We all know that this phone belong to Grey Powell now. How is this known? The only person who could have figured this out was the finder, since the phone was bricked a few hours after he "found" it. He spent enough time with the phone to identify the owner and even look up his Facebook page.
Did he make any attempt to contact the owner? Doesn't sound like it.
Gawker founder and owner Nick Denton responded by stating that his company was not sure the device was created by Apple until they opened it up and found the company's name on some of its internal parts.
So the giant Apple logo and "Designed by Apple" on the back of the case wasn't any clue whatsoever?
I imagine that even if Gawker can get away with publishing their possession of the phone on their blogs as freedom of speech, they can be held responsible for purchasing property from someone other than its rightful owner and then proceeding to dismantle/damage that property.
So the giant Apple logo and "Designed by Apple" on the back of the case wasn't any clue whatsoever?
I imagine that even if Gawker can get away with publishing their possession of the phone on their blogs as freedom of speech, they can be held responsible for purchasing property from someone other than its rightful owner and then proceeding to dismantle/damage that property.
We all know that this phone belong to Grey Powell now. How is this known? The only person who could have figured this out was the finder, since the phone was bricked a few hours after he "found" it. He spent enough time with the phone to identify the owner and even look up his Facebook page.
Did he make any attempt to contact the owner? Doesn't sound like it.
If I were out to make the most $ possible I wouldn't go to the guy who lost it. I would go to apple, the competitors of apple, and media outlets. The guy who lost it probably isn't going to have as much $ to dish out for the lost device. The fact that the guy who found it, knowing the identity of the owner, chose not to contact him speaks volumes to me. He was out for the most $ he could get.
No, I've never seen a "good" knockoff that also included the "Designed by Apple" and FCC boilerplate. And Gawker employees should have an ever higher expectation of recognizing such nuances.
Hypothetically (and rhetorically), would it be likely that a judge would determine that the reasonably-technology-knowledgeable potential-defendants offered and paid 10x retail for a knockoff?
When the OS4 Beta SDK was released, developers dived into it and found references to iChat, and a flash. So it was pretty safe to say we could expect those two things on the next iPhone. The prototype just proved that, but nothing else! Yeah we got to see how it looks like, but that isn't much of a killer feature. The phone's OS was wiped before anything else could be found. So any real juicy information that we have no idea about is still up in the air, and there are plenty of: "Oh, and one more thing..." moments Steve could pull out.
Even if this leak was unintentional, it was controlled so we didn't really learn all that much about it. Memory size? Processor? Network? (Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, etc...) I still think the biggest surprise is that it will be available on other networks... And we will know that when Steve tells us...
Did you know? There are a lot of iPhone fakes out there. Many have Apple logos and the iPhone designation printed on them.
That's your fact for the day.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
Didn't you know that fakes/counterfeits are illegal?
There can be gaps sometimes between what is ethical and what is legal. This sounds like one of those cases.
The guy who found it is a grey area. Yes, he didn't contact the bar or the police. But he did contact Apple directly. If the guy isn't a tech geek, I'd say that's somewhat reasonable. He has what to him looks like an odd iphone. He knows there's probably something special about it. And he figured Appled would want it back. He contacts Apple. They shoot him down. Is selling it to Giz after that unethical or illegal? Hard to say. Depends on if you (or the law) thinks that he made a reasonable attempt to return the device. And I am sure there's more details on his end too, then what we are hearing right now.
Giz probably did something ethically wrong. But is what they did illegal? We'll find out soon enough if Apple sues. It hinges on a lot of assumptions. Does it count as lost or stolen property? How does the fact that it wasn't reported as stolen play into this? Was it reasonable for Giz to assume that it was lost property and then to pay $5000 to acquire it? Was it reasonable for Giz to open the device to definitively confirm ownership? Can they argue that with there being so many fakes on the market they had to open to confirm? There maybe some grey lines there, but I am willing to bet that Gawker gamed all the consequences out with their lawyers before proceeding. And their probably betting that they know how to straddle the legal grey area pretty well. Good luck to them.
I just don't see what the big deal is. Apple lost a prototype. And they got caught out by Giz. If they don't want to risk losing prototypes, then they should think twice about letting 27 year old engineers take them out for a test ride while on a night out on the town. I'll be disappointed if the sue. That seems petty to me. Admit you got caught out. Enjoy the free publicity and move on. Can't Apple be the slightest bit gracious occassionally?
the guy who found the phone did NOT acquire it through "improper means," which includes "theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means." Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(a).
IT WAS STOLEN
any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1.
if there were a court case, the only people who would win would be Lawyers, making far far FAR more than $5,000 for their time.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
I hope if anyone finds my iPhone (it looks like a GS too - because it's a GS - just like the fake-shelled prototype found in the bar) they DON'T RETURN IT TO APPLE. That would SUCK!
