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.
Dunno. The finder didn't follow the civil code at all, he sold it on.
I expect that turns the situation from "lost and found" doesn't it?
Gizmodo weren't the finders, who had to follow the civil code. They bought a product, knowing it was lost. It's practically handling stolen goods because the finder hadn't made an attempt to contact the owner (the person who lost it in the bar), or hand it to the police. Sure, they behaved when Apple legal got in contact, but they didn't exactly have any choice.
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?
Can you site the law would make it a criminal act?
they paid $5000 thinking it could be a prototype and a really good fake. Either would make a good story for them.
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.
How do they know calls had already been made?
There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.
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.
Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?
Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.
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.
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.
Maybe, they probably did enough CYA... but wow, talk about un-ethical. Come on, all they had to do was drive over to apple.
They could have had video of them turning it in to Apple security.
Now that would have been much better story AND had their pictures.
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'.
No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.
And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.
No way Apple is going to get any (legal) traction on this "stolen property" line...they didn't formally report the phone as stolen to the local PD...a pre-requisite to making that claim stick in court. Plus, I bet you all Apple Call Center calls are transcribed...which means the finder's calls (assuming they happened) to see if the phone belonged to Apple are a matter of record and produceable during the discovery phase if this goes to trial. Again, if validated yet not acted upon by Apple, it weakens any Apple case significantly.
There'll likely be a lot of Apple saber rattling legally over this but I don't think it'll go anywhere.
Bottom line is that the device wasn't reasonably secured by an Apple employee; thus, corporate Apple will be viewed at primary fault. Contributors, of course, are the "finder" for not doing more to ensure the phone was returned to its rightful owner (clearly anyone with honorable intentions would either turn it in to a representative of the bar or the PD), the "finder" for selling something which obviously wasn't his to sell, and the "buyer" who had a publicity motive and knew, or reasonably should have known, what the merchandise was prior to commencing the transaction.
Plenty of blame all around but this little dust up will never see the inside of a courtroom.
I've lost 3 iPhones over the years, and I had to buy a new one to replace it...NO IPHONE INSURANCE WITH APPLE/AT&T!!! Apple/AT&T knows exactly where those "lost" phones are...in the hands of unscrupulous people. Does Apple/AT&T have any morals and deactivate or warn the current user (thief) that the phone is lost? No. They have a new "customer" paying AT&T monthly fees, plus an old customer who now needs to buy a new phone.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.
There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.
????
What, we are supposed to think with a unibrain because we don't agree with you? Imagine that, people with different opinions.
Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?
Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.
they don't need your respect.
but yes, as soon as they allow it to leave the controlled environment of their facilities, they lose trade secret protection (from what I have read).
No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.
And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.
It is easy now to say that it belongs to Apple, but Giz did not know that when they bought it (or did they?). As far as they had been told it was left in a bar by an individual, not a major corporation.
So when they bought it who did they think was the owner?
freddych really is twisting themself into a pretzel to make the finder and Giz's actions seem OK. The finder should have turned it into the bar. What they do with it after that is not his call. If he was concerned he could have contacted the police. But if he would have left it with the bar and the owner called the bar, problem solved if the bar was honest. Either way the finder's conscience would be OK. How anyone can justify Giz's actions just shows their lack of moral clarity and not knowing how to just do the right thing. Giz knew what they were doing. They may not have known it was a prototype iPhone, but my guess is that they had a hunch and were willing to pay for it. Returning it to Apple after tearing it apart doesn't nullify that. If Apple wants to crucify them, they will probably win. And they have enough $ to make their lives miserable. Not so sure, had they had it to do all over, that Giz would have gotten into this, which I think they are going to find out.
I've lost 3 iPhones over the years, and I had to buy a new one to replace it...NO IPHONE INSURANCE WITH APPLE/AT&T!!! Apple/AT&T knows exactly where those "lost" phones are...in the hands of unscrupulous people. Does Apple/AT&T have any morals and deactivate or warn the current user (thief) that the phone is lost? No. They have a new "customer" paying AT&T monthly fees, plus an old customer who now needs to buy a new phone.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.
Now it's your turn Apple. Karma's a bi*tch.
Try being more careful with your property!
I see it is the usual case of my inability to look after things is someone else's fault.
Did you try to get insurance from another source?
Do you know the phones you 'lost' are still in use?
It is hardly their fault that you can't look after your property.
What do you want them to do exactly, just give you a new phone every time you are careless?
freddych really is twisting themself into a pretzel to make the finder and Giz's actions seem OK. The finder should have turned it into the bar. What they do with it after that is not his call. If he was concerned he could have contacted the police. But if he would have left it with the bar and the owner called the bar, problem solved if the bar was honest. Either way the finder's conscience would be OK. How anyone can justify Giz's actions just shows their lack of moral clarity and not knowing how to just do the right thing. Giz knew what they were doing. They may not have known it was a prototype iPhone, but my guess is that they had a hunch and were willing to pay for it. Returning it to Apple after tearing it apart doesn't nullify that. If Apple wants to crucify them, they will probably win. And they have enough $ to make their lives miserable. Not so sure, had they had it to do all over, that Giz would have gotten into this, which I think they are going to find out.
Comments
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.
Dunno. The finder didn't follow the civil code at all, he sold it on.
I expect that turns the situation from "lost and found" doesn't it?
