i'm glad we got to see the leaked pics, but i hope gizmodo gets the pants sued off them. That'll certainly give the apple-haters something to cry about, lol.
But resorting to criminal behavior to obtain what are obviously protected trade secrets, is another story. I do not want to read about it.
I will make it a priority to not visit Gizmoto, and hope many others will join in on a boycott of Gawker media sites. They really seem to be criminal scum.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
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.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
Being businessmen?, they'd likely been given enough evidence to take the next step. It seems logical that they would arrange a payment schedule before receiving the phone, based on receipt of the phone, and what they eventually discovered and published.
So they knew it was real iPhone prototype before they paid that guy. If they paid one cent after they verified the authenticity of the iPhone, which is what you are saying, then they are buying something that they knew didn't belong to the seller and by doing so they are breaking the law. It is theft.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
IMO, the phone was never reported lost or stolen to the police and that indicates that it was an intentional leak. If you ever lose company property, the first thing they will tell you to do is to file a police report. It helps as a CYA move and an insurance move.
In my experience, if this thing goes to court it's going to come down to what a "reasonable" person would have thought.
This determination is usually made by the trial judge or the jury based on a lot of information that we don't have right now. For instance if the original "finder" was a retarded man aged 60 it would be a completely different story than if he was a computer technician or an Android programmer. The judge or jury will look at the person, listen to their story and make that determination. There is no way anyone can do it in this forum because we don't know the people involved well enough and only have third-hand information anyway.
That being said however, I can't see any way in which Gizmodo would not have reasonably known that this was an iPhone prototype. The idea that they had to crack it open to find out is a joke IMO. The guy who sold it to them told them it was running iPhone OS 4.0 before it was remotely bricked, he even knew the name of the Apple employee who apparently lost it.
Again, we don't know all the details, so it's possible that the person who "found" it didn't pass that along to the Giz guys until later. There are so many different indications that this was an iPhone prototype however that it would almost take a miracle for any judge or jury to believe that the Gizmodo folks (who are sharp computer users who are very familiar with Chinese knock-offs BTW), didn't know or couldn't make a very reasonable assumption that this was not a Chinese knock-of and was instead an iPhone prototype.
But the OS wouldn't by itself indicate it was a prototype. It could have been JB or it could have had a dev build of OS4. The device was physically camouflaged to look like a 3GS. With the thousands of Blackberries in here in Waterloo, if I found one in a bar, I would in no way leap to the conclusion that it was a prototype, especially if it looked as good as a production unit. I am more than familiar with BB, but that doesn't mean I know enough to tell their production units from unreleased models, especially if I was drunk. For all we know, the finder was some janitor or car salesmen or factory worker and he was drunk. No reason to think he would be as familiar, as even an Apple fan would be, with the iPhone and the OS or cell phones in general. if I showed you an new Android based device from some random manufacturer, would you be able to tell immediately if the OS was stock, custom or beta? Would you be able to tell the device itself was an unreleased model or a knockoff?
You are right. We don't have all the details and 'reasonable', in many aspects, is in question. Some of what we do know sounds dodgy at best, illegal at worst. But most of what we have is speculation and interpretation.
As far as I am aware, Gizmodo took possession of an object that they knew to be stolen.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
Clearly you are very misguided.
To try to compare the two scenarios is ludicrous.
While the Apple info was interesting to the public, it was not 'of public interest', i.e. it did not warrant exposing as it did not reveal or expose any wrong doing, corruption, etc, etc, etc.
REAL journalism can be helpful, was Giz did was childish and underhand. If not illegal, morally wrong.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
No, there was some attempt. His documented and ignored calls to Apple informing them of the issue would count as an attempt. The question is whether this would count as a 'reasonable' attempt. I have an opinion on that, but that isn't important. What is important is how the law would interpret 'reasonable'.
As far as I am aware, Gizmodo took possession of an object that they knew to be stolen.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Stolen? They knew it was lost and found, not stolen. Completely different law here.
Opening the device verified who the owner was. Gizmodo had no way of knowing whether it was property of Gray Powell (and thus should have been returned directly to him) or property of Apple (in which a request for a letter claiming ownership and demanding return was justified).
I'm sure Gawker's lawyers are familiar with the facts and did the right analysis before the deal went down. Lawyers are protected by lawyer-client confidentiality which helps to ensure that they know the whole truth. There's no incentive to lie to your lawyer.
