I'm not sure about the law in California, but where I am you don't have to break down a door and knock someone over the head to steal something. Picking up something and keeping it, when you know it is not yours, is enough. Selling it, or buying it, just adds to the charges. Again, I'm no legal expert, but I have been involved in a case like this when someone "found" something of mine and sold it to a pawn shop. The law was clear, turn it in to the police or back to the rightful owner immediately, or its stolen.
I wish Gizmodo luck on this one, should Apple decide to go after them. Taking the thing apart and posting pics probably was not the smartest move on their part. It'll be interesting to see where other companies line up on this one - if anyone else says anything publicly or if they just sit on the sidelines. No doubt there are some companies that would like an example to be made.
And I doubt Apple will get much backlash. There will be some rants no doubt, but they'll mostly be confined to boards like this and fringe publications. I doubt CNN or Fox News would take Apple to task for this, so few people will ever hear about it.
Did the person that found your stuff call you and did you ignore them before he sold it?
yea...this is on the shoulders of the guy who "found" it more than Giz for revealing it. now Giz could find itself in a civil suit since they knew what it was and this guy was in no way affiliated with Apple. it seems Apple simply wants it back and they are embarrassed that an idiot lost it in a bar.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
Maybe he was drunk? That is what he should have done, but is that a legal requirement? I remember when I worked at a department store in highschool, we had a lost and found at the receptionists desks. The girls that worked the desk at night used to go through the box and just take what they liked. Giving it to a employee at the bar might absolve him, but it wouldn't necessarily be the wise move, in terms of getting it back to Apple.
Every time I lost something at some place I got it back by going to that place so I think it's the best move. His motive is suspicious. Also I'd like to know does he work at the bar, and that poor Apple engineer even tried to go back to reclaim it the next day?
You were saying?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/te...0/10083480.stm
It's all over the UK news.
This does not seem to be taking Apple to task. I didn't say that the story wouldn't make the news, just that the major news sites would likely not blast Apple for going after these guys.
From the Giz story...
Well, I haven't been to the Gizmodo site to read the full story. I wouldn't want their trash in my cache.
How far is Infinity Loop/Apple campus from this bar? He couldn't pay them a visit and drop it off at the reception?
And if he was too indifferent to take it to Apple he could always have dropped it in at his nearest police station or Apple store.
Stop making up excuses for these people.
1. It was found at a bar in US?
2. Why was it found by a Japanese Tech Reporter?
4. Is it possible that the device was "left" there on purpose by someone who knew a Japanese reporter would be on hand?
5. Is it possible that the person who left it was not an engineer, but someone who the engineer knew who was paid by the japanese reporter to "borrow without asking" for say $3,000?
Every time I lost something at some place I got it back by going to that place so I think it's the best move. His motive is suspicious. Also I'd like to know does he work at the bar, and that poor Apple engineer even tried to go back to reclaim it the next day?
You are lucky. I have lost stuff and returned to where I left it and have never had any luck in retrieving the items. Either the items were turned in and the walked or were never turned in and the person never made an attempt to find me, the owner.
Did the person that found your stuff call you and did you ignore them before he sold it?
They said they did, actually. Among other excuses. However, it made no difference, I didn't say that they could keep it, so they were guilty.
What is a reasonable attempt? Unless the finder is specifically told that it was now theirs, my suspicion is that the law will come down on the side of the owner. At least I hope it will, otherwise anyone who wants to steal anything can give me or you or whoever owns the item a phone call, claim no answer or some other such nonsense, and be off. Hey, phone records will show that they tried, right?
Enough letters for Apple's legal council are out there, it would not be hard to find them. I suspect a phone call to the right place would be acted on quickly. Or maybe not, and Apple will soon be looking for new council. Or, maybe the conspiracy is right, and Apple planned this all along..... We'll soon see. Maybe.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
it doesn't matter. it was NOT their property to open up. you can't find something on the streets and assume it's yours until the owner asks for it back. and you damn sure can't open it up.
There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding....
In the first place, this is just Gizmodo's story, it isn't necessarily true. Secondly, the device would be "stolen" the minute the person who found it didn't give it back to Apple when they easily could have, but instead sold it to Brian Lam.
If YOU (any one of you) found a next-gen Apple prototype sitting on a bar. And no one... no one... no one... came back for it, you would do WHAT, exactly? Keep it? Certainly. Show it off? Probably. Make some money giving the scoop to Gizmodo/AI? Not out of the question.
Way to demonize.
The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.
Giz didn't know what it was until the opened it up. It was just as likely a chinese knockoff as an Apple device. Once they opened it, we don't know what steps that did or did not take to inform Apple. We know they took their findings and published them and stated they would return it to Apple upon request. They now have that request.
I think this is a real stretch.
Judging by the story Gizmodo itself published, the person who found it on the bar stool realised it was an Apple prototype (or should have based on their description of the device), the night it was found. They also knew the name of he person at Apple it belonged to. According to Gizmodo, this was "weeks" before they got it, and according to everyone else, Gizmodo had it for a week before they opened it up. So we are talking a two to three week period where everyone, including the guy who found it, are sure at least amongst themselves, that they have an Apple prototype in hand.
We're not dealing with geniuses here. It's Gizmodo after all.
Gizmodo purchased a weird device that might have been a prototype iPhone or might have been some elaborate fake. How could Gizmodo know that it was "real" (whatever "real" means) without Apple contacting them and confirming it?
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Apple could prove in a court of law that Gizmodo knew it was purchasing a legit Apple prototype, especially knowing that Apple had ignored attempts to return it.
The most interesting post in this thread so far is that one above, regarding whether or not the device was PLANTED on the bar.
I'm convinced there was no bar involved - it is just a fictitious story for the release of the photos. This is all a PR stunt by Apple and Gawker.
Well, I haven't been to the Gizmodo site to read the full story. I wouldn't want their trash in my cache.
How far is Infinity Loop/Apple campus from this bar? He couldn't pay them a visit and drop it off at the reception?
And if he was too indifferent to take it to Apple he could always have dropped it in at his nearest police station or Apple store.
Stop making up excuses for these people.
No excuses, he made the calls. You might prefer that he make additional or different efforts, but then that is your opinion. I would have preferred that he took a bus to Infinite Loop and tried to get through the security to Steve office directly, but that probably wouldn't happen.
Why should he waste his day heading over there? That's why we have phones. Great form of communication. If he had gone to the campus and the receptionist ignored him, you would still say that was just an excuse.
What you think he should have done, what you want him to done are different things than what he was required to do. Did he do enough to meet those requirements? I don't know. But it isn't making excuses to state that he did make an reasonable effort. You can always find excuses to say it wasn't enough.
Maybe I'm just a mere simpleton, but I think that you people crying for the death of Gizmodo or any other nonsense need to chill out.
We all love the iPhone, we were all eager to see the next gen iPhone, and you folks GLADLY went to Gizmodo, sucked up all the images/video and became engrossed in all of the regurgitated stories here on AI.
Now all of a sudden, after you've gotten what you want, you want to burn Gizmodo at the stake. Puhlease!!
I'm concerned that Gizmodo named the engineer. They already had the phone, confirmed by Apple as real. Why did they feel the need to further ruin this guy's life? It's cruelty for the sake of cruelty.