Gizmodo weren't the finders, who had to follow the civil code. They bought a product, knowing it was lost. It's practically handling stolen goods because the finder hadn't made an attempt to contact the owner (the person who lost it in the bar), or hand it to the police. Sure, they behaved when Apple legal got in contact, but they didn't exactly have any choice.
In this case, they dismantled the phone and immediately determined the owner.
Yep that is great, well done for them, now just give it back.
Oh now we accidentally took loads of photos and published them on the internet, how did that happen.
You have yet to justify the actions of Giz after they confirmed the rightful owner.
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?
Can you site the law would make it a criminal act?
they paid $5000 thinking it could be a prototype and a really good fake. Either would make a good story for them.
At least he didn't drop it into the toilet......not that I've ever done that mind you.
I think Apple would have preferred the prototype being lost down the drain as opposed to ending up on Gizmodo with millions of views.
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.
How do they know calls had already been made?
There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.
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.
Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?
Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.
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.
BUT did not need to publish the photos.
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.
Maybe, they probably did enough CYA... but wow, talk about un-ethical. Come on, all they had to do was drive over to apple.
They could have had video of them turning it in to Apple security.
Now that would have been much better story AND had their pictures.
The way this played out was ugly.
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'.
No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.
And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.
There'll likely be a lot of Apple saber rattling legally over this but I don't think it'll go anywhere.
Bottom line is that the device wasn't reasonably secured by an Apple employee; thus, corporate Apple will be viewed at primary fault. Contributors, of course, are the "finder" for not doing more to ensure the phone was returned to its rightful owner (clearly anyone with honorable intentions would either turn it in to a representative of the bar or the PD), the "finder" for selling something which obviously wasn't his to sell, and the "buyer" who had a publicity motive and knew, or reasonably should have known, what the merchandise was prior to commencing the transaction.
Plenty of blame all around but this little dust up will never see the inside of a courtroom.
Yep that is great, well done for them, now just give it back.
Oh now we accidentally took loads of photos and published them on the internet, how did that happen.
You have yet to justify the actions of Giz after they confirmed the rightful owner.
Yes they took pictures. Criminal? hardly.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.
Now it's your turn Apple. Karma's a bi*tch.
How do they know calls had already been made?
There are two of you in here supporting Giz, one of you says that Giz could not take the finders word and therefore had to pull the device apart to find out who owned it, and here you are saying they should believe him when he claimed to have called Apple.
????
What, we are supposed to think with a unibrain because we don't agree with you? Imagine that, people with different opinions.
Umm. They went to great lengths to disguise it as an older iPhone. They needed to field test the unit to work out any bugs. How is what they did not taking "necessary steps". Should they have handcuffed the phone to the engineer and ensure he gets strange looks every time he uses it?
Gizmodo appropriated trade secrets and published them for their own profit. Whether they escape being prosecuted or not, they still acted like yellow journalist and don't get my respect.
they don't need your respect.
but yes, as soon as they allow it to leave the controlled environment of their facilities, they lose trade secret protection (from what I have read).
BUT did not need to publish the photos.
Didn't need to, but they did. Criminal for doing so?
No, as it turns out, the owner is Apple, not the Apple employee.
And no, Giz did not necessarily assume it was a prototype. They 'assumed' it was not a current iPhone. This could mean prototype. It could mean chinese knockoff. It could mean some industrious hobbyist assembled a custom case for his iPhone and modified the UI through a jailbreak. It could mean it was a prototype.
It is easy now to say that it belongs to Apple, but Giz did not know that when they bought it (or did they?). As far as they had been told it was left in a bar by an individual, not a major corporation.
So when they bought it who did they think was the owner?
Yes they took pictures. Criminal? hardly.
Did I say it was criminal?
It just does not ring true with the claim they only bought so they could return it to the owner crap.
I've lost 3 iPhones over the years, and I had to buy a new one to replace it...NO IPHONE INSURANCE WITH APPLE/AT&T!!! Apple/AT&T knows exactly where those "lost" phones are...in the hands of unscrupulous people. Does Apple/AT&T have any morals and deactivate or warn the current user (thief) that the phone is lost? No. They have a new "customer" paying AT&T monthly fees, plus an old customer who now needs to buy a new phone.
Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
Apple lost their precious 4G iPhone. Now they cry foul. I say, suck it Apple. You and AT&T made alot of money off of people losing their iPhones.
Now it's your turn Apple. Karma's a bi*tch.
Try being more careful with your property!
I see it is the usual case of my inability to look after things is someone else's fault.
Did you try to get insurance from another source?
Do you know the phones you 'lost' are still in use?
It is hardly their fault that you can't look after your property.
What do you want them to do exactly, just give you a new phone every time you are careless?
Take ownership for your own mistakes.
freddych really is twisting themself into a pretzel to make the finder and Giz's actions seem OK. The finder should have turned it into the bar. What they do with it after that is not his call. If he was concerned he could have contacted the police. But if he would have left it with the bar and the owner called the bar, problem solved if the bar was honest. Either way the finder's conscience would be OK. How anyone can justify Giz's actions just shows their lack of moral clarity and not knowing how to just do the right thing. Giz knew what they were doing. They may not have known it was a prototype iPhone, but my guess is that they had a hunch and were willing to pay for it. Returning it to Apple after tearing it apart doesn't nullify that. If Apple wants to crucify them, they will probably win. And they have enough $ to make their lives miserable. Not so sure, had they had it to do all over, that Giz would have gotten into this, which I think they are going to find out.
Well said!