Gizmodo wouldn't have paid $5,000 unless they believed that the device was genuine. And that means that they've committed a criminal offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No
I hope if anyone finds my iPhone (it looks like a GS too - because it's a GS - just like the fake-shelled prototype found in the bar) they DON'T RETURN IT TO APPLE. That would SUCK!
They had the engineer's Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles. They knew he worked for Apple.
No, I've never seen a "good" knockoff that also included the "Designed by Apple" and FCC boilerplate. And Gawker employees should have an ever higher expectation of recognizing such nuances.
Humans are weak, make mistakes, etc. I wonder how many trolls will go out to bars in the San Francisco area and start trying to get these tech guys super-drunk in order to get the story. Even worse, start pandering themselves to get at the info. In the end, if this is the real deal, the Apple engineer will probably be put out to pasture. He should just cash in on his 15 minutes of fame, because I would be Apple may dismiss him. Probably not immediately, but I bet his days will be numbered. And they'll do it either by paying him a good sum of money to leave or help 'place' him in another job.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
Didn't you know that fakes/counterfeits are illegal?
That's your common sense fact for the day. :-D
if you find my phone and return it to Apple, I am reporting you for theft (it actually does have an Apple logo on the back).
I REALLY hope they don't fire him. I mean no harm done apart from gizmodo getting their asses sued off (probably) and pictures and a teardown of apple's next gen device getting onto the giz. You never know though, they might make a new one, which would be brilliant as i hate that hideous thing
I just don't see what the big deal is. Apple lost a prototype. And they got caught out by Giz. If they don't want to risk losing prototypes, then they should think twice about letting 27 year old engineers take them out for a test ride while on a night out on the town. I'll be disappointed if the sue. That seems petty to me. Admit you got caught out. Enjoy the free publicity and move on. Can't Apple be the slightest bit gracious occassionally?
Do you really not see what the big deal is, or are you just arguing that the big deal should be ignored? Because it's pretty clear to me that ethics is a big deal. Especially when those ethics involve impacting the life of an individual (not just a giant company). Gawker knew their actions would endanger the livelihood and identity of Mr. Powell. Certainly Mr. Powell is responsible for his own mistake (if it was that) - especially knowing the extent of his employer's privacy. But mistakes and deliberate actions are two different things. And deliberately acting in your own interest at the same time as deliberately acting against someone else's - all for the sake of money/clicks - IS A BIG DEAL to me.
Hypothetically (and rhetorically), would it be likely that a judge would determine that the reasonably-technology-knowledgeable potential-defendants offered and paid 10x retail for a knockoff?
Depends on if he had hypothetically take this fact into account in a hypothetical civil case. Obviously Giz was motivated by the desire for a story about Apple. Regardless of the financial incentive, this is a tech writers wet dream..even if it was a knockoff, a story about the build quality of a knockoff might be interesting. That might make them more willing to pony up.
Comments
Did he make any attempt to contact the owner? Doesn't sound like it.
Wallin & Klaritch.... LOL
DUI attorneys that have their faces plastered on top of bar urinals.
DUI is 1 of 55 areas of criminal defense areas of law they list. Isn't your comment a distorted, discrediting implication?
Gawker founder and owner Nick Denton responded by stating that his company was not sure the device was created by Apple until they opened it up and found the company's name on some of its internal parts.
So the giant Apple logo and "Designed by Apple" on the back of the case wasn't any clue whatsoever?
I imagine that even if Gawker can get away with publishing their possession of the phone on their blogs as freedom of speech, they can be held responsible for purchasing property from someone other than its rightful owner and then proceeding to dismantle/damage that property.
So the giant Apple logo and "Designed by Apple" on the back of the case wasn't any clue whatsoever?
I imagine that even if Gawker can get away with publishing their possession of the phone on their blogs as freedom of speech, they can be held responsible for purchasing property from someone other than its rightful owner and then proceeding to dismantle/damage that property.
Never seen a knockoff, have you?
We all know that this phone belong to Grey Powell now. How is this known? The only person who could have figured this out was the finder, since the phone was bricked a few hours after he "found" it. He spent enough time with the phone to identify the owner and even look up his Facebook page.
Did he make any attempt to contact the owner? Doesn't sound like it.
If I were out to make the most $ possible I wouldn't go to the guy who lost it. I would go to apple, the competitors of apple, and media outlets. The guy who lost it probably isn't going to have as much $ to dish out for the lost device. The fact that the guy who found it, knowing the identity of the owner, chose not to contact him speaks volumes to me. He was out for the most $ he could get.
Never seen a knockoff, have you?
No, I've never seen a "good" knockoff that also included the "Designed by Apple" and FCC boilerplate. And Gawker employees should have an ever higher expectation of recognizing such nuances.
Never seen a knockoff, have you?
Hypothetically (and rhetorically), would it be likely that a judge would determine that the reasonably-technology-knowledgeable potential-defendants offered and paid 10x retail for a knockoff?