So they knew it was real iPhone prototype before they paid that guy. If they paid one cent after they verified the authenticity of the iPhone, which is what you are saying, then they are buying something that they knew didn't belong to the seller and by doing so they are breaking the law. It is theft.
Regardless of if it was an Apple prototype or not, they knew it did not belong to the seller.
It makes no difference who made the device or if it was a prototype. It could have been a box of chocolates for all I care. Giz know that the item was lost by someone, it did not belong to the person selling it, therefore it was not his to sell or their to buy. It is theft / buying stolen goods pure and simple. Apple device or not.
No, there was some attempt. His documented and ignored calls to Apple informing them of the issue would count as an attempt. The question is whether this would count as a 'reasonable' attempt. I have an opinion on that, but that isn't important. What is important is how the law would interpret 'reasonable'.
Right. Normally the standard is what the reasonable prudent person would do. NOT what an apple fanboi would do.
As of the time that it arrived in their hands, the ownership was questionable. It could have been the drunk guy at the bar's fake iphone, or it could have been an Apple prototype. Opening up the device helped them figure out who the true owner was and eventually it got into the right hands.
As far as I am aware, Gizmodo took possession of an object that they knew to be stolen.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Where did you read, and so become aware, that it was stolen?
Also, about your opinion that it being stolen is the simplest explanation...theft is a simpler explanation than loss? Maybe the reason it wasn't reported as stolen is that Apple would have to file a false police report of theft, when it was in fact lost. That seems simpler.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
In France, Giz wouldn't be liable to everything. Editors cannot be charged if they enter in possession of stolen documents or data, especially if nobody has notify it. Their good faith is assumed, and it is part of their job.
Yet, as editor myself, I am very skeptical about the whole affair. As someone said, it seems fishy. Maybe a hoax from Apple, since that supposed new Iphone does not fit into what I would call an Apple design.
The whole thing about not calling the police is bs. I mean who calls the police over a f@#%% phone???? was anyone expecting him to do that???? I do think that the logical thing to do is to give it to the bar as it is obvious that the owner will come back to inquire about it. I believe that the biggest issue is how the phone got to GIZ. Did he just say "hey i can get money for this!"? was he familiar with rumor sites enough to know he could cause a buzz?
Anyone that says that Giz didnt know it was an apple product is full of it. I mean like previous posters said there have been many knock offs out there and they didn't just give them 5k so that they could tear it down. But they did offer this guy 5k to PROVE that the unit belonged to Apple.
I almost hope that the design ends up with some differences so that we can still get a little bit of a surprise.
Regardless of if it was an Apple prototype or not, they knew it did not belong to the seller.
It makes no difference who made the device or if it was a prototype. It could have been a box of chocolates for all I care. Giz know that the item was lost by someone, it did not belong to the person selling it, therefore it was not his to sell or their to buy. It is theft / buying stolen goods pure and simple. Apple device or not.
Sorry. There's no law preventing you from paying for custody of lost goods. The fact is that as soon as Gizmodo purchased the phone, they intended to return it to Apple. That shows clear intent not to convert the iPhone. Your analysis is wrong on both the facts and the law.
Stolen? They knew it was lost and found, not stolen. Completely different law here.
Opening the device verified who the owner was. Gizmodo had no way of knowing whether it was property of Gray Powell (and thus should have been returned directly to him) or property of Apple (in which a request for a letter claiming ownership and demanding return was justified).
"Lost and Found"
Says who?
The person who sold the device to Gizmodo. The person who gained $5,000. The person who didn't hand it in at the bar, or even make an attempt to return it themselves to the rightful owner.
Comments
But resorting to criminal behavior to obtain what are obviously protected trade secrets, is another story. I do not want to read about it.
I will make it a priority to not visit Gizmoto, and hope many others will join in on a boycott of Gawker media sites. They really seem to be criminal scum.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
yes the story seems odd. But nothing indicates it was 'lifted' or stolen from the employee. Sometimes, drunk people are careless. As simple as that.
Your right of course, drunk people are careless, but my question is, who was buying the free drinks?
It was. But in many cases, turning something into a lost and found simply means someone else takes it home.
Ok, but as the rest of your post stuck to the story as reported, it's an unusual point.