Even if this leak was unintentional, it was controlled so we didn't really learn all that much about it. Memory size? Processor? Network? (Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, etc...) I still think the biggest surprise is that it will be available on other networks... And we will know that when Steve tells us...
Did you know? There are a lot of iPhone fakes out there. Many have Apple logos and the iPhone designation printed on them.
That's your fact for the day.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
Didn't you know that fakes/counterfeits are illegal?
That's your common sense fact for the day. :-D
The guy who found it is a grey area. Yes, he didn't contact the bar or the police. But he did contact Apple directly. If the guy isn't a tech geek, I'd say that's somewhat reasonable. He has what to him looks like an odd iphone. He knows there's probably something special about it. And he figured Appled would want it back. He contacts Apple. They shoot him down. Is selling it to Giz after that unethical or illegal? Hard to say. Depends on if you (or the law) thinks that he made a reasonable attempt to return the device. And I am sure there's more details on his end too, then what we are hearing right now.
Giz probably did something ethically wrong. But is what they did illegal? We'll find out soon enough if Apple sues. It hinges on a lot of assumptions. Does it count as lost or stolen property? How does the fact that it wasn't reported as stolen play into this? Was it reasonable for Giz to assume that it was lost property and then to pay $5000 to acquire it? Was it reasonable for Giz to open the device to definitively confirm ownership? Can they argue that with there being so many fakes on the market they had to open to confirm? There maybe some grey lines there, but I am willing to bet that Gawker gamed all the consequences out with their lawyers before proceeding. And their probably betting that they know how to straddle the legal grey area pretty well. Good luck to them.
I just don't see what the big deal is. Apple lost a prototype. And they got caught out by Giz. If they don't want to risk losing prototypes, then they should think twice about letting 27 year old engineers take them out for a test ride while on a night out on the town. I'll be disappointed if the sue. That seems petty to me. Admit you got caught out. Enjoy the free publicity and move on. Can't Apple be the slightest bit gracious occassionally?
What a piece of crap. What do you have on the backside? "iPhone". Maybe, it's a Microsoft prototype? We are not stupid Denton.
This is a fake iPhone.
http://www.cultofmac.com/marvel-at-t...-perfect/12286
You were saying?
the guy who found the phone did NOT acquire it through "improper means," which includes "theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means." Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(a).
IT WAS STOLEN
any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. § 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. § 2080.1.
if there were a court case, the only people who would win would be Lawyers, making far far FAR more than $5,000 for their time.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
I hope if anyone finds my iPhone (it looks like a GS too - because it's a GS - just like the fake-shelled prototype found in the bar) they DON'T RETURN IT TO APPLE. That would SUCK!
I hope if anyone finds my iPhone (it looks like a GS too - because it's a GS - just like the fake-shelled prototype found in the bar) they DON'T RETURN IT TO APPLE. That would SUCK!
They had the engineer's Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles. They knew he worked for Apple.
No, I've never seen a "good" knockoff that also included the "Designed by Apple" and FCC boilerplate. And Gawker employees should have an ever higher expectation of recognizing such nuances.
hmmm....I guess they don't exist then.
Whether it's fake or not is not for you to determine. If it has an iPhone and Apple logo on it, you return it to Apple. If they determine it IS a fake, then you've done a good thing by alerting them to it.
Didn't you know that fakes/counterfeits are illegal?
That's your common sense fact for the day. :-D
if you find my phone and return it to Apple, I am reporting you for theft (it actually does have an Apple logo on the back).
And that's your common sense lesson for the day
I just don't see what the big deal is. Apple lost a prototype. And they got caught out by Giz. If they don't want to risk losing prototypes, then they should think twice about letting 27 year old engineers take them out for a test ride while on a night out on the town. I'll be disappointed if the sue. That seems petty to me. Admit you got caught out. Enjoy the free publicity and move on. Can't Apple be the slightest bit gracious occassionally?
Do you really not see what the big deal is, or are you just arguing that the big deal should be ignored? Because it's pretty clear to me that ethics is a big deal. Especially when those ethics involve impacting the life of an individual (not just a giant company). Gawker knew their actions would endanger the livelihood and identity of Mr. Powell. Certainly Mr. Powell is responsible for his own mistake (if it was that) - especially knowing the extent of his employer's privacy. But mistakes and deliberate actions are two different things. And deliberately acting in your own interest at the same time as deliberately acting against someone else's - all for the sake of money/clicks - IS A BIG DEAL to me.
Hypothetically (and rhetorically), would it be likely that a judge would determine that the reasonably-technology-knowledgeable potential-defendants offered and paid 10x retail for a knockoff?
Depends on if he had hypothetically take this fact into account in a hypothetical civil case. Obviously Giz was motivated by the desire for a story about Apple. Regardless of the financial incentive, this is a tech writers wet dream..even if it was a knockoff, a story about the build quality of a knockoff might be interesting. That might make them more willing to pony up.