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.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
Being businessmen?, they'd likely been given enough evidence to take the next step. It seems logical that they would arrange a payment schedule before receiving the phone, based on receipt of the phone, and what they eventually discovered and published.
So they knew it was real iPhone prototype before they paid that guy. If they paid one cent after they verified the authenticity of the iPhone, which is what you are saying, then they are buying something that they knew didn't belong to the seller and by doing so they are breaking the law. It is theft.
He never said anything like that. He is saying that the Apple logo does not guarantee that it was made by Apple.
It makes not difference who makes the device, it is still stolen property!!!
The 'finder' did not hand it in to the bar or contact the local police, instead they decide to sell property that did not belong to them for $5k.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
IMO, the phone was never reported lost or stolen to the police and that indicates that it was an intentional leak. If you ever lose company property, the first thing they will tell you to do is to file a police report. It helps as a CYA move and an insurance move.
In my experience, if this thing goes to court it's going to come down to what a "reasonable" person would have thought.
This determination is usually made by the trial judge or the jury based on a lot of information that we don't have right now. For instance if the original "finder" was a retarded man aged 60 it would be a completely different story than if he was a computer technician or an Android programmer. The judge or jury will look at the person, listen to their story and make that determination. There is no way anyone can do it in this forum because we don't know the people involved well enough and only have third-hand information anyway.
That being said however, I can't see any way in which Gizmodo would not have reasonably known that this was an iPhone prototype. The idea that they had to crack it open to find out is a joke IMO. The guy who sold it to them told them it was running iPhone OS 4.0 before it was remotely bricked, he even knew the name of the Apple employee who apparently lost it.
Again, we don't know all the details, so it's possible that the person who "found" it didn't pass that along to the Giz guys until later. There are so many different indications that this was an iPhone prototype however that it would almost take a miracle for any judge or jury to believe that the Gizmodo folks (who are sharp computer users who are very familiar with Chinese knock-offs BTW), didn't know or couldn't make a very reasonable assumption that this was not a Chinese knock-of and was instead an iPhone prototype.
But the OS wouldn't by itself indicate it was a prototype. It could have been JB or it could have had a dev build of OS4. The device was physically camouflaged to look like a 3GS. With the thousands of Blackberries in here in Waterloo, if I found one in a bar, I would in no way leap to the conclusion that it was a prototype, especially if it looked as good as a production unit. I am more than familiar with BB, but that doesn't mean I know enough to tell their production units from unreleased models, especially if I was drunk. For all we know, the finder was some janitor or car salesmen or factory worker and he was drunk. No reason to think he would be as familiar, as even an Apple fan would be, with the iPhone and the OS or cell phones in general. if I showed you an new Android based device from some random manufacturer, would you be able to tell immediately if the OS was stock, custom or beta? Would you be able to tell the device itself was an unreleased model or a knockoff?
You are right. We don't have all the details and 'reasonable', in many aspects, is in question. Some of what we do know sounds dodgy at best, illegal at worst. But most of what we have is speculation and interpretation.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
Clearly you are very misguided.
To try to compare the two scenarios is ludicrous.
While the Apple info was interesting to the public, it was not 'of public interest', i.e. it did not warrant exposing as it did not reveal or expose any wrong doing, corruption, etc, etc, etc.
REAL journalism can be helpful, was Giz did was childish and underhand. If not illegal, morally wrong.
Regardless of if it was a knock off or a real Apple device, there was no real attempt to return the persons property. The 'finder' sold the device to Giz, who know it was not his. It makes not difference real or not real. It is still stolen goods.
No, there was some attempt. His documented and ignored calls to Apple informing them of the issue would count as an attempt. The question is whether this would count as a 'reasonable' attempt. I have an opinion on that, but that isn't important. What is important is how the law would interpret 'reasonable'.
As far as I am aware, Gizmodo took possession of an object that they knew to be stolen.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Stolen? They knew it was lost and found, not stolen. Completely different law here.
Opening the device verified who the owner was. Gizmodo had no way of knowing whether it was property of Gray Powell (and thus should have been returned directly to him) or property of Apple (in which a request for a letter claiming ownership and demanding return was justified).
I'm sure Gawker's lawyers are familiar with the facts and did the right analysis before the deal went down. Lawyers are protected by lawyer-client confidentiality which helps to ensure that they know the whole truth. There's no incentive to lie to your lawyer.
So they knew it was real iPhone prototype before they paid that guy. If they paid one cent after they verified the authenticity of the iPhone, which is what you are saying, then they are buying something that they knew didn't belong to the seller and by doing so they are breaking the law. It is theft.
Regardless of if it was an Apple prototype or not, they knew it did not belong to the seller.
It makes no difference who made the device or if it was a prototype. It could have been a box of chocolates for all I care. Giz know that the item was lost by someone, it did not belong to the person selling it, therefore it was not his to sell or their to buy. It is theft / buying stolen goods pure and simple. Apple device or not.
No, there was some attempt. His documented and ignored calls to Apple informing them of the issue would count as an attempt. The question is whether this would count as a 'reasonable' attempt. I have an opinion on that, but that isn't important. What is important is how the law would interpret 'reasonable'.
Right. Normally the standard is what the reasonable prudent person would do. NOT what an apple fanboi would do.
As of the time that it arrived in their hands, the ownership was questionable. It could have been the drunk guy at the bar's fake iphone, or it could have been an Apple prototype. Opening up the device helped them figure out who the true owner was and eventually it got into the right hands.
As far as I am aware, Gizmodo took possession of an object that they knew to be stolen.
Furthermore, they know who was the owner as they were told by the person supplying the device that he had managed to use it before it was locked down.
After this, instead of returning it to the owner, they proceeded to vandalise the object. They also, realising it was a new product, decided to release a whole bunch of trade secret images all over the internet.
The simplest explanation is that someone stole the iPhone (not that it was left behind, as per the story), realised that it was something new and special, and then arranged to make even more money off of it. So Gizmodo sponsored criminal activity, after the fact.
The only thing on their side is that nobody called the police about the loss of the device. Often, however, the police wouldn't do anything anyway, so there wouldn't have been a point.
Where did you read, and so become aware, that it was stolen?
Also, about your opinion that it being stolen is the simplest explanation...theft is a simpler explanation than loss? Maybe the reason it wasn't reported as stolen is that Apple would have to file a false police report of theft, when it was in fact lost. That seems simpler.
Oh cry me a f**king river. It's incredible how so many people like you have rushed to climb onto your moral high horse just because this affects Apple. If the Washington Post had paid $5k to get hold of some senator's laptop that subsequently was found to contain information exposing a huge corruption scandal in the Whitehouse you'd be saying they should get a Pulitzer.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but Gizmodo were just doing their job as journalists.
In France, Giz wouldn't be liable to everything. Editors cannot be charged if they enter in possession of stolen documents or data, especially if nobody has notify it. Their good faith is assumed, and it is part of their job.
Yet, as editor myself, I am very skeptical about the whole affair. As someone said, it seems fishy. Maybe a hoax from Apple, since that supposed new Iphone does not fit into what I would call an Apple design.
Anyone that says that Giz didnt know it was an apple product is full of it. I mean like previous posters said there have been many knock offs out there and they didn't just give them 5k so that they could tear it down. But they did offer this guy 5k to PROVE that the unit belonged to Apple.
I almost hope that the design ends up with some differences so that we can still get a little bit of a surprise.
Regardless of if it was an Apple prototype or not, they knew it did not belong to the seller.
It makes no difference who made the device or if it was a prototype. It could have been a box of chocolates for all I care. Giz know that the item was lost by someone, it did not belong to the person selling it, therefore it was not his to sell or their to buy. It is theft / buying stolen goods pure and simple. Apple device or not.
Sorry. There's no law preventing you from paying for custody of lost goods. The fact is that as soon as Gizmodo purchased the phone, they intended to return it to Apple. That shows clear intent not to convert the iPhone. Your analysis is wrong on both the facts and the law.
Stolen? They knew it was lost and found, not stolen. Completely different law here.
Opening the device verified who the owner was. Gizmodo had no way of knowing whether it was property of Gray Powell (and thus should have been returned directly to him) or property of Apple (in which a request for a letter claiming ownership and demanding return was justified).
"Lost and Found"
Says who?
The person who sold the device to Gizmodo. The person who gained $5,000. The person who didn't hand it in at the bar, or even make an attempt to return it themselves to the rightful